are eldar still a threat??

[Furls]

There is an earlier section in Fulgrim that refers to it as Ulthwe. You could make the argument that the 9-14 km ship was another ship but I do not think that this is likely.
I very much doubt that the Eldar population would grow the way some people have suggested. It seems logical that Craftworlds would grow as refugee populations are integrated into it which is probably the main source of a craftworlds population growth. Eldar birth rates are also supposedly very low due to their very long lifespan.

[Shamana]

Furls, what proof do we have that ship WAS Ulthwe, as opposed to, I don't know, Eldrad's flagship or some such?

[Poseidal]

There is an earlier section in Fulgrim that refers to it as Ulthwe. You could make the argument that the 9-14 km ship was another ship but I do not think that this is likely.
I very much doubt that the Eldar population would grow the way some people have suggested. It seems logical that Craftworlds would grow as refugee populations are integrated into it which is probably the main source of a craftworlds population growth. Eldar birth rates are also supposedly very low due to their very long lifespan.

Any refugees would be taken aboard at the time of the fall, so it is unlikely the large growth would be enough if they were that big (100s of times larger). By the time of Fulgrim, the growth also would have needed to be done already, as the Fall had happened recently, but not that recently.

If it was Ulthwe, then the growth of Eldar craftworlds would be millions or billions (!) of times larger since then; also, the only logical reason for extending it that large would be to support a growing population, and the things needed to sustain it.

[inq.serge]

i was just wondering eldar are outnumbered by just about everybody and are divided so i was wondering are eldar a threat to other races......

DE are numerous. They are fast. They can strike anywhere they wish. Commorragh is unassailable. They are "led" by the greatest tactical genius in the 40kverse.

And oh, yeah, there's one thing many people forget:

Dark eldar Part = Human equivalent
Hellions = Skaters
Kabalites = Hunters
Trueborn = Spoiled brats (Look at this venom daddy bought me!)
Wyches = Athletes
Scourges= Mailmen
Wracks= Nurses
RJF/VRB= F1-racers
Haemies = Surgeons.
Raiders = Yachts
Venoms =Sportcars
Raids = Pleasure cruises/ Big Game Hunting

The 40kveres hasn't even seen the True Dark Eldar Army at it's full glory.

[Shamana]

The 40kveres hasn't even seen the True Dark Eldar Army at it's full glory.

Maybe because none exists outside of the list you just gave? The Kabals dominate dark eldar society, and the warriors they send are considered the best of their kind.

Yes, if something pushed the Dark Eldar towards an all-out war of annihilation rather than slaving raids for soul munchies, they'd get some hardcore s..t out, but how likely is that?

[smileyface]

i was just wondering eldar are outnumbered by just about everybody and are divided so i was wondering are eldar a threat to other races......

Let's use logic!

They can see the future.
They have really good spaceships.
They have nuclear torpedoes (all torpedoes in BFG are nuclear).

If they wanted to, if it were in their interests, they could show up at a random planet with a bunch of nightshade destroyers (one of the smallest type in BFG) and just nuke every part of it that was interesting or useful.

And that's just, you know, guaranteed tech. That's not weird supertech left over from before the fall. That's "we're absolutely sure they have these ships and they are also renowned for showing up in force wherever they feel like".

Add that up, and what do we see? They aren't embarking on genocide because they have made a choice not to. One thing to remember about the 40K universe - it's set in space. Best fleet wins, not best army.

...

Based off all the stories from Black Library and Forgeworld -I would say emphatically NO.

Space marine semi-canon fluff says space marines win. Not really a surprise. Ludicrously overdone nonsense, doesn't match existing background material.

but if you stuck a naked ork and a naked eldar in a room an ork would splat him 9/10 of times (the 1/10 being a powerful psyker or something )

Maths says you're wrong.
1/6 chance a naked guardian profile eldar kills a naked boy-profile ork before the ork gets to strike.
5/9 chance the ork kills the eldar if the eldar doesn't get them first. Multiply by 5/6 to see the odds of the ork actually winning.
5/6 * 4/9 chance of it going to another round.

Using some infinite summing technique, that gives the Eldar an overall chance of 27/102, and the ork a chance of 75/102. So it's about three quarters in favour of the ork, but that still leaves the brutish warrior bred specifically for close combat losing one time in four to a half-trained elf poet half their size.

It really depends on who's the writer.

This. Always this. No-one can win if the writer decides they're losing.

A good example of a choppa is often times half the size or better of a torso of an Eldar/Human/Nid. These are *big* weapons; a good estimate would be something like a 30-50lbs axe.

Yeah, but that is ludicrous. This is one of those examples where 40K is cartoonish. 50lbs isn't a sane thing to fight with, even if you can.

What I find most bizarre about the level of threat the Eldar possess is the size of a craftworld. According to the book Fulgrim Ulthwe is between 9 and 14 kilometres in length and is triangular in shape. While this a huge ship, it hardly dwarfs the biggest Imperial battleships which measure about 10 kilometres in length. Considering that a Craftworld carries a civilisation as well as a military force it hardly carries the numbers to be a signficant threat.

40K numbers don't work. Surprised? You shouldn't be. This is the same game that claims there are fewer space marines than human planets, after all.

Eldar craftworlds have eldar battleships docking at them. Eldar battleships are in the same size category as imperial battleships. Therefore craftworlds must be huge.

There are also other problems with it like Eldar culture not changing despite the fall being in living memory so that the path system and especially things like Wraithlords shouldn't be around then.

There's the story of khaine and the hundred warriors. Warriors who were granted new bodies. Larger, tougher, stronger bodies. Or to put it another way, wraith-tech might be god-tech, in the first instance, and hence older than guns.

Any refugees would be taken aboard at the time of the fall, so it is unlikely the large growth would be enough if they were that big (100s of times larger).

Unless they took on a lot of refugees during the fall and were really cramped at the time. In which case they'd have a long period where spreading out was more important than population growth as a factor.

Also, Eldar population growth is a strange subject. One of the fluff segments in the codex says that craftworlds generally suffer from population loss, but not because of birth rates. Rather, because young eldar frequently drop off the Path, onto the path of the outcast or the path of damnation.

[FarseerMatt]

Add that up, and what do we see? They aren't embarking on genocide because they have made a choice not to. One thing to remember about the 40K universe - it's set in space. Best fleet wins, not best army.

True to a point, but be careful with this one. Firstly, if you're attacking the planet at all then you presumably want something on it, even if it's just the real estate. Unrestrained orbital bombardment therefore may not always be an option. Secondly, many if not most planets have theatre void shields over strategic locations, and surface-to-orbit defences that can knock the stuffing out of bombarding ships.

[smileyface]

True to a point, but be careful with this one. Firstly, if you're attacking the planet at all then you presumably want something on it, even if it's just the real estate. Unrestrained orbital bombardment therefore may not always be an option.

Oh, I agree absolutely. But as a genocidal threat you simply can't write people off when they have a fleet with nuclear torpedoes.

[The_Klobb_Maniac]

Stuff

So you refuted my post refuting yours with a statement you don't even believe to be true? Also, it's fallacious. It would be like assuming the human population will continue an exponential expansion, or believing that CO2 emissions will continue an exponential expansion. They won't.

While the past is the best indicator of the future, it's still a lousy indicator ..

more stuff

You still don't get it do you? The 10 point system in 40k is inaccurate. To show you the inaccuracy:
-Is there a difference between a man punching you in the face and a *point blank (fragmentation) grenade blast?* This game says that they are equivalent in killing power. Stop using it as an accurate system.

And why do you assume it's a poet? The naked Banshee has the same chance. So does the naked Striking scorpion. So to display your stats in the correct light:
-You're using a 40k system, not a system made for direct comparisons accurately representing a model-to-model comparison
-You're skewing it so the Ork is obviously a warrior ork and not a runtherd, mek, or some other oddity. Further, you claim that this is the most lame eldar you can think of rather than comparing the (very similar) statistics of an Exarch or something.

When getting to the giant axe thing; what? Assume humans have used 10 lbs weapons in their past (they have. They've even used 20+ (battleaxes, etc...) Now make a creature whose strength is somewhere along 6 times that of a human (or better, as noted in my previous post comparing them with a simple gorilla) and you have no obvious reason *not* to use a heavier weapon; especially when fighting very tough, very large, very armored opponents. If you can easily handle a 30-50lbs weapon (ahem, 1-handed..) and crush that space marine's helmet in; why on earth wouldn't you? There's absolutely not argument against it!

You have something that:
-can Easily wield the weapon (one-handed)
-Is well trained with it (in loose sense of the word training)
-Really likes big, (over-) killy things..
-Has opponents that require weapons that big and heavy to fell

Again, an Ork is vastly stronger than an Eldar; it's just a fact; well documented and hideously obvious. As you said however, they can still fell the thing with their bare hands even when they're lame. How is this something to argue about? Both races are being accurately represented even with your absurd use of a *really* inaccurate system.

[Bergen Beerbelly]

All of that stuff about Ork vs Eldar one on one is pointless. The OP question is are they still a threat to the Imperium. And the obvious answer is yes, they are. Otherwise they would not be listed in the Main Rule Book as one of the Xenos races that the Imperium is trying to fight off.

[Hendarion]

And why do you assume it's a poet? The naked Banshee has the same chance. So does the naked Striking scorpion.

No, wrong. A Banshee or Scorpion is trained in close combat. That's like saying a normal human can fight Bruce Lee or naked Batman "with the same chance".
These skills are reflected in their profile by the way and do not represent their gear, but their skill. Hence it is called Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill and it does affect the chance for the Ork to hit the Eldar or vice versa depending on the specific biotype of greenskin.

[Shamana]

What do people think of the FFG 40k games' representation of unit profiles? They use a 100-point system, with "unnatural" characteristics providing a boost in some areas.

By their measurements, and ork boy has 5-10 points of strength over an eldar ranger or aspect warrior; 5 points being the difference between average humans and the burly, primeval types that live on feral worlds. Things change a lot when it's an ork nob - they either double their strength bonus or add to it. So on average, an ork boy will do 1 point of damage more than an eidar with an identical weapon; a nob would likely do 4-5 more. By comparison, ye olde lasgun does from 4 to 13 damage, apart from any due to critical hits.

[MvS]

True to a point, but be careful with this one. Firstly, if you're attacking the planet at all then you presumably want something on it, even if it's just the real estate. Unrestrained orbital bombardment therefore may not always be an option.

Just to pick up on this one, warfare isn't always about wanting something from your opponents in terms of materiel or territory. Genocide is sometimes an end in itself, particularly in the 40K universe. We could extend that by saying that since the Eldar can see the future to some degree, they might be more inclined to wipe out civilisations or cities that may one day give rise to someone who may pose a threat in a few centuries, all without being the slightest bit interested in the territory they are bombarding.

[Shamana]

Yes, from what I've read so far Eldar - and to a lesser degree, Tau - do not treat territory as something to fight for. Unless it holds something from their history (i.e. a maiden world, shrine, etc), is an exodite planet, or the craftworld itself, Eldar don't really whose flag is up there. They simply have different priorities than the Imperium, for which perceptions of control and thus power are very important.

Ironically, this means a lot of clashes between the Imperium and Eldar end with both sides considering themselves the victors - the Eldar did what they wanted to do and got out before suffering more casulaties, and the Imperium drove the damned xenos back grom the Emperor's lands.

[FarseerMatt]

That's a good point, MvS, though it sounds like an extreme case. Depending on the size of the threat to be nipped in the bud, I'd have thought the Eldar would prefer a sniper's bullet or arranged accident to a full-on nuke strike; either because it's less likely to provoke a high level investigation and is harder to trace back to them, or else because (as shown in the Path series) many Eldar do have some reservations about slaughtering lesser races indiscriminately. Of course the farseers probably have the final say, but they've got the luxury of knowing exactly what will happen if they don't, and even other Eldar tend to regard them as cold, calculating bastards :P

[smileyface]

You still don't get it do you? The 10 point system in 40k is inaccurate. To show you the inaccuracy:

Really, seriously, you do not need to explain this position. I understand it, I just disagree with it. If the rules don't represent the game universe, then what does?

And why do you assume it's a poet? The naked Banshee has the same chance. So does the naked Striking scorpion. So to display your stats in the correct light:

Because I used a guardian profile for the maths. WS is a significant factor, so an aspect warrior would do better, and an exarch better again. I'd work it out, but it doesn't matter what it is, does it?

When getting to the giant axe thing; what? Assume humans have used 10 lbs weapons in their past (they have. They've even used 20+ (battleaxes, etc...)

Actually... not so much. Beliefs regarding historical weapon weight tends to be an overestimate. The only historical examples of 20lb weapons I know of are a) execution weapons rather than for battlefield use, and also b) two handed (which makes a massive difference). Even two-handed battlefield weapons designed to be heavy don't (generally, I'll say, just in case there was one) come in that big.
Trying to wield a 30-50lb axe one handed would require insane strength. Now, do you have a source for that weight? The ork codex doesn't seem to have it. Also, the "choppa" picture in the rulebook shows a large heavy knife - not an axe - and it's shorter than the scorpion chainsword pictured (though wider and hence probably heavier). The thunder hammer looks about big enough for the weight category, assuming it's mostly metal... but it's also massively larger than the choppa and has special rules.

Now make a creature whose strength is somewhere along 6 times that of a human

Riiiiiight. Lets go over this carefully: You just made that number up. Orks aren't real so all we can do is reference fluff. That number doesn't come from the fluff. You made it up. Maybe stop making things up?

...and you have no obvious reason *not* to use a heavier weapon;

There are always at least two very good practical arguments not to use a heavier weapon. 1) it makes you slower, and 2) it tires you out. Those apply to any melee weapon use, ever, though note that "apply" isn't the same thing as "are the argument that carries the day" - there have been weapons deliberately designed to be heavy.
Consider this: space marines are stronger than orks. But they don't use "30-50lb" axes, except perhaps in the frothing-at-the-mouth-khorne-worshipping cases (although we don't have a source for the weight of their weapons either). Why not? Because it's not a great idea. Now, we could go with the idea that orks are particularly stupid, and so prefer overly heavy weapons. That's fair. Still, you should re-examine that figure, as it seems implausible.

If you can easily handle a 30-50lbs weapon (ahem, 1-handed..) and crush that space marine's helmet in;

Bold mine. Note that this part is an assumption that you have made. The estimate for choppa weight is implausibly large, and the idea that orks can easily handle that weight is therefore dubious.
Further, the second half is an assumption as well: if a choppa could easily crush a space marines helmet in, then it should probably have some sort of rule to represent that. It does not (anymore). What possible conclusion can we draw, when this supposedly insanely heavy weapon wielded by some insanely strong monster doesn't do more damage than a human with a knife?
The conclusion is that while choppas are heavy and orks are strong, they can't be that heavy or that strong.

Again, an Ork is vastly stronger than an Eldar; it's just a fact; well documented and hideously obvious.

Groovy. Where exactly is it "well documented"? The ork book says a lot about them being extra tough. It says a little bit about them being stronger than humans. Eldar are not stronger than humans. Therefore orks are stronger than eldar. Now, explain where the word "vastly" comes from? Clearly the standard boyz are not "vastly" stronger enough to gain S4, except with furious charge. Harlequins also get that. Does that mean that harlequins are "vastly" stronger than humans?

[smileyface]

That's a good point, MvS, though it sounds like an extreme case. Depending on the size of the threat to be nipped in the bud, I'd have thought the Eldar would prefer a sniper's bullet or arranged accident to a full-on nuke strike;

Well, yes. Subtlety is the thing. Nukes are pretty much by definition not subtle.

What do people think of the FFG 40k games' representation of unit profiles? They use a 100-point system, with "unnatural" characteristics providing a boost in some areas.

By their measurements, and ork boy has 5-10 points of strength over an eldar ranger or aspect warrior; 5 points being the difference between average humans and the burly, primeval types that live on feral worlds.
Things change a lot when it's an ork nob - they either double their strength bonus or add to it. So on average, an ork boy will do 1 point of damage more than an eidar with an identical weapon; a nob would likely do 4-5 more. By comparison, ye olde lasgun does from 4 to 13 damage, apart from any due to critical hits.

I'd need (like, too) a closer look at the system. But it sounds interesting and not totally silly.

[MvS]

That's a good point, MvS, though it sounds like an extreme case. Depending on the size of the threat to be nipped in the bud, I'd have thought the Eldar would prefer a sniper's bullet or arranged accident to a full-on nuke strike;

I think you're right, or they could just divert an Ork Waaagh to do the job for them if they're unsure

I suppose it's just a matter of the scale of the potential threat. A sniper's bullet might suffice most of the time, but there may well be times when a more cataclysmic response is deemed necessariy - particularly if the Craftworld in question is one of the more openly belligerent and murderously superior, like Bieltan. Sometimes they might want to send a message along with the missiles.

[FarseerMatt]

Groovy. Where exactly is it "well documented"? The ork book says a lot about them being extra tough. It says a little bit about them being stronger than humans. Eldar are not stronger than humans. Therefore orks are stronger than eldar. Now, explain where the word "vastly" comes from? Clearly the standard boyz are not "vastly" stronger enough to gain S4, except with furious charge. Harlequins also get that. Does that mean that harlequins are "vastly" stronger than humans?

The 3rd edition rulebook (I think...) mentions an Ork being able to "tear a man limb from limb if necessary". Conversely, since power increases exponentially with velocity (compared to linearly with mass), and since Eldar are very quick, an Eldar should be able to punch you damn hard even though they're no heavier than your average human.

[Idaan]

Eldar are not stronger than humans.

There is no evidence to suggest that they're weaker, and there's some to suggest strength bordering on superhuman - Slau Dha Vader-gripping Grammaticus with little effort, or the Banshee in "Farseer" knocking down a CSM with a kick. Then there's this quote:

Their fingers are long and dextrous and their overall appearance seems slight to the untrained eye, which is strangely at odds with their strength and resilience.

This has little to do with the topic, but I wanted to point out that a lot of people have this misconception that Eldar are D&D elves with -2 Constitution.