TBH Xenocidal Maniac a few of the things you say about Eldar just aren't really true IMO. "Speed. Durability. Numbers." Well to me they are neither durable (in fact one of the least durable in the game), nor are they numerous. More numerous than marines, for sure, but then who isn't? (And marines get ATSKNF anyway). They also don't have great initiative, and IME failing activations is often what loses the game for Eldar because they are highly dependent on being able to neutralise enemy activations before they can retaliate against their overextended formations.

Kyussinchains' description for me is spot on - as a BT player, when I am being aggressive and dictating the play then I am much more comfortable and much more likely to win. As soon as I feel like I am reacting, as if I am an activation behind, I pretty much know I will lose. When this is happening, the Eldar formations get increasingly desperate, moving into the open and engaging with weakened formations, at BM disadvantage, without support etc. A good example/microcosm of this binary effect is guardians. Guardians don't have saves, are slow, rubbish in CC, and have a very important character with them. That means they rely on being able to FF and position their upgrades (WG, WL, WS) in front in an assault, and spending the rest of their time in cover. If they do this, they are very efficient engagement formations. Outside of these optimal conditions though, they will be decimated. These situational factors completely transform the formation. The truth is, there is almost never an occasion in a game where I'm thinking "great, this formation is safe here".

All that said, my regular opponent has a very similar perception of the Eldar as you do. He also plays marines, and often complains that he just can't get to use his army properly against Eldar. However what actually happens in our games is, because he thinks Eldar are so kill-y and marines have such small numbers, he plays very negatively and reactively. Which plays right into my hands. For example when my units are hiding behind cover, instead of advancing into the middle of the board ready for next turn, he will keep his formations away from mine so they can't be attacked in that turn. I remember one game where he had two Warhounds, both spent the whole game skirting along the edges of the board to avoid a scorpion. The result is of course that any unit doing this won't live up to its potential because it never gets into areas that limit my ability to hide, claim objectives etc. He also feels like the games we play are very one sided, but they are much much closer than he thinks. He often thinks he is losing when in fact he has the upper hand due to the marines' superior durability and tendency to rally.


Here's some stuff I hate to face with Eldar:
Barrage
Air assaults
Teleporters
Formations in my deployment zone generally
Strategy ratings > 3
Overwatch
Mutually supporting formations
Fast shooty things (that can make it hard to hide)
Open areas of terrain
Indirect fire
RA infantry
Infiltrators

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

As a long-time BT player, I have not found them over-powered in general. I am on record as saying they are IMO one of the most balanced lists going. I might add that I also think they are one of the most flexible, having the potential to play many strategies.

That said, the BT have to set up their army to play the given strategy, and can be very brittle if that strategy is countered. One of the main ways to counter them is to place BMs on as many un-activated formations as possible. The point is they are intended to hit hard but also to be brittle. If Eldar are allowed to hit, they will hurt; if you can hit them first, they are more likely to 'fold'.

Back to the thread, on the Void Spinner I agree with others that it should not be any cheaper, though I am not entirely convinced on the E-UK price increase either
I would be interested to hear any feedback on the other EoV, especially the Scorpion which seems to have gone very quiet.

Ditto the HB changes and what impact they have had (if any).

And to the recent comments, I have always felt the SoV formation is a mistake. That said, and given the NetEA direction here (and on the FirePrism) the FP does seem to be balanced against the Falcon at roughly 50 points. each.

So with all this hammerhead talk, I see it has not been taken into account maybe to suit an argument one way or the other.

The fire Prism has a 5+ save, where as the Hammerhead has a 4+ save which helps with survivability, but I guess that does not suit the current argument. Both have pros and cons and so do stats and figures.

If you mean, "Was the fact that hammerheads have 4+ armour and Fire Prisms have 5+ armour ignored in that thread in order to create a comparison likely to give a biased result?", then the answer is definitely no. The difference in armour has been mentioned at least half a dozen times.

The Fire Prism has the advantage of the option of shooting (at 2+) and withdrawing 35cm so the survivability of the units in a real game is probably similar, but the armour difference is certainly mentioned and not ignored. Try read it as a maths workshop, not a complaints thread

I'm not saying it has not been talked about, but I can't see any maths on it all. Also there is an Eldar list that also has SR3 which was not mentioned.

I'm also far from suggesting that Fire Prism should be 50pts. I do find however the survivability of the Eldar tanks can be quite fragile because of there of there 5+ save.

Sorry if this has been gone over already, but is it intended that the Warlock Titan should lose farsight, or is that an error?

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

It didn't have farsight in the 4.0 version eather but I do not really know as we play with the list in the Rules/compendium and they have not been updated for at least a couple of years for some reason.
Would be nice to know if the 4.0 is approved or just for fun...

I don't see any discussion on the boards indicating Farsight has been removed from the Warlock.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Agreed Mosc, Farsight should still be there.

For clarification, I did a forum search on Farsight and saw zero discussion on the matter. I'm pretty sure at this point any absence of Farsight is a clerical error rather than a change to the unit.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

So how do you guys play stuff like this, when the "rules" is "wrong".
At tournements we basicly play with whats written in the compendium unless the (Sub) AC has made some kind of errata/update.
So right now if I go to a tournament the Scorpion has 2 shots not 3 (if we do not allow development lists)

Usually the x.0 is the list in the compendium and the list in threads like this x.1... is with proposed changes. This list is a little special in that the 4.0 is not in the compendium.

Just downloaded this to check differences against epicuk list - just wondering, should wraithguard take 2 transport slots in vampires as they do in wave serpents ? (Not that I can see a way to achieve it in BT anyway but I guess ref is common to all eldar lists.)

Not sure why, but according to the list in the Tournament pack they take up 2 slots, but in the Compendium they only take one slot... and if I remember right they only take up one slot in the UK also.

It would be quite bad for the Iyanden list if the Tournament pack is right

/uven

Am also checking - in the original Swordwind they only take up one slot.

And Blip, the Vampire could be used to pick up a damaged formation of Guardians . . .

Is there an Iyanden list in the Tournament Pack list? YEAH In NetEA they take up 1 slot in a Vampire, but 2 in a Wave Serpent