Thanks for your elegant wording; Far superior than my rambling attempts to elucidate the point above, mate.

BT is so not overpowered. It's extremely fun and challenging to play with and against. In fact at least 50% of the games we played with at the Microsoft league were with them. My entire rant above is purely that it has no focused theme (though some of the builds are clearly stronger than some) and that aspect, being my core competency, is one I am passionate about.




I'm not talking about tournament competitiveness but lack of theme. The fact that I can take no aspects in BT is as dumb as being able to not take Marines in Iron Warriors. Re-giggering the list to be focused on aspect assaults is exactly my point.

Perhaps I should slink off now

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Cheers Jimmy - totally understand where your coming from on the want lists to fit the fluff better. I've got a million different bugbears in relation to how lists relate to the fluff (I'd quite like if marine armies were just 20 models with crazy ass-kicking powers) but at the end of the day I personally am happy to suck them up for a game that works (most of the time).

_________________

Actually Jimmy Rangers are 4-8 in the Biel-tan list and always have been. If you're not familiar with that it's because it's not such a competitive option and units of 4-5 are more the norm.

I'd rather see rangers start at 5 or 6 as a small change to the list, rather the more drastic 1:2 support choices which has a signifying impact on activations and lists. I haven't played Eldar in years so don't have lists to hand but I wanted to briefly comment.

Yup, that is where I was headed. With the ratios.
Make BT the Aspect heavy list
Make Ulthwe the Guardians heavy list

This could addresses SOME of the concerns around list builds being felt from Australia but in my mind doesn't seem tackle the feelings emanating from there of frustration when facing eldar. I personally feel that the following strategy is not OP and is a risk/reward payoff but I hear the concern being voiced as: Eldar lists will still be able to triple retain and affect 2-3 formation in the baseline of the opponent first with Strategy 4 (ie more often then not go first against a less mobile (and usually lower SR) opponent and kill/break/suppress 3 formations in opponents deployment area on a triple retain with any number of formations (the best risk/reward payoff ones being the Void Spinner and Scorpion but could be accomplished by Falcons/Fire Prisms/Revenants just as well) and maintain high mobility throughout the game with the activation count now in there favour.

I personally (and I play Eldar, IG, SM) feel that Eldar currently are a glass hammer and can be beaten with the application of blast markers and appropriate deployment to minimize successful rally roles. Eldar are a glass hammer and do not deal with attrition well. Depending on play style, army composition meta and terrain (abundance of it as well as rules), Eldar become a more or less potent force. And yes, because model availability and perceptions of rules, they are typically a veterans army or second army for most players so typically found in the hands of players that know the rules well and how to maximize the armies strengths and exploit opponent armies weaknesses.

+1 Jimmy, Steve explains this very succinctly - I agree that the BT list is not OP per se in itself. And this discussion should focus on that part of the debate rather than whether the list is sufficiently 'themed'.

And Steve54 is spot on as well. Players need to 'keep their eye on the prize' and focus on what they are trying to achieve.

The joy of the Epic tournament scenario is that the victory conditions based on the Objectives. This in itself creates the subtle game that we enjoy, where one strategy is met and countered by some other tactic, that is in turn countered by the terrain, cleverly sited formations or even (at the end of the game) by the position of individual units. This is where player skill comes in, gained through experience and an innate "eye" for a given situation. Players need to know how to combine their forces to achieve a desired result. In this, players must master the many aspects of the game, which starts with list building, then objective placement, initial deployment through to 'good tactics' etc.

Mic's list is built with a very specific strategy in mind, intending to reduce opposing activations as fast as possible, and then using local superiority to force the occupation of objectives. It is a sound list, built for a valid strategy. Other armies could be built to do similar things. Are we going to nerf all such armies?

To my mind, the real question here is how to oppose that 'strategy' on the table rather than banning or nerfing list after list.

I thought you wanted to nerf black legion?

I think this proposal will see more Guardians in BT armies over aspects, as you can unlock 4 supports for 300 points of Guardians as opposed to 2 supports for 300 points of Aspects. That's not good for a Aspect-heavy theme. To counter that, you could reduce supports to 1 or 0 for Guardians.

Does anyone play mechanized Aspects? I don't think they're a valid option in a 3k due to their 500 points cost. That bothers me for a Aspect-heavy themed list. Alaitoc has them at 6 for 225 and 0-1 Exarch, that allow for Wave Serpents while still keeping activation count competitive. For backwards compatibility the 300 point Aspect formations could be left. With that extra core formation Guardians wouldn't be nearly as attractive for the support unlocks.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

So Dave, do you think the current BT list is OP?

And as for making the list 'Aspect themed', perhaps amending the Aspects to be 225 for 6, +2 aspects for 75, with all the usual transport stuff and perhaps one Exarch per 4 Aspects fielded?

Personally, no. Locally, it goes either way depending on who you talk to. It throws people in a similar way that the Necron list does here with its special rules that can mess with your plans when you haven't seen them before/a lot. We just need more players playing them, I think that will bring people around anyway.

That option works too (I was trying to type that but couldn't figure out the Exarch language, you got it though). I'd just like to see another competitive build option that includes Aspects beyond air-assault and webway assault.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

For a long time no, but Kev has used this list a few times.

Aspects - 4 Shining Spears, 3 Howling Banshees+HB Exarch+Wave Serpents
Aspects - 4 Swooping Hawks,1 Fire Dragon, 2 Dire Avengers+FD Exarch+Wave Serpents
Aspects - 2 Dire Avengers, 4 Swooping Hawks+FD Autarch+FD Exarch+Wave Serpents
Guardians
Guardians+Wave Serpents
Falcons (2 Firestorms)
Falcons (2 Firestorms)
Night Spinners
Night Spinners
Windriders
Rangers

The use of Swooping Hawks and Shining Spears helps cut down on the number of Wave Serpents needed per formation. I haven't played against it so can't comment on it myself, but Kev has placed well.

A ratio change would not affect this list at all.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

My fave 3k

Mech Aspects
Mech Guardians
Mech Guardians
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
4 Rangers
4 Rangers
4 Rangers
Revenants

I use the Rangers very aggressively to plink and pin things setting up for a a combined assault using all three mech formations. People are scared of Falcons so they move up to provide AA and take attention away from the real threat. The Avatar is used as a back-up Int 1+ Commander for the big engage should the Autarch get into difficulty but because of this it rarely gets into cc.

The Revenants can act independently and are the other bullet magnet, they usually spend the game broken, hiding but surviving!

I can swap out my 6 support slots for 6 of almost any support unit so the list doesn't look so spammy, it works just the same, but I really like the aesthetic of 21 grav tanks and two titans with Rangers scouting, it looks like a proper war host rather than a bit of a mix and match circus.

I don't sit on any objectives in my half, I telly on causing lots of damage and my broken or depleted units retreating to capture them.

The strategy also require quite a lot of risk and discipline on T1 and I find it easier to achieve with a limited tool box....only 2 different units.... fewer "which unit should I sacrifice" questions.

The list works really well against traditional armies.... Guard, Orks, SM, other Eldar etc but struggles against the oddities, namely Necrons and Nids. You can't contain Necrons or alpha strike them with overwhelming force, nids just put all their disposable chaf to the front and win by attrition!

I like the proposal for the smaller base Aspect formation with the option of adding units to it. I love my mech Aspects but at 500 points minimum its a major points sink in 3k. Personally this could feasibly see me fielding all Aspects as my infantry which seems proper Biel Tan to me

where is that coming from?

BT can mech their aspect in every way they like for small pts.

example 350pts
2xfire dragons + 1wave serpent
6x swooping hawks or shining spears

example 400pts
4xdark reapers + 2wave serpents
4x hawks or spears

... 450pts..
...500pts...

or any mix that you like

really guys... as many mentioned before: don't make a ton of changes. it will not balance. do not change special rules, it will create havoc with the other eldar lists.

tone down some points that can be made BT specific in order to limit the colateral damage to the other lists. either void spinners (cost or BP), unlock ratio (2:1), aa upgrade (only 1 firestorm), ranger formation size (move to 6 basic).
there is tons of what you can do only to BT to bring them in line (even though i still really think it is a player related problem) and it will have impact.

The abundance of Void Spinners and this to me suggests the issue that's likely leading to the most frustration - even if it;s not the most 'broken' part - is the Void Spinner. Does it need 60cm Indirect Fire? Would 45cm Indirect (meaning it can't hit the deployment zone turn 1) alleviate some of this frustration? Sure 45cm collides with Night Spinners but is that so utterly unacceptable?



Can confirm, this is a good list. Biggest frustration is the Rangers incidentally. Three layers making use of terrain givs the Eldar a lot of breathing space on their side of the board and chokes up attempts to get forward with your own forces.