Irisado wrote:
In my experience, the Eldar have very good internal and external balance on the whole, and I have found very few units to be lacking in any area, so I disagree with most suggestions to change the rules. I've said it before in previous threads, but I feel as though I need to say it again, unless there's a compelling need to change the rules backed up by play test evidence that there is a problem with a unit which is so significant that it's rules need to be altered, there is no reason to make the change.
I sometimes do find myself asking the question if some of these debates arise because people feel compelled to make changes just because the boards are quiet, or because there is this idea that we (as in the Epic community) should somehow function like a GW games development team. I'll leave that thought here though, as it's going off topic.
Back to the units being discussed, and having used most of those which were highlighted in the first post, I am uncomfortable with most of the suggested changes, and I would happily not see them progress any further. That said, if enough play testing evidence is brought forward by enough Eldar players to show that a change is justified, I'll listen.
There are a lot of points made in the opening post, which, in my opinion, boil down to tactical issues, rather than issues with the rules. The War Walker debate is an example of this, as are the concerns regarding Jetbikes (you simply don't use them on their own, they need to be combined with other units, then they are very effective).
The only unit which clearly does need sorting out, in my view, is the Howling Banshees, but that debate has rolled on for years without a satisfactory conclusion, so I doubt that any advance is going to be made this time around either.
Sorry for saying so, but I find this post rather patronising.
It is to be expected that people disagree with each other. As with the examples of jetbikes, war walkers and spaceships, there are some units whose value are in debate - possibly just because of differing play styles. It's important to be able to identify these for what they are (preferably without insinuating that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is somehow deficient), but also to recognise the units which are problematic. That is what threads like these are for: we have seen some things which the OP finds problematic but others don't, witnessed that other people have different units they personally don't get on with, and found some things that there is more agreement on. I wouldn't worry that many of the changes will be implemented; everyone knows this is a core list and the consensus is that overall the list has good balance.
What does "playtest evidence" mean exactly? I thought that is what I was doing: e.g. for Cobras, giving my qualitative assessment of internal imbalance having played dozens of games. Perhaps you can share the evidence that prompted your assessment of the banshees?
