That's not min-maxing... that's making a competitive army by *just* "maximizing."

The "min" in min-maxing is minimizing a penalty or requirement, usually someting weaker or cheaper, to allow for a maximizing of "good stuff".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing

Just "maximizing" or "powergaming" is different from min-maxing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powergaming

Again, having an army that allows you to spend all your points, especially with variable-sized formations, is *not* min-maxing. Orks allow tonnes of individual variable units to be added to formations and the army has not been called for min-maxing because of that. An example of min-maxing with the Orks would be taking the cheapest (minimum cost) type of Blitz Brigade formation to maximize the number of individual Oddboyz shots one could get in the army.

Having a variable sized formation that has an "optimal sweet spot" is not min-maxing either, it's an example of cost/benefit analysis or points efficiency.

However, if lots of people end up taking 4 unit war walker formations, and only ever 4 unit war walker formations, then you've just created a min/max formation type.

I fear that will indeed come to pass, that there's no real reason to take 5 or 6 War Walkers in a formation when you can have a size 4 formation.

Just like back when 4 unit Aspect Warrior formations were tested, I suspect that the smaller formation is flat out better, and will invariably, always, be more attractive than the larger formation.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Im not sure if thats %100 true in all cases.

Persoanlly i prefer larger aspect formations, i think in alot of cases for formation size it comes down to the player making the liast, as does the option of min /maxing / powergaming etc andthere will always be the people who try to squeeze the utmost from a list and exploit them where they can, and this comes down to the person and not the list.
I agree its good to balance lists where you can and constant feedback and change is a good thing if it improves the overall list/game but people will always try to find a way to get the bext bang for there points


Tim NZ

No, it speaks to how rarely people refer to the list. Most seasoned Eldar players like myself have virtually all the point costs memorized since the list has been solid for years now. Nobody noticed it because you wouldn't expect a change on something that has had zero discussion on the boards.

I play War Walkers all the time. They are a staple in my army list. In fact, I can't remember a game I didn't use them to be honest. As mentioned previously I don't necessarily have a problem with the change itself, only the method in which it was dropped into an approved list with no discussion. That's just not how it's normally done around here. Two months from now am I going to find Aspect formations are 6-8 units? Or Scorpions are 3 shots?

The Raiders and Siege army lists contain logs indicating what changes were made to the lists and often a justification as to why. That helps players avoid surprises like this one. Perhaps a similar construct for the NetEA lists would be in order.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

i agree.

Is there anyone who plays Eldar that actually thought the War Walkers needed a change from the 200 points for six to -anything else-?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

The only reason I would be in favor of 4 strong units is that they come in 4 packs and I have 16 of them, only able to field 2 six packs now and the four remainder get really lonely sometimes. Whether these are 4 or 6 strong, they are still speed bumps, withering under any sort of firepower anyone wants to spit at them.

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

Not from me either - 200pts for 6x warwalkers seems to work for me. I do use them, though not as much as Rangers. The point being that both scout formations exel at protecting targets in my deployment zone from teleport or air-assault - until they are themselves attacked or assaulted.

Rangers exel at killing terminators and also denying forward areas by hiding in ruins. They are a cheap activation that is also quite hard to kill (being an AP target). They are less usefull in assault, but woe betide an opposing infantry formation if they get into a position to cross-fire and then support an assault! (Note you really need 6-8 Rangers to make this really work - but that changes the army 'shape' and tactics)

Warwalkers exel at ambushing AT targets (from behind terrain or out of a gate). They are a more expensive activation that is slightly easier to kill (being LV), though they have walker (to make use of terrain) and greater speed (so can manoeuver into cross-fire positions). They are also a more specialist AT formation; woe betide an opposing RA tank or Titan if these Warwalkers can be manoeuvered (or 'gated') into a position to cross-fire and then support an assault!

In the end, I suspect people tend not to take them more because they have not yet found a way to get the best out of them - and that is largely down to strategy, tactics and play styles. Also note, that even if the Warwalkwrs end up as a 'speed-bump' this means that the opponent has had to use an activation to deal with them by moving a formation forward. The better Eldar players exploit this by counter-attacking, using this enemy formation as a 'stepping stone' to setting up assaults elsewhere (through the hit-and-run rule).

That said, at 200 pts Jetbikes are generally more cost effective, so if deemed absolutely necessary the only change that I would suggest be considered is dropping the formation cost to 175pts for 6x Warwalkers and leave it at that.

The real question: do Eldar really need cheaper options?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Never used them as I don't have any.

On the rare occasion they've been at tournaments I've never had a problem with them as a formation. Change for changes sake for me.

Agreed. I think this change may be a solution in search of a problem.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It does seems a very strange thing to change without having a discussion first...

Well as most of the Eldar changes are from the 1.8 review it may have been discussed back then and we have all forgotten!

Or more likely I've just not been keeping up ;(