+1

So what is the general plan now PFE100?

The changes you suggest in the beginning are they still viable after testing them out over Christmas?
Should the rest of us gather battle reports to get the changes approved or how do we proceed?

Personally I would be fine with the changes suggested. Every single unit does not need to be taken every time and as the Eldar play style is somewhat different then others it is really hard to perfectly balance each unit against others.

(If I would suggest anything it would be to remove the options on both the Rangers and War walkers as the Eldar already is super flexible. WW should be a 6 man strong unit and Rangers should be 4 man weak )

These are not real changes. Most of the eldar players take the rangers because they are just cheap enough, as activation burners I only met 1-2 situations, where I needed 6-8 unit strong rangers (mostly left over points..)! So it's not a real change I think -the bigger unit of rangers can be reserved for Alaitoc however..

The WW's fix 6 unit formation is against the eldar lists principles -keep the unit numbers as low as possible OK, it's not a real rule, just the flavor of the eldar -if you want to keep them as a fixed formation, why not have a 4 unit strong one?

Eldars should be super flexible, because they are super vulnerable..

I once saw Rug play two formations of 8x Rangers in Vampires, which landed on either side of a desired target to shoot the target with Crossfire and Sniper - very deadly (though at a cost of 800 points for this manoeuver, it ought to be )

That said, IMO they work best in 5 or 6 strong formations which have a bit more resilience allowing them to be used to protect / grab objectives late in the game.

Well, the fixed numbers suggested is supposed to be a nerf.
6 units strong Warwalker formation to keep the cost high and 4 units strong Ranger formations to keep them weak. The suggestion had nothing to do with fluff etc. more than that I think these two formations is more of a Aliatoc specialty so they might be less price worthy/optimal in this list...

But feel free to ignore (for now )

So what was the plan for the list?

Following Cancon - after being pretty much smashed by both Eldar lists - I have a few questions about the Eldar.

From what I can see the Eldar don't require any buffs but perhaps some nerfs. I don't recall ever winning a game against the Biel Tan list. I'm not saying they can't be beaten but it's an uphill struggle to do so from what I can see. I think it stems from it being the master "kitchen sink" list. Long range-low to hit roll-multiple-MW/Tk guns, large volumes of AT weapons, Disrupt Arty, 45cm multiple 4+AA, Hit and Run, Lance, 25-35cm movement/consolidation, high activation counts, excellent to hit values in both CC/FF and Shooting, good Strategy and initiative, good armour. For their points in relation to the firepower/assaults they put out, the Eldar seem to have a great many cheap formations available. Any other list packing this sort of stuff is priced out of the park - witness the Tau....

I understand they are ancient and their weapons are super but the following things seem questionable in regards to the list's design.

Rangers - Why should they get such a cheap activation count buff? I would like to see them set at a minimum 5or 6 units for around 150+. The Eldar just don't need (or shouldn't have) so many activations with all the toys and special rules they have. The third placed Eldar list at Cancon had 11-12 activations (including 2x 4-unit Rangers as filler) including a Phantom Titan, Scorpion and Void Spinner to boot. It seems unbalanced that a list can pack an alpha class Titan, two excellent fighting war engines (shooting-wise) and have that many activations with that much firepower on top of the extremely beneficial special rules they have.

Nightwings - Why is it they get 3 aircraft with such firepower and armour? Is it truly necessary? Would like to see them reduced to two planes like almost every other army list. The redundancy alone is critical. Also, 6x AA4+ on intercept/CAP at 30cm...? Don't people feel this is somewhat ... whiffy?

Firestorms - is it truly necessary to be able to take 2 per formation of tanks? It seems overpowered given they still shoot AP and AT weapons and FF at that level. I don't buy the argument that Eldar don't get any other ground based AA - I never see an Eldar list without Falcons in it and all the Titans pack AA and they're almost always on the table and extremely hard to remove. 4x AA4+ seems OTT. I'd like to see the Firestorm reduced to 1 in a formation of Falcons as perhaps an upgrade not a replacement and costed correctly. For what they do they seem far too cheap in comparison to a Hunter for example(high FF, Hit and Run and perform a range of attack modes compared to the Hunter). Range is shorter but double the firepower and you can put two in a formation. If Eldar truly lack AA across the army, perhaps allow them to be used by Guardians as an upgrade.

Avatar - Why is it free and why do you get another free extra MW attack from the COTYK? It's not like the Eldar need the buff. I'd like to see the list start charging for it. 50 points maybe, like a Wraithgate.

Shining Spears - I'm not sure about the fluff but why do they have 4+ saves and why is it required? Is it the fact they are Aspects that makes them harder to kill? Is their armour historically better than a jet biker's?

Scorpions - Why are they being given an unnecessary range increase? I hope the answer isn't "because they aren't being taken...." because that is simply not true.

Hi Dobbsy, it sounds as though you had a combination of my dice and were fighting someone who knows how to use the list.

To answer your suggestions in summary, the proposed nerfs are not needed. The Biel Tan list has had the various items mentioned for roughly a decade and as you may recollect it has already been nerfed from the original Swordwind list in a few ways. I might add that the E-UK championship stats show the list to be one of the most balanced ones with roughly even numbers of wins and losses over hundreds of games. To the specifics:-

Rangers - The Eldar lists need to find the balance between higher activation count and resilience. The variable number of Rangers provides the player with exactly this choice, and 4x Rangers matches other lists in both quantity and price. So the proposed change is not really needed.

Nightwings - I hear your pain and agree in part. I think there is scope for making these 325 to match their power and resilience, but given the extended existence of the A/c and formation. I would not make other changes. That said, we do need to ensure that A/c from other lists and races continue to remain less powerfull (and less expensive) to avoid A/c power creep.

Firestorms - they are powerfull, but also incredibly easy to supress in the original 5x Falcon formation. The SoV formation of 6x units was brought in in 2008, and I have always disagreed with the various reasons used to justify the change. I suspect the additional resilience of the SoV formation is the actual problem you encountered

Avatar - this is free, but also only available for one turn and only near a Farseer both of which greatly limit its power. So there is no justification for any changes.

Shining Spears - Originally the 4+ armour save was applied to all small skimmers to reflect the difficulty in hitting them. This was removed from the Jetbikes in 2011(?) as they were considered too powerfull in large numbers, but left on the Shining Spears because of their much higher cost. Given the more limited numbers and lack of firepower, I don't think Shining Spear armour needs to be nerfed.

Scorpion WE - In Swordwind, this had 60cm MW2 Pulse, which usually gave it 3x shots. After an extended debate involving large numbers of people including many who were very close to the original design team, the main change in 2008 was to convert Pulse to 2x shots. This achieved the desired nerf on the Revenants but clobbered the Scorpion which has been underpowered ever since. This recent revision is an attempt to return the Scorpion to a more acceptable level.

On bikes, historically eldar jetbikes have been as tough as Marine bikes in all systems I've ever played. The 5+ save on guardian jetbikes is purely for balance.

No worries, I figured the EUK stats would raise the counter to my points and I wish EA Australian lists were freely available as a counter to that argument because, in my recollection, Eldar have tended to place high in almost every tournament that has been run here. Like I said, not unbeatable but a struggle to do so. Even Matt Shadowlord (6-0) was tested at Cancon by the Eldar. I think it's safe to say the list is pushing the boundaries of what a list should be able to include.

I also note that of the players who use Biel Tan in the EUK lists, when they're used, the win/loss/draw ratio favours the win category somewhat. "win" often doubling the other two individually.


I have to ask, why do Eldar need that balance? They already dominate a field with shooting and assault. Why do they require a high activation count? Also, the Eldar hardly lack resilience in my experience - e.g. my Warlord shooting at Revenants at Cancon = 1DC damage caused.... thanks Holofields! Saved all but one shot


I don't see an issue with them having only 2 a/c - they'd still be the most powerful a/c out there so, again, why do they require 3? No one has ever seemed able to answer that question apart from "it's historical." I find it weird people aren't more concerned by 6x AA4+ at 30cm.


No, my issue is with the Firestorm. 4x AA4+ is OTT and unnecessary when other options are available.


Except the only limit to its power is the player's ability. In the hands of a good player it almost always hits home at some point in the game. I will agree to disagree with you here. It can be costed if simply for the benefit it provides. There's really no reason it can't be.


Hmmm, a single formation at Cancon ate through a DKOK Infantry company and Gorgons so a lack of firepower doesn't seem to be an issue. I think an 8 strong formation that can butcher 20 infantry and 2 Gorgons could be considered somewhat powerful. Is 4+ armour necessary?


I find the fact that a 60cm 2x MW2+ weapon on a platform with 25cm move and Hit and Run as "not acceptable" to be a little perplexing and somewhat indicative of the problems with list design in NetEA. Nothing seems to be "unacceptable" and that's a big problem for this game because lists have been approved with highly unacceptable designs yet it seems difficult to retcon an approved list due to the traction of "Approved" and the length of time and effort it takes to make changes to a NetEA Approved list.

From my perspective, I see increasing the range on the Scorpion as the same as me increasing the range on Marine armoured vehicles because they are "unacceptable." The difference is the Scorpion fires MW2+ shots and the Marine tanks AT4+ at best. It's unnecessary when the Scorpion is entirely serviceable as it stands.


Yep and SS could use some more of that

OK, I see the barriers will be raised on this issue and I can see it going nowhere as usual. Guess I'm done.