Topic: 5th ed meta; current state of the Eldar army

[Gutstikk]

I'm curious to see other people's views on the subject, but I'll begin with a few of my own:

We're presumably about halfway through 5th ed at this point, and as the newer books released after ours have been released, there's been a distinctive meta-shift for the Eldar army in general. Power has consolidated in fewer and fewer of the archetypal list builds, and it seems the dominate themes now are:

-Mechanized infantry focusing on guardians in serpents or avengers in falcons with a beatstick melee unit or two

-Wraithguard and fortune spam, backed up by monstrous creatures and a melee unit or two

-Seer councils backed up by fast-moving objective grabbers

I'm not too active at the LGS lately and mostly play casual games, and those have grown less frequent. However, where possible I still like to experiment with new things and see what I can get to work. My current mix has been pretty surprisingly effective for me, and isn't at all the sort of army I'd think most people would arrive at by flipping through the unit entries and building one based on what jumps out of the book at you.

Mostly what I've been noticing is that an army list really needs a way to eliminate transports quickly, as merely glancing them often won't be enough to slow down the models inside - that, or keep your own models safe from being engaged by whatever's mounted in the transports. All of the three archetypes listed above tend to be quite effective here.

Next, it's necessary to have the ability to pile on wounds very quickly and force enough armor saves [or bypass enough saves] that whatever you are hunting dies pretty reliably. With the preponderance of mechanized assaulters and the ease of gaining cover in 5th, the most obvious route is in close combat. Again, more or less the above three archetypes have those bases covered, though it's interesting to note that the ease with which our tanks are silenced keeps them from being real contributors in this category where they might otherwise stand out.

Last, for eldar specifically but for all armies generally, is the need for resilience. This can either be strong defences [which we mostly have in the form of wraiths, warlocks, and grav-tanks], or numbers [which generally Eldar cannot have]. The reason I feel this is least important is because many armies now depend on vehicles to offer some resilience, and as a result the meta shifts to favor armies that can eliminate transports quickly, and point two regarding damage means that often players are prepared to eliminate quality targets, making quantity the better defensive bet in most circumstances. Also, points spent on defense are points that aren't killing your enemy - though obviously, some form of defense will be necessary it's really one of the weakest considerations.

As a footnote I'll mention mobility, but the board is very small in 5th edition and in many cases spending points on mobility has very limited returns when there's so much to be had for free. Perhaps Eldar units value the cost a little higher due to the very short-ranged nature of our army as a whole.

The local champion used to field a very strange mix of Eldar units, mostly on foot, standard seers with a mix of gunline and infantry assaulters supported by jump infantry. I forget the member's name, but I remember the uproar one of our members of 40KO caused with his batreps featuring guardians on foot, and for a while, the standard archetypes above made a bit of space for lists being posted that featured at the very least a hybrid approach to the game.

With the impending release of the Tyranid codex, we'll be seeing Orks, Space Wolves and Tyranids all with the capacity to pile on wounds in the assault phase to the point where our resilient units may not count for much [throw enough dice and the specialists die]. I don't think our one swarmish unit type can do enough in close combat to balance the scales, which means we're probably gonna have to lean a lot more heavily on shooting. Of course, the 5th ed meta isn't the most friendly to shooting, if the current trends in the army list styles most frequently posted are any indication.

What I'm curious about is this:
-To what extent do your own findings line up with what I have here, and is your own local meta any different?
-What sort of changes has your army list undergone from the start of 5th ed to the current state of affairs, post Space-Wolves?
-Have you had the opportunity to experiment with units or lists outside of the archetypes above, and to what degree of success?

For example, I wouldn't have predicted that I'd end up with a hybrid army consisting of rangers, defenders, storm guard and avengers [1 each] for my troops section, nor would I have thought that I'd scale back on the CC section so much - but with many armies now going for CC I find I just can't keep up with them there and so have returned to shooting lots to kill them just before the lines close.
I never would have guessed I'd stop using fire dragons.

Perhaps a little too long, but I want to know where your local meta is at and what you're currently doing with Eldar to keep up.

[Lorizael]

I'm currently doing nothing to "keep up".

My army has gone through minimal changes since 3rd edition and 5th edition barely made me look up.
The only thing I did when 5th appeared is drop my hawks; they were good tank hunters and now they're useless. But that's more to do with the main rule book as opposed to newer codexes.

I pretty much ignore the meta game entirely; I don't care what other people are using, whether it's a new codex with new sneaky tricks or an older book. I stick to the army I like and that I find very effective. Playing my Marines I find many 5th ed. games very close-calls; playing as Eldar means I generally romp all over my opposition.

To be honest I think that taking the meta game into account is akin to power gaming and list tailoring. I play a single, (what i consider) balanced list that I use to take on everyone.

For the record I take Farseer, Autarch, 2 x 10-man Avengers in Serpents, 6 Dragons, 6 Banshees, 2 Falcons, 6 Spiders.

In my latest game I played an infantry Guard player. By the end I had lost 9 Avengers, the Dragons and had an immobilised Serpent. He had 4 Guardsmen and a Valk left... New codexes just mean new tactics, not new lists.

[Irisado]

I don't have a local metagame as such, since I haven't managed to play in Nottingham yet (yes, know that's crazy given the proximity of Warhammer World, but that's life for you), and all my other games take place at my family home when I am not in Nottingham, so my metagame has been somewhat restricted for fifth edition.  This does not mean, however, that I have not picked up on trends and the direction in which Eldar players are going (one of the reasons I spend so much time on the Eldar boards is to see what others are doing with their army lists).

I pretty much agree with the points you have made Gutstikk.  On other forums, I have taken quite a bit of flak from tournament players in particular about my continuing to use a mixed list in fifth edition when mechanised Eldar lists have become 'la moda', but I have still been able to achieve success with my mixed list, so it is still possible to win with Eldar lists which are not fully mechanised.  What has changed, however, is how I take the attack to my opponent, since the alterations to the rules about consolidating into combat (i.e. this no longer being allowed) has forced me to change my tactics into baiting the opposition with the mechanised wing, rather than launching an all out attack.

The mission rules also have not done the Eldar many favours, as they make our troops more vulnerable than in previous editions, so your point about resilience is well made.  The mission rules have also forced me to change the composition of my mechanised wing, since without a scoring unit in the mechanised wing, it was becoming too difficult to win objective based missions, especially Seize Ground.  Mobile scoring units have, therefore, become essential in my opinion, hence why more and more players are using these 'passive' mechanised scoring options, such as DAVUs.  I'm not a fan of such units myself, as I still believe in having all my units disembark, in order to be able to take the attack to the opposition.

I agree with Lorizael about changing tactics being an important factor, but I have found that certain elements of my army required updating.  For example, my sole anti-tank Wraithlord became ineffectual against tanks with AV12 or higher, forcing me to take two, in order for me to have some effective anti-tank fire support.  I have also enlarged the mechanised wing, and, ideally, I would like to replace my Falcon with a third Wave Serpent, but lack of funds prevents me from buying another Wave Serpent at this time.  These are, however, relatively small changes, and I still use Guardians on foot, which are frowned upon by many players these days, but they still work for me.

Given that many of the new codices which have been released are very assault focused (e.g. Orks, Space Wolves, and the forthcoming Tyranids Codex), I concur that shooting is going to become crucial for the Eldar, and while the rules have tilted the balance in favour of close combats, mass shooting remains a very important tool for Eldar, so loading up on high strength, multiple shot weapons, such as Scatter Lasers and Shuriken Cannons is very important in my experience.

Overall, I don't think that Eldar players necessarily need to completely change their lists, but some revisions and strategic adjustments will be required, particularly when adapting to the new missions.

[Lord Ulthanash]

I've only played 3 or so games in 5th edition so far, but from what I've seen, watching other eldar players, and from the posts on this forum, I would largely agree with your view Gustikk.

My list is still mixed, perhaps more foot soldiers than mechanized, but it has worked so far. I find myself doing a 'hammer and anvil' type thing more frequently now. I've also found that the number of shots that we put out a turn to be absolutely essential; I'm making more use of my vypers and warwalkers than I did in the past, the high number of S6 shots is needed.

I feel that I'd be 'selling out' in a way if I changed my lists in order to fit the metagame. A skill of a good player is the ability to change tactics on the wing and improvise to get the job done.

Anti-tank has become important as Irisado said, and my single wraithlord, who I've always relied on for tank busting (with my fire dragons) hasn't survived a single 5th edition game so far, I'm thinking of getting a second. I may possibly by a fire prism, to test out how well the prism cannon can destroy armor, but this would make my list a bit too mechanized for my tastes.

just my 2 cents.

[Irisado]

I find myself doing a 'hammer and anvil' type thing more frequently now.

Same here, and I forgot to mention that.

While the hammer and anvils strategy is not the only one you can employ with mixed lists, it's definitely the one which has worked best for me in fifth edition so far.  The two wave 'mechanised plus infantry' flank attack didn't really work terribly well, as it gives your opponent too great a freedom to capture more objectives than you, and too much table control, which was less of a problem in fourth edition, when victory points were a factor, but is not a good situation to end up being in now.

[bebe]

Fifth edition has been a time of change for me. First, I decided to repaint my whole force which in and of itself was a major undertaking. I had to because of the crazy point systems used at some tournaments. But this is as an aside. The biggest change was that my traditional footslogging Iyanden force was just not cutting it against finely tuned 5th edition lists. WG with a 24" range and limited mobility were not making an impact anymore. The trend towards bringing in a few mechanized sqiuads began in 4th and escalated in 5th.  I now have three wave serpents and two falcons. I need AT. So I use either mounted WG and now unlike the OP I'm now painting up a squad of FD ( Rasmus' Ghostwarriors!) to use in my lists as I need more and more weapons to slow down vehicles. I also never thought my Iyanden force would be using a Seer council with Yriel/Eldard. I need to bring it ouit now on occasion against real power lists. I am also painting up seven GJBs to use as objective grabbers and mobile dakka platforms, and I use a DaVU falcon often now. 

I had given Eldar for awhile and returned at a time that our traditional Eldar forces were no longer the power housde that they were. We need to really play well now and we are not going to get away woith tactical errors easily playing Eldar lists. In the old days I was able to run over opponents. Now its a game of 'cat and mouse'. I expect that the Tyranid codex will really force us to mount up as we wioll get eaten alive on foot. I'll probably be adding flamers next!

My biggest letdown was that many of my units are just not playable in 5th if I want to be competitive. Oh, i use them anyway but it is a compromise forcing me to alter my strategy a lot. Let's face it - WLs are not very powerful anymore. Swooping Hawks lost their luster, Shining Spears are very difficult to use, and Wave Serpent Banshees are getting slaughtered. Scorpians are close behind. So I'm left with playing WG - power levels greatly reduced - Guardians of all varieties, Seer Councils, Fire Dragons and Vehicles. Oh yes and my ubiquitous Harlies.

What it boils down to is that I cannot field a very fluffy craftworld list easily. I need to adjust them considerably and make a few concessions.

[Gutstikk]

@ Lorizael:

I'm currently doing nothing to "keep up".

My army has gone through minimal changes since 3rd edition and 5th edition barely made me look up.
The only thing I did when 5th appeared is drop my hawks; they were good tank hunters and now they're useless. But that's more to do with the main rule book as opposed to newer codexes.

I put hawks back in, mostly because I wanted something that could fire at two units at once in a single turn, and also because they are highly unlikely to cause a tank to explode they make excellent transport destroyers [the destroyed wrecked result when the hatches are all blocked eliminates the unit inside]. But that's not to say they aren't as good at eliminating vehicles as they were previously - rather, it's a fluke of the rules that being not as good at killing tanks makes them better at killing passengers. Agreed though, I've had about 2500pts of Eldar for the past several years and while there's been some substitution and conversion largely my army has remained the same.

I pretty much ignore the meta game entirely; I don't care what other people are using, whether it's a new codex with new sneaky tricks or an older book. I stick to the army I like and that I find very effective. Playing my Marines I find many 5th ed. games very close-calls; playing as Eldar means I generally romp all over my opposition.

To be honest I think that taking the meta game into account is akin to power gaming and list tailoring. I play a single, (what i consider) balanced list that I use to take on everyone.

I don't have problems with list tailoring so long as everyone is expected to do it - in themed battles it makes both armies more effective and relevant, and in local metagames, it will happen unconsciously as players try to improve their lists over time. I agree though that a balanced list, while less effective in particular matches, will be more consistently effective over time.

For the record I take Farseer, Autarch, 2 x 10-man Avengers in Serpents, 6 Dragons, 6 Banshees, 2 Falcons, 6 Spiders.

In my latest game I played an infantry Guard player. By the end I had lost 9 Avengers, the Dragons and had an immobilised Serpent. He had 4 Guardsmen and a Valk left... New codexes just mean new tactics, not new lists.

I think mechanized lists will be shifting in the near future to resemble yours somewhat more closely, with a smaller emphasis on assault and a bigger emphasis on eliminating units at range.

@ Irisado:

I pretty much agree with the points you have made Gutstikk.  On other forums, I have taken quite a bit of flak from tournament players in particular about my continuing to use a mixed list in fifth edition when mechanised Eldar lists have become 'la moda', but I have still been able to achieve success with my mixed list, so it is still possible to win with Eldar lists which are not fully mechanised.  What has changed, however, is how I take the attack to my opponent, since the alterations to the rules about consolidating into combat (i.e. this no longer being allowed) has forced me to change my tactics into baiting the opposition with the mechanised wing, rather than launching an all out attack.

Wouldn't mind seeing the current list, out of curiousity. Lorizael's fits with the mechanized archetype though it differs a lot in composition from the usual beasts running around here.

The mission rules also have not done the Eldar many favours, as they make our troops more vulnerable than in previous editions, so your point about resilience is well made.  The mission rules have also forced me to change the composition of my mechanised wing, since without a scoring unit in the mechanised wing, it was becoming too difficult to win objective based missions, especially Seize Ground.  Mobile scoring units have, therefore, become essential in my opinion, hence why more and more players are using these 'passive' mechanised scoring options, such as DAVUs.  I'm not a fan of such units myself, as I still believe in having all my units disembark, in order to be able to take the attack to the opposition.

In some ways I disagree about the missions; an opponent facing Eldar has to kill our offensive units and our defensive scoring units. Nob Bikers as an example - this can be the most dangerous unit in an Ork army, but since it is also scoring, you lose nothing by dealing with the threat. If you try to eliminate a warlock council or wraithguard wall you concentrate a lot of resources on doing so and as a result have less to eliminate the scoring units with.

I agree with Lorizael about changing tactics being an important factor, but I have found that certain elements of my army required updating.  For example, my sole anti-tank Wraithlord became ineffectual against tanks with AV12 or higher, forcing me to take two, in order for me to have some effective anti-tank fire support.  I have also enlarged the mechanised wing, and, ideally, I would like to replace my Falcon with a third Wave Serpent, but lack of funds prevents me from buying another Wave Serpent at this time.  These are, however, relatively small changes, and I still use Guardians on foot, which are frowned upon by many players these days, but they still work for me.

It'd be interesting to note if these kinds of changes are any more extreme than what you'd normally have done overtime, and if the list you have currently is a gross departure from 4th ed now that we're about halfway through the current edition. Also, agreed on the guardians on foot

@ Lord Ulthanesh:

I've only played 3 or so games in 5th edition so far, but from what I've seen, watching other eldar players, and from the posts on this forum, I would largely agree with your view Gustikk.

My list is still mixed, perhaps more foot soldiers than mechanized, but it has worked so far. I find myself doing a 'hammer and anvil' type thing more frequently now. I've also found that the number of shots that we put out a turn to be absolutely essential; I'm making more use of my vypers and warwalkers than I did in the past, the high number of S6 shots is needed.

I've just recently planned to reintroduce my vypers, for pretty much the same reasons. It's also interesting to note the hammer and anvil style, are you also dropping monstrous creatures or wraithguard, or is your anvil something else?

I feel that I'd be 'selling out' in a way if I changed my lists in order to fit the metagame. A skill of a good player is the ability to change tactics on the wing and improvise to get the job done.

Anti-tank has become important as Irisado said, and my single wraithlord, who I've always relied on for tank busting (with my fire dragons) hasn't survived a single 5th edition game so far, I'm thinking of getting a second. I may possibly by a fire prism, to test out how well the prism cannon can destroy armor, but this would make my list a bit too mechanized for my tastes.

I don't know that it's always a poor general who swaps out their list wholesale, and I think all of us have had to make some adjustments [even if relatively minor] as we've adapted to the current edition and the new codexes released for it. That said, I think the Eldar still offer quite a lot across the whole line, and that perhaps they are quite a bit more usable than they appear to some at first glance.

@ bebe:

Fifth edition has been a time of change for me. First, I decided to repaint my whole force which in and of itself was a major undertaking. I had to because of the crazy point systems used at some tournaments. But this is as an aside. The biggest change was that my traditional footslogging Iyanden force was just not cutting it against finely tuned 5th edition lists. WG with a 24" range and limited mobility were not making an impact anymore. The trend towards bringing in a few mechanized sqiuads began in 4th and escalated in 5th.  I now have three wave serpents and two falcons. I need AT. So I use either mounted WG and now unlike the OP I'm now painting up a squad of FD ( Rasmus' Ghostwarriors!) to use in my lists as I need more and more weapons to slow down vehicles. I also never thought my Iyanden force would be using a Seer council with Yriel/Eldard. I need to bring it ouit now on occasion against real power lists. I am also painting up seven GJBs to use as objective grabbers and mobile dakka platforms, and I use a DaVU falcon often now.

Curious as to what the old list looked like vs the new. Sounds like yours has really mutated over the current edition. Also, I'm curious if it's strictly a matter of effectiveness or if your preferred playstyle has happened to change.

I had given Eldar for awhile and returned at a time that our traditional Eldar forces were no longer the power housde that they were. We need to really play well now and we are not going to get away woith tactical errors easily playing Eldar lists. In the old days I was able to run over opponents. Now its a game of 'cat and mouse'. I expect that the Tyranid codex will really force us to mount up as we wioll get eaten alive on foot. I'll probably be adding flamers next!

Not entirely sure that we'll be any more forced into the serpents than we are now - a lot of our most effective firepower is carried by infantry or things other than transports. While the transports can keep units alive, points spent on resilience aren't killing enemy models, but rather forcing the enemy to kill you more slowly. Sometimes this can be enough to tip the scales, sometimes not. I'm looking forward to what happens on the Eldar board once the new Tyranid codex is released though!

My biggest letdown was that many of my units are just not playable in 5th if I want to be competitive. Oh, i use them anyway but it is a compromise forcing me to alter my strategy a lot. Let's face it - WLs are not very powerful anymore. Swooping Hawks lost their luster, Shining Spears are very difficult to use, and Wave Serpent Banshees are getting slaughtered. Scorpians are close behind. So I'm left with playing WG - power levels greatly reduced - Guardians of all varieties, Seer Councils, Fire Dragons and Vehicles. Oh yes and my ubiquitous Harlies.

What it boils down to is that I cannot field a very fluffy craftworld list easily. I need to adjust them considerably and make a few concessions.
[/quote]

I don't know that the units listed are totally ineffective, just that different things need to be done when implementing them. In a recent match vs IG I used my striking scorpions to eliminate a griffon battery via outflank, 36 hits left 6 glancing and then the Exarch scored a couple pens. I've also used Shining Spears as mobile shooters and tank hunters. I know Starrakatt still gets a lot of mileage out of Wraithguard on foot. I'd expect lists to change over time as the synergies required change, but I don't feel that any of our stuff is totally unusable. It is interesting to see that your Iyanden force has taken to the air, so to speak. Is the new playstyle enjoyable, or the result of necessity with an impact on what the game does for you in terms of having fun?

[Lord Ulthanash]

@ Gustikk

In the past I utilized an avatar and wraithlord in conjunction with a strong base of foot soldiers, but I think the autarch is too important to not field and I wouldn't feel like an eldar player without a farseer, so the avatar's out of the question now.

I would like to use two wraithlords together, but it depends on the rest of the list, as there can only be so many heavy support options and two falcons may be needed, and there are also war walkers to be considered. Because of this I think it may be time to invest in a full squad of wraithguard; they'll draw fire and put out a fair bit of damage as well.

I'd like to try out a seer council, wraithlord, sqaud of wraithguard and dire avengers together as an anvil; expensive, but potentially game winning in my opinion.

I've even used guardian defenders + a warlock and heavy weapons platform in the past, a lot less durable, but people underestimate the power of the guardian I find, and when used wisely they can put out a fair amount of shuriken fire.

[bebe]

Curious as to what the old list looked like vs the new. Sounds like yours has really mutated over the current edition. Also, I'm curious if it's strictly a matter of effectiveness or if your preferred playstyle has happened to change.

Is the new playstyle enjoyable, or the result of necessity with an impact on what the game does for you in terms of having fun?

My old list had two squads of footslogging WG. I now field only one even though I have 26 WG. Of course playing friendlies I use them all! I prefer friendlies actually. We are playing to have fun no? But when challenged - which every player with a net list seems to want and every guy testing for a GT -  I bring out a more competitive build. That means lots of Serpents and a Falcon. Like a number of players who have been around awhile I prefer not to attend GTs and Ard Boys very often anymore. I play against the guys taking their lists there on occasion though so I know what I need to be highly competitive.

I've also used Shining Spears as mobile shooters and tank hunters. I know Starrakatt still gets a lot of mileage out of Wraithguard on foot. In a recent match vs IG I used my striking scorpions to eliminate a griffon battery via outflank

You can use Shining Spears, WG or Striking Scorpions. They work in a semi-competitive environment. I play Ig. I use two Manticores. if you tried to outflank my Mantis I would destroy your Scorpions in a blink because I've positioned them well and I have a bubble wrap of Autocannons and Grenade Launchers and Sly Marbo for just that situation. Noot knocking your success Gutstikk. Just pointing out that competitive and friendly environments differ.

I think we need to differentiate what works overall and what works in a highly competitive environment. Let's be honest - they are not the same.

[Irisado]

Wouldn't mind seeing the current list, out of curiousity. Lorizael's fits with the mechanized archetype though it differs a lot in composition from the usual beasts running around here.

It's still work in progress because I cannot afford to buy a third Wave Serpent at the moment, which is compromising what I want to do, but my 2000 point army looks roughly like this:

HQ: Farseer & Avatar
Elites: Fire Dragons (Wave Serpent), Striking Scorpions
Troops: 2 x Defender Guardians, Pinning Dire Avengers, Dire Avengers (Wave Serpent)
Heavy Support: 2 x anti-tank Wraithlords

This is probably not quite complete (I haven't checked all the maths yet), but this is the direction its heading in (I really need that third Wave Serpent though to balance it out).

The fourth edition list included just one Wave Serpent, a Falcon for the Fire Dragons, and just one Wraithlord, but the vulnerability of the Falcon to melta weapons, combined with its high cost and inability to fire enough weapons on the move, and the need for more anti-tank has lead to those changes.

Also, my beloved Howling Banshee squad has been axed from the mechanised wing until I can purchase a third Wave Serpent, because of the need for a scoring unit to be a part of the wing, and I found Jetbikes (which I don't have enough of) very poor in this role. 

It'd be interesting to note if these kinds of changes are any more extreme than what you'd normally have done overtime, and if the list you have currently is a gross departure from 4th ed now that we're about halfway through the current edition.

I would never have opted for field two Wraithlords if tanks had not become so much harder to kill, and nor would I have added more Wave Serpents to my army if the rules for firing weapons on the move had not been altered, so I think these changes are more extreme, given that my third and fourth edition lists were broadly similar, so fifth edition has forced me to make some changes I would have preferred not to make.

Also, agreed on the guardians on foot

I thought you might be with me on this one  .

[Gutstikk]

I think we need to differentiate what works overall and what works in a highly competitive environment. Let's be honest - they are not the same.

I don't know if that's actually the case. Games I've played against Starrakatt, Chaplain Swordwind, Moc065, and others from the forum are friendly matches but, to be certain, none of them take the gloves off. You'll notice I never advise using a unit on the off-chance an opponent might not realize its implementation or effectiveness; my assumption is that everyone I face will always play a top game no matter what units they bring. Most tournaments I've seen have very little in the way of terrain on the tabletop which is actually a strength for Eldar ballistic weapons since it gives us back access to low AP weaponry.

In friendly games I like to make things more difficult rather than less - an example of which, my opponent had a bunker system in their deployment zone with an IG gunline army and the other side of the table was essentially devoid of cover, with difficult/dangerous terrain to impede infantry advances. Another match was part of a campaign vs Dark Eldar, where the table was a twisting labyrinth representing the webway - all terrain was assumed to connect to a ceiling, making it impassible to skimmers, with the need for my units to get from one short edge to the other before random game length stopped the match, and the DE in fortified positions throughout the labyrinth. Things like this aren't typical to tournament play where the idea is to have the table balanced for both players. I also will often play a match with a handicap of 100-200pts for kicks and to really push the limits of the units I'm fielding, which also isn't too regular for a tournament game.

That's why I'm skeptical of tournament standards being held up as the most difficult environment. I'd think playing against a relatively new player with a fair understanding of the rules who has 1500 extra points on the table would be at least as tough an opponent as a tournament veteran with the same points value as the Eldar player.

[bebe]

That's why I'm skeptical of tournament standards being held up as the most difficult environment. I'd think playing against a relatively new player with a fair understanding of the rules who has 1500 extra points on the table would be at least as tough an opponent as a tournament veteran with the same points value as the Eldar player.

I'm assuming we are playing with the same points, lol, and not setting up the table to nerf a particular build. I can set up scenarios to be challenging against newcomers too. Generally though I just tone down my list ( no DAVU, no Seer council, etc.). Newcomers still have problems with my WG Iyanden. 

I don't know if that's actually the case. Games I've played against Starrakatt, Chaplain Swordwind, Moc065, and others from the forum are friendly matches but, to be certain, none of them take the gloves off.

There is a surprise, lol. We are actually saying the same thing here, you know. On Vets night I play seasoned tournament players for fun in friendlies that are not so friendly. In these matches I tune my lists more and drop some units I feel no longer as competitive in 5th ALTHOUGH there will always be a squad of Wraithguard. I'm hoping with the release of the Nid codex my WG suddenly become quite useful again although I still struggle with their range. 

[Gutstikk]

Ah, guess my only point with all that was that tournament standards are not necessarily the highest set of standards. It is definitely possible to take the game to levels beyond what you'd find in a tournament.

I think most of us agree the wraithguard would like some extra range, but since that's outside of the scope of this discussion, we'll leave it in the realm of the hypothetical.

When you put the wraithguard on the field on foot, how are you getting their guns into range? I've seen Starrakatt charge bunkers to get extra movement out of them, which I thought was pretty brilliant, since it was a guaranteed 6 as opposed to a run move. It'd make sense to have something between them and the enemy to keep the enemy from assaulting them, and in this case that sounds a lot like serpents or falcons, since vypers can be easily dispatched with shooting and you'd want something capable of leaving combat.

While WG are the most resilient troops choice we have, I've always thought they'd be much more happy when mounted. Thankfully it's not a requirement of Iyanden to put them in as a troops choice, and they make excellent roadblocks to hold the enemy in combat while your assault units do their job somewhere else.

[bebe]

When you put the wraithguard on the field on foot, how are you getting their guns into range?

I run with them and try and bait units closer ... I also sometimes use them mounted in a squad of six.

It'd make sense to have something between them and the enemy to keep the enemy from assaulting them

I use Harlies to counter charge and my Serpents and a Falcon to block. Here is an interesting statistic for you ...

You need eight to ten melta shots to ensure that you blow up a Wave Serpent or Falcon. I play mine aggressively. They have either DA, Seer Council or WG inside each. I'm now adding FD as well as I'm seeing to many Land Raiders these days.

This is what has happened in 5th edition. LR spam, Vendetta Spam, Battlewagon spam, etc. Thr name of the game is now redundancy which really hampers Eldar. It limits our choices. I cannot field only one squad capable of dealing with armour. I need at least two resilient objective holders as well. Waht room do I have for excess now?

[angel of death 007]

Well having not played a tourny in over a year due to the fact that I have to work on the weekend (3rd Saturday of the month) when the tournys take place so I can't really comment on tournament play. 

However at my LGS I do get to help a lot players test their lists.  I think the biggest advantage our LGS has is that they are playing their tournys at 1850 pts.  It gives an Eldar army a little bit of breathing room as if it was 1500 points armies like guard or orks could completely overwhelm you with their cheaper points cost for troops/ guns / transports... etc.....

Now playing a lot of the players who play at the tournys I have noticed from personal experience
-WS need to be equipped as cheap as possible with the exception of stones.

Aside from that my 4th - 5th edition lists haven't changed that much with the exception of not fielding any Falcons now. 

My LGS is still as it has always been power armor heavy.  Usually about 90% of the armies I play are marine or CSM branch.  I think with 5th edition I have seen rhinos, drop pods, and Land Raiders used a lot more often.  There has been no army that I have had overwhelming problems dealing with. 

The guy that won our tournament a few months ago used his mech eldar army and I played him with my Hybrid army.  He was a very skilled eldar player but I got a draw and probably would have won if I had another turn. 

He was the last tourny playing Eldar army at our LGS and I think since then he has been playing CSM.  I have not been at our gaming store in over 3 months though due to work, family, and life in general issues.   

Prior to that though I could handle most lists due to tactics.  Yeah eldar might be at a slight disadvantage but an experienced enough player can compensate some for it. 

Looking at lists though compared to my Imperial guard army I don't know how well my Eldar would last.  No one at our LGS that i know of plays full mech guard and my almost full mech guard list puts more tanks and infantry on the board then my eldar would know what to do with I am afraid.

I am looking to get back into gaming at the start of the year and hopefully will make the January tourny even if I have to take off work to go.  I think this next year will be a more active year for me in both playing and painting (getting FW's masterclass book)...  I will keep ya posted and put up a battle report or two within a month with my hybrid army once I get a chance to get some games in.

 

[lulu2009]

To put in bluntly, 5th ed is basically the result of new GW sales business plan orientating to their current developments. Old Vets whom are already used to certain themes are hit in the guts (nerfed) to almost quitting the game with new army starts or shelfing things up altogether.

Most fall prey to a burnt wallet...

As for the game, I do see generalization of FOC capabilities to all dexes for more diverse tactics for those traditionally not supposed to have or were so weak they deserved to die playing, now being a bit more playable (Which is good).

Bad planning as seen in the creep makes old dexes so weak by contrast that those new tactics are superceding the strength of the traditionally stronger ones however.

To play more uniquely or competitively, many seeking what is left unmolested by the newer format. The odd successes are often those strong lists getting off guard by their own designs. Many that shy away from balanced list are often finding them more rewarding provided they HAVE THE SKILL to run them.

I am sure after the Vets have seen most of the competitive aka unfun lists, they will switch back to the old themes they "used to like" and apply the new ed mechanics to ruin those cheeses.

Thus peace will ensue the gaming envir till then.

[Lazarus]

Current state of Eldar in 5th editon?

I'd say were are still competitive but you've got a pretty narrow list of stuff you can do it with. Mech/council still seems the best answer as an all comer list. Comp events will hurt us as our effectiveness comes at the price of playing a hated list arctype. Nids/Orks can play plenty of power while being arguably fluffy.

New Nid codex should likely shut the door on hybrid/foot builds. Too many things out there that simply overwhelms you in close combat now. Mech at least offers the opportunity to protect yourself and engage on your terms. Even then - options in the book may be hard to deal with (I need time w/ the book)


I haven't played in tournaments for awhile now. Just burned out on them. I'd love to have a 5th edition Eldar book to play in this 5th edition world we live in. You know, one where I'll get cheaper troops w/ grenades, cheaper transports, more scoring options and deployment options too.

Till then, I'm mainly playing Warmachine/Hordes and dabbling in Fantasy again. Occasionall muck around with my IG too....

[Gutstikk]

Lost my reply, but essentially it was along the lines of:

If tyranids continue the tendency to specialization that many of the new codexes carry, then hybrid or infantry Eldar may become preferrable as transports increasingly face destroyed-wrecked results to surrounding units [orks/nids are easily capable of moving fast enough to do this] and the meta at least for Eldar swings back to shooting things dead through volume of fire.

[Spirit of Kurnous]

I havent played alot of 5th ed but have yet to do mechanised (even though having plenty of serpents) when I do.
so far its all been footslogging, sometimes my mix (wraithguard, rangers, aspects) and other lists have been the wraith host and a footslogging aspect host.  all armies have yet to lose but that might be down to opponents not capitalising rather than them being good builds.  I have yet to try out a full seer council of doom either.

mostly been playing warhammer (prefer this anyway) with some warmachine, hordes and bloodbowl thrown in.

[Lazarus]

If tyranids continue the tendency to specialization that many of the new codexes carry, then hybrid or infantry Eldar may become preferrable as transports increasingly face destroyed-wrecked results to surrounding units [orks/nids are easily capable of moving fast enough to do this] and the meta at least for Eldar swings back to shooting things dead through volume of fire.

Don't let them surround your transports then. I often "wagon circle" or "congo line" with them to prevent this.

If the nids/Orks are already close enough to surround you, they should be able to completely swamp foot units. Difference between lots of gaunts and Orks for example should be higher initiative.

I'm viewing this from a stictly competitive standpoint.