Split From Everything Wrong with High Elves thread (the Debates)

[Prince_Asuryan]

Why are you repeating yourself.

LA - My point is, just because you beat a GT winner, it doesn't mean you should always be winning in games when you run a balanced list and opponents run unbalanced ones. Yes, it shows unbalance in the army lists, but it doesn't make HE weak, it makes some lists too strong. Beating a person does not make you the be-all and end-all of knowing what is a fair army book or not.

[Lord Anathir]

Link 1 does have data of old lists amongst them, but also has applicable new data since daemons of chaos are included. Could also be that some EU tournaments still allow Storm of Chaos. But pay no attention to the old lists.

Link 2 has graphs based on actual tournament scores.

Link 3 is indeed a single tournament, and I simply added it because the runner up is my countryman. Links 1 and 2 have the actual statistics.

I'll look at link 1 again. I'm looking for the date it was published and I can't find it, but I suspect its old because dark elves are so low on the list (23?) and can't see thats possible (they're ranked lower then night goblins lol). Don't know if I'm right on this one.

I read through the text of link 2 and it says that the graph was derived by asking gamers which armies they though was a 'power army'. Unless I misread in which case I'll have another look.
------------------------------

if you may. Summa summarum, I think we're all very content with information from your personal games, Lord Anathir. Please give us neutral numbers that show HE are third from the bottom.

I'll look around and see what we find. I trust my own personal games (not just the ones I play, but the ones I watch as well (I watch a fair bit of high elf games)) because I know whos playing them, how good the players are, and so on. I'll look for a bit ya.

[Lord Anathir]

LA - My point is, just because you beat a GT winner, it doesn't mean you should always be winning in games when you run a balanced list and opponents run unbalanced ones.

How do you determine whether a strong list is balanced from an overpowered book or is unbalanced from a weak book?

You seem to be using singular tense when refering to my past victories. Let me clarify that I have played a number of players that regularly finish in high rankings in top tournaments and I did well in most of them. Sure some losses in there but enough wins/draws to be proud of.

You're right, beating a person doesn't make me the be-all end-all directly. But what it shows is that I know what I'm talking about and I'm just not some random guy who only plays semi-anually and bases arguments off theories rather then in game experience.

[Keith]

Other people can and have won with high elves. Its a pity if with all your time and effort you cannot.

Oh no, he can. He likes to remind us how brilliant he is sometimes. That's what makes this topic quit funny...

And thats just it. I win alot with them, but every win I have to be either lucky or considerably the better general. The result of the game is not an accurate justification of the skill levels of the participants.

So you want to win more and by a bigger margin..... ok....

[Prince_Asuryan]

LA - My point is, just because you beat a GT winner, it doesn't mean you should always be winning in games when you run a balanced list and opponents run unbalanced ones.

How do you determine whether a strong list is balanced from an overpowered book or is unbalanced from a weak book?

Tournament standings, general consensus from various other players, watching games.

Mainly though, the standings. I got to various tournaments each year and look to see which armies are at the top...

You seem to be using singular tense when refering to my past victories. Let me clarify that I have played a number of players that regularly finish in high rankings in top tournaments and I did well in most of them. Sure some losses in there but enough wins/draws to be proud of.

If you're beating GT winners with HE, they can't be THAT bad, surely...

[HERO]

Hi. I'd like to mention that I've been following this thread for 9 pages now.

I'd also like to mention that I think this thread sucks and that we need a new one, not about how much High Elves suck (because they don't), but about how we can improve our book in next edition. Or maybe better, how 8th edition Warhammer will effect our 7th edition book?

[Keith]

Lord Anathir

If I understand.. you want a 100% win ratio.. Sorry but you sound like a really bad loser to me...

If I am the better general 100% of the time and am only being denied wins by the weakness of our book then yes, I deserve a 100% win ratio.

No!!! this is absolutely not true! In any game that involves chance (IE Dice being rolled) How can you claim you should have a 100% win ratio if you are the better general. God.. do you even understand how the game works?

[Keith]

~Edited by the polished Silver~
Less personal attacks, more discussing the topic.
Thank you.

[Keith]

Hi. I'd like to mention that I've been following this thread for 9 pages now.

I'd also like to mention that I think this thread sucks and that we need a new one, not about how much High Elves suck (because they don't), but about how we can improve our book in next edition. Or maybe better, how 8th edition Warhammer will effect our 7th edition book?

If you've been following it for 9 pages like you said you have, surely you have seen my posts discussing how i wanted to get a consensus of our weaknesses and then discuss our best options to compensate for them.

[Lord Anathir]

So you want to win more and by a bigger margin..... ok....

yes I do. Or more accurately I want the skill of the generals properly reflected in the result of the game. For example If I'm good enough to flank his saurus with my spears (even though he has more support units and better diverters) I want to break his saurus and gain their VP. I should be rewarded for my skill as a general. As is too often the case the saurus may hold because of their high CB leadership and armor/toughness that is too high for what they per model for. I may not break that round, but I may break 1 or 2 rounds later, at which stage the overrun into his general's units flank is now no longer possible and a potential major win I deserved through my tactics is now relegated to a minor.

[Keith]

Can we get back on track now?



How is lizardmen being tough to break a HE problem? It is a problem for almost everyone.


This is about High Elves.

[GobbladasSquig]

I'll look at link 1 again. I'm looking for the date it was published and I can't find it, but I suspect its old because dark elves are so low on the list (23?) and can't see thats possible (they're ranked lower then night goblins lol). Don't know if I'm right on this one.

Yeah, I suspect the same. At least that some results with old dark elves are pulling newer, higher results down a bit. Night goblins can be a handful, though.

I read through the text of link 2 and it says that the graph was derived by asking gamers which armies they though was a 'power army'. Unless I misread in which case I'll have another look.

Do have another look.

yes I do. Or more accurately I want the skill of the generals properly reflected in the result of the game. For example If I'm good enough to flank his saurus with my spears (even though he has more support units and better diverters) I want to break his saurus and gain their VP. I should be rewarded for my skill as a general. As is too often the case the saurus may hold because of their high CB leadership and armor/toughness that is too high for what they per model for. I may not break that round, but I may break 1 or 2 rounds later, at which stage the overrun into his general's units flank is now no longer possible and a potential major win I deserved through my tactics is now relegated to a minor.

The game's a bitch, isn't it?

[Prince_Asuryan]

And yet last edition, no-one ever took Saurus... They have to improve them, cos otherwise you'd simply moan that everyone took skink skirmishers.

Flanking should still break them as CB on Ld 5 is not a sure deal... And Spears aren't designed to break heavy infantry like Saurus. You hold them for a tunr, and have elite infantry or cavalry make the kill for you...

Like Keith said - most infantry struggles to break Saurus - Dwarves, Empire, DE (bit better due to hatred) and the rest.

[HERO]

Hi. I'd like to mention that I've been following this thread for 9 pages now.

I'd also like to mention that I think this thread sucks and that we need a new one, not about how much High Elves suck (because they don't), but about how we can improve our book in next edition. Or maybe better, how 8th edition Warhammer will effect our 7th edition book?

If you've been following it for 9 pages like you said you have, surely you have seen my posts discussing how i wanted to get a consensus of our weaknesses and then discuss our best options to compensate for them.

Which is why we either need a new thread or to start talking about those subjects immediately.

[Lord Anathir]

Tournament standings, general consensus from various other players, watching games.

Mainly though, the standings. I got to various tournaments each year and look to see which armies are at the top...

right so what makes the general concensus right? They say high elves are near the top. What makes them the end all be all? What if these people accept 4 rbt as a 'balanced' component and some people or if some people consider 2 hydras OTT or not? (and so on, for everything)

If you're beating GT winners with HE, they can't be THAT bad, surely...

I was doing quite well with 6th ed high elves and then 7th edition, until vampires was released. Since then it hasn't been so clear sailing, due to the power levels of the new books. In my attempts to adapt my lists to face them I found I was struggling against armies I used to be able to beat with old 7th edition lists or even 6th lists.

[Lord Anathir]

Lord Anathir

If I understand.. you want a 100% win ratio.. Sorry but you sound like a really bad loser to me...

If I am the better general 100% of the time and am only being denied wins by the weakness of our book then yes, I deserve a 100% win ratio.

No!!! this is absolutely not true! In any game that involves chance (IE Dice being rolled) How can you claim you should have a 100% win ratio if you are the better general. God.. do you even understand how the game works?

Dude I said if 'I am only being denied wins by the weakness of the book'. Obviously if there is luck swings involved I got no complaints there.

[Crawd]

Soon to come at Uthuan news:

A block of slaves of the skaven in the flank of a block of saurus didn't manage to break it. Stay tuned!

[Keith]

Hi. I'd like to mention that I've been following this thread for 9 pages now.

I'd also like to mention that I think this thread sucks and that we need a new one, not about how much High Elves suck (because they don't), but about how we can improve our book in next edition. Or maybe better, how 8th edition Warhammer will effect our 7th edition book?

If you've been following it for 9 pages like you said you have, surely you have seen my posts discussing how i wanted to get a consensus of our weaknesses and then discuss our best options to compensate for them.

Which is why we either need a new thread or to start talking about those subjects immediately.

Alright I am game, I think we've been beating a dead horse for a while here.

[Prince_Asuryan]

If you're beating GT winners with HE, they can't be THAT bad, surely...

I was doing quite well with 6th ed high elves and then 7th edition, until vampires was released. Since then it hasn't been so clear sailing, due to the power levels of the new books. In my attempts to adapt my lists to face them I found I was struggling against armies I used to be able to beat with old 7th edition lists or even 6th lists.[/quote]

Right. So 6th is winnable with, and 7th is ONLY an improvement - nothing got worse, everything got better.

You struggle with VC's and the like - that indicates that they are too powerful, not that HE are too weak. The only reason that you would struggle against old armies is that HE tailored to fight VC are not as good against other armies, which is no surprise... But, if you reverted to an old balanced list you'd beat most of the other lists, but struggle with VC's, DE and DoC, and then monster heavy Lizzies....

[Lord Anathir]

Other people can and have won with high elves. Its a pity if with all your time and effort you cannot.

Oh no, he can. He likes to remind us how brilliant he is sometimes. That's what makes this topic quit funny...

Exactly, that is what makes him a whiner. He is just like any other nerd who thinks he is the greatest. There was a guy like him at my former local store... hardly ever won a game, but still acted like he was undefeated

Except I ...actually win games

For LA it is all part of his game, convince people of how terrible HE are so that his wins are more impressive. He isn't just better because he beat you, he's better because HE suck against every other army in the game.

Please don't talk as If I'm not present. Its quite rude. Heh Is like 5 guys in a group and 4 of them talk about the 5th and say 'oh ron is such fatty', etc.

Anyways your statement is ridiculous. If I wanted to do that I'd go play empire or something along that level. Stronger book then high elves but considered weaker lol.

[Keith]

You hardly ever seem to listen when anyone other than yourself talks, so why should i bother addressing you directly? I tried that before, remember?

[Lord Anathir]

Soon to come at Uthuan news:

A block of slaves of the skaven in the flank of a block of saurus didn't manage to break it. Stay tuned!

Come be serious, In my example spears didnt break saurus but theres only a 2 point gap between the two. there is much more of a difference between the slaves and saurus.

[Lord Anathir]

Can we get back on track now?



How is lizardmen being tough to break a HE problem? It is a problem for almost everyone.


This is about High Elves.

Just an example.

[Prince_Asuryan]

Soon to come at Uthuan news:

A block of slaves of the skaven in the flank of a block of saurus didn't manage to break it. Stay tuned!

Come be serious, In my example spears didnt break saurus but theres only a 2 point gap between the two. there is much more of a difference between the slaves and saurus.

And in a unit of 20, there's closer to a 50 point difference due to the command etc... and like I say, you have a good chance of breaking them...

[Lord Anathir]

And yet last edition, no-one ever took Saurus... They have to improve them, cos otherwise you'd simply moan that everyone took skink skirmishers.

Flanking should still break them as CB on Ld 5 is not a sure deal... And Spears aren't designed to break heavy infantry like Saurus. You hold them for a tunr, and have elite infantry or cavalry make the kill for you...

Like Keith said - most infantry struggles to break Saurus - Dwarves, Empire, DE (bit better due to hatred) and the rest.

Yeah I realise saurus were weak before but why not tone down the skirmishers instead of making the saurus underpriced compared to our own infantry?

[Lord Anathir]

Soon to come at Uthuan news:

A block of slaves of the skaven in the flank of a block of saurus didn't manage to break it. Stay tuned!

Come be serious, In my example spears didnt break saurus but theres only a 2 point gap between the two. there is much more of a difference between the slaves and saurus.

And in a unit of 20, there's closer to a 50 point difference due to the command etc... and like I say, you have a good chance of breaking them...

right but I didn't due to CB. ld5 Cb with rerolls arent bad odds.

[Lord Anathir]

I read through the text of link 2 and it says that the graph was derived by asking gamers which armies they though was a 'power army'. Unless I misread in which case I'll have another look.

Do have another look.

ah alright I see now. Are those result no comp or all comp?

[Voodoomaster]

No it doesn't achieve anything, because GW listens more to people like myself, Dark Alliance and Giladis more as we prefer to have rational views on things and prefer balance. Whining doesn't get anywhere because people who whine are a minority in the community.

How do i know your rational view is not working? By looking at the direction of HE is going and the imbalance sytem. We have seen it for years, have we? Let me ask you this simple hypothetical question.

if every player in the system demands for a balance army book and we will not buy anything if an army in the system is 'broken', do you honestly think that the current problem still exists?

It has been existed for years because it has been designed for certain ' favoriable groups' and some of us don't give a crap about it regardless of how bad or broken it is.[/quote]

happened the the dark elves in the 6th ed, they wanted a balanced army book after the farce that leaking the original book caused and left it in Gav's lap 2 weeks before deadline, High Elves never got a revision themselves because no one could make up their mind what they wanted before they were being re-built i remember being brought in on the high elf revision here, and it reminded me of a no alliance parliament with no majority.
And besides chalk and cheese here, some people armies are broken others do not, i think every army is balanced myself, there are some broken elements in the book, but usually these are due to last minute changes and failure to notices things until after the event "S7 throwing stars par example" I will admit that to get perfect balance, is impossible because everyone thinks differently and if everything was balanced why not just use chess or tic tac toe? (same as warhammer though, someone has to go first) Every army is balanced within itself, but there are some broken elements. High Elves Complain about Hydra's the Pendant etc etc, Dark Elves complain about Always Strike First and Drain Magic. Welcome to the balance arguement, have we enjoyed it? good moving on. And Suggesting GW focus' only one one army in warhammer is total rubbish, the only one i will agree to that argument with is space marines.

The only difference between you and me is I have enough while you keep coming back for more. Your rational view solely bases on accepting whatever GW is throwing at us regardless of how bad it is. For some reasons, do you think that we are going to be a better player and the future of HE and system is going to be bright?

The Difference between you and me is i am a Realist, you are a utopian, from what i see is there is you refuse to accept what is put infront of you because it seems to me you can make better, and that your opinion is worth more weight than people who helped write the dark elf and high elf books? In truth your opinion is worth the same, but at the end of the day i was the one who was graciously asked to help work on the dark elf book, and i still owe Gav Thorpe some drinks for everything he did for us on that project.

But i lay you down a challenge, go ahead and produce your own High Elf Army book and i am sure we will all enjoy tearing it to bits and exposing every little flaw in there. Be a realist, and realise perfection is impossible but you got as near damn as you did.

Also remember, 7th Ed was better than the 6th Ed.
I doubt anyone but me will remember 5th ed anymore.


Also Anathir....use the Edit function, no need to triple post i would delete them and merge them into one post but i am busy right now

[Eldacar]

I doubt anyone but me will remember 5th ed anymore.

I remember it.

[Darvon]

So unless we take out most competitive cheesy builds (dragon or teclis) we're underpowered? right? (what I've been saying all along)

hahaha, this actually made me lol IRL.

If we don't take competitive builds, we wont be competitive?? HOLY CRAP! It is truely a world gone mad.

Man the petitions!