Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1

 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 1927
Location: Australia
Ginger,

What is the status of this list. is it Experimental or Developmental?

Cheers
Cal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:44 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
CAL001 wrote:
Ginger,

What is the status of this list. is it Experimental or Developmental?

Cheers
Cal


As explain already by Facebook....

Harlequin Grand Masque(4.2)(Sub-Ac is Ginger)
Note: from Ginger on the stats of Developmental "a reasonable amount of work and testing was done in the distant past. Also, I believe the list works fairly well in itself, though perhaps not as a 'tournament' list"

So I say to you don't allow it at cancon2017...

The above is Ginger response to me, after we discussed were it should be on the tree so to speak...

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************
NetEA NetERC Tournaments, Events, Campaigns and Supplements Committee Member

NetEA Eldar AC

Epic Armies: IG, Knights ATML, Eldar,Tyranids,Necrons, SM, LaTD,WD3.8,TS6.02


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5304
Location: London, UK
As Greg says, it is more developmental than anything else, not least because the current list does not find favour among some people. Furthermore the list is deliberately intended to be very flexible in its approach which is a radical departure from the normal list design, which needs correspondingly greater testing.

I have been formulating a response to the very reasonable question raised by Wartrader (and others) as to the armour values, which I hope to post soon.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:15 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
Ginger wrote:
I have been formulating a response to the very reasonable question raised by Wartrader (and others) as to the armour values, which I hope to post soon.


Cool... sound interesting, look forward to seeing it.. :)

So have you through about more support choices for the list yet?

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************
NetEA NetERC Tournaments, Events, Campaigns and Supplements Committee Member

NetEA Eldar AC

Epic Armies: IG, Knights ATML, Eldar,Tyranids,Necrons, SM, LaTD,WD3.8,TS6.02


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5304
Location: London, UK
Hi IJW Wartrader (and others). Here is the long delayed reply on RA Armour. Thank you for your suggestion and please accept my apology for not replying sooner. I have been looking at ways of including ‘Daethdi’ in some form or another, (though this word seems to have been dropped in the latest 2015 codex).

The issue you raise is quite difficult to resolve since it is central to the way the Harlequins are designed to operate as a unit and a formation (within the restrictions of the E:A rule mechanics). On the one hand the Harlequins should be vulnerable to ranged fire, whilst on the other hand their speed should make them almost impossible to hit in an assault, on top of which individually they should be more deadly in close combat than any other Eldar Aspect – ‘blurred coloured shapes passing through enemy troops as though they posed no more resistance than melted butter’.

The nub of issue is whether we make the Harlequins capable of destroying all opponents in First Strike assault leaving them with weak armour for ranged fire etc, or whether we need to improve their all-round resilience, potentially allowing the Harlequins to be less deadly in assault but still able to win assaults. We can also learn from the related (and extensive) Howling Banshee debate, which are considered somewhat lacklustre in assault compared with other Aspects, and this despite the increased CC factors.

One solution to the conundrum of the Harlequin stats would be to increase the power of the First Strike capacity to take out the enemy units before they can hurt the Harlies (the Howling Banshee solution).
  • Originally the Harlies were made EA+1 MW. However this meant that they became OTT against virtually all opponents including RA vehicles – and hence titan killers. This provoked widespread complaints for several reasons, so was dropped in the next iteration of the list.
  • The HBs have had their CC values increased to the maximum possible, but this is evidently not enough to make them attractive even for an eight strong formation.
  • The "Infantry MW" special rule that was suggested was also rejected, though Harlies are another candidate where it would really help.
  • By contrast, Warp Spiders are considered to be among the best Aspects, primarily because they can concentrate more First Strike firepower on fewer targets merely because they use FF, while their better armour makes them less vulnerable to return fire.
The point here is that being good in First Strike CC is apparently not enough if the formation fails to destroy the enemy fighting potential in the First strike phase. The other issue is that being in Base-to-Base contact with the enemy makes the HBs much more susceptible to enemy counter-fire from the remaining units of the enemy formation and support fire. Consequently, under their current stats, Howling Banshee formations tend to have a more specialist role attacking weaker infantry formations on the periphery of the battle rather than key enemy formations at the heart of the battle.

The alternate solution is to improve Harlequin resilience in some way (reflecting the fact that they are really hard to hit), to make them better able to survive close assaults. There are several ways of doing this, including giving them “Invulnerable”, “RA” or some form of special rule that varies their armour value depending on whether they are in combat or not, much like you are suggesting.
  • Personally I dislike the ‘special rule’ approach both because it is yet another special rule, and also because it is easy to forget to apply the correct value in the heat of battle.
  • “Invulnerable” would work, but also makes the Harlequins able to survive TK weaponry as well as MW, which seems even less sensible.
  • Giving them RA also fits this requirement, though at the expense of making the Harlequins much less ‘squishy’ to ranged fire.
Since improving the HB First Strike capabilities did not really help them, it seems that the best way to help the Harlies was to make them more resilient, and RA seems the best option. This was the initial reasoning behind going with RA. But as discussed, adopting RA poses further questions over the formation as a whole, not least to the vexed question of ranged fire.

If we consider ranged fire in abstraction, basically the result is to reduce a formation by a few units, whilst adding some BMs that are often reduced or shed altogether in the Rally phase. Reducing the initial formation size mimics losses to ranged fire to some extent, thereby providing a simulation of the desired ‘squishyness’ to ranged fire. Effectively by starting with smaller than usual formation sizes we are building in the notional effects of ranged fire.

Using smaller formation sizes also provides other benefits as well, helping to answer other issues over the power of a given formation and it’s use;
  • It reduces the overall power of the formation potentially allowing individual unit power to be increased or varied.
  • It means that more enemy units will survive (to tell tales of ghostly blurred shapes etc). This both makes the Harlequins a little less fearsome to face, while also fitting the ‘fluff’ better.
  • It makes the Harlequin formation more brittle, requiring finesse in their use rather than brute force, thereby restoring an Eldar ‘feel’ to their use.
  • It also complies with an inherent list design requirement for basic formations to be slightly underpowered, allowing the player to add upgrades and support options for strategic and tactical advantages

So, in summary, 5+RA was chosen as the least bad way of representing the difficulties in killing Harlequins in assault, while reducing the formation size was an attempt to mitigate the ‘ranged fire’ issue (that also had several major benefits).
And if you want further ‘fluffy’ reasoning behind this choice of RA armour, we can also suggest that the personal holofields and other ‘Daethdi’ style equipment, together with the more spaced out nature of the people, all make it harder to target the Harlequins than other Eldar Aspects and troops.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:01 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
Thank you for the insight ginger..and very interesting read..

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************
NetEA NetERC Tournaments, Events, Campaigns and Supplements Committee Member

NetEA Eldar AC

Epic Armies: IG, Knights ATML, Eldar,Tyranids,Necrons, SM, LaTD,WD3.8,TS6.02


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:43 pm
Posts: 1002
Location: Devon, UK
And another thanks here. RA still 'feels' wrong, but I can understand why it's been chosen. It's not like this is a list that's short of special rules already...

EDIT - and thanks for the exhaustive and informative explanation!

_________________
The Wargaming Trader - we buy and sell used GW.
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:54 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
Battle report up...

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=32521

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************
NetEA NetERC Tournaments, Events, Campaigns and Supplements Committee Member

NetEA Eldar AC

Epic Armies: IG, Knights ATML, Eldar,Tyranids,Necrons, SM, LaTD,WD3.8,TS6.02


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5304
Location: London, UK
Hi pfe and thanks for returning to the fray.

The report was interesting, though the result is getting a little monotonous.
The end was interesting as well. Losing all the leaders means the Harlies leave the table at the end of turn #3. This is another demonstration of why the units need to be placed with greater care than most races. Cegorach was not mentioned at all, even though it was evidently placed in some of the photos. And finally no mention was made of the Shadowseers - did they do anything?
Basically the list takes a lot of getting used to, and some of the problems are clearly down to the enforced absence . . . . :)

On the reporting tool,
The first engagement was also interesting. The notes and stats suggested that only Mimic #3 attacked (7x hits from 12 dice is statistically valid). However the notes also suggest that Mimic #2 was also involved - was it?

Also, though useful, I still find the comments from the reporting tool a bit confusing. Some of the entries are excessive, others like hits, saves are helpfull. The comments should note the loss of characters, where enemy units are "enthralled" etc.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:11 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
Thanks for reading.....

They maybe getting little monotonous on results ;D , but i do find them fun to play as pure Harlequins, although a very tough challenge.Also i haven't done many other Races either, mainly space marines..

Cegorach was placed on the table first turn and then found he was not with in 30cm at end of turn 1 of a formation and so was lost...We forgot to add him to the report..

Shadowseers - only one got into engagement and he manage a 1 on D3...but the Warhound was wiped out by the first strike..

Yeah agree with the "some of the problems are clearly down to the enforced absence" statement.... ;)

Yeah the Mimic #2 formation was involved in the engagement...Thanks for the reminder, will need ask for a tweak, so when commander ability is used and formation brought in..it shows in the txt file.

The tools does a txt file, that contains the data and as the user.. I can deleted the ones not need as such...so getting the formatting and data that should be export from the report , maybe be the next big step, thanks for the feed back...will have chat with pauljam about it..

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************
NetEA NetERC Tournaments, Events, Campaigns and Supplements Committee Member

NetEA Eldar AC

Epic Armies: IG, Knights ATML, Eldar,Tyranids,Necrons, SM, LaTD,WD3.8,TS6.02


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5304
Location: London, UK
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
The first engagement also demonstrates another twist with this list; the choices faced by the harlie player when deciding on engagements. Where possible you need to preserve both units and activations, so you need to choose the assaults wisely, declaring the enemy intermingled where possible whilst using the minimum force to achieve a victory. This also means making best use of all the special rules where possible . . . ;)

That said, they still suffer from lack of mobility and activation paucity.

So I am pondering the addition of a new formation, 5x Venoms for 275.
To mimic the 'fluff', while the Venoms may transport a separate Mimic or Troupe formation, when "assaulting" they drop the transported formation and are then treated as 'supports' during the assault. They share the fate If the transported formation, consolidating if it wins and withdrawing broken it it loses.

The other thought is to adopt the DE "fleet of foot" rules.

What do you think guys?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.1
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:27 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
Sound interesting and I think both would help the list...

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************
NetEA NetERC Tournaments, Events, Campaigns and Supplements Committee Member

NetEA Eldar AC

Epic Armies: IG, Knights ATML, Eldar,Tyranids,Necrons, SM, LaTD,WD3.8,TS6.02


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net