Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices

 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5402
Location: London, UK
Graf Spee, I do agree with your concerns, and that any changes made need to be both specific to the BT and also made carefully to avoid further issues.

Tim made the suggestion about raising the cost of the Void Spinner to 300, which is certainly BT specific, though inconclusive as to the impact.

I suggested the reduced size to allow the inclusion of any Aspect rather than just the SS or SH,
following the expressed desire to improve the focus of the BT on Aspect formations and the cost of mechanising the full Aspect formation, which I agree are ways of achieving a similar result.

I also think this suggestion needs to be treated with great caution because it increases the flexibility of the list, which goes against the concerns raised by the Australian community. The problem becomes how to word things so that Shining Spears may not be taken as a six strong formation, but may be added to other Aspects mounted in transport. . .
It also raises the question whether Swooping Hawks need the same constraint, given they become a 225 point 3rd turn teleporting 'no-brainer'.

And no, I don't like the idea of doing this while reducing the warhost:support ratio to 1:2 because the reduced cost of the formation is not balanced by the compulsory increased costs, and it encourages the use of Guardian formations rather than Aspects.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8474
Location: Manalapan, FL
The 1:2 ratio when I originally brought it up foever ago in the other thread a an wild ass idea was for Guardians not aspects. Just an FYI. Changes to the aspect to support ratio would just see more guardians.

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5402
Location: London, UK
Scutarii wrote:
Paradox wrote:
This could addresses SOME of the concerns around list builds being felt from Australia but in my mind doesn't seem tackle the feelings emanating from there of frustration when facing eldar. I personally feel that the following strategy is not OP and is a risk/reward payoff but I hear the concern being voiced as: Eldar lists will still be able to triple retain and affect 2-3 formation in the baseline of the opponent first with Strategy 4 (ie more often then not go first against a less mobile (and usually lower SR) opponent and kill/break/suppress 3 formations in opponents deployment area on a triple retain with any number of formations (the best risk/reward payoff ones being the Void Spinner and Scorpion but could be accomplished by Falcons/Fire Prisms/Revenants just as well) and maintain high mobility throughout the game with the activation count now in there favour.


The abundance of Void Spinners and this to me suggests the issue that's likely leading to the most frustration - even if it;s not the most 'broken' part - is the Void Spinner. Does it need 60cm Indirect Fire? Would 45cm Indirect (meaning it can't hit the deployment zone turn 1) alleviate some of this frustration? Sure 45cm collides with Night Spinners but is that so utterly unacceptable?

With respect, the issue appears to be the strategy to strip the opponent's activations, which opponents find hard to counter. Everything being proposed is designed to reduce the Eldar activations, reduce their mobility, remove their ability to anticipate the future etc. Unfortunately all these suggestions strike at the concepts that define the Eldar.

Reducing the range of the VS to 45cm Would remove its alpha-strike capacity, though does not necessarily fix the problem. It merely changes the order that the Eldar activates formations (assuming there are no tempting garrisons in range to eliminate.

Given the stated Eldar strategy, the trick is how to defend your formations.
Necron off-table approach is obvious, the Marine air-assault approach can work , especially if that includes teleporting Termies or some other means to neuter the AA etc. However players need to adopt standard tactics like placing units in / behind cover and especially at the 5 cm coherency limit, and especially using an army with 10+ activations in the first place.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:07 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 140
For the record I'm not for changes to to the ratio of core to support formations and I've never had a problem with Void Spinners. I think there are other lists which are more problematic than Eldar.

I'm surprised that changes are already being discussed when we know where there is a problem with the BT list, the rules are played differently to the rest of the world. That's not a problem but it is the elephant in the room.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:06 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Wisconsin, USA
jimmyzimms wrote:
The 1:2 ratio when I originally brought it up foever ago in the other thread a an wild ass idea was for Guardians not aspects. Just an FYI. Changes to the aspect to support ratio would just see more guardians.


Why not go even crazier; leave aspects where they are (1:3) and not have guardians unlock anything?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:32 pm
Posts: 368
RugII wrote:
For the record I'm not for changes to to the ratio of core to support formations and I've never had a problem with Void Spinners. I think there are other lists which are more problematic than Eldar.

I'm surprised that changes are already being discussed when we know where there is a problem with the BT list, the rules are played differently to the rest of the world. That's not a problem but it is the elephant in the room.


I do think though that in at least this instance the LoS difference is going to have a reduced impact. If my understanding is correct part of the issue is reliable turn 1 stripping of activations, exacerbating the already large number of activations BT can get.

Changing points or ratios to reduce a 12-13 list to an 11-12 list has limited impact on this issue if the non-BT list loses 3 activations turn 1 before they get to act anyway.

This early stripping comes from long range high power shooting - Scorpions and Void Spinners - hitting small support formations. Not every list is affected by this - Squats for example tend towards chunky formations - while for other lists this is a big issue - Steel Legion being the poster child with so many 3 unit formations.

The reason I don't think LoS differences are likely to have as much of an impact on this issue is that on turn 1 it's usually not that difficult to find somewhere to put a 3 unit formation out of sight, or a scout formation garrisoned forward somewhere you can only hit one or two units.

From Tiny-Tim here : http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=32195&start=15

Quote:
Turn 1 started as most would expect, Strategy to Eldar, Void Spinners shoot. First shot was at the Deathstrikes, 1 hit 1 dead, broken. Second shot was at the Basilicks, 1 hit 1 dead, broken. Third activation a Scorpion doubled, moved, shot, moved back. Whilst moving the first time I goaded E&C into using one of his overwatch shots which caused a wound and 2 BMs. Scorpion shot at the Hydra formation and destroyed 2 tanks breaking the formation. So three activations and three broken IG formations plus one Guard activation burnt. E&C played a refused flank and pushed forward on his right flank whilst I was cautious activating my right flank and got left behind. I pushed forward both of the Shining Spears at the end of the turn looking to set up a sweeping set of engagements in turn two to clear the centre of the table and box E&C in on his right flank. By the end of the turn the Deathstrikes, Basilicks, Sentinels, Hydras and Roughriders were all broken. Some rallied, but the Deathstrikes would fail all three turns.


Can the Aussies chime in on wether or not I am understanding the problem they are facing properly or have I extrapolated from one data point waaaaay too much?

Are you finding any particular factions having more or less of an issue with the BT?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2336
Location: UK
On reflection it's probably premature to be discussing specific changes if there is no agreement on what the actual problem is - is it void spinners? Rangers? Too many activations? Ability to hit 3 formations at start of turn? Or just theme - too many guardians?

I am honestly not sure what a global 1:2 restriction is aiming to do but for me its effect is clear. It makes all my ground based serpent builds unviable (ie illegal) - and yes i do take these - and simply encourages more guardians on foot. I dont see how this helps.

If fewer guardians is what you want to achieve, i think it can be achieved quite simply:

Move foot guardians to support, keep serpent and wraith guardians in core. Allow aspects to take 6 aspects in 3 serpents (doing this currently just doesn't save enough points and we know this formation isn't broken as other variant lists have access to it). Bumping rangers to minimum 5 is probably not a terrible idea.

If void spinners go to 45 range it does remove some interest from the list, them being so close to night spinners (ie they would work in exactly the same way whereas now they play very differently). But if this was to happen they should be reduced to 225.

However whilst i have sympathy for Jimmy's frustrations with the BT list i do think this is also partly the variant lists fault. Particularly for guardians and rangers, yes BT have good options for those units but equally the ulthwe and alaitoc lists don't! These units should have MORE flexible options in their 'primary' lists, but they don't. Frankly​ its a joke that alaitoc are forced to take rangers in the only configuration that you'd never use in the BT list. With some work that list could be competitive.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:14 am
Posts: 196
Kyrt wrote:
On reflection it's probably premature to be discussing specific changes if there is no agreement on what the actual problem is - is it void spinners? Rangers? Too many activations? Ability to hit 3 formations at start of turn? Or just theme - too many guardians?

...

If void spinners go to 45 range it does remove some interest from the list, them being so close to night spinners (ie they would work in exactly the same way whereas now they play very differently). But if this was to happen they should be reduced to 225.

.



Ginger wrote:
Graf Spee, I do agree with your concerns, and that any changes made need to be both specific to the BT and also made carefully to avoid further issues.

Tim made the suggestion about raising the cost of the Void Spinner to 300, which is certainly BT specific, though inconclusive as to the impact.

...


for the VS problem description I quote myself. it would work that way. I am most sure of it.

Graf Spee wrote:
The point with the void spinners is the opponents frustration of getting his counter assets destroyed or broken immediately without getting the chance of using them at least once. Resulting in wasted points and lost activations. Like you never even fielded them.

So raising points will change nothing with that fact, except that biel tan might have an activation less.

The key is toning the voidspinner rightly. Cutting range would be an obvious choice but then there will be no favour over night spinners anymore. Taking disrupt away might work but will result in a no flavour artillery piece. Imho the best viable way would be to reduce the BP to 2.
It would increase the survivability of the target and it further use in the game quite a bit. Moving the average hits on a 3 av formation to 1. Still giving it 2 bm but most likely not breaking it instantly. Also rallying that formation becomes quite substantially more propable thus keeping it in the game..


on the other points concerning "WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM?" from my point of view (as an passionate BT player myself) it is an seemingly easy to produce and almost auto activating hard to counter hattrick at alpha strike level. So with the suggestion of upping up the risk for the eldar player by increasing the chance for failure in activation by putting an additional -1 initiative modifier on the third formation this could be elegantly cirumvented. If you take the risk and succeed.. well deserved. If not.. well.. things will get more hard for the eldar player and the opponent will not be that much discouraged. so for me that is the way to go. i don't know by whom it was suggested (tiny tim??) but yeah.. let's test this one in combination with the VS adaption but for the same price of 275pts.

sorry for my unability to express my thinking more adequately but english is not my native tongue..

best regards
spee


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 726
Location: San Francisco, CA
NoisyAssassin wrote:
jimmyzimms wrote:
The 1:2 ratio when I originally brought it up foever ago in the other thread a an wild ass idea was for Guardians not aspects. Just an FYI. Changes to the aspect to support ratio would just see more guardians.


Why not go even crazier; leave aspects where they are (1:3) and not have guardians unlock anything?


I like this one. Biel-Tan is currently the "generic" Eldar list, but this strengthen the Aspect Warrior theme and (potentially) cut the number of activations they get because they're taking a greater number of expensive core formations. It may mean that Ulthwé becomes the generic Eldar list instead.

I'm often concerned with changes like these because they make it harder for a new player to start an army with expensive used models, but it's not quite as bad as with other armies. Just paint those Guardians as Dire Avengers.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:25 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4663
Location: North Yorkshire
Thank you for all your posts, especially the ones that answered the original question ;)

This will now be thrown back into the melting pot of Eldar ACs to along with the other proposals for toning down the Biel-Tan list.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1352
Having no support or only 1 support slot for guardians would be a nice thematic change but would have little/no impact on the list in question and still wreck wave serpent, warlock and wraithguardian builds which no one wants to be nerfed

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2336
Location: UK
Yeah really don't get why this is actually needed, it's not been explained. Why hammer guardians in wave serpents, or wraithians?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:37 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 657
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
Tiny-Tim wrote:
Thank you for all your posts, especially the ones that answered the original question ;)

This will now be thrown back into the melting pot of Eldar ACs to along with the other proposals for toning down the Biel-Tan list.


+1

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************
NetEA...NetERC Chair Committee Member

NetEA Eldar AC

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:10 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
carlisimo109 wrote:
NoisyAssassin wrote:
jimmyzimms wrote:
The 1:2 ratio when I originally brought it up foever ago in the other thread a an wild ass idea was for Guardians not aspects. Just an FYI. Changes to the aspect to support ratio would just see more guardians.


Why not go even crazier; leave aspects where they are (1:3) and not have guardians unlock anything?


I like this one. Biel-Tan is currently the "generic" Eldar list, but this strengthen the Aspect Warrior theme and (potentially) cut the number of activations they get because they're taking a greater number of expensive core formations. It may mean that Ulthwé becomes the generic Eldar list instead.

I'm often concerned with changes like these because they make it harder for a new player to start an army with expensive used models, but it's not quite as bad as with other armies. Just paint those Guardians as Dire Avengers.

But that is why I like this suggestion.

Having Guardians as a core Warhost (and thus not taking up a Support choice) but either unlocking only 0 or 1 Support choices themselves, would nudge BT players to taking more Aspect Warhosts, which fits in well theme wise. BUT crucially does nt invalidate any Guardians already painted up by BT players. No need to repaint them as Dire Avengers.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Proposed Change to Ratio of Support Choices
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:41 pm
Posts: 353
Location: London
could rebrand BT eldar as "codex eldar" by just dropping VS and COTYK (in line with fluff) then create a BT specific developmental list with those two units plus heavy aspect theme.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  

cron

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