Page 1 of 3

[ 38 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

ERC on Ulthw
MC23	Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:49 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am Posts: 174	+++ I think Zac has a point with respect to the point cost.  The perception of ?something for nothing? is always a big problem, even if it makes a miniscule difference.  For those who have seen Chroma?s comments on both the SG and Epicomms boards, you can already see it happening.   Basically, if you are making a list for Guardians or a troupe-heavy list, Ulthwe is going to be better than the equivalent Biel Tan list, while Biel Tan makes better Aspect-oriented armies.  I think it?s pretty close, but it might be worth a few tweaks simply to manage perceptions.  Possibilities:   1)       List entries for Guardians/Black Guardians could be separated for clarity, since they can have 2 additional upgrades that a normal host cannot. 2)       +25 points onto the Black Guardian formations. 3)       +50 points for Farseer Counsel, rather than +25.  The Autarch is basically +50 for SC ability in the BT list and the Counsel is comparable.   The total change in points would probably be 100 points or less in a 3000 point army.  That?s only 3%, but I think it will make a big difference in perception. +++   Jervis _________________ I am MC23
Top

MC23	Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:50 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am Posts: 174	I am withholding my comments on this for a few days to give other people a chance to comment. _________________ I am MC23
Top

yme-loc	Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:27 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm Posts: 599	I havnt really played with the Ulthwe list so my comments really only come from using Biel-Tan. Jervis's comments seem pretty sensible to me its always a bad idea to give something for nothing and from a personal perspective I would never mind paying 25pts for 1+ Initiative. Also +50 for the seer council seems fine (I'm a little surprised they wern't always this). 150pts for the aspect troupe's seems a little cheap to me they really are very flexible. I'd suggest 175pts, as they are I get the feeling I could design an ulthwe list that could out aspect a Biel-Tan list. I do find the lack of cost for strategy 5 a little surprising, the strategy rating is actually a very important factor in a game and especially so for eldar, dont really know how it would be possible to factor this into the cost of ulthwe but I suspect it would be required. _________________ Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK [url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]
Top

Reaversbane	Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:24 am
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:13 pm Posts: 283 Location: North Wales, UK	I normally (OK, always ) play Ulthwe, and I certainly wouldnt be bothered by these point adjustments. The argument seems logical and fair, so I'd happily adopt it. The something for nothing aspect did kinda bother me (especially as I have used 7+ Guardian warhosts in games before now...). I did think the 25 for the Seer Council was odd, and to be honest assumed it was a typo for a while and paid 50 anyway Presumably the ratio of formations you can upgrade to Black Guardian status will remain the same (1/3)? _________________ Reaversbane (or RB for short...)
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:36 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	For the record, I wrote that, not Jervis. ===== I did spot one other problem/omission with the Avatar and I can't believe it hasn't come up before. Court of the Young Kings is supposed to be Biel-Tan specific.  There should be a note and/or a UDS in the Units section that shows the Ulthwe Avatar does not get the CotYK attack. _________________ Neal
Top

Reaversbane	Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:33 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:13 pm Posts: 283 Location: North Wales, UK	OK, thats twice now there are issues I am sure have been discussed and agreed before, did we lose a version somewhere? I have been playing the Avatar without the CotYK for quite some time, and do remember it being discussed (along with whether Ulthwe should get the Spear Of Khaine, which was rejected), and fairly happily resolved. I suppose I could be imagining it? _________________ Reaversbane (or RB for short...)
Top

Markconz	Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:39 pm
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	Whoever is the rules champ - is there an estimated date for when the new Ulthwe list is coming out? _________________ http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:03 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	It's been submitted to the ERC for approval.  I'm doing my best to push so that it comes out with the Black Legion and L&D lists as a sort of "Eye of Terror" release. _________________ Neal
Top

MC23	Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:23 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am Posts: 174	Quote (nealhunt @ 10 2005 Aug.,09:36) For the record, I wrote that, not Jervis. ===== I did spot one other problem/omission with the Avatar and I can't believe it hasn't come up before. Court of the Young Kings is supposed to be Biel-Tan specific.  There should be a note and/or a UDS in the Units section that shows the Ulthwe Avatar does not get the CotYK attack. All references involving the Court of the Young King was removed many versions ago. Notes about using the CotYK attacks are in Swordwind. I thought even mentioning the CotYK would be more confusing than not mentioning it as they do not appear in the list. _________________ I am MC23
Top

MC23

Post subject: ERC on Ulthw Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:01 am

Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am Posts: 174

All right so I'm not waiting a few days like I said I would. Here's my response to these ideas. 1)       List entries for Guardians/Black Guardians could be separated for clarity, since they can have 2 additional upgrades that a normal host cannot. As long as the list cost summary can be written on 1 page, no problem. 3)       +50 points for Farseer Counsel, rather than +25.  The Autarch is basically +50 for SC ability in the BT list and the Counsel is comparable.

Also no problem. I would still pay for a Farseer Council at that cost.

2)       +25 points onto the Black Guardian formations.
No.


The problem to this is exactly the way it keeps getting addressed. "Looking at it..." but never has it been "playing with it". I was charged with bringing in a balanced army and even this token change will change how Ulthw? is fielded. I know this because I have played a great many games with Ulthw? after many games with Biel-Tan.

First of all is the cost issue. Many go on to ask (or ignore the rules) by thinking if you can pay for x why limit yourself. That will of course lead to Ulthw? not only being fielded in ways not intended but change their game balance as well. This is an uninteded consequence that will happen even though there is nothing to support it.

Second is that it's not worth it. I can always better spend that 25 to 50 points I'd now have to spend on Black Guardians on forces that will give me a much better return. The Initiative is a nice bonus but not critical (I'd go bak to using all Guardians when I Keep the Initiative instead of leading with them). The other options for Black Guardians are fun to play with but yet again, nothing critical. And I firmly think an option not worth taking is an option not worth offering.

Third is that comparing a Biel-Tan all Guardian army against an Ulthw? all Guardian army excuse is not proper. You should not be comparing Biel-Tan at its worst with Ulthw? at its best! The way point costs are determined in EPIC is not by their average use value but by the absolute best you can squeeze out them. The all Guardian Biel-Tan army is not exploiting Guardians to their fullest because they excel when they are in support of an Aspect Warhost which are designed to press an engagement. Biel-Tan's Guardians fragile nature is protected because they do not have to be an active member in those Engagements. Ulthw? on the other hand is pressured (I'd say required) to bring their Guardians directly into Engagements. Needless to say the life span and therefor the long term returns on Ulthw?'s Guardians is far less valuable in comparison. Real game play makes this far more evident than reading the list. If anything one can argue that Ulthw?'s Guardians should get a point reduction but that's what I thought the Increased Initiative and Strategy Rating was reflecting.

So yes I think that this little token cost for Black Guardians has far greater effect on Ulthw? than anybody on the ERC has fully considered. Now everyone is welcome to try to convince me otherwise before I send back the update.