Yes, but the ~3 per turn assumes ~9 formations all of which need a 3 to activate. i.e. everyone always has BMs.

I know, but as I said, 9 in a game assumes a bm on every formation when it activates and no SC. That's rarely the case.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I played with the Ulthwe' Eldar this evening and the use of marshalling was certainly the biggest help.  Batrep coming soon (no, I won't tell you who won until then).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Ok Mosc, did you keep track of the number of activation failures you sustained, and what did you do when that occurred?

To the others; which races are you fighting against? Are they air-heavy using lots of artillery or Warhounds?

With the greatest respect to all who seem to have mastered the army, I still find the Biel Tan being outmanoeuvered by apparently 'slower' opponents which double across the table dropping BMs as they do, often on activated units. Quite often my entire army ends up totally stationary while it attempts to shed BMs which I find totally frustrating. Yes we do have ample terrain, which I do try to use to maximum effect.

However, six people do not seem to find the same problems as I, so apparently they use better design, tactics or 'left-handed dice' - or maybe they do not face similar experts in their battles . . .

So what's the answer guys??

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Have you looked over any of the Eldar battle reports in the batrep forums to compare armies, setups, and in game actions at all, Ginger?

When I looked at your army lists provided above, one thing jumped out at me... you really seem to rely on portals, both the Wraithgate and the Storm Serpents... are the Storm Serpents "priority targets" for your opponents?  Beacuse, that's 500 points in "support units" that can't really do much on their own... that would be two more Swords of Vaul Troupes, or two Windriders and some extra Rangers.  I've stopped taking Storm Serpents for many games as they're usually taken out immediately by arty or aircraft... and then you've got formations "locked away" for a good chunk of the game.

I'd even suggest playing without any portals at all for a bit, so you've got your full activation advantage on the board from the beginning, and aren't so out-activated in the early game.

Lastly, I don't think I've ever seen someone *not* max out the Exarchs in a Aspect Warrior Warhost... you might be the first person I've seen who only takes one per formation.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Yup, I do read the reports and note the armies, tactics etc and occasionaly make comments as well. But in regards to this exercise on 'standard' Eldar IMO we should ignore battles with 'Nids, Necrons, AMTL etc as they are 'non-standard' as well as not my regular opponents (four of your last six very interesting and well written reports). Examining whats left, I find a 'ground-pounding' Marine force which is not really tournament strength and IG. I also presume that you know the race your opponent is bringing and plan accordingly.

IronDeath used two interesting armies in a playtest against BL including a Phantom and Revenants. While I understand that he played both sides, the two reports proved an interesting read with the Eldar being largely defensive in both. The BL also suffered a significant amount of bad dice rolls in both games. Intruigingly, Tiny-Tim's battle vs IG is very similar to the kind of game I get to play - though they were not using the 2008 amendments and the Eldar won (albeit on VP count).

However, a very quick check on last year's reports indicates they are actually testing newer lists or variations etc (as they should!), so may not help people with 'standard' armies, tactics and conditions.

Hey-ho, well hopefully things will change in the up-coming Full Scale Assault. Perhaps I should keep count of the activation tests etc and publish the results in this thread. Until then, I would request others do likewise and ask themselves whether they are failing too many activations, and how that affects the game.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Actually, about 90% of our playtest games are "blind", in that the opponent chooses an army without knowing what they'll playtest against... that's what they have to deal with knowing I've got just about everything to surprise them with... *laugh*

Any response to my comment about your reliance on Portals?

Second to lastly, does airpower have a strong showing in your area?  Have you ever tried fielding three flights of Nightwings, just to have a near overwhelming amount of air?

Lastly, what are your "usual" opponents' armies and composition?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

My game style is aggressive (perhaps overly so). I believe the Eldar should be used to take the initiative away from their opponents through manoeuver, which is part of the frustration with the way they play at present. Rather than being able to take a flank or melt away from enemy strength, I find they are almost totally static relying more on dumb luck, and hoping that the initial enemy actions will not damage their counter-attack too far.

On Portals, I consider them the best delivery system for 'reinforced' Guardians or Aspects. Wave Serpents tend to get shot while Vampires seem very vulnerable to AA. IMHO both are a bit too risky while they also use up an activation (at least on the first turn).

IMO portals are a 'must' for the more vulnerable fomations (eg guardians), as these can be kept off-table out of harms way until needed. Storm Serpents allow you to deploy these often brittle formations where they can assault to their best advantage. On the down-side, you are correct that Storm Serpents will get targetted which is why there must be at least two and preferably a Wraithgate for redundancy. I might add that portals become virtually the only means to deliver Warp Spiders after the ban on using 'conventional' ground transport.

All opponents I have played have at least one and often two air formations and a healthy amount of ground AA as well. The addition of the +1 for CAP and interception makes Fighters and Fighter-bombers lethal (especially Night-wings) so the air game is not usually a winner by itself - and hence my reluctance over Vampires which are by far the weakest transport. I have fielded two Nightwing formations in the past to great effect, but three is probably OTT as the third activation is probably better employed elsewhere.

Opponents are the usual 'standard' races, so IG, Marines, Black Legion, Orks etc. (I hate BL with a vengence mainly because of the Obliterators. We play with the straight rules + 2008 amendments and I think I have only won a single game against them out of something like a dozen encounters).

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

My main opponent in my gaming group is an eldar player. I learned to hate them really, really hard. Nearly everthing I can do with my Marines, they can do better (beside an all out drop-air list, but that is unfunny to play for both sides). So just a few comments:

-Vampire: This aircraft is excellent to shift priorities from one side of the field quickly to another. Mainly used to reinforce an flank sweep where the enemy shows a weakness to completely break up a flank. He often uses it in combination with a flight of Nightwings to suppress AA or eliminate enemy aircraft.
-Stormserpent: The only unit I cannot say much about. My opponent sees them as "very" unfluffy and simply refuses to use them. (Driving Wraithgates, yeah, for sure   )
-Windriders: They are a pain to combat. Fast, hard hitting and if they begin to win assaults they are faster than a greyhound on speed. He usually works with combinations of 2 and one Falcon unit to soften up the target. my only chance usually is to get them early with air-ground fire or long range attacks, which you would better use on jucier targets.
-Aspect host: usually the all out neck-breaking unit. Held behind a screen of fast units it heads for the heart of the opponents army and usually crushes ist very effective with some combined assault-help. I´ve only seen them dying once in an assault. (Against my Minervan Infantry Platoon in a two round assault where the Commissar-stand killed two units alone )
-SHT: Support units to fill gaps. Two nearly fix MW kills is enough to justify them, cobra simply is a TK-monster...only used against orks and SHT heavy armies (Minervans?   )

To summarize it, Eldar do not need the spirit stones. They are fragile, sure but I rarely see them loosing exept bad luck or a surprise army composition. They have enough tools to deal with everthing you throw on them....this is epic-proven, ask my Marines and Minervans  

greetings

RS

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

Yup, sure did.

Turn 1 I had two failed activations - one was mitigated by my SC, the other was my Cobra pair which was forced to take a move only.
The Minervans had 1 failed activation, SC reroll took care of that.

Turn 2 we each had one failed activation, both used SC re-roll to fix.

Turn 3 there were no failed activations.

Taking the careful approach in turn 1 by marshalling two formations certainly helped in the long run.

This was also my first game EVER not playing with a portal for the Eldar (at least the first time I remember).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I miss spirit stones, too, mainly because I like taking alot of eldar tank units. I don't think there is enough support to bring them back.

My main concern now is the whether there are some eldar formations with performance/cost ratios significantly lower than the rest of the army.

War Walkers maybe? Phoenix Bombers? Fire Prisms (newest statline; 3 for 250)?

It's not a long list (assuming you even agree with the three I listed). Start by looking at the formations that rarely get fielded.

Hi Semaj, and thanks for the support.

My contention is not that BMs should be removed as before, but rather that the Eldar player should not suffer a corresponding loss of 'farsight' or control. All other armies have the means to remove BMs, and this inability makes the Eldar more cautious - fair enough. But it also reduces the Eldar potential to activate and do something about it, and that is what annoys me. I know at least one UK tournament player who had similar concerns when the original debate was raging, and there may well be others 'lurking' who are a little less vocal.

Soren makes a reasonable assessment of the Eldar capabilities and it seems both of you favour Bikes and Falcons (which I agree are good). Do you also have practical experience of this 'inertia' that I refer to?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I have to admit that I never considered "failure to activate" a big problem for the Eldar (at least not compared to SM or Guard - I have seen games where SMs failed to activate 4 formations in a single turn). This is mainly because the formations that tend to collect BMs also tend to have either 1+ init, or have farsight. Everything else tends to break after the first BM.

So, if you think Eldar fail to activate an inappropriate amount, then the suggestion of ignoring the 1st BM for activation purposes would solve that problem. I don't think most people would agree that it is necessary, though.

I always believed that the main problem with the Eldar is what happens after a formation gets broken. Titans and Warhosts don't suffer too badly, but everything else just disappears - either by not rallying or being killed by BMs.

One could argue that this is by design, but it still burns my biscuits when those night spinners get shot up before they get to fire more than once.

I'd rather see a way for eldar formations rally easier (maybe only count -1 for being broken ... not exactly fluffy, though), or rally better (like if they had the original spirit stones rules, but they only apply when rallying from being broken). I doubt I could persuade anyone to go along with my opinions, though.

I suspect that people have worked around alot of issues in the Eldar list by simply avoiding the poorly performing units. The short comings would be more obvious if people played a few games with extra [self-imposed] restrictions - like not allowing Titans, windriders, storm serpents, etc; or requiring the inclusion of Phoenix Bombers or multiple Fire Prism formations.

Fire Prism do exeptional good against lists like Minervans or even Marines (Killing Thawks, Raiders and barges on ground is a thing they really exel in, trust me   )and will be not so superb-performing against mi IG Infantry horde.

You have to choose the right tools. I agree you get spanked when choosing the wrong units, maybe more than with some other lists but Eldar are far from missing Spirit Stones.

Don´t misunderstand me, I know that Eldar have some troubles when getting under pressure. It´s the only tactic I found viable to win against them. Spirit Stones gave them an advantage they shouldn´t need if played right. And it´s good that they are gone. Eldar are now some of the better lists (if not the best by far), with the Stones they get over the top. (imho    )

greetings

RS

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy