 
|
Page 2 of 7 |
[ 92 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7 Next |
What are the issues with Spirit Stones? |
||||||||
| Chroma |
|
|||||||
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm Posts: 9684 Location: Montréal, QC, Canada |
|
|||||||
| Top |   |
|||||||
 |
||||||||
?Chroma 
So this is a good reasoning for giving Every Single Eldar Formation the leader ability for free, while all the other armies must either pay for it, or suffer without. And please don't mention IG as a valid excuse, I have seen many IG players roll 2 or 3, and the Spirit Stones are guarnteed to be on each and every formation for free, so it isn't even close to being a rational comparison. You cannot base an 'all encompassing' rational upon something that isn't all encompassing.
Yes, that is exactly how i feel. Also, the spiritstones make up for the lack of ATSKNF, mob up, and generally small formation sizes, which all have just as large an effect. I think it is king of telling that none of the rulebook armies actually use the BM management rules set in section 1 of the rule book.
Well I don't, and think it is down right beardy and cheezy, and lets not forget I am speaking as an Eldar player, so none of this 'opponents excuse'. Just how many special rules does an army need?
Also
So by this same bit of twisted, tit for tat, logic where is the SM, Ork, IG, equivilent to Hit and Run? Farseer? Super Shields that work in CC?
All I was trying to say was that an eldar army in 40k has no will to fight; they break easily and often. If thats how they are supposed to play in epic, they'd be hopeless. I suggest that somewhere between the scales there has to be a mechanism that mitigates the ease with which the eldar break.
That mechanisim would be above the scale of even Epic, and using Hit and Run and Farseer to great advantage the Eldar Army can and does put up a very stiff fight in Epic.
I think it only worked fine for the warhosts, which are big enough to shrug off the BMs. In fact, I'd point out that for a long time, the Aspect host only had 6 units per formation, not the current 8. I believe that the formation size was increased to make it more survivable.
I'd like to point out that I have been playing Eldar since v1.0 and have done a couple of batreps using the six unit Aspect Host (w/o Spirit Stones) and they performed fine WHEN I used formation management, instead of dreaming about a rule to do it for me.
So using formation management the Warhost isn't the only combat capable formation in the army. But I think if you feel that way about why they were increased it isn't hard to see why you favor Spirit Stones being all encompassing.
But how is it any different than what the SM's get to do? Or what the orks get to do? Is it maybe because they pay for their abilities? Or is it that eldar just have a bad reputation for cheesiness. My opinion is to let the eldar pay for the cheese, and in doing so transform the cheese into "flavor."
My solution is try to stop 'dreaming up' fixes to problems that don't come anywhere near fitting the fluff, and stop trying to rationlize the excuses by saying other armies have the potential of doing this or that, and then giving the Eldar the ultimate fix compared to it. It ruins the army, and IMHO it has.
If it isn't balanced, raise a few point costs
I have already explained why this doesn't work in this case.
Jaldon
_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
| Doc |
|
||||
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:29 pm Posts: 126 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| semajnollissor |
|
|||||
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm Posts: 1673 Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA |
|
|||||
| Top | |
|||||
|
||||||
| Hojyn |
|
|||||
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am Posts: 876 Location: Brest - France |
|
|||||
| Top | |
|||||
|
||||||
| Clockwerks |
|
||||
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:51 am Posts: 122 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
If we want to talk about tough armies what about the Nids, or the Imps?| yme-loc |
|
||||||
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm Posts: 599 |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| nealhunt |
|
||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
I am so completely boggled by that statement that I cannot fully express it, but I have seen dozens of "variations on a theme" posts that express similar things. Eldar should not be close to the enemy unless they choose to be and according to the background they should pretty much never choose to be unless they are crushing something. If the player is doing so, they are working against the original intent of the list. I'm all for using armies in unconventional ways. After all, I am known for championing shooty Ork armies. However, when it comes to using an army in a way that violates the normal use and feel of the army, it should be up to the player doing so to make it work, not the list design. It seems to me from the many statements I have seen over the last year or more that the most commonly cited justification of Spirit Stones was to allow the Eldar players to operate in a manner which was never intended. _________________ Neal |
| semajnollissor |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm Posts: 1673 Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA |
Well, maybe, but is it really that uncommon for an enemy to act to keep pressure on an eldar formation? An opponent might be wise to avoid being too close to a warhost or a titan, but those support formations are much softer targets. I'm all for using armies in unconventional ways. ?After all, I am known for championing shooty Ork armies. ?However, when it comes to using an army in a way that violates the normal use and feel of the army, it should be up to the player doing so to make it work, not the list design. It seems to me from the many statements I have seen over the last year or more that the most commonly cited justification of Spirit Stones was to allow the Eldar players to operate in a manner which was never intended. |
Well, that is actually one of the things that bugs me about the structure of the eldar list. Those shooty orks you mentioned may not be all that fluffy (certain clan lists excluded), but the rule book list does not make the distinction for you. The Eldar list, on the other hand, is a much more restricted list: it is always going to be a variation on the mechanized infantry theme. But what if I don't want to play that way? What if I want to play a tank list? Currently, I can fake it pretty well, but it is far less effective than the Mech Inf. Far less effective than a shooty ork list, in my opinion. Certainly such a list, among others, isn't completely absurd, nor does it go against the background any more than that shooty ork list. Sure, the eldar might enjoy man-to-man fighting, but they're not stupid. If the need arose, they wouldn't eschew driving a bunch of tanks down the enemy's throat.
This is also a matter of possession of models. I have a lot of falcons, and right now and can only fit a handful into an Eldar army. On the other hand, I can only scrape together 6 aspects of the same type (i.e. six reapers or six warp spiders), so I would kind of prefer to use falcons over aspects, if I could. How much penalty should I suffer for doing so?
Now, I guess that it might not be the best reason for wanting to keep the spirit stone rule around, but I believe the rule does make it so I can take those Falcons (and Vypers, and War Walkers, and Night Spinners) and have them earn their keep. Otherwise, quite often, they seem like variations on the theme of single-shot weapons.
And I'd like to add that the effect that spirit stones give that I feel is necessary can be achieved by giving a farseer some transferable leader ability. I know that I would save the ability to use on a unit that could rally back to 0 BM's, which would almost certainly be one of the small support formations. Alternately, you just give the spiritstone ability to particular formations. You have to change the fluff reasoning, but that wouldn't be difficult.
It seems like this debate is an all-or-nothing deal, so my opinion regarding spirit stones is based on that premise. However, I would accept something halfway between if I think it keeps those support formations at a level of usability that is reliable.
| nealhunt |
|
||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Clockwerks |
|
||||
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:51 am Posts: 122 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| nealhunt |
|
||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Jaldon |
|
|||
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year. |
The reason I strongly favor this approach is it would be very easy to tie it into the fluff of a Farseer, is self limiting, and makes the wielder of that ability a target. Spirit Stones ARE beardy because they are the exact opposite, they really don't fit the fluff, aren't limited at all, and you cannot target them. As all the other armies 'leaders' operate under the former criterion, and Spirit Stones the latter, it really isn't hard to see why people think they are beardy. It seems like this debate is an all-or-nothing deal, so my opinion regarding spirit stones is based on that premise. However, I would accept something halfway between if I think it keeps those support formations at a level of usability that is reliable. |
For me it is most defintely NOT an all or nothing debate. I do believe that the Eldar should have units/chracters with the leader ability, and I do think it should be a little different then everybody elses, just not invulnerable, all inclusive, and everywhere for free.
I disagree with the last part though, nothing should be guranteed, it should only be possible to achieve that goal not a for gone conclusion.
In fact you would find me fighting for something like the Farseer rule I proposed as I do feel they Eldar should have something like it. I would also be open to any other ideas that would fit the bill and get rid of SPirit Stones.
Transferable Farseer:I know that I would save the ability to use on a unit that could rally back to 0 BM's, which would almost certainly be one of the small support formations.
Yes you could, and probably would, but at least an opponent would know were it was coming from and could, at their option, attack it to reduce/eliminate its possible effects. The same happens to all other armies with snipers able to target Nobz, SM Commanders, Commisaars, etc. Spirit Stones are, well, always there no matter what happens and an opponent is helpless to deal with them directly, if they choose to do so.
As for the Holofield working in CC (I still think it should work in FF though)
Sorry but I have a hard time rationalizing that a Holofield is going to effectively obscure something as big a Titan Class WE when the opponent is counting the distance to the target in tens of yards (assumed CC range).
Now while I would like to see it go the way of the Dodo, I am also not going to claim that it is OTT (Like Spirit Stones), however I will need someone to give me a real good rational for it working effectively at this range before I will ever embrace it as a concept.
Now, I guess that it might not be the best reason for wanting to keep the spirit stone rule around, but I believe the rule does make it so I can take those Falcons (and Vypers, and War Walkers, and Night Spinners) and have them earn their keep. Otherwise, quite often, they seem like variations on the theme of single-shot weapons.
Odd, outside the Warwalkers, which I agree are most often single shot speed bumps, my Falcons, Vypers, and Night Spinners were earning their keep before Spirit Stones were around, I just had to manage their use better then I have to now. So outside the Warwalkers I must disagree.
Jaldon
_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
| dysartes |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| clausewitz |
|
||||
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland |
When the Holofield was first invented it did work against artillery. That was the first edition holofield that wasn't a save but gave modifiers to the enemys to-hit rolls, with the modifiers dependant upon the Phantoms orders for that turn (the old first fire, advance, evade etc). If artillery ignored the holofield wouldn't that make the Phantom extremely vulnerable? (PS I know the question wasn't aimed at me so I apologise for butting in) |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
|
|
Page 2 of 7 |
[ 92 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7 Next |