ALternatives to Spirit Stones |
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones  Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:36 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
There is no vehicle focused craftworld, at least not in the "armored company for eldar" sense. All of the current major craftworlds focus on things on the infantry sprue. If you want a vehicle focused craftworld list, I think you'll have to make one up.
Just wondering, what would be the special warhost for this theoretical craftworld? I would suggest one with 8 Falcons for 400 pts with the opportunity to exchange two for firestorms for 0 pts or else 3 for fire prisms for 100 pts.
BUT...
There should be a universal solution. There are a lot of different eldar groups (exodites, harlequins, dark eldar, corsairs, craftworlders); the difference between the societies on two craftworlds is insignificant compared to the difference between a craftworld society and an exodite society. They should share all 'special rules.' [ulthwe's SR5 isn't a special rule, it is part of the army list, which is unique] [splitting hairs, but whatever]
I'd like to put my vote in for transferrable leader on Farseers only. You already need a farseer or two to summon the avatar, so its not like they aren't already 'required' in the Biel Tan list. All it means is that Ulthwe will have to pay more for the black Guardian host.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:03 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (wargame_insomniac @ 21 Feb. 2006 (07:56)) | Why not keep the changes as simple as possible.
Just simply restrict the units which benefit from Spirit Stones?
If it is FAQ'd that Spirit Stones only affect certain Troupes (i.e. the small vehicle Troupes that everyone seems to agree that need some sort of protection) then it is clear and easy to see that Sprit Stones don't affect other formations e.g. Warhosts or Windrider Troupes.
Cheers
James |
Heh - I actually like this idea quite a bit!!
The rule stays, you just reduce who gets it - brilliant.
Very simple - very straight forward, and encourages the right mix for a given craft world... Simply put - (and to envoke Jalson's post a bit)
1. Biel Tann: Exarchs get it
2. Ulthwe: Farseers
3. Saim Hann: Farseer jetbikers
Hmm... Thoughts?
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Chroma
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:12 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 22 Feb. 2006 (22:03)) | | Hmm... Thoughts? |
Since the units with those characters are the ones that least need the boost of Spirit Stones, it seems pointless to add it just to them.
The units that suffer the most from late game BMs lingering are the 3-5 unit support formations that can't be increased in size, nor have any kind of character support, eg Fire Prism or Falcon Troupes. It's mainly these units that need the "help", not "bulkable" Guardian or Aspect Warrior Hosts.
I really don't think Spirit Stones is that big of a deal, *especially* if Eldar points are slightly increased across the board. I think "proper" point values is probably what we should be addressing, not the individual special rules.
_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer
Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Dobbsy
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:16 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
|
So are we talking a unit data entry here then?
i.e the spirit stones tag on the bottom of the unit data for these vehicles or infantry commanders?
Hmm... Thoughts? |
Not a bad solution at all. It would most likely get my vote if it went to a final vote.
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:06 am |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
|
Wargame Imsomniac, Chroma and Dobbsy. You seem to be angling for a modified version of the rule I posted on the previous page.
Ie replace current spirit stone rule with:
"Any eldar formation which consists entirely of units with a speed of 35cm or more (except war engines and possibly LV?) removes an extra blast marker whenever it successfully rallies."
About as simple as you can get (and hence more likely to be approved than more complicated options, also makes sense from the POV of 40k fluff and rules). Would apply to:
-Falcons and firestorms (provided all formation infantry is currently being transported?)
-Wave serpents (provided all formation infantry is currently being transported?)
-Fire Prisms
-Night Spinners
-Windriders (?)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:52 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
|
My two pence worth
We seem to be in violent agreement that the current race wide definition needs to be replaced with some form of "ability" targetted at specific units, and possibly varied across particular craftworlds. Can we not combine the two approaches proposed in the same way as Holofields - have a general Fluff entry for Eldar at the front of the lists describing the "ability", and a unit data entry to bestow that ability on the desired formation?
Then the argument simply boils down to whether this "ability" is BM removal or BM avoidance, and which formations (of a given craftworld) should receive it.
NOTE
This would work for either "Spirit stones" or "Agile" (or indeed any other targetted "ability"), but obviously needs to be applied judiciously - if only for clarity and to save ink
All the best
Ginger
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Dobbsy
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:38 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Quote (Ginger @ 23 Feb. 2006 (10:52)) | My two pence worth
We seem to be in violent agreement
Can we not combine the two approaches
have a general Fluff entry for Eldar at the front of the lists describing the "ability", and a unit data entry to bestow that ability on the desired formation?
Ginger |
Ginger - Yes. We are all pretty much saying similar things.
Markconz's idea was limit it to the above vehicles.
Chroma, Tac's, Insomniac's ideas was also limit it to certain units.
My thinking was more for purposes of clarification on all this, which asked couldn't it just be a unit data entry. Which again is similar if not the same as the above inputs.
IMHO then, the only thing needed to be done is take the Special Ability box out and put the rule into the "specialists" description for data entries, as it would no longer apply to the army as a whole.
So then, we're all on the same page, just in different paragraphs 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:32 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Agreed,
Units 1, 2, and 3 have ability X...
Now
1) which units?
2) What ability?
Seems easiest to say that spirit stones gives its 'ability' to whatever 'formation' the spirit stone 'unit' is part of.
In Biel-tan - which unit(s) should receive the above?
Once you figure that out, which units in each of the other sub-Swordwind lists should have Spirit Stones and for what reasons are they different or the same than in Biel-tan?
Seems quite function, KISS, and solves the two major problems with it...
A) In the above proposed, it can now be countered. When the 'spirit stone' toting unit in the formation dies, spirit stones goes with him.
B) In the proposed, the entire army no longer benefits from Spirit Stones unnecessarily. Now just the units/formations that 'should' have it or 'NEED' it - 'do' have it.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Dobbsy,
I don't know for sure, I was just throwing it out there as it "appeared" to solve all the problems as I understood them.
Either way - I'm working on getting my hands on an epic Eldar army instead of only relying on my friends - so I should have my hands on a playtest force soon enough. 
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:56 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
|
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
|
I still don't understand why you want to have a special ability listed at the start of the list, and then list it individually in units?? Seems crazy to me. We are doing an erata (and trying to minimise it at that) not designing a list from scratch. Therefore why not just use a simple one line replacement of the spirit stone rule as I suggested?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:47 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
|
Hi Markconz
While I agree with your sentiments, I personally find it easier to explicitly state which units / formations receives the "ability" rather than provide exceptions to a generalised rule. This way, it is possible to include or exclude particular units as required rather than having to remember a list, and potentially allows the "ability" to be used in related formations of other races.
Having a separate section stating the principles ?of the "ability" allows you to separate the "fluff" reasoning and description into one part of the ruleset or army list which also improves clarity IMO - in much the same way that section 2 works in the main E:A book.
Having said all this, in principle, what is now being suggested is actually the "leader" ability. As a completely radical thought, could we do away with "Spirit stones" all together and just give the "leader" ability to the required formations?
Alternatively, we use the "fluff" section to describe the design reasoning around "spirit stones" and why the mechanics refer to this as the "leader" ability.
Cheers
Ginger
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:05 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (Markconz @ 25 Feb. 2006 (08:07)) | [quote="Ginger,25 Feb. 2006 (08:47)"]
Instead what we want is a special rule which allows certain types of formations to remove an extra blast marker when they rally... (hence my previous proposal  ). |
I'm still not sure this is the case. We never have agreed that certain formations as a whole were the problem because we would have seen this and addressed it some time ago. All formations suffer from Blast marker management. But all of them don't need to be helped all the time (as the current Spirit Stones does).
At the end of the day, I still think the solution is just having a limited number of Formtions that can take advantage of this is the proper solution. What determines how many and how is it used is the hard question.
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:07 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
|
Hi Markconz
In suggesting the "leader" approach, I was only presenting a train of thought initially suggested by Tactica - is the Spirit Stone part of the fabric of each unit in the formation (similar to the wraithbone core of a Titan), or is it in fact a separate element added to a single unit in the same way as a leader?
In principle I much prefer the former approach as it is far simpler and is the way the current mechanism works. However, the latter mechanism has some advantages in making the effect counterable by destroying the enhanced unit. IMO this is more than offset by the downsides; that you really need to identify the special unit in some way (probably by some form of paint scheme); and you probably need to price it separately (all of which is messy and unnecessarily complex).
However, irrespective of the above, we seem to agree in principle that there are a limited number of units that need to benefit from the mechanism, merely differing on the clearest way of achieving the goal.
Cheers
Ginger
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
| Top |
|
|
