Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Eldar

• Board index
• Search
• Register

Top

The_Real_Chris	Post subject: Two Games without Spirit Stones. Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:42 am
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	Jaldon, when you were using 'the old ways' did you find any problems with particular formations, perhaps stuff like the 3 strong tank formations? _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
Top

Jaldon

Post subject: Two Games without Spirit Stones. Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:33 am

Brood Brother Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.

Jaldon, when you were using 'the old ways' did you find any problems with particular formations, perhaps stuff like the 3 strong tank formations? Jee TRC we are really going back in history for this question When I didn't use the smaller formations we had back then in conjunction with other, larger, more durable formations (Guardians/Aspects) then yes. Once I started using them together to compliment each other, and stopped trying to hold onto the entire table frontage, the problem, pretty much went away. Also, when it failed I could often put my finger right on the moment when I screwed up. IMHO with SS screwing up almost doesn't matter as with them the Eldar recover from a misstep much more quickly. Jaldon _________________ Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Two Games without Spirit Stones. Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:41 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

Quote (MC23 @ 26 April 2006 (18:02)) Why wonder? Eldar were played long before SS with hit and run. It's just new for the people who started since Swordwind. And the answer to your question - is the answer you've provided. *I* wondered... because *I* didn't start playing Eldar seriously until after Swordwind. Back in the SM days, I owned a very large Eldar army with the old ugly tempests and falcons. I had the best looking wave serpents and void stalkers (prisms) around town. I spent numerous hours painting those bad boys. I became a master at lining up those tank to tank prism shots as well as lining up the criss-cross of infinitely ranged Vibro cannon platforms. Ahh... the good ol' days... However, after SM was replaced, I dropped Eldar. I did not go back to them until E:A Swordwind. A lot has changed since the good ol days. So for me, my statement of *I wonder* was not intended to be confrontational, just simply a thought on a public thread - with my own experiences in mind. Sorry if it came across otherwise MC. Eldar was out of scale from other armies, hence the wilt (less viable than their opponent). Now from my playing style I'm used to the terrian and movement restrictions that have been added to Skimmers and pop-up. Amen. Tau have had similiar adaptations. To a lessor degree, my IG Valkyries and Vultures have had to adapt to the Skimmer changes. A good change though IMHO. Eldar's hit and run reduces shooting effectiveness (unless you're one of the ones who breaks bell curves) and shorter firing range will keep Eldar in range of enemies' longer range weapons with almost as fast vehicles.

True, shooting effectiveness is reduced, but survivability is increased. Its not a required trait, but an option. Its an option that no other list out there has (yet).

The only times I have kept my forces out of range is when I shot, then doubled.
That's interesting. My experiences are not exclusive - like you mentioned to be your experience. And I definitely do not consider myself an E:A Eldar expert by any measure.

LOF blocking terrain, or better movement blocking terrain that also blocks LOF can become the best barrier for hit and run experience. On more than one occasion, I've seen good Eldar plays where the move-shoot-move was aligned around good use of terrain. Opponent doubling to fire on the Eldar would have put them in the heart of the Eldar camp and subjected them to Overwatch fire on the way over. So the Eldar's move out of cover FIRE then move back behind LOF blocking terrain was supported by the backfield units on OW. It essentially was an area denial tactic - very effectively executed IMHO.

My opponents double to get to me has always been an effective counter to the "invincible" hit and run ability.
I don't think anyone could really say HnR was invincible.

Its a tool. It definitely can be countered, but its also a very potent tool if set up correctly and when the terrain affords optimal conditions. ?

So it still boils down to where you move afterwards to reduce risk that plays a larger factor than the actual hit and run.
Agreed, HnR is not the end all Eldar tactic. The tabletop battlefield will definitely cator to the benefits if not options to utilize the rule. Setting up good strategies in your return routes will also better guarantee the successes of the HnR in some situations though - so proper planning by the Eldar player does appear to make the rule more enticing/rewarding.

I do think HnR's general use will become increased as a result of post SS-removed games. Its simply an observation though.

My reasoning is that I think the tactic does have merit in general. However, I think its value was shadowed by the freedom SS rule gave to the list. I think SS rule inspires a bit of cavalier-ish play style and thus, HnR is somewhat irrelivent to the lists still using SS. When you remove that cushion, you remove a handicap to the list. Now, fragility is a concern. It adds a hightened level of concern for the Eldar player to manage. Thus, the HnR tactic proves to be a new mode for curbing fragility - but in a very characterful, and strategic way IMHO.

Again - all observations and theories. Nothing more - thus my questions to Markconz. His games are simply first reports that cooberate. I'm sure many more games will roll in with varying results. Its just something I personally will be looking for as its an interesting observation to me - nothing more.

BTW: pet peeve, associating dying race with having to die on the battlefield. The only thing about being a dying race background affects is army composition.
I actually agree with you here. Being a dieing race does not mean you have to die more on the battlefield.

I do think it means your race would be cautious about foolish expenditure of life.

IG believe in the warfare of attrition, so do Orcs and Tyranids.

Attrition is not a battlefield doctrine of Tau or Eldar. Tau (a new race only around for the past 6000 years or so) is a rapidly evolving race. They simply do not have the numbers to fight large scale incurssions with the Fire Caste alone. They also cannot commit to overwhelming battles in hopes of winning the 'long game' and simply killing more than they lose. Due to being a relatively 'new' race in the core design history, and due to not believing in "sticking it out to the last" or "going down with the ship" they would prefer to retreat tactically when plans are not going according to time, detail, and rewards. Their codex is very clear about this doctrine in the latest Empires codex.

Furthermore, Tau make extensive use of Auxiliaries to bolster their numbers when they do go to larger engagements.

The point is not to digress this thread into a Tau lesson, but shed some light on how a race with limited numbers can have a concious about its losses / gains on a battlefield.

The Eldar are not an attrition force - as noted. They are a dieing race. They do value each warrior's life and do not want it exhausted wastefully. They also would not embark on cavalier like engagements time and time again. Thus, HnR is very characterful in how one could imagine them operating. Better to remain concealed and reduce weapon potency, forcing them to commit on our terms on our battlefield rather than engaging the enemy head on in their lines without regard to our lighter armor or limited numbers in this craftowrld i.e. cavalier.

Their powerful (but static in development) technology represents their ancient status. Hit and run tactic represent's
their culture (doesn't make as much sense from a dying standpoint when having somebody else fight or fighting from a farther distance does) as well as their ancient and alien ways (if that is the way they fought when they walked beside their gods then that is the way they should fight now, anything else is unthinkable).

Ulghh... we just don't see eye to eye here.

I do not think Eldar to be that narrow minded. I would expect them to adapt to change like all intelligent life forms do. Especially with Farseers, they think they know their fate, but mindlessly falling on their swords is not an option. Better to preserve each and every kindred spirit for yet another fight to further the efforts and longevitiy of the craftworld.