What are the issues with Spirit Stones? |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones?  Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:38 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Cw: You may be referring to the AT rules, but in SM/TL the holofields were not effective against artillery. They did not modify enemy to-hit, but gave a save based on orders.
And yes, the Eldar titans were very vulnerable to some opponents. In the area I played, they were almost never taken.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:46 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
You may be referring to the AT rules |
Absolutely right Neal. I was referring to the Adeptus Titanicus rules. I was just pointing out that in their first incarnation the holofields did work against artillery. Contrary to Dysartes' statement that they had never worked before.
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Fuzzymiles
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:17 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 19
|
|
Just wanted to say that I really like the Farseer transferable leader way of doing things. I have many, many times had my small formations of Fire Prisms and Night Spinners broken on the first turn, on second turn they were back with two functional tanks. If Spirit Stones was taken away you would have one functional tank which would make them less than usable as a failed activation breaks them before the marshal can even happen, failed being a 1/3 chance with an Eldar unit with a BM, I would simply take Scorpions or other WE's which isn't something I really want to do. I definitely think that Guardians and Aspect Squads really don't worry about BM's as much and they shrug them just fine because they are used to FF/ Assault and as such the BM issue is only do you have them and do you have more than the enemy. It is the small support formations that can be easily broken by a stray shot from a devastator or an artillery piece that I think need something to keep them operating, without that something I couldn't see the Eldar even fielding their smaller units of tanks on a field of battle as they would be broken and just leave the battlefield.
Fuzzymiles
P.S. I would even go so far as to make the Farseers pay for the ability maybe 10-25 points for it and call it Embolden to prevent the confusion that comes from changing a base ability. This would increase the cost of the units which could help to balance out some of the cost problems people worry about in the Eldar list.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:36 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
I'm of the opinion that the Farseers shouldn't have to pay any additional points for the ability of transferable leadership. However, there might be reason for concern about having people take extra [minimum size] guardian formations to get a few extra leaders on the board. I know I would.
That wouldn't be too big of a deal, but at 150 pts, that would tend to boost the number of activations in an eldar army by 1-2 in a GT list. It's not so much of a problem at the moment, since minimum sized warhosts have limited use, but 150 for an extra leader and activation might be tempting.
The only concern I have with the transferable leader idea is that, the force I typically field would need about 4 farseers on the board to suit my purposes. I normally only field one guardian host, so I'd have to free up 450 points to fit 3 more in my list. If Ulthwe still has the ability to put multiple farseers into a formation, that would be enough to get me to switch over to an Ulthwe-based force.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Fuzzymiles
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 19
|
|
This isn't an issue for me as I always run 5 Guardian formations, 3 with Wraithguard, and do just fine, but I can see your point about armies that don't have many guardian formations. Perhaps giving Exarchs the ability in addition, but making both types of units pay 10-25 points for it would be an option. It gets away from the Farseer reason for it, but it recognizes both the Farseer's Psychic Powers and the Exarch's and Autarch's complete concentration on tactical and strategic matters.
Fuzzymiles
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Jaldon
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:37 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.
|
|
What're your thoughts on the Holofield protecting against artillery barrages |
Real Artillery has to work hard to take out tanks using standard HE/GP rounds, and to be effective the AFVs themselves are going to have to be in the center of the malstrom, short of a lucky hit if they are not centered by the barrage.
Being that the holofield fractures/distorsts the targets image an observer is going to find it difficult to center the barrage, so no I don't have a problem with it.
I'm of the opinion that the Farseers shouldn't have to pay any additional points for the ability of transferable leadership. |
I agree, they shouldn't pay for it, that is unless a sniper gets em, then they pay dearly for it.
However, there might be reason for concern about having people take extra [minimum size] guardian formations to get a few extra leaders on the board. I know I would.
That would be fine in my book as the Eldar player would be choosing to do it to beef up those small formations, hence paying for their use, and why I don't think the transfer ability needs to cost anything. The Farseer would need to be on table to use the ability, and still a target in a small, vulnerable, cheap formation. I know players who would go after the 'points on the hoof' in case of a tie breaker.
The point is that it forces the Eldar player to make a choice on how many to field, and the opponent to choose whether to go after them or not.
I normally only field one guardian host, so I'd have to free up 450 points to fit 3 more in my list.
A choice as stated above, and IMHO a good thing to force players to do, over just handing them something for free.
If Ulthwe still has the ability to put multiple farseers into a formation, that would be enough to get me to switch over to an Ulthwe-based force.
Well it would probably force a change in how the Ulthwe list worked, in some manner, if transfer was adopted.
Please note I am not saying that the Transfer idea is perfect, or even the correct, solution just that it is far better then the present Spirit Stones.
Jaldon
_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:10 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (Jaldon @ 14 Feb. 2006 (21:37)) | Well it would probably force a change in how the Ulthwe list worked, in some manner, if transfer was adopted.
Please note I am not saying that the Transfer idea is perfect, or even the correct, solution just that it is far better then the present Spirit Stones.
Jaldon |
I use a form of transferable leadership. Due to Ulthwe I limit it to 1 per formation to try to keep Black Guardians 2nd Farseer more of a back up than add on.
I typically play 4,000 points and I normally field 4-5 Guardians hosts with that. could go back to my orginal idea of limiting further (formation must rally) but then the rules get involved and that's what had my idea dropped in the first play for the simplicity of current Spirit Stone rules.
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:09 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (MC23 @ 14 Feb. 2006 (23:10)) | | I use a form of transferable leadership. Due to Ulthwe I limit it to 1 per formation to try to keep Black Guardians 2nd Farseer more of a back up than add on. |
I'm not sure how you mean this. Do you mean that only one of the farseers in a warhost can transfer his leader ability to another formation, or do you mean that a formation may only be aided by a single farseer per turn?
I disagree with the former, but the latter seems to be sensible.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
I seem to remember that one of the arguments against the transferable leader concept was a possible "mis-use". ?This invovled using the farseer not to keep the small tank formations in better condition but to strip BMs from assault formations for the next turns assaults. ?Which puts the eldar somewhat back to the unwanted hit-and-hit style.
Is it planned that the rule be worded in some way to prevent that? ?Or is this not the problem I remember it being?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (clausewitz @ 15 Feb. 2006 (12:30)) | I seem to remember that one of the arguments against the transferable leader concept was a possible "mis-use". ?This invovled using the farseer not to keep the small tank formations in better condition but to strip BMs from assault formations for the next turns assaults. ?Which puts the eldar somewhat back to the unwanted hit-and-hit style.
Is it planned that the rule be worded in some way to prevent that? ?Or is this not the problem I remember it being? |
Well, i would think that if a formation could only be aided by one Farseer per turn, then the ability to strip BM's from an assault formation wouldn't be so overwhelming. Also, even if the limitation wasn't put in place, using numerous farseers to stack additional leaders onto one formation would mean that there would be less of the ability to go around for the other formations that might need the help, too.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:15 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
One thing I haven't seen pointed out here (or on any threads for that matter) is that the Spirit Stones encourage the use of the smaller-unit formations (trios of Fire Prisms, Night Spinners, 5 pc Falcons).
With this said, that means there are less Eldar on the field, which makes it more Eldar-ish. Does that make sense?
Conversely, Spirit Stones not being used means a player would be more inclined to field larger formations with more actual Eldar.
Fluff or no fluff, they tend to dilute the effect of BMs, just as the IG and Orks have them diluted by their sheer numbers, and the SMs dilute BM effects with the TSKNF rule.
My two centavos.
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
The problem with comparing Spirit Stones to TSKNF, IG Commisars and Ork Mob rules is that Spirit Stones is on top of the other Eldar special rules. Its not an equal comparison.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:23 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
I don't see a problem with it. The Eldar are special! 
Seriously though, each army has it's fluff. I admit the Eldar have a lot of it.
On the other side of things though...
The IG have very little fluff. However, the IG have such tremendous flexibility in how you can build your army list it surprises me that they don't win more often. The large formations allow you to take quite a beating without ever breaking. And the Commissars... I keep reading "Well, I have seen plenty of games where IG only got 2 Commissars-". Fine, every game I have played against IG they have been maxed out. The fact is that the IG will average 7 Commissars per game - more than enough to cover their key formations.
The Orks have the Mob Rules, but they also have the Mob itself. And Grots. Drop 10 BMs on a 'uge mob and the Orks won't even feel it. If there are enough Nobz in there, those BMs will be reduced to nominal levels in one turn. If you place 3 BMs on an Eldar formation it will break like an egg.
SM have... Well they don't have much.  But the TSKNF rule does help them take the beating of a formation twice its size.
But my original point was that regardless of the Spirit Stones standing with the players, they do encourage the army to be more true to itself by the sheer fact that there would be less individual Eldar on the battlefield than if there were no Spirit Stones.
I don't know how often I would take (or if I would take them at all) Fire Prisms or Night Spinners without that 'comfort level' of being able to remove an extra BM.
Changing the Spirit Stones to Leader functions would continue to give the Aspects and Guardians the same advantage (more so on Marshalling) and then take it away from the formations that really round out the armies (the smaller tank formations).
One thought I had was perhaps Spirit Stones could have a restriction where they can remove 0-1 extra BMs. Not sure if this would work and it would certainly complicate the rallying phase, but it's just an idea.
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Jaldon
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:36 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.
|
|
But my original point was that regardless of the Spirit Stones standing with the players, they do encourage the army to be more true to itself by the sheer fact that there would be less individual Eldar on the battlefield than if there were no Spirit Stones |
I heartly disagree as before Spirit Stones I fielded plenty of those 'small formations' and using force managment, or conservation of force if you prefer, did just fine.
Spirit Stones themselves do not encourage the correct style of play for the Eldar, in fact they do the exact opposite. Hit-Hit-Hit. Take them away and they return to a Hit and Run (before you die) army which IS the Eldar fluff.
I don't know how often I would take (or if I would take them at all) Fire Prisms or Night Spinners without that 'comfort level' of being able to remove an extra BM.
|
That would be your choice, I, on the other hand would still be taking them because they were still effective before the arrival of Spirit Stones, and would remain effective if removed.
Changing the Spirit Stones to Leader functions would continue to give the Aspects and Guardians the same advantage (more so on Marshalling) and then take it away from the formations that really round out the armies (the smaller tank formations).
How so under the transfer idea? The Eldar could choose to use it for the Guardians, or Aspects, or those smaller formations.
... I keep reading "Well, I have seen plenty of games where IG only got 2 Commissars-". Fine, every game I have played against IG they have been maxed out. The fact is that the IG will average 7 Commissars per game - more than enough to cover their key formations.
The real fact is just because you have not seen it doesn't mean it doesn't occur. I have seen plenty of games where the IG got three or four Commi's, and those players didn't stick them in their Sentinel or Rough Rider formations.
Comparing a possible occurrance (Commisaars) to something that is guarnteed (Spirit Stones) is not a rational view.
The Orks have the Mob Rules, but they also have the Mob itself. And Grots. Drop 10 BMs on a 'uge mob and the Orks won't even feel it. If there are enough Nobz in there, those BMs will be reduced to nominal levels in one turn.
The diffirence here is the down side to that Mob Rule is once it is broken it is hard to get it back in the fight when the opponent will not let it be, and sure they can collect a lot of BMs, but I have yet to see a Huge Mob shed ten of them (Which they often collect in battles) in anything less then two turns, or half the battle.
If you place 3 BMs on an Eldar formation it will break like an egg.
And if you place four BMs on a Sentinel Walker Platoon, or a Blitz Brigade it breaks like an egg. So are you saying that the rest of the armies out there fielding small formations should have this problem, and that only the Eldar should be able to come roaring back at full capacity via Spirit Stones?
Seriously though, each army has it's fluff. I admit the Eldar have a lot of it.
They already had a lot of
special rules to create the Eldar
feel before Spirit Stones. Their arrival pushed them over the top, and beyond the original fluff. Like I have said before, no more do they Hit and Run, they Hit-Hit-Hit. The "run" part has become more of an
option then what was intended by its original creation.
The problem with comparing Spirit Stones to TSKNF, IG Commisars and Ork Mob rules is that Spirit Stones is on top of the other Eldar special rules. Its not an equal comparison.
I agree, it's apples and oranges trying to draw them as a comparison to anything Eldar.
Myself I want the Hit and Run feel back that was taken away by Spirit Stones, and I don't want to play against opponents when I feel that the rules I am using (Official though they are) feel beardy. IMHO Spirit Stones are beardy.
Jaldon
