I'm doing updates of all the Eldar lists and a nagging issue has popped up again... *laugh*

The four unit strong Aspect Troupe found in both Iyanden and Ulthwé list; should they be 150 points or 175 points?

Both formations face additional restrictions in their respective lists, beyond point values.  I've tended to lean for the 175, especially for Ulthwé with their slightly higher Strategy Rating, but I'm not 100% sure of it.

So fellow Farseers, what does the future hold?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

The trouble is that at this smaller formation size the relative balance of aspects is different. 4 bases of Banshees isn't worth 175, but 4 bases of swooping hawks definately is.

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

I'm certainly not convinced *eight* units of Banshees is worth 175 points... *laugh*

Again, both armies impose an additional limitation on Aspect Troupes, so neither can have "Aspect spam" without a lot of other Warhosts.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Is it possible to have x as the cost for 4, with x+25 as the cost if they are all the same?
So
4 hawks - 1025
2 hawks two warp spiders - 1000

Maybe should instead be looking at 6 strong aspects to stop spamming? (My minds blank, doesn't bt have 8 strong?)

_________________
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

The "large" Aspect formation is the eight-strong Warhost of the Biel-Tan list, it's 300 points, regardless of mix; its large size makes it unwieldy for "pure" formations... well, except for Warp Spiders, so it tends to be mixed.

The "small" Aspect formation of four units, allows for a bit more focus, such as the four Swooping Hawks... not so at risk for Blast markers coming in so small, which is why I don't think a simple "half value for half numbers" works and I lean towards 175 points... with an Exarch, it's a nice 200 point formation.

the "middle" Aspect formation of six units can be found in Alaitoc and Saim-Hann; it's got a base cost of 225, though the Saim-Hann one must take transports as needed.

Both Iyanden and Ulthwé have fewer Aspect Warriors to bring to bear, so I don't see bumping them up to the "middle" sized formation without a very compelling reason.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

4 for 175 is fine. Trying to cost out each aspect is going to be far too fiddly.

I agree with this.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Ditto.

I think that 2x4 provides better value than 1x8 in several ways.

_________________
Neal

4th'd  

_________________
"Dyslexia is a Privilege, not a right"

Does anyone want to fight for the 150 point option?  It really doesn't seem to be getting any love!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Like you said earlier, a 4 strong unit can be focused and concentrated. I think it's a definite advantage over a larger 8 man force, especially with Ulthwe's Strategy Rating of 1.

However, 4 man Aspect Troupe in an Iyanden army won't be as effective as in the Ulthwe list. So if you wanted to charge the Iyanden Army 150 and the Ulthwe list 175 I could see the justification for it.

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

To me, that's actually the best answer... but for some reason, people complained about the "same" formation having different costs in different lists... I may just ignore them and go for it.

My plan is to post updates over the weekend, unless there's some more comments.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

It's not the cost of an individual formation that's in question, but their worth to the army. If a unit performs better in one army than another then it obviously should cost more.

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

I don't see a problem with having different costs for this unit in different lists.

I agree with Malakai's point about units having a distinct worth in one list when it is compared to another, so why not use disparate points values?

Eldar are, after all, all about synergy, so Aspect Warriors being priced differently for some of the Craftworlds should not be a problem, as such a units are the some of the component parts of the army, i.e. they function interdependently, not as independent entities.

_________________

Most people seem ok with warhounds being 275 in marines and 250 in guard, I see this as no different.

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