Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
[Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=11261 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Chroma [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
Okay, here's the Biel-Tan update with all the changed units listed and the new armylist layout. One change I made was to separate "The Court of the Young King" out from the Avatar, to avoid confusion in other Eldar lists. ?The Court of the Young King is now a character that is added to the Avatar in the Biel-Tan list, so there are 'basic' Avatar stats for everyone else. The 0-1 Aspect Troupe is still in there as well. ?I know it's controversial, but I still don't see it as a real problem or diluting other lists. ?I feel that Biel-Tan should have as many Aspect Warrior options as possible... but I'm still willing to argue about it. ?*laugh* Also changed the wording in the Eldar battle Titans to be more clear about what "shooting all round" is supposed to mean. So, please read it over and vet for errors/typos/accidental exclusions. And happy holidays! EDIT - Falcon and Wave Serpent transport options fixed, Storm Serpent FF4+ restored. |
Author: | Pulsar [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
thanks Chroma, in the falcon/wave serpent can they transport swooping hawks? the storm serpent needs to be FF +4, that all i could see, good work mate. |
Author: | Dave [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
Just gave a quick glance, Swooping Hawks should be removed from the Falcon and Wave Serpeant Transport list. |
Author: | Chroma [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
(Dave @ Dec. 19 2007,19:21) QUOTE Just gave a quick glance, Swooping Hawks should be removed from the Falcon and Wave Serpeant Transport list. D'OH! ?I just cut-n-paste from the Swordwind .pdfs and removed Autarch and the Warp Spiders from the transport and never read the rest! Okay, I'll correct those problems now! |
Author: | Markconz [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
(Chroma @ Dec. 19 2007,17:05) QUOTE The 0-1 Aspect Troupe is still in there as well. I know it's controversial... This isn't controversial, it was rejected by a clear majority, including the closest thing we have to an official head of development. The controversial label should be reserved for something that actually has some sort of support nearer 50%. The poll on this was 19-11 against, Neal Hunt has also rejected it, and you still included it? ![]() |
Author: | Flogus [ Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
Copy/paste error in notes of Scorpion SHGT (same note as Cobra). |
Author: | Dave [ Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
Has anyone thought to change the language for summoning the Avatar? I ask because it's confusing in the Craft-World lists to have "counts as a Farseer" for things like the Mounted Farseer and the Wraith Seer. EA already has a "counts as" rule and this use doesn't necessarily fit in with it. Once more, I could see new players interpreting this as having to play their Mounted or Wraith Seer with Farseer stats. Why not just make summoning the Avatar its own special rule? Or allow any unit with Farsight the ability to do so? That would allows the Warlock Titan summoning ability, would there be any issues with that? Dave |
Author: | Chroma [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:26 am ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
(Markconz @ Dec. 19 2007,22:12) QUOTE This isn't controversial, it was rejected by a clear majority, including the closest thing we have to an official head of development. The controversial label should be reserved for something that actually has some sort of support nearer 50%. I would say it is still controversial... very few arguments were presented in your poll thread, either for or against... there were a lot of votes... looking now looks like there's been even more voting, but not a lot of posts. I don't see it bad as "in character" nor as a "game-breaker"; I think the issue is far from settled. Since attention to the "issue" has resurfaced, I think we should see what goes on in the poll, and ask for more actual input from the voters. |
Author: | Markconz [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:42 am ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
It took a long time to get one set of change proposals set out. Then only a few days later you have put out a document that contradicts those change documents and risks confusing people. That is not on. AC's were always supposed to submit their changes to the ERC (as Sotec and MC23 well understood), with Jervis having final say. Given that Jervis is absent, it was widely agreed that Neal Hunt should have the final say in the interim. Discussion is fine, putting out contradictory documents if you are AC is not. Please reconsider what you are doing. |
Author: | Chroma [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:59 am ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
(Markconz @ Dec. 21 2007,05:42) QUOTE AC's were always supposed to submit their changes to the ERC (as Sotec and MC23 well understood), with Jervis having final say. Given that Jervis is absent, it was widely agreed that Neal Hunt should have the final say in the interim. Discussion is fine, putting out contradictory documents if you are AC is not. Please reconsider what you are doing. Dude, I've posting the changes from Sotec's submitted proposal on the Specialist Games as handed over to me when the Eldar Army Champion mantle passed; I haven't submitted anything significantly new with Biel-Tan at all. I haven't had a discussion with Neal about the Aspect Troupe, but I left it in, because 1) it was in the proposal, 2) I like it, 3) I don't think there have been strong arguments against *or* for it that have swayed me against it. ?You're the one who decided to drop it while it was still "in debate". I would hardly call a *single* 0-1 formation option a in the list a "contradictory document"... are there other changes you've felt needed to be made to the Eldar beyond Sotec's original proposal? (Adding leader to the Eldar Titans is relatively unexplored and potentially controversial, but it's made it into the change docs/Handbook as well.) |
Author: | Markconz [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:23 am ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
For the record, I left decision on it to community opinion, rather than choosing something because 'I liked it'. Moreover, thereafter I handed over ALL final decision processes to Neal as the widely accepted ERC head honcho, with a deadline at which point all changes would be locked down for a while. If there's one thing that has not been good for EA it has been the continuous breaking of promised deadlines, and I was not going to contribute further to that unfortunate history. Big difference. You as AC have decided to keep that change in a document newly posted in your role as AC, even though you knew that most people were against it, even though you knew that it was not in the comprehensive change documents compiled by Neal. If you want to just do your own thing and reject a unified process then please say so, because honestly there's nothing to stop anyone doing that, and we might as well all just do our own thing. If you want to be a meaningful AC on the other hand, then please be supportive of a unified process, whereby everyone can be on the same page. On Leader for titans, no I don't like it. I also don't like the Firestorm proposal either. But my personal preference comes second to supporting a community process. I also realise that the differences those changes make to the actual game are pretty small in the big scheme of things. If it's as small a detail as you say then just drop it, and the nasty Inquisitor will go away.... it's the principle and process I am concerned about. A moment's laxity spawns a lifetime's heresy... Also I realise that this really comes down to opinion about what the best way forward for development here is, and I'm just stating my preferences. However those preferences are in line with those that emerged as having support in previous threads about EA development, ie: 1. Experimental change proposals locked down in an annual edition, as opposed to sporadic piecemeal and disorganised updates, and continuously broken deadlines. 2. One person with widespread community support making the final call on difficult issues (Neal Hunt at present). 3. AC's doing basic development work and providing lists of recommendations for final consideration. Most importantly for now, in terms of ongoing changes and delays - at some point deadlines had to stop being broken every time. The promised ERC rules review deadline expired over two years ago. Enough already. What we didn't get exactly right this time, we can re-examine next time around. |
Author: | Crabowl [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:05 am ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
(Markconz @ Dec. 19 2007,22:12) QUOTE The poll on this was 19-11 against, Neal Hunt has also rejected it, and you still included it? ? ![]() Seems to be 18-15 (or 19-14) now that few more people have found the poll. I think army champs should have balls to put personal preference ahead of someone else's personal preference even if it would seem like the unpopular choice. That's why they're army champs in the first place so that they can do the unpopular choice when the flock can't. Besides bending over and getting buttfooked just doesn't look cool on the respect-o-meter.. |
Author: | Markconz [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:40 am ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
At the point the decision was made by Neal it was 19-11. That seems fair enough to me, in addition to whatever of his own judgement he used on the issue, and frankly I would value his own judgment over the poll anyway. But whether the issue is right or wrong is neither here nor there at this stage - my objection is not about that! The process I've described above IS the important thing here IMO. Chroma in position as AC has put out a different list to that in Neal's Change Documents, which confusing, and seems out of line with the AC position IMO. I want AC's who are actually interested in supporting a unified approach. If they are not doing so, then they basically cease to have a purpose IMO. Everyone may as well just do their own thing, and that's basically the death of any unity to EA whatsoever, as I recently mentioned here: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....d234596 With respect to process - deadlines should not be delayed continuously as they have in the past. When the deadline hits, whatever was favoured by Neal Hunt (or the Head Honcho at that time) should actually be released, and set until the next review. That way some proper playtesting will have a chance to occur, as opposed to the situation now where it is impossible to tell what should happen. A vocal minority may be in favour of making endless spasmodic changes with no time for things to settle and actually be tested properly, but it just pisses most people off. You really think that 3 years isn't long enough to decide on a simple set of rule tweaks? Come on. The rules themselves took less than 3 years! You can write a PhD in 3 years! This minor issue missed the boat this time around. The person in charge left it out. Discuss it sure, but don't release a document in a form that has the potential to confuse people. Otherwise we might as well all release our own personal preference for everything, and AC's, and petitions in favour of some sort of due process - like appointing Neal as ERC head, be damned. Is that what you want? |
Author: | Chroma [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | [Biel-Tan] Updated stats and armylist v1.8.2 |
(Markconz @ Dec. 21 2007,10:40) QUOTE The process I've described above IS the important thing here IMO. Chroma in position as AC has put out a different list to that in Neal's Change Documents, which confusing, and seems out of line with the AC position IMO. So, you're saying that the posting of a "change list", in the Eldar development section, by the Eldar Champion, is something against "policy"? ?Since you've released your "Handbook 2008 (2007)", does that mean you feel no more changes/proposal/edits should be posted to the experimental section of the boards for fear of confusion? ?That's the whole point of this forum! ?And these are the changes I would like to see implemented in the next incarnation of the Eldar lists. I've wanted to discuss the Eldar changes with Neal, but the rather blurred transition between myself and Sotec, the surprising, if inconclusice, SG response of interest from Andy and Jervis, as well as the chaos of the holiday season means he and I aren't really getting a chance to discuss it until, probably, the New Year. I want AC's who are actually interested in supporting a unified approach. If they are not doing so, then they basically cease to have a purpose IMO.Whoa, stand down there mate. You want ACs to do something your way? ?Where are you getting this authority? ?Have you discussed this with any other Army Champs? ?And what the heck is a "unified approach" anyway? ?There's no real process in place, don't know if there's ever been one, and, hell, there's no ERC to submit things to anyway! ?*laugh* ?I don't think Neal wants to spend his holidays reviewing army notes instead of spending time with his family! With respect to process - ?deadlines should not be delayed continuously as they have in the past. When the deadline hits, whatever was favoured by Neal Hunt (or the Head Honcho at that time) should actually be released, and set until the next review. Do you mean the deadline you set, for yourself, for your own Handbook project, one that coincided with a changeover of Champions and some contentious issues still in debate, or was there some other broader deadline decision I was unaware of, since I haven't been the Eldar Champion for very long. Markconz, you seem to be chomping at the bit to start NetEA (or whatever it would be called), but starting that, before resolving what Andy and Jervis's response to it, especially in the middle of the holidays, is probably going to create even more confusion for casual players than an experimental army change doc (Especially one with, essentially, ONE significant deviation from your Handbook!). This minor issue missed the boat this time around. The person in charge left it out. Discuss it sure, but don't release a document in a form that has the potential to confuse people. So, have you informed Cybershadow that he's not allowed to change the experimental Tau army he's Champion of for a year, to prevent confusion? ?I'd say there's potential for more than just "minor issuses" in the Tau list and really can't see why it was included in what is attempting to be the "official" new rulebook. Otherwise we might as well all release our own personal preference for everything, and AC's, and petitions in favour of some sort of due process - like appointing Neal as ERC head, be damned. Is that what you want?Actually, what I would want is the opportunity for everyone interested in EPIC:A development to have a chance to sit down in a room and talk things over, but that's not going to happen; so discussions on forums it is. And what's wrong with people expressing their personal preferences and ideas for things? ?One of the points, I believe, of the Army Champions is to collate and distill those ideas, flavour it with their own ideas, and present that to the players for testing. And I don't think "due process" is what you're looking for here, you're looking for a fixed development process, but, since we're all volunteers here, I think it's going to be hard to force people to do it your way... if they don't think it's the right way. Just so you know, Neal and I are planning to have a thorough discussion on the Eldar changes Sotec presented; Neal has been concerned about more than just the Aspect Warrior Troupe, but wanted to keep "stepping on toes" to a minimum and let a lot of things through; so, to warn you, there may be significant Eldar changes/corrections in the New Year, but, right now, the Biel-Tan v1.8.1 document is where I see the Eldar. Thank you for your efforts and happy holidays! |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |