When you consider the length of the list of things that are nearly finished I'd counter that changing anything that requires everything to be re-looked at should be avoided at all costs.

I think this is the main reason for the general negative response to the suggestion to look again at the air rules. A hell of a lot of work for potentially little, or no, gain. But that's all IMHO of course, as ever DWWFY.

I'd have to agree with Atmos that, a combination of the activation system, and the goals for the tourney scenario, mean formations of around 300 points seem to be ideal at least for 3000 point games (3000 / 300 = 10) - about the cost of a warhound and, spookily the cost of a tactical detachment (the base unit by which everything else was judged). So formations *much* larger than this are totally out of whack and skew everything. In other words, you pay a price (in tactical flexibility)

That skew is ok and managable (see the warlock and great gargant) if they work with their armies in at least one way. But the warlord doesn't seem to workable at all. Indeed it's a bit of a running joke in the UK torny circuit.

I'd have to agree with meph though - it's largely academic - I do not believe this community is capable of messing with such fundamental rules in any meaningful way. It doesn't have the energy to deal with the implications.
Also I'll repeat that pass activations can't claim objectives - can't fight and kill. So a real activation is always going to be better than a pass. Get a Warlord and a pass? or 3 Warhounds?

I'd reduce the cost of the standard config warlord - it clearly isn't worth the points. for the GT scenario, especially for marines. And E&C and co *might* be able to develop a configuration that *is* worth 850 (though I doubt it)

Would you drop the Reaver a tad too?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

A tad yes

Can you drop the Phantom cost then? Would make sense considering the Warlock is a good choice and the Phantom a poor one it seems. Also I have a Phantom and can't be arsed to buy and paint a Warlock too!

_________________

I think this community is starting to entrench in its habits. I certainly think it DOES have all the necessary energy to test out such a change. Currently, what we see is each player making his own list because he's dissatisfied with this or that. I'm sure this energy could be focused on the game itself if we can get to discuss this openly.

I think it's time we have a look at some of the problems that are systemic (like this one, or possibly the air rules for example), and solve them at the root. I am more optimistic than you considering the Epic community. I'm sure there is enough energy.

The will to change stuff and touch anything official might be lacking (As "official" is about the same as "holy" when talking about GW rules for most players, even veterans adult ones), but maybe this can be shaken up. I think that it AT LEAST warrant a good discussion.

There are other examples of stuff that could (I actually think "should") be solved at the root. One thing that buggers me is the number of special rules in the lists. Some of them could probably be made "generic" and included in the core. The Bloodlust special rule (or "frenzy" maybe, I'm not sure about the name finally chosen), made generic, to be used in the Blood angel and the world eater list initially, is a perfect example. But given the amount of lists, core, Net E:A, and fan made, I'm sure it would be quite productive to get some convergence on such issues.

Considering that the game is abandoned by GW anyway, and that some issues with the rules cropped up with the years (as it should be expected really, there are always exploit and bugs that only become apparent with a lot of time), refusal to fix anything in the rule is essentially denial IMO.


I don't have an issue with being able to out-activate your opponent, or gaining some more flexibility by using mainly small formations. So actually, 3 warhound out activating a warlord isn't a bad thing IMHO. But the cost of the warhound should probably be higher (300Pts a piece for singletons probably), and the goal of such a rule would be to compensate for *some* of the disadvantage of fielding large units.

The rules strongly favour small formations; the durability gained by large formations is partially nullified by the assault mechanisms already (clipping assault, hack downs).

While an IG army fielding an arty company AND a tank company should be less flexible than an army made of say, tactical detachments, in the current state of the game the bias is much too strong. I don't think, however, as you seem to imply, that we would need a rule making a 6 activation army and a 12 activation army work in the same way.

But a mechanism providing some "activation skip" would help to compensate the over-focus on activation count, while style keeping the play style distinct.
Making larger formation viable would in fact open up the game quite a lot; I think it's the best thing that could happen to E:A right now.
The lists of the tournament players are horribly similar, the rules are forcing the unit selections, and upgrades are limited to a few characters or AA for fear of loosing on activations. This mechanisms is blending out the ways to build a list, and the ways to play via this effect.

While I think the activation system is one of the best core mechanics available, this effect is obviously a flaw and
should get fixed.

The remarks about the phantom and the reaver are already starting to come. The manta is scheduled to be buffed as well you'll notice. This is definitely a Core issue, and indeed I think the warlord case is the tip of the iceberg there.

It's not just the one formation it would affect, it'd shift the balance away from multiple small units a bit.


Broken formations would count toward your start of turn count, and if you lose them during your turn, tough luck. The answer? Same as any game of Epic, don't let your formations get broken.


Maybe. It'd be worth playtesting doing it both ways if this mechanism were liked. Thing is, in a normal game, you're in trouble if you get behind on activations anyway, and this change would help keep you tactically in the game.


Heh. Now this is the single best reason why it's not really a workable idea...

It's funny, I just came back here to suggest adding the Phantom to the list

Either it's a core issue OR some stuff is just over priced - since it doesn't take into consideration the affect of the price on itself! I guess there is an inherent price limit - 850 with stuff having to really prove they justify the cost.

Changing something as fundamental as the activation system would almost necessitate a new edition of the rules, and I doubt you'd be able to get anywhere near consensus opinion on something like that. It would be interesting to see though.

Dropping the Warlord (and reaver) price is intriguing, as I'd been approaching the thought experiment from the point of view of improving it to be perceived as worth it's current value. Purely from a fluff point of view, The Warlord and Reaver being worth less than their iconic Ork counterparts (Great Gargant and Gargant respectively) doesn't sit quite right with me, but that's obviously just a personal opinion.

I wouldn't say the Phantom is a bad unit, it's just overshadowed in every way by the Warlock for a minimal points increase. There probably needs to be a bigger points gap between the two, but the fact the Warlock seems to be even more prevalent in Eldar lists than Warhounds seem to be in marine ones suggests that it's that that needs adjusting upwards.

As I'm sure some American chaps will post here soon that the activation issue is widely held as a UK hang up. As it isn't an issue world wide should the core rules be changed to meet the needs of one local meta? I don't think so.

Epic A is accepted as one of the best rule sets GW have produced. Sure it has its issues, what rule set doesn't. However I don't think most of them are the rules themselves, its how army lists are designed and pointed that bring these problems out and that is were the fixes should be applied.

Changing the rules from what is on GW will only make the game even harder to get into. Players go there get the rules, play some games then discover what they have learned isn't what everyone else is playing. Not the best recipe to make the game accessible IMO.

On the Warlord issue, the CSM Warlords are all 800 points, not the 850 the loyalists pay, and they've got all sorts of funky weapon suites (and an extra DC for the Plaguelord). Have the people who've fielded them found them worth the points?

Blaming the failure of the warlord on activation count is simplistic IMO. In the last 2 years every 3k tourney has been won by an army with 9-12 activations. When you get to that number of activations 9+ then you have a decent chance its then just dependent on list composition+ the player, its definitely not a case of just getting as many activations as possible its the right mix - spamming loads of small weak formations is just as ineffective as 5-6 large activations.

Getting to 9 is easily possible with the warlord - just as it is with the great gargant+warlock so getting a decent activation count isn't the problem. The difference is that the warlord isn't really great at anything - decent shooting at mid range with decent survivability, with the warlock you get a great fast FF+CC platform which with the combination of holofields, AA+ assault power is probably more difficult to takedown, with the great gargant you get an immovable object that pretty much ensures BTS and at least 2 objectives are safe. Added to that is that both the great gargant+warlock operate better in conjunction with their armies. The great gargant can be the lynchpin of an infantry wave or the rock allowing everything else to go forward, the warlock is fantastic in rolling assaults with other eldar formations assaulting and then moving to support. The warlord is too slow to work with other SM units, too vulnerable to leave completely isolated and doesn't pack enough punch to work with IG.

IMO changing the activation rules isn't necessary or wanted . I won 2 tourneys with a 9 activation BL army it certainly didn't need help and neither do many other 9 activation armies now - RichardLs warlock eldar at the GT for example. Furthermore the change owuldn't make the warlord an attractive option because it still would be not great at anything and difficult to use in conjunction with the lists it was in

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

I agree with Steve, the Warlord is a poor choice because it doesnt really add much to the lists it can be taken in and because it is slightly overcosted for its abilities - and at the same time it is competing directly against the Warhound.

Not because of some fundamental problem with the activation system.