I play using Eldar a lot and I'm perfectly happy with the loss of spirit stones, as are 99% of other eldar players, so to portrsy this as non-eldar players liking the nerf is wrong. I'm sure purely playing massive games provides some different and valid perspectives but it also doesn't show some of the facets+ tactical ploys of epic as can be seen with aspect use+the roughrider thread

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

Stats are a good thing. The overall assumption however is that all Generals are equal in ability and the dice stay random. But as a guide to overall performance tourney stats are useful to help guide the reasonableness of assumptions.



The time aspect was one of the first challenges we encountered in the large game format and for exactly the effect you predict here. When we left the standard Turn 3 victory check in place, Eldar win. Period. When we moved the check out to Turn 5, the IG had a clear advantage. At Turn 4 it could have gone either way, but the mobile Eldar had a distinct advantage.



It is by critically examining all the data we have that we hope to uncover issues that would provide rules to allow others to play Epic with every model they have at hand.



We both routinely use the same tactical ploys that are used in the "tiny" games. Sometimes the battlefield situation mimics small table conditions and those tactics are sound and effective. Take the Warp Spider from the Storm Serpent example. Sure that is impressive on a small table, but when you have 4 meters ground to cover, using the Storm Serpents to vomit forth full Guardian fms 105-120cm or to rifle shot jetbikes 145cm-190cm is a more pressing need just to get them further onto the board sooner. Multiple fronts change the nature of the game compared to massive scrums in the middle of the table.



We are still discussing playing "tiny" games, but honestly the appeal is low for both of us. It seems it is hard to go backwards once you have experienced the intoxication of an even more strategic version of Epic. 8-)

Now that you mention it, the "resistance" or "defensive reaction" does seem to be rather high. It's like some folks take our observations as an implication that what they are doing is wrong. Our hope is that sharing our experiences will result in helpful feedback from other grizzled veterans in playing Epic so none of our models feels left out or abandoned in a box. Thankfully, this is happening now that everyone has had their turn telling us that the game is intended for 2k-5k

If this is an inappropriate place to share our observations, then I'll shut up and simply watch for rules clarifications from Neal.

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

It's just that most here don't play at high points level so don't see the issues you are trying to put across. It then probably appears to you that no one is listening.

Lsrwolf, there was a HUGE debate about Spirit Stones in the old SG forums when Sotec was the army Champion and many of the original testers were still playing the game. It was recognised that Spirit Stones were originally added in haste just before E:A was released and, as Steve54 points out, were generally not considered to be "fair" both because all formations benefited and opponents could not 'kill' the ability (unlike the Commissar and other characters).

It was equally recognised that Eldar tend to be fairly fragile and so often run out of power in games of 4+ turns. During the debate Sotec was very anxious to reduce the power-creep that the Swordwind lists had started to exibit, (and which was then being carried on into later lists) which took on a kind of arms race feel.

To be fair to your views, the games being examined in detail were mainly the Tournament game format, usually 3000 Points with some games up to the 5000-6000 point levels - *not* at the 18K level which you enjoy.

However, removing Spirit Stones without any compensation (along with various other nerfs) is now seen as *possibly* going a fraction too far - and the major beef is the relative lack of ability to remove BMs while remaining mobile at the same time, which echoes your thoughts exactly. In the UK, we have now allowed the 'support troupe' formations to buy Spirit Stones for 25points per formation (not Rangers and not the Guardian or Aspect Warhosts) - though at our level it is rarely used because of the impact on the number of activations.

It is standard practice to buy an Autarch for one of the Aspect formations (who has Leader as an atribute), and we have already advised you to organise your forces into "corps" or "armies" of ~5000-6000 points groups (who would each enjoy the other Eldar benefits, so Autarch, farsight, extra retain etc within that particular "army").

Finally, the Eldar are IMHO one of the harder armies to play well precisely because of this problem with the BMs. You have to make good use of terrain to get within striking range, and then make sure that you have several solid threats simultaneously available (and preferably within consolidation range of each other). When you finally do assault it must be with overwhelming force so that you not only win, but win decisively so that you can make best use of the consolidation move. This way you can knock out a significant part of the enemy forces in a given area to the point where he cannot retaliate effectively. However, in your games of 18K+ per side, it is inevitable that the opponent will be able to strike back with something - so you must always ensure that you keep in the shadows of terrain, hit and run, counter-attack, develop threats against flanks etc.

To this end I would suggest that you do not have sufficient terrain (at least not in the pictures presented). As a guide you should have two pieces per 2 sq ft; so you should actually have something like 108 pieces of terrain on your 12'x18' table. Even if you restricted the main battlefield to 18'x6' that would still need 54 pieces. Without the terrain to hide behind, the Eldar become horribly vulnerable to enemy fire, picking up BMs that they find hard to shift without Marshalling - which slows them down to the point of inactivity (and which could well be what you are experiencing).

I guess I was not clear. I am not suffering from this effect, I am recognizing and acknowledging it. The last minute elimination of Spirit Stones was not followed with some sort of option for any leader ability at all. There was not something in between, a medium, nor was there a 25 point drop in cost for all formations. You are correct in that this is what we see as well.

There seems to be a thing about folks here taking our observations as if they are complaints. Our games are competitive and I'm winning quite well even with this thin amount of terrain. I am wide open for more and will lean on Sgt. Balicki to spend more time making more terrain to add to the board. I'm sure this will thrill him, but his artillery doesn't much care about the terrain, so he'll can probably add some more.

108 is alot, 12'x16' is alot to cover, but with commitment i believe we can do it.

Thanks for the historical context, this helps us new forum peeps. As for the design, had I been there I would have been an advocate for the +25pt stones option for any formation and add Leader to Exarchs.

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

There was no "last minute elimination" of spirit stones. Spirit Stones were a last minute, practically untested addition to the list before swordwind was printed, and then around 2 years of discussion led to the offical removal of spirit stones from the list, approved by Jervis himself.

The existence of Spirit Stones was a last minute idea, and their removal was a carefully considered one over a long period. There was nothing last minute about it.



Because those things weren't needed. The list as printed in Swordwind is notably overpowered; the list with the official changes is widely considered very balanced.

And comes in towards the top of tournies very consistently, I might add.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Ahh, I misunderstood the last minute part. My bad.

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

so if being broken represents loss of co-ordination and control of the formation, why not restrict the amount of orders that can be given to broken fearless units, only being able to hold perhaps?

They cannot be given any orders at all...

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

Broken formations can't be given orders of any kind, they would need to rally first. The fearless just prevents them from suffering the kill per blast marker taken that normal broken formations suffer with.

IMO if something needed to be done about broken fearless units, the simplest change would be to make them need 2 blast markers to remove an extra stand instead of being totally immune. Granted it would need a clarification about how to do it in mixed formations.

Not sure it's needed, but maybe it's because I haven't faced all-fearless formations.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Easiest solution for mixed formations, would be that Fearless units cannot be removed until there are no non-Fearless units remaining. Skip over them like you do now, just with a variation on the Expendable caveat. But when the formation has only Fearless remaining, it takes 2BMs to remove them. Or they get a 4+/3+/2+ save. Or whatever an alternate solution is.

Morgan Vening
- Has played against all Fearless. Didn't enjoy it. At all.

E:A has a number of points in the rules where there are step-changes in the quality of a unit or formation (where someting gets significantly better without some gradual change in between) including "Fearless".

While there may be some sympathy with the queries and alternative solutions presented, you should be aware they are highly unlikely to result in any changes to the core rules, not least because these are really subject to GW 'ownership' (however tenuous). The last - and only - revision to the core rules in 2008 took many years of debate to get sanctioned, and even then many fan-based proposals were ultimately dropped as being to radical. We have to accept that as it stands E:A is a game that *may* loosely have some real-world similarities in the same way as Chess (or any other rule-set). To that end it may be better to try to understand the mindset of the designers in reference to given rules rather than to try to change them.

However you should also note that one of the core design intentions was to encourage people to develop their own concepts around the rules, so campaigns, stories, and even revisions of the unit statistics etc. Many people impose further rules as they deem fit to capture the particular 'flavour' of a given situation whether they be for "strategic manoeuvers", Air-support (CAV) or "tunnelling" - some of which may go on to feature in army lists or supplements as appropriate (which is why some units stats are not consistent across all the lists they appear in).

One such approach is to develop different special characteristics to apply to units (such as "Stubborn" rather than "Fearless") which may approximate more closely to your desired model. There are many forum members who will give you advice and help when developing your own army lists. Play these with your friends, post the progress and results on the forum and over time they may become 'official' (one such semi-offical characteristic is "expendable").

Finally, the main consideration here is to have *FUN* when playing - it is only a game after all - so as L4 is often quoted as saying
Do What Works For You
(DWWFY)