Yes Elysians do all this (actually on Kastorel-Novem they did ALL this). And as Elysians do this the player should define on the army compilation stage which style his army should follow.

BUT:

Air-Cavalry: Flying in with Valkyries which touch down and disgorge their troops then pepper the area with all they have and finally fly off to re-arm and re-fuel. Later on they pick up the remaining troops, wounded bring reinfocements, etc. This is Vietnam-style.

Air-drop: Elysians drop from high flying Valkyries via grav-shutes. Later either a follow up army will catch up with them or they will be picked up by Valkyries. This is Arnheim-style.

One of those styles at the same game would fit with a WH40k game where you are likely to only field one single Company.

But both styles should be viable simultaneously in a game of Epic because here you deal with several Companies of Drop Infantry = a more or less huge part of a Regiment.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

As i said in Epic you usually see several Companies of Drop Infantry.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

My apologies, BL, I didn't understand you (or Ginger for that matter) until you clarified your older post with this one.

Getupandgo brings up the same point I brought up to Lord Inquisitor when he wanted to introduce VTOL rules to the Inquisitor list. The argument has merit, but not for the Elysian list. It needs to be done for the whole game or nothing. Whether we are allowing non-WEs to transport like WEs or applying a special rule for skimmer deployment, it can't be just for the Elysians. They are the same pieces in the IG list (with modified armaments).

I can't imagine what some of these special rules would do in a non-tournament game either.

My suggestion is that many of the Elysian ideas that are being proposed go into an "alternative rules" section for the list. I did this with the Dark Eldar in Raiders 2.0. I felt better knowing I included something that inherently felt more Dark Eldar-ish but still kept the list true to the streamlined version we worked so hard to achieve. By including the community ideas without making them official, people will -over time- either play them or not play them. Batreps will get reported with or without the special rules and we'll get great feedback on the list in general. In the mean time, units that need hammering out will get played (like the mortars, support sentinels, venators, vendettas, tauroseseses) and the list won't get hamstrung by the ongoing debate.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

You're under the failed assumption that because you'd like it, it should be done.

This army has pretty clear-cut background as to how it operates and plays, and to be honest, none of these special rules; from "self planetstrike", to "reserve valkyries" add anything to the character of the army, and none of them are required to win games with them.

I think that people should probably take a step back, play with the list, and then give their feedback, rather than conceptualizing the way that things work or don't work. But ultimately, If you don't like the character of the army, don't play it. There are plenty of others out there that will suit your play-style and give you greater enjoyment.

I don't particularly enjoy playing Space Marines... Rather than demanding that rules be changed to fit my play-style. Instead, I play Tau, because they are more appealing to me, and bring me greater enjoyment.

Similarly; Krieg doesn't quite fit the way that I like to play, but rather than demanding that Krieg gets more mobility, instead, I play Steel Legion.

There are plenty of options out there. If one list isn't quite to your liking, there are 10 more that will be. And on the flip-side, simply because two armies have similarities, doesn't mean that they should be changed either.

I think that the game has to be about balance, first and foremost... as that's the primary thing that makes the game itself enjoyable. A good list should allow you to pick units at random and have the same chance of winning a game against any other list picked at random.

If someone wants to play "power gamer mathhammer", there's always 40k. A game where you can deal with poorly written rules that are more buggy than windows 7, constant codex creep, realizing that there are certain armies that are at an extreme disadvantage to others, having to learn and remember 1000 special rules, and accepting that the majority of the game is decided before anyone hits the table (list creation).




While I think that premise of the idea is a good one, in theory, I think that some of these ideas quite simply don't make any sense.

The balance isn't there.

Rug proposed one that on the surface sounds good, but when you look at balance, it's potentially game-breaking. If it were implemented, and you have a non-mobile army, and you're facing elysians, you're screwed. That's not how a balanced game works. One of the fantastic things about E:A, and one of the reasons why it's the game I keep playing and coming back to, is because everything works well. It's not broken... So why do we feel the need to keep trying to fix it?

Special rules for army character are fine... Special rules for the sake of simply making armies more powerful, without extensive play-testing makes no sense and is ultimately a waste of time and energy.

The last thing that I'd like to see, is E:A go down that road. I think that in most terms, it's fine as it is. It works, there are few rules disputes, armies play as they should, and the majority of the game comes down to the tactics that you utilize.

I have a feeling that this is getting to be a case of "too many cooks in the kitchen". Everyone wants their way, and in the end, we'll end up getting a meal that misses the intent.

Getupandgo, I share your frustration, but the Alternative Rules section is an olive branch. [Geekmode]Spock once said, "Logic isn't the end of wisdom but the beginning of it."[/Geekmode] Face it, there are players out there who have the capacity to play the Elysians but won't because they don't like the rules. While they may ordinarily be logical people, their own opinions will encourage them to dig in their heels and simply refuse to budge.

They are probably thinking the same thing about you, me, and Honda.

So an agreed upon set of Alternative Rules doesn't endorse their ideas, but it does solidify their ideas in writing and allows them to play the list and help us on things like assisting with unit balance and more exposure for the list in general. If, for example, Zombocom wants to field an army with two new special rules for deployment, but he is still using the same formations, it allows us to collect data on those units; how they performed, their survivability, tactics, etc.

In the end, if you think you are truly correct about the Elysians (and I believe you are), their deployment ideas will turn out to be buggy and confusing and the playtests will show it. If the deployment ideas work out well, then maybe 'we' need to review our own positions.

But adding these Alternative Rules will add a minimum of three new players to the playtest pool (which by last checking on the poll stands at only FIVE). It will probably double it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Umm, Well the lists I used in the past had something like 6-8 companies and a similar number of supporting formations (sentinel squadrons etc) - is that large enough?

However, the point is that on-table the Elysians have a weakness that has been deliberately built into the list which needs to be addressed with respect to the transports available to them.

And GUAG, I am a self confessed "Fluffyphobe" (and I hate pink tights to boot ).
I am not arguing from the perspective that this or that ability is in the fluff (though BL seems to think there is a case in any event). My perspective is purely that the army is already extremely difficult to use well, and does *not* function in the way that it is apparently intended to. While you can drop in infantry all over the place, you rarely if ever get to use the V's as intended because any competent opponent takes them out immediately - which then leaves a good portion of your army out of the game. Alternatively if you go 'skimmer heavy' this both goes against the intended flavour while also reducing your activations to parity with you opponent, who then usually has significant advantages over all of your formations because of their in-built weaknesses.

My concern here is how to address these particular issues with the Elysian transport options, and how to square them with the "fluff" in the same manner that teleport has been used to represent parachutes. Perhaps you could pander to my 'failed assumption' and help find a solution to this apparent dilema which also satisfies your preception of the "Fluff" and how the list should look and feel.

And BTW Mosc, I agree with the 'alternative rules ' approach, but unfortunately I am not sure we have anything appropriate to put there, not least because I am not sure that we have a common agreement of the problem (if it indeed exists at all)

AFAIK/IIRC i have yet to see a battle report where the Elysians actually win. So there seems to be a real problem.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I've won about half my games with them and I'm pretty sure I posted some batreps in the past, albeit short ones. The 'anonymous report' on Honda's thread is mine when I was ignoring the forum.

But I agree that they have a problem with winning. I know this will come off as bragging (probably because it is ) but I win most of my Epic games (two thirds to three quarters?). If I play an army and win half the games, they are probably underpowered.

Ginger's earlier post that the Elysians require an unreasonable amount of practice to become proficient was not only funny but accurate. But it isn't a slaughterhouse game that you may expect it to be. Honda sent me an email saying he is poking at the list some more based on feedback so hopefully we can figure things out.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Ah good to hear

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I can see your point, and there's no harm done in letting people play-test the rules that they think would work. As long as people actually do play these proposed special rules considerably, as it really is a commitment to play-test a game or army.

Overall; I think that sounds like an amicable solution to the problem, which brings me to my next point; what exactly IS the problem?

Simply that they don't win games? That may be a matter of tweeking points values. I don't see them as underpowered currently. I see them as somewhat like marines, in that they are difficult to utilize properly, and there's going to be a high learning curve. Granted, I've only been on the other side of the table from them, but they don't feel like a push-over army to me at all. I always play my hardest unless I'm teaching new players, and the times I've played them has been no exception. I don't ever feel like it's been a cake-walk.

So what are the exact issues with them? Preferably given by people who have played them, or played against them.

Ok, since we're between hurricanes I'll jump in here for a bit.

1. I don't want to make up "mechanisms" to try and achieve balance. I think that just gets you into trouble. I'm not convinced that transport and deployment is what's wrong with the list. I think the problem lies in the activation arena.

2. Having said that, I do think that the V-CAP option will help to an extent. We'll see after some testing.

3. I just figured out what GUAG means. lol.

4. Alternative rules: I am not against the concept, assuming that we get to a consensus on what they should be. That's the carrot. The stick is we get the other issues straightened out first. Playtesting is more effective when it's focused. Given the large community of testers we are working with *\SARC OFF, we're not going to learn anything if one person plays drop valks, another brings in the mythical drop barge, etc.

BTW, I don't know if the fluff bunnies have noticed this, but in both IA campaigns, the Elysians had to put their planes together before they were operational. So, it's not like they fly them down from something or land them in something. Sounds more like some of the logistics the Americans faced in the Pacific. Something to think about.

5. GUAG asked a very important question. During your playtests, what wasn't working?

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

For me I would say one challenge is playing on a board with terrain that does not have good enough position to support my teleporters. The lack of armor for the army forces you to teleport where it is safe as opposed to where you can attack. That isn't a complaint as much as it is an observation.

The biggest issue for me would be the ability to control/contest the skies. The large interceptor formation is great at taking out an enemy aircraft, but if your opponent managed to activate first or bring two fighter squadrons, there was no hope for you. In the latter example, the interceptors would be wiped out on turn 1. Turn 2 & 3 had your opponent ruling the skies, taking out Sentinels left and right and center, and then flying home unimpeded.

The idea Signal had that you incorporated into the latest version should help I think by allowing smaller formations. The ability to CAP from the beginning would be a huge assist as well. Somebody had mentioned awhile back that Elysians did have access to some type of AA. That would be a big help, even if you made it immobile. Having some location on the board where you have some cover from planes would be nice.

A SR3 would help obviously, especially with teleporters getting chewed on. But I don't know if it would be too much, just enough, or not enough. It is hard to gauge that kind of change without playing it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Mosc., is the AA you speak of a shoulder-fired type weapon? Obviously, the limits would have to be worked out, but if the Elysians could field a (relatively) large number of manpad type SAMs, that might go a long way toward protecting them from being beaten into the earth by aircraft. I'm thinking something along the lines of 30cm AA6+ in the drop company commander's unit. These types of weapons are not meant to stop an attack cold, but make the pilot jink and cause attrition after the fact (esp. the old ones like redeye and grail-7). The main effect would be to add BM's to opposing aircraft FM's. Just spitballing here.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean