Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Eldar

• Board index
• Search
• Register

Top

Jaldon

Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:12 am

Brood Brother Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.

So how would Eldar play with no Spirit Stones? Fine for GT games, we knew that answer back in playtesting. They were geared for more 3rd turn wins than 4th turn (unless you play a nonagressive opponent). Point balance was based on no Spirit Stones. The big question was could we add a rule to help Eldar play in other type of games without shifting the balance of the list created for GT. The verdict still isn't clear but it looks like Eldar have an advantage (but how much of an advantage is still unclear). So, if it is agreed that the Eldar were GT balanced before Spirit Stones then there is no 'real' problem we can just drop them because.......................................................... Quote Jervis Johnson I want one set of lists that deal with 'line up an fight equal points battles' (which I'ce called tournament play because it's shorter) in as fair a manner as possible, while making sure that the rules cover other styles of play suited for us older players. However, I am going to expect those older players to be mature enough to sort out the games they play without the artificial crutch of 'points values' and 'balanced games'. Those that wish to play non-GT battles can, and are allowed to, add or delete whatever they wish. In fact JJ has said on many an occasion that they can even put together their own formation orgainizations for non-GT battles, it's ok. So put them down as an optional non-GT rule, or create another SS equivilant rule as an option for non-GT battles. My five cents, minus three cents change Jaldon _________________ Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.

Top

dysartes	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:10 am
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908	Someone (Tactica?) said earlier I hadn't made a clear position on Spirit Stones, so here goes. 1, I dislike the current rule for 3 reasons. 1, Feel. 2, Effect. 3, It being bolted on late in development with (according to Jaldon & co) little testing to see what would happen. 2, I do feel that the smaller Eldar vehicle formations need some way of removing BM a little easier - and if you're going to have a rule called Spirit Stones, then its effecton vehicles would be about as it is now (from what you see in 40k, anyway). 3, I don't feel the Warhosts needSpirit Stones - they're big enough & tough enough to look after themselves Why not try removing SS as an army-wide special rule, but have it as an upgrade for the vehicle support troupes (so Nightspinners, Fire Prisms & Falcons - not sure about EoV yet) where they pay x points for the formation to benefit from Spirit Stones? _________________ The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby! Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!
Top

Tepoc	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:59 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:25 am Posts: 82	Well, thanks for your time in expressing your views. I certainly agree with many points. When Swordwind Eldar come up for review I will certainly be approaching Jervis with some suggestions. My thanks to the army champions for putting your $0.02 in and others for being clear. Cheers! Tepoc/Sotec Eldar Army Champion _________________ ___ Beware the fury of the Bahazikhaine! http://www.pbase.com/tepoc/epic_army_pics
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:07 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Tepoc, Thank you for your response. Now, any chance we might be able to test out the proposed, and provide feedback before suggestions are made to JJ? The hope is that we avoid an untested 11th hour 'bolt on' change, which is meant to fix a problem originally caused by an 11th hour addition to the original list. _________________ Rob
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:36 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	With the current pace of the rules/army reviews I think there will be plenty of time... _________________ Neal
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:00 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

Quote (nealhunt @ 11 April 2006 (11:36)) With the current pace of the rules/army reviews I think there will be plenty of time... NH, I hear you, but when Tepoc (Eldar Champ) says this on page 20... Well, thanks for your time in expressing your views. I certainly agree with many points. When Swordwind Eldar come up for review I will certainly be approaching Jervis with some suggestions. My thanks to the army champions for putting your $0.02 in and others for being clear. Cheers! Tepoc/Sotec Eldar Army Champion It sounds like he's just planning on making some suggestions to JJ at the time of the review, but he doesn't give us any clue as to our course of action inbetween now and then. I see two options for the meantime... those are: 1) we just sit tight, work with the flawed rule as is and hope the powers that be make the right call at the next review meeting? (Which I for one don't even know if/when it will happen.) or 2) We drop SS as is. Test a champion sponsored NEW experimental rule that public and can test and tune through playtest and bat reps? I, for one, would like Tepoc to give us some guidance. For the record, I would prefer opton 2 - and it would appear that I'm not alone. Cheers, _________________ Rob

Top

MC23	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:53 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am Posts: 174	Quote (Tactica @ 10 April 2006 (23:59)) If the intent was to help the Eldar out beyond GT games, I'm suprised the rule isn't simply written to go into effect on turn 5+. That way it didn't affect GT games at all. The loss of viability of the Eldar was obvious in turn 4 which is why it was always refered as the 4th turn wilt. Eldar did not live to see turn 5. Now they were more than capable to secure a win in turn 3 but at the start of turn 4 (or very early in to turn 4) it was common to shake your opponents hand for a good game since the army was spent by that time. I don't have anything documented but I would say I was winning roughly around 50% of the time (at least it felt like it) but over 75% of those wins were in turn 3. So there was hope that a rule would keep game win balance but make playing a full turn 4 viable. _________________ I am MC23
Top

MC23	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:27 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am Posts: 174	I have come to the conclusion that one should never discuss politics, religion, or Spirit Stones. _________________ I am MC23
Top

Markconz	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:34 am
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	Quote (MC23 @ 11 April 2006 (23:27)) I have come to the conclusion that one should never discuss politics, religion, or Spirit Stones. LOL! _________________ http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top

Jaldon	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:10 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.	I vote for option two to make a clear identification as to what the problem is, before attempting a fix. What's wrong with discussing Buddism? Jaldon _________________ Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:36 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (Jaldon @ 12 April 2006 (00:10)) I vote for option two to make a clear identification as to what the problem is, before attempting a fix. Jaldon, thanks for the vote, I'm with you. I'm hoping Tepoc gets the message - or at least gives us a response one way or the other. MC23, E:A Eldar are a growing infactuation of mine. So I respect the passion and commitment to seeing the force done justice. I have a similar commitment to seeing the Tau done justice in E:A. So I genuinely do appreciate your work and development with the Eldar. I do hope you'll stay the course with us and help us get the SS rule replaced with something that better suits the list - where needed. I can't help but think about the 50% wins in turn 3 and 4th turn wilt comments as it may relay to other non-eldar armies. When I read this, I can say "me too" with my IG and my Tau for example. Moreso with Tau than IG. IG have commissars afterall. Their titans also have initiative 1 so it makes activating them a bit easier. The main reason for my feeling this way with Tau is because almost all of the formations (crisis are the only exception currently) are at base initiative 2+. So initial activations don't always cooperate - creating the hold blast marker. Furthermore, with enemy nearby, I am already at a 3+ to get rid of BM in the end phase - and that only gets worse as the game gets into latter turns. So without the titans init 1 relieving some of the potential for failed activation and end phase BM removal, my Tau seem to suffer from BM management moreso by comparison. Furthermore, the tau can't fight themselves out of a wet paper bag in close combat when compared to an Eldar, Chaos, or Orks CC and FF scores. So if I've not shot the opponent to pieces and manouvred to set up for a turn three land grab, I can find myself in a bad situation quick - sometimes before turn 3! So if anyone can empathise with turn 4 wilt - the Tau general can. I think the Tau are interesting observation for the Eldar Champion(s) because the SS rule was looked at early on to solve the very similiar Tau problems witnessed in development - but under the lable of "bonding" - in the end, we realized an army wide rule would not be effective at solving the real problem. Part of our problem was initiative. Part of our problem was leader. With initiative, we are exploring which units/formations should have init 1 by background and by balance. So far - its only crisis, but its being considered for the large Manta, moray, as well as the elite Stealths. We'll see how that goes. The initial results with Crisis have been very promising. Not only has the formation seen more use, its init 1 has worked to address part of the BM problem as its one less unit that has a chance to generate the hold BM and thus, with BM, it also rallies better in the end phase. This helps the army as a whole as its lowered the overall percentage of the army generating BM from a statistical perspective across 3+ turns. Of course, the formation can be eliminated and thus bring that percentage back up if the opponent seeks to remove this benefit from the Tau general. Somewhat like Eldar, Tau don't really rely *as heavily* on the traditional 'leader' per se like IG and marines do though. Tau do rely on their commanding officers so you'll find leader on a limited basis on the infantry, but those are a bit rare in the E:A Tau army. On the other hand, Tau rely heavily on technology to solve their problems. So the advent of Network Drone upgrade for the Tau vehicles came to pass. Currently, that is only being explored on one formation - the HH cadre. However, that has proven to yield good returns as well for a formation that severely needed it. A main fighting element of the tau that can make or break the Tau general's entire game. Its generating BM constantly and its nowhere the size of an IG LRMBT co and it doesn't have RA. So the Network Drone (leader) upgrade for the Hammerhead formation is 1) paid for in actual hard cost of points available, 2) takes up one of the precious 3 upgrade slots for the formation, and 3) is a targeted solution to the unit/formations that need it. We are also looking at the possibility of extending this solution to the Scorpionfish, the Stingray, & HH contingent formations. For now - its only on the HH Cadre but results have all been positive for several months since its inception. The present mood is to cautiously move forward with the concept. So, I think there are solutions to explore for the Eldar MC23 (and Tepoc - whereever you are...) I just hope the both of you can recognize the public plea to move down the proactive path sooner rather than later. See my item 2 above in color that Jaldon was referencing. In test - eliminate the SS rule and play some games for observation of issues. Document findings as previously outlined. Move down the path of a targetted solution as needed. I don't think anyone wants to see the Eldar fail. I know I don't, I just spent several hundreds of dollars on a very large force. I'm looking forward to much enjoyment and many hours of play from owning my own models (instead of repeadidly burrowing my bud's!). Cheers for listening MC23 (and Tepoc), _________________ Rob
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:19 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	Quote (MC23 @ 12 April 2006 (00:27)) I have come to the conclusion that one should never discuss politics, religion, or Spirit Stones. H4W! _________________ Neal
Top

wargame_insomniac	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:38 pm
Purestrain Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm Posts: 3305 Location: West Yorkshire, UK	Quote (MC23 @ 12 April 2006 (00:27)) I have come to the conclusion that one should never discuss politics, religion, or Spirit Stones. Ok so what does that leave us with- the weather?? Cheers James _________________ My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs My Epic trades list
Top

Ginger	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:05 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm Posts: 5483 Location: London, UK	Guys Following on from the comments of MC23 (and others) could we try to clarify exactly what constitutes "4th turn wilt" and more importantly, what are it's consequences (which as I understand it was the problem that SS was intended to fix)? For starters, would a reasonable statement be that "4th turn wilt" involves a reduction in the number of formations available, and a reduction in the viability of these surviving formations (being Broken, or through reduced unit numbers and the presence of BMs)? ?As for the consequences, as MC23 noted elsewhere, it would seem that these are harder to define and thus harder to mitigate - hence the SS rule and this debate. So could I also ask :- 1) Which is the worse consequence - the total loss of a formation, or the lack of viability of a formation (broken, BMs etc)? 2) Which is the formation that impacts the Eldar most when it is lost / rendered non-viable? Cheers Ginger _________________ "Play up and play the game" Vitai lampada Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top

Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 14 of 15

[ 212 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net