| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
Guys, I have followed the debate with some interest, especially about the "fluff" and the way it supports this or that interpretation. In some respects, I think there is merit in both sets of descriptions, but Neal is correct that the 40K game mechanics are irrelevant. We should really be arguing over the results of the mechanics, not the way they work, and working in the E:A realm rather than 40K. The recent argument is really over what can be done to make these formations more vulnerable to being attacked. Is this sufficient?
Additionally, when considering the army lists, it is well worth considering how to abuse things by maxing out on a formation, and considering the results. In this case consider a possible Saim Hann list of 9x Windrider warhosts, organised in three groups each with a Farseer. Total cost 2175, leaving more than enough for supporting formations out of the usual 3000 point army. In one Eldar go under the current system, the first group activates, moving 35cms forward and bringing 19x FF attacks on a target which is usually more than enough to completely annihilate it, and they then move at right angles towards the next target within 50cms. The next group assault this formation, and with the support of the first group can bring up to 38x FF attacks (assuming there is enough room to get them all in  ), and using the Farseer activation, can bring on the third assault. The assaults described thus occur over a possible area of up to 100 cms wide (150 cms if ?preparing for the next go) by 50 cms deep, or in old money around 3' 4" x 1' 8" (or more than half the normal table in use by most people). Worse, because of the "Skimmer" defence and armour values, the jetbikes are pretty much immune to attack, and can usually shrug off any lucky 6s that strike home.
(With the Biel Tan, the list is similar, but uses 3x Guardian Warhosts in Wave serpents and 6x jet bike troupes, total cost 2250, with 20x FF dice in the first assault, and up to 40x FF dice in the second and third assaults - very congested indeed )
Now I am sure that you gentlemen on the boards would not dream of pulling such a stunt because your opponents would get a tad ticked off, and if repeated, would probably stop playing. So the debate is ultimately around how to remove the temptation to exploit this kind of abuse from those weaker or less scrupulous souls out there.
The three elements proposed are :- - Reduce the armour value to 5+, making it less easy to shrug off those "lucky" 6s.
- Remove "skimmer", meaning that the jetbikes must take more care over their positioning to avoid being assaulted
- Reduce Consolidation to 15cms, which reduces the follow up attack to any enemy within 30cms reducing the "danger zone" to 60cms wide x 50 cms deep. (Personally, I would prefer to only allow a full move to disengage away from enemy, thus removing the potential for follow on support altogether, but that is another story).
- (An additional suggestion that has been made is to reduce the power of the attack by reducing the FF attack to 5+, but this has not yet been included in the current proposals)
I would submit that the three proposals dampen this kind of assault, but do not remove it altogether, because the Jetbikes will normally assault to their FF range, thus you should still get at least three crushing assaults each turn (unless the FF factor is reduced), followed up by several more such assaults at other points - with a few more Farseers around, this is going to be too much for most armies, so I wonder if we are really asking the right questions here.
There has been much debate over the lack of leaders in the Eldar army, and I suspect that the above example is actually the compelling reason for their limitation. Is there actually an argument for limiting the numbers of Farseer lead formations here, or possibly limiting the numbers of Jetbike formations per 1000 points (in a similar fashion to A/c)?
Ginger
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
?) 
) it would contradict the other rules (like indefinite hover) and background in the same book (GW contradicting itself - couldn't possibly? ?
).