Page 8 of 15

[ 212 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next

Reviewing Spirit Stones
Jaldon	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:26 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.	The issues around the E:A Spirit Stone rule, as I understand them are... 1) rule doesn't have core design justification for its inclusion as written (spirit stones exist in the fluff, but they don't do that!) 2) The rule was written, as per MC23, to address a situation that occurs outside of GT games - bad justification for any E:A army rule! 3) The benefit of the rule extends to more units than even would warrant it - in those games that go beyond GT games. Games played and reported have proven time and time again that every formation in the entire list does not need "Leader." 4) With the rule in place as written, based upon the GT point pricing, the benefit of the current rule makes the units within the GT list too cheap for their impact on the 4 turn GT game. Therefore, if my understanding of the issues are accurate as viewed by the masses and majority of players, my perhaps limited logic would dictate that... 1) remove the current army wide rule. Its a no-brainer. 2) Without the rule in place, playtest to see if ANY formations even need such a benefit during the majority of GT style games played. Some would argue its not needed at all, others would argue that its needed sparingly across the list. Fine - lets see where its really needed - if anywhere. 3) If needed by some formations, develop a new rule that achieves the necessary level of BM management (Leader) for ONLY those units/formations that NEED the rule to adequately perform at an acceptable level for the points currently being paid. 4) Review the points list wide to see if changes need to be addressed in absence of the SS rule. As many have reported that the list works without the rule in place at all, one would think this step is more precautionary than anything else. that!) Here is the Overview from page 10 post #4 Speaking only for myself, the Eldar locally were already winning 50%+ of their battles BEFORE the arrival of Spirit Stones (And I and two others locally, play Eldar). IMHO they were never needed, though I do admit some Eldar formations do suffer a BM problem ie shaking them off. While I would not be opposed to a comprimise that makes sense and isn't 'all encompassing' (Or is close to being a re-worked version of what we already have), I do think we should take our time in the process so we get it right this time. I have a Nid vs Eldar battle scheduled for this weekend, and I will be posting it as a batrep, and I know that Jack will not be upset if he has to fight the battle without Spirit Stones. So as the judge I will enforce that on him as a playtest of said same restriction No Spirit Stones. Fair Enough Jaldon _________________ Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.

Top

Ginger

Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:40 am

Brood Brother Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm Posts: 5483 Location: London, UK

Thanks Tac and Jadon As you and others suggested earlier, I must admit, somewhat naively, I was hoping that the forum members could generate an agreed problem statement along the lines of: "Eldar formations X, Y & Z suffer problems shaking off BM" and then use Bat Reps to back up the assertions of which turn this occurred in, define the affected formations the impact etc. We would then be in a position to follow the other steps outlined by MC23 and yourself Tac. Jadon, what size armies will you and Jack be using, and will you be following the GT format etc? Cheers Ginger _________________ "Play up and play the game" Vitai lampada Sir Hemry Newbolt

Top

Gotchaye	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:08 am
Brood Brother Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:25 am Posts: 59	I realize that this isn't that important to the discussion at the moment, but I had some thoughts as to how the rule could be changed so as to make more sense.  One of the biggest problems with the rule as-is seems to be that it's unfluffy. If we opt for vehicle-restricted Stones, we could say that the Spirit Stones that vehicles are equipped with allow them to automatically correct for glancing hits and can exercise limited amounts of control even when the pilots are distracted - thus, [list of applicable Eldar vehicles] ignore BMs for coming under fire.  In general, I think this would be a slight nerf, as it'll generally only serve to stop 1 BM a turn against most formations, and in situations in which 3 BMs are normally caused, it doesn't allow complete removal of all BMs as the current SS does (rounding at the end leaves you with one).  It also serves to emphasize that the Eldar are hard to hit - you have to actually kill them to stop them, shooting at them and missing by a mile doesn't count for anything. Alternately, it could be done the other way around (if infantry keep the things).  Stones might make it so that losses aren't felt as sharply as they would otherwise be (where Guardsmen don't like it when the squad next to them gets obliterated, Eldar know that their friends' souls are safe).  Thus, Eldar ignore BMs for dead units.  This one I don't like nearly so much, though.  I think it does make a bit more sense than the current one, but that's about all I can say for it.
Top

Markconz	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:13 am
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	Well two more games at 3K using MC23's old rule for lack of any other suggestions. Ulthwe were: Gate, Avatar Black Guardians, walkers, vypers, Seer Council. 2 Gaurdians, Wraithguard, Heavy Weapon Platforms, 1 formation with Support platforms. Phoenix's 3 Scorpions (1 formation) Fire Prisms 2 Night Spinners Swooping Hawks. I used a very Aspect heavy Biel Tan list. Avatar Gate Guardians, HW platforms, Wraithguard. Guardians Dark Reapers Banshees (2 Exarchs), Wave Serpents. Striking Scorpions (Exarch, Autarch). Swooping Hawks (2 Exarchs). Vampire 2 Scorpions (1 formation) Fire Prisms. Both games were won by Ulthwe, turn 4 in game 1 (I really should have won in turn 3 if I had kept my wits about me and held all my objectives). Game 2 was going ok until my vampire was blown up with aspects aboard... and I conceded in turn 3. Game 1, turn 2, I had to make a choice about where to not remove BM from - guardians, 2 aspect formations or scorpion tanks. Made a slight difference from the point of view of choosing which formation I wantedto keep with BM and initiative penalty on - in the end i left the BM on the guardians (because, well they were the most worthless unit for the next turn). ?Still it wasnt' a very critical difference. Apart from that the games were indistinguishable from what they would be if we were using the standard rules. _________________ http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top

Jaldon	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:19 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.	Jadon, what size armies will you and Jack be using, and will you be following the GT format etc? I will be the judge, Jack is playing Biel-Tann Eldar, and Jesse will be playing Tyranids. 2,700pts, 4'x6' table, 12xTerrain features, strict GT format. Jaldon _________________ Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.

Top

Ginger	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:32 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm Posts: 5483 Location: London, UK	Thanks Markconz I guess the questions here are :- 1) Would the result in game 2 have been the same without any BM removal?? (from the report it seems so) 2) Could you detail how the Fire Prisms fared on each side 3) How did the Banshees+serpents formation fare? 4) Off topic, but out of curiosity, did you allow each army to deploy from the other army's gate? Cheers Ginger _________________ "Play up and play the game" Vitai lampada Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top

Markconz	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:26 am
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	Quote (Ginger @ 02 April 2006 (21:32)) Thanks Markconz I guess the questions here are :- 1) Would the result in game 2 have been the same without any BM removal?? (from the report it seems so) 2) Could you detail how the Fire Prisms fared on each side 3) How did the Banshees+serpents formation fare? 4) Off topic, but out of curiosity, did you allow each army to deploy from the other army's gate? Hi Ginger, 1. Difficult to say. For instance the overwatch fire from the Seers guardian formation destroyed my vampire - but it came down to the last dice roll - perhaps if one more unit was suppressed that last dice roll would't have been made? Being able to remove the last BM from a formation is often critical when it comes to initiatvie and assaults. 2. Game 1, turn 1, my fire prisms broke the Ulthwe Scorpion formation (after an initial round of fire from my own scorpions), and then broke when shot by Ulthwe Fireprisms. They rallied turn two but were then destroyed by Ulthwe Phoenix bombers (failed to do any AA hits). The Ulthwe FirePrisms (and broken Scorpions which failed to rally) were destroyed by my Swooping Hawks on turn 2. Game 2, our fire prisms were destroyed turn 1 by air power after being broken ?by night spinner fire (in my case) and fire prism fire (in the ulthwe case). 3. Game 1 turn 1, ?as a last move the Banshees marched to the enemy board edge and unloaded next to Ulthwe NIght Spinners and the broken remains of one of an Ulthwe guardian formation (1 wraithguard and 1 farseer - all that was left after an aerial assualt by my striking scorpions). ?However, the Ulthwe guardians rallied, soummoned their Avatar, and a fresh guardian formation gating in declared a combined engage action (oops on my part for not seeing that one coming). My bansee formation was totally destroyed without causing a single casualty (damn wraithguard and Avatar absorbing hits!!). ? Game 2 turn 2, my banshees destroy the Ulthwe Avatar with first strike (hooray)and elminate a guardian formation, with assistance from a Biel Tan guardian formation. I loose 4 banshees in the exchange. Turn 3 the formation is bombed by phoenix bombers and loses a serpent and banshee and I concede later that turn anway due to overall losses and a hopeless position. 4. Certainly not!! ? _________________ http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top

Ginger	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:33 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm Posts: 5483 Location: London, UK	Guys Epilgrim has written up a small novel on the SG forum that is a very enjoyable read, which also includes a 5000pt Bat rep between BT Eldar and the Demiurg here that lasted 5 turns. I have asked that they detail :- 1) Whether the standard Eldar SS rules were in use? If not, what BM management rules were used for the Eldar? 2) Did the BT experience 4th / 5th turn "wilt" due to failed activations etc? 3) What happened to the different BT formations - were there any memorable "failures" that could have had different outcomes under alternative BM management rules? Cheers Ginger (Biggles) _________________ "Play up and play the game" Vitai lampada Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top

Moscovian	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:28 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm Posts: 6414 Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA	Well, as the Eldar victim in the aforementioned game, I guess I can answer: 1) We used straight out of the Swordwind rules. We did employ some of the experimental rules relating to MW Barrage attacks, skimmers, and token assaults.  Past that it was a normal game. 2) The Biel Tan wilted in turn 1.  It was awful.  I made one armour save in turn 1 on one unit (keep in mind virtually every formation was attacked, so I lost about 30% of my fighting force before being able to do anything. Failed activations... I would say it was not the cause of their demise.  As ePilgrim pointed out - just weird dice. 3) All the failures became a blur, but I can't think of any of them that were governed by BMs.  Strategy roll, yes (first three turns went to Demiurg).   With all said, the game was still in play toward the end.  I had 1-2 unit formations running around the board attempting to claim objectives while my artillery shot at everyone.  I will say that -had the Spirit Stone rule not been used- my artillery would not have activated for two of those turns.  The ability to shed that last BM kept a 2-initiative formation in play and allowed the game to continue past turn 2 (eeek!). _________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories... It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top

epilgrim	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:32 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm Posts: 362	as a non-Eldar player in this thread I would like to point out my observations on playing against them since 3rd edition. They die with the regularity associated with every other army. In 3rd edition they were punished if a formation got wiped out. In E:A IF they rally they get to remove 1 BM as per leader. While I occassionally find it annoying, it is part of the tactics when playing against them. THe only way to assure they get no advantage is to press the attack against any unit you can break and keep the modifiers high. That usually involves some risk and sacrificing range, but it works. Eldar armies have been my regular opponent for years, and I believe my play reflects acceptance and adaptation to the exisiting rules. Furthermore, the eldar formations are relatively small and like SM need some hook to keep them in the game so to me 'Spirit Stones' (Brass Balls? ) seems silly with regards to fiction, but not form. NOT KNOWING IF THIS WAS DISCUSSED: What about a review of the Leader Function? As this is only a true advantage when dealing with an odd number or Blast markers (ie 5, rally, take hajf rounded up , leaves 2 minus 1 for Leader/Stones final result 1), How about this: 'Leader/Spirit Stones - A formation that successfully rallies may remove 1 Blast marker before removing one-half (rounding up).' In the same example the result would be the same as for 6 BM (5 minus 1 (Leader/Stones), take half rounded up leaves 2) Effectively the Leader rule would then be ideal for formations with 2 BM, instead of the current problem where 3 BM becomes none. thoughts? _________________ Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
Top

Markconz	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:35 pm
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	Quote (Ginger @ 03 April 2006 (09:33)) ...5000pt Bat rep between BT Eldar and the Demiurg 2) Did the BT experience 4th / 5th turn "wilt" due to failed activations etc? I think we have to be very careful about drawing any conclusions from playtest games that involve radical variant lists like squats. _________________ http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top

thurse	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:00 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm Posts: 185 Location: Dundee, Scotland	@epilgrim I dont know if downgrading the leader ability is a solution, as it would impact armies differently ( some armies pays for this abilility ) On the other hand, it is another acceptable idea to modify the spirit stone rule. Furthermore, I agree with the first part of your post. However, what I really don't like with the current rules is that you cant kill spirit stones. This is the main problem for me, but I really consider what other people have posted here, concerning which units should get BM removal.
Top

thurse	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:05 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm Posts: 185 Location: Dundee, Scotland	Just a question, BTW. As MC23 said he's going to take a break from this forum, what people here would like to do? 1) wait for an update 2) working on a change in a constructive way, what means somebody in charge of taking decision.
Top

epilgrim	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:11 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm Posts: 362	Mark, I understand your comment regarding a list that probably won't garner much support, but my comments regarding Spirit Stones are not rooted in the work on the Demiurg. As for the game itself, without some Leader type ability a la Spirit Stones, as the BT army is priced currently, Moscovian would have been unable to continue. If Spirit Stones was removed or re-costed the BT would have really been in the crapper. Both armies were performing horribly, I barely got out of my deployment area (and not for lack of trying) and Moscovian couldn't make any saves. In this example specific army lists seem irrelevant IMO. In our many battles with Marines or Guard his Spirit Stones did their job same as my TSKNF or Commissars. BTW in most games I always end up with enough Commissars to give my guard the same ability, also for no points, has anyone had a different experience? I excluded Orks because the Orks are a bad example for me as I can't seem to find my feel for them yet, I always get wiped out, literally ? _________________ Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
Top

epilgrim	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:21 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm Posts: 362	Thurse, I agree in principle, the infantry alone should get Spirit Stones, but I think the unit costs for armoured formations, aircraft and Titans might then need a tweek. Game play wise my idea has little effect really: # of BM, after rally, with Leader (SS), revised EP suggestion: 1, 0, 0, 0 2, 1, 0 ,0 3, 1, 0, 1 4, 2, 1, 1 5, 2, 1, 2 6, 3, 2, 2 7, 3, 2, 3 8, 4, 3, 3 9, 4, 3, 4 10, 5, 4, 4 its really only a 1 line shift that is crucial for the 3 BM situation. The change in the Leader ability is not so significant IMO. _________________ Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
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 8 of 15

[ 212 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next

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