Reviewing Spirit Stones |
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones  Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:35 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (epilgrim @ 03 April 2006 (08:21)) | | I agree in principle, the infantry alone should get Spirit Stones... |
Is that based on the fluff written for the rule, or your belief that the infantry need BM management and the AV troupes do not?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
epilgrim
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:03 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362
|
semajnollissor,
I am concerned that if a change is made to a rule that is global for the Eldar, such as removing, modifying or limiting Spirit Stones then each effected unit must be re-evaluated to re-balance the list.
I thought the change in the Leader mechanics (see page 12) was a moderate approach that has a reasonable adjustment to this issue for all armies.
as for the basis of limiting Spirit Stones to infantry...isn't all about theme anyway ? ? Yes, fictionally the source of the spirit stones is the infantry, but if memory serves the vehicles are the ones that 'use' them...memory very spotty lately.
Sadly in E:A at least, the Spirit Stones are starting to feel and sound like SM Gene Seeds...
any consideration for my BM Leader revise suggestion?
_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
thurse
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:16 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
|
|
Well epilgrim, I don't think your solution is a bad one, far from that!
My point is just that if we can solve the eldar problem without modifying the core EA rule, it is better. Why?, because it will take a very very long time to change the core rules because of an eldar issue, and most people who do not play eldars will be very doubtful about this need.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:18 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (epilgrim @ 03 April 2006 (09:03)) | I am concerned that if a change is made to a rule that is global for the Eldar, such as removing, modifying or limiting Spirit Stones then each effected unit must be re-evaluated to re-balance the list.
I thought the change in the Leader mechanics (see page 12) was a moderate approach that has a reasonable adjustment to this issue for all armies. |
Well, I'd say that changing a universal rule instead of a race-specific rule (even if the change is small) is not an option. I really doubt the IG players will go for it. Even though, as you have pointed out, the difference is only seen with 3 BMs, it is a noticable change. Still, I don't mind you suggestion, but I would check the opinion of the broader player base before you get too fond of it.
as for the basis of limiting Spirit Stones to infantry...isn't all about theme anyway ? ? Yes, fictionally the source of the spirit stones is the infantry, but if memory serves the vehicles are the ones that 'use' them...memory very spotty lately. |
Yeah, that's what confused me, I didn't know if you were speaking from a fluff PoV, or a game mechanic PoV.
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
As a regular Eldar player I can tell you they need a bump in the rally. ?That was -as I understand- what JJ had commented before Swordwind was released.
My games against ePiglrim haven't always been against his Demiurg. ?I have faced off against Orks, Space Marines, Imperial Guard (most frequently).
The best alternative solution I ever saw was giving the Exarchs the leader ability, but it didn't solve the real problem - the tank formations (Falcons, Night Spinners, Fire Prisms) breaking left and right. ?
I wish I could come up with a better solution, but I haven't been able to. ?Quite frankly I have felt the existing suggestions have been too complicated or wouldn't work. ?My desire is to find some compromise because others are seemingly having a problem when fighting against the Eldar.
Oddly enough, I have watched the Battlestat numbers for the last year and observed that they have dropped steadily from just under 70% when Swordwind first published to 59.4% today. ?This is with no modifications to the Eldar.
My theory is four-fold:
1. People are learning to adapt to the Spirit Stones by concentrating fire and closing quickly on broken or heavily suppressed formations which accounts for the ratio dropping (i.e. new army syndrome dissipating).
2. With the new experimental rules affecting skimmers (i.e. the Eldar will be affected most of all), this number will continue it's steady decline into the 50-60% range. ?Other rules such as the MW Barrage and token assaults will IMO positively affect other armies more.
3. In addition, the Space Marine changes to improve their list will inevitably increase their wins which will increase losses for the Eldar by some percentage.
4. I actually think a couple of the point cost adjustments are valid (700,750,800 for the Titans; reversing costs of Wraithguard and Wraithlord). ?Once again - nothing to do with Spirit Stones but they will affect the army.
Perhaps the solution is to do... NOTHING about the Spirit Stones.  ?
Be honest, NOBODY would have a problem with the Spirit Stones if the Eldar had a 50% or less win ratio. NOBODY.
NOBODY complains about the Space Marines and the TSKNF ability. (win ratio 37%).
NOBODY complains about the Imperial Guard Commissars (win ratio 45%).
NOBODY complains about the Ork +2 on initiative for double-moves (win ratio 53%).
It is the win ratio that drives the complaints. ?
The points I bring up WILL affect the win ratio- they have to.
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:37 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
| Quote (semajnollissor @ 03 April 2006 (14:18)) | | Quote (epilgrim @ 03 April 2006 (09:03)) | I am concerned that if a change is made to a rule that is global for the Eldar, such as removing, modifying or limiting Spirit Stones then each effected unit must be re-evaluated to re-balance the list.
I thought the change in the Leader mechanics (see page 12) was a moderate approach that has a reasonable adjustment to this issue for all armies. |
Well, I'd say that changing a universal rule instead of a race-specific rule (even if the change is small) is not an option. |
Absolutely correct - there is no way a universal rule will be changed because of SS issues. The only way forward is a look at the SS rule itself.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:59 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
|
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
| Quote (Moscovian @ 03 April 2006 (15:30)) | The best alternative solution I ever saw was giving the Exarchs the leader ability, but it didn't solve the real problem - the tank formations (Falcons, Night Spinners, Fire Prisms) breaking left and right. ?
I wish I could come up with a better solution, but I haven't been able to. ?Quite frankly I have felt the existing suggestions have been too complicated or wouldn't work. ?My desire is to find some compromise because others are seemingly having a problem when fighting against the Eldar. |
What is complicated or wouldn't work about just restricting the current rule to some armoured vehicle formations - as you say (highlighting your own words for emphasis!) the falcons, night spinners and fire prisms are the real problem.
So why not just restrict the rule to them!? 
As Tactica has already said - this problem really is not that complicated - a bit of leadership from the champs and this would be a dead issue. After all this time this is not a quick fix... more endless debate is not needed. ?While I understand MC23 is trying for the perfect solution with his approach stated at the beginning of this thread (and is to be commmended for it), I do not think this is the best approach after all this time. I do not think it is even possible to get a 'perfect' solution. None of the exisitng epic rules to date are 'perfect' solutions - instead they are rules that are 'good enough'. That is real success.
The current spirit stone rule is not 'good enough', we need to modify it slightly so it is. Combined with the new restricted skimmer rules (now finally going to be official in their latest form according to Greg Lane), this should get eldar into a more reasonable state of balance against other armies. As many exprienced players have testified, restricting the current spirit stones rules to 'formations of armoured vehicles only' would do just that!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:31 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
|
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
| Quote (Moscovian @ 03 April 2006 (15:30)) | | Oddly enough, I have watched the Battlestat numbers for the last year and observed that they have dropped steadily from just under 70% when Swordwind first published to 59.4% today. ?This is with no modifications to the Eldar. |
Well I have in fact reported more losses to Battlestats with Biel Tan than wins... However all losses have been to Ulthwe so that needs to be considered. I also suspect that in the interest of a good game against eldar, we have just stopped using certain armies because they just don't stand a chance.
In my playgroups experience playing against eldar - marines are hopelessly outclassed unless they take an extremely specialised army. Guard need to take arty and infantry heavy lists. Orks are not so badly off because they don't have expensive tanks. I don't think these are isolated experiences when I survey reports on epic forums.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:35 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
Ok, to regarding the last few posts:-
Thanks all for your various perspectives, (most of which have been discussed earlier in one form or another as you are probably aware). IMO, playing against ANY list still allows us to evaluate the performance of the Eldar formations - even if the opposing list is unfinished (or even considered to be outrageously unbalanced) ? - so please keep the Bet Rep observations coming in. Ideally, could you note the following - The generic effects on the Eldar formations (whether they were easily broken / destroyed) preferably noting the turn in which this occurred
- The effects on the smaller formations (Fire Prisms, Falcon troupes, etc) and whether Spirit Stones, or some other mechanism for BM management, would have helped
- Whether '4th turn wilt' set in and which formations would have benefited from some form of revised BM management
As we can see even from the last few posts here, there is a range of valid opinions being expressed. If we can focus on the actual effects, it should be possible for us to define a problem statement, supported by fact, something along the lines of:
"In general, formations X, Y, & Z find it difficult to shake off the last BM, making it harder for them to activate."
Once we have formulated and agreed this statement, it should be much easier to work out how to resolve the problem.
At present, the balance of opinion seems to be that the Eldar probably need some form of boost for BM management. However, I have to agree with MC23 that until we decide upon which elements need fixing, it is very unlikely that we will be able to agree the form that the revised mechanism should take.
Cheers
Ginger
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:12 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
Ginger, you are right. Unless we can come to some consensus this will go nowhere.
But the fact that we can't come to a consensus tells me a couple of things:
1. The problem may not be as bad as some would think.
2. The solution may not be in the Spirit Stones at all.
I won't reiterate my earlier comments (look up!  ), but I would hope you all would strip the pre-conceptions you might have and consider my thoughts.
This said, there has been a tremendous amount of effort poured into revising the SS rule by a lot of different people. The idea that we would take those efforts and 'can' them is probably appauling to many but may be necessary.
Markconz,
The reason why I don't like restricting them to the tanks alone is because it makes the rule seem seem fiddly. And I think the addition of the Leader ability to the Exarchs may backfire. I frequently bring 2 Exarchs per aspect formation and I suspect others do as well. With the Leader ability they are now shedding TWO extra BMs instead of one. I don't think the infantry need that.
Solution to that? Only one exarch per formation, but that is a huge change. Rule that the Exarchs can only take off 1 BM per formation, and now it gets fiddly, see?
Give Spirit Stones only to the vehicles without anything to the infantry? Tough call. Will this unbalance the list in the opposite direction? Don't know.
You see we all bring our own personal experiences to the forum, but the Battlestats (although they are probably not perfect) are the best measurement for how well a list is balanced. The more data points (games played), the more accurate that number becomes. There may be some games reported incorrectly, but you will see that in any statistic (that's why polls come out with a plus or minus).
59% is not far off. It needs a nudge to bring it into the 50% range. My point (okay I am reiterating, ugh) is that there is not enough time or people playing the experimental rules to have allowed that percentage to change.
If after another 100 games or so we don't see that number creeping down, then it is time to make the changes to whatever.
Bear in mind there is the existing pool of data which will keep the numbers higher for a time. What I would love to see is a separated stat pool once experimental rules become the norm.
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
So... hypothetically speaking of course... If we were to remove spirit stones from the list' temporarily, then play games.
Could we not log whether or not Eldar were winning 50% plus of their games?
Could we not log which formations were not activating each turn due to BM?
Could we not log which opponent armies this happened against?
Could we not log at what points levels the games were being played at when these occurences were encountered?
Could we not ultimately glean from the above four data points everything we need to derive a mission/problem statement?
Am I missing something obvious here or is this not the blatantly obvious and logical approach to finger pointing the problem out - if theres indeed one to be found?
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
|
Yes, we could. The difference in the two approaches is that one approach requires active participation from everyone (removing the SS rule) and the other approach is more passive (doing nothing to the rule).
Perhaps we can find a way to get Battlestats to record the version of rules used as part of their data collection. They don't necessarily have to put that on the post, but it will be there in their data pool.
Then later we could request the Eldar wins/losses based sorted by rules version and see if there is a difference.
Asking Battlestats to include the Spirit Stone rule removal will probably not work however, since people can't agree that it needs to be removed (I am one of them).
Even my suggestion requires some big buy in from whoever is running Battlestats though.
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
Hey Tac
We seem to be violently in ageement here - well almost (that would just be too much now wouldn't it) ?
I don't think that it really matters too much whether or not people use the SS rule as long as they inform us in the Bat reps, and provide some comments on the alternative hypothetical results.
Cheers
Ginger
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:13 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
Guys
check out the Ulthwe vs Guard 2700 Bat rep, in which the Ulthwe player was using Spirit stones, and contends that they were the only thing keeping him in the game past turn 1.
The more brittle Eldar Falcons, Fire Prisms and Night Spinners (5 formations out of 10) seem to have spent most of the game broken, but on the table at least in part - for 2 turns, but were then largely wiped out in turns 3 & 4
Cheers
Ginger
(fixed link)
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
| Top |
|
|
