Reviewing Spirit Stones |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones  Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:27 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
MC23,
Point well made and I completely appreciate where you stand. Again, I'm happy to playtest and will do so.
I must admit, your latest post does offer me some new insite.
I didn't think we were developing lists for
1) non-tournament play and
2) beyond the turn 3/4 mark.
I now stand corrected.
I'll have to let CS and Jaldon know that in the Tau & Tyranid boards just in case they are only devleoping to the tournament standard.
Cheers for the insite! Ready to test!
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:20 am |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
|
Ok managed to get a quick game in tonight. Played my first 3K game with this rule. Quick report before bed.
Not sure exactly what information you want MC23 (please ask)but here goes.
IG (anti-eldar artillery and infantry list, but more inexperienced player), vs my Biel Tan. I used a phantom, two guardian hosts (one in vampire), reapers, banshees in serpents, falcons, 2 scorpions.
Turns 1-2 all eldar formations rallying used the playetest rule to remove an extra BM. Turn 3 all eldar formations used it except one aspect formation, and one guardian formation where it didn't make much difference anyway. Turn 4 it didn't matter as game end.
Conclusion - in this game the playtest rule made no real difference over the original, whatever wanted to rally and really needed the BM removal got it.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Markconz,
Thanks for the update.
Conclusion - in this game the playtest rule made no real difference over the original, whatever wanted to rally and really needed the BM removal got it. |
This is exactly what I feared would happen. If its 1 additional BM per 1000 played, the Eldar player won't typiclly need more than 3 in a turn to have the same net effect as the existing rule.
Especially if all units are allowed the ability.
If the goal is observance to see who needs it the most, then the better approach under the 'everyone can use it' scenerio is to see who needs it the most and how often...
Only allow 1 single additional BM removal per turn for every 3000 points being played.
This will then tell you exactly which formations are being considered the "must have" for the ability. We will definitely get some usable data that way.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:10 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 09 Mar. 2006 (11:51)) | If the goal is observance to see who needs it the most, then the better approach under the 'everyone can use it' scenerio is to see who needs it the most and how often...
Only allow 1 single additional BM removal per turn for every 3000 points being played.
This will then tell you exactly which formations are being considered the "must have" for the ability. We will definitely get some usable data that way. |
My experince tells me that the formations that "need it most" aren't the same as the formations that "get the most useful benefit."
I think it will always be more useful to apply the rule to things like Aspect hosts, even though they don't necessarily need it the most (i.e. they can still operate fairly well without it). That's why I think that this approach (even with only 1 BM per 3000 pts) might not make much difference either way.
Still, I haven't had a chance to playtest either yet.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:01 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
@semajnollissor,
I agree with you that this isn't the ideal way to get the most useful data, however, if this is the approach "free BM to use per turn" I think 1 is more telling than 3 - per 300 ponts played just from a scientific data gathering perspective.
Basically, if you have limited resources each turn (1 free BM removal) where are you using it.
On the other hand - as you pointed out... where it will get use if the entire army has access to it - and where it should be limited to affecting are two VERY different things.
I think it should be limited to armor use of some type(s) and the infantry (the dieing race) should have to learn how to deal with their fragility.
With infantry BM removal - the fragile nature of the dieing race and their - they have a complete lack of 'concious' for damage potential on the field. That's just not the way the infantry should work IMHO.
With your same caveat though - I have not been able to try this out yet myself. I'm hoping too this weekend though.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:28 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (Markconz @ 09 Mar. 2006 (04:20)) | Ok managed to get a quick game in tonight. Played my first 3K game with this rule. Quick report before bed.
Not sure exactly what information you want MC23 (please ask)but here goes.
IG (anti-eldar artillery and infantry list, but more inexperienced player), vs my Biel Tan. I used a phantom, two guardian hosts (one in vampire), reapers, banshees in serpents, falcons, 2 scorpions.
Turns 1-2 all eldar formations rallying used the playetest rule to remove an extra BM. Turn 3 all eldar formations used it except one aspect formation, and one guardian formation where it didn't make much difference anyway. Turn 4 it didn't matter as game end.
Conclusion - in this game the playtest rule made no real difference over the original, whatever wanted to rally and really needed the BM removal got it. |
Curious, how many formations did you have? Flyers excluded. I know the Titan eats up a lot of points.
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:26 am |
|
| Purestrain |
|
|
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
| Quote (MC23 @ 10 Mar. 2006 (22:28)) | | Quote (Markconz @ 09 Mar. 2006 (04:20)) | Ok managed to get a quick game in tonight. Played my first 3K game with this rule. Quick report before bed.
Not sure exactly what information you want MC23 (please ask)but here goes.
IG (anti-eldar artillery and infantry list, but more inexperienced player), vs my Biel Tan. I used a phantom, two guardian hosts (one in vampire), reapers, banshees in serpents, falcons, 2 scorpions.
Turns 1-2 all eldar formations rallying used the playetest rule to remove an extra BM. Turn 3 all eldar formations used it except one aspect formation, and one guardian formation where it didn't make much difference anyway. Turn 4 it didn't matter as game end.
Conclusion - in this game the playtest rule made no real difference over the original, whatever wanted to rally and really needed the BM removal got it. |
Curious, how many formations did you have? Flyers excluded. I know the Titan eats up a lot of points. |
7 plus the Vampire and Avatar, (my two scorpions were one formation). So 9 total.
I have another two games tomorrow - Biel Tan vs Ulthwe - any requests?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:35 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Play the phantom in one and play the reverents in the other. (please!) 
cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:35 am |
|
| Purestrain |
|
|
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
Ok two more 3K games with my Biel Tan today, ended up doing one vs Ulthwe and one vs Marines. Same list for me as last time for both games - except I replaced the phantom with 2 Revenants and 4 Rangers. First game vs Ulthwe was a draw (less than 10% diff in VP's we count as a draw). Game vs marines I won 4-1 in turn 3, though it was much closer than the score might indicate...
I should also point out that for these games we have been using the current experimental rules - including the one Greg Lane has just posted for Garrisons (up to two formations garrisoning can be on overwatch), plus the 3BP Rocket Launcher and 60cm turbolasers on Reavers and Warlords (second game featured a reaver).
Both games the playtest rule made absolutely no difference to the game - whatever wanted extra BM removal (having actually managed to rally) got it, not even one formation ever had to miss out in these games (including Ulthwe). ?MC23 I have to say that I can't see much point in continuing to test this rule in its current form? That's effectively 4 games with eldar in a row where it has had no real effect, nor can I see this pattern changing.
@ Tactica: I had used the phantom against Ulthwe for about 6 games in a row (including two 5K games where I tried out a pair of them!), so I wanted to give the revenants a decent run today  Can't say I was very impressed with them - easily supressed and damaged, all the more so because of their crappy range. ?Game one they failed an Initiative check and got pasted by scorpions and phoenix bombers, though one somehow survived the game. Game two they were thumped by a Reaver and the remaining one was finished off by Landraiders (kind of my fault, but then they wouldn't need to be so close if they had a decent range on those guns ? )
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:59 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Markconz,
I think thier range is one of their weaknesses that needs to remain on the revenants.
I've made good use of them, but they need supported.
I'm suprised it was 'easy' to put enough BM on them to break them. As a pair, and with their shields - they tend to have some serious staying power in my games!
Its unfortunate to hear the Spirit Stones results.
As my Eldar did not arrive this saturday (like I was hoping) I constructed a map excersize with proxy models and ran through some test lists using MC23's test.
The excersize was more of a effort for me to get more comfortable with how I would be fielding the Eldar against a force I know to be quality - a Steel legion force.
I've historically had some trouble with the IG beating the Eldar with any consistency - but this time I controlled both sides.
In my map excersize, I found the same thing you did. If the Eldar get to use the BM removal bonus for any formation, they typically don't need it in more than 3 spots a turn, as a result - being able to use the removal anywhere I wanted means I always get the relief I need.
Although a map excersize, my eldar beat my IG - it was a closer game when I was making all the decisions on both sides though - LOL... go figure.
I still think the suggestion needs to be either limit the bonus BM spirit stone removal to 1 per turn per 3000 points being played and we can then get a good feel for which units are using it. However, I think the front line infantry and combat formations will typically make use of this if they can.
The better decision would be to figure out which vehicles need it, eliminate the infantry from getting the ability at all, and monitor the vehicle formations with the rule.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
thurse
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:14 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
|
|
Well, I used this army with my last game :
wraithgate
vampire
vampire
6 dire avengers + 2 fire dragon exarch
6 dire avengers + 2 fire dragon exarch
8 dark reapers + exarch + autarch
2 revenants
falcons
6 jet bikes
6 jet bikes
guardians
Same for me : the new rule did not change anything : sometimes, formations did not need spirit stones, sometimes, they failed rally tests...
Well, I think we should to try to see what happen if we completely remove the spirit stone rule.
But don't misunderstand me : I think eldar probably need BM management, but the removal of the rule could enable us to see how powerful the rule should be, and eventually on which unit it should apply.
By the way, I still think that leader upgrades with a cost is the way to go...
Cheers!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:28 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (Markconz @ 10 Mar. 2006 (19:26)) | 7 plus the Vampire and Avatar, (my two scorpions were one formation). So 9 total.
I have another two games tomorrow - Biel Tan vs Ulthwe - any requests? |
You play much smaller formtion counts than I do, perhaps that is differing our results. Something for me to ponder.
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:37 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (thurse @ 13 Mar. 2006 (06:14)) | | Well, I think we should to try to see what happen if we completely remove the spirit stone rule. |
That version was played before Spirit Stones.
This isn't about the winning tournaments results (that shouldn't shift or shift closer to the ideal 50% mark). It's about how viable the army is going into 4th turn and beyond. Perhaps our experiemntal games if still played as tournaments should have an extra turn tossed in. Winning conditions start on turn 4 & 5.
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:56 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (thurse @ 13 Mar. 2006 (06:14)) | Well, I used this army with my last game :
wraithgate
vampire
vampire
6 dire avengers + 2 fire dragon exarch
6 dire avengers + 2 fire dragon exarch
8 dark reapers + exarch + autarch
2 revenants
falcons
6 jet bikes
6 jet bikes
guardians
By the way, I still think that leader upgrades with a cost is the way to go...
Cheers! |
Hard to say with your list. Re-entering WE (if your aspects did that) drops Blast markers. The Revenant has power/cost issues. Jetbikes have also made my list as possible to armored.
If anything you have an example on where it's not needed.
I also think this points out why Leader (in it's usual placements in core formations) won't help.
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
VanDamneg
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:39 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 24
|
|
Perhaps you could just limit the spirit stone rule to one formation per turn regardless of size of army. There's something I don't like about rules which are based on army size (that's just me though)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
