Page 13 of 15

[ 212 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Reviewing Spirit Stones
N0-1_H3r3	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:54 am
Brood Brother Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:29 pm Posts: 56 Location: Reading, Berkshire, UK	Quote (Jaldon @ 08 April 2006 (02:29)) This actually dove tails into the issue of fluff. The Eldar are a dying race and are very sensitive to casualties, so the truth is they should also be sensitive to BMs as they reflect attrition and fatigue. Tired and worn troops fight more poorly, troops that have been in the fight too long make more mistakes, all of these add up to higher casualty rates, and these are the things BMs represent, and is something the Eldar are supposed to be sensitive to. Depends on where you look. Certainly, the Eldar in the last few editions of 40k (and, to an extent, BFG) have been shown as well-led and highly disciplined, unlikely to panic and run screaming from enemy fire. To be honest, I think part of the issue is that Jervis decided early on (back when the list was first released - in those ancient days when you could steal activations from the enemy and the main list was Ulthw? instead of Biel-Tan) that the Eldar wouldn't be getting a 'Dying Race' special rule as in Epic 40k, and that instead their small formations (all multiples of 3) would represent that more simply. The formation sizes primarily increased because of packaging restraints - the Warhost sprue, IIRC, couldn't be rearranged enough to allow for 6-strong Guardian Hosts, etc, without leaving spares on the sprue... but that was close to release, so the repercussions of increasing those formation sizes wasn't really felt in the overall playtest, and Spirit Stones was added to combat a problem that had been there previously, but wasn't anywhere near as evident later - in essence, changes made on old playtest data, which weren't themselves fully tested. To be honest, I liked the slightly smaller formation sizes - yes, they were more fragile, but they were more characterful, and you could generally fit a cheap additional formation (Rangers, perhaps, or Night Spinners) into the army as well. Perhaps reducing formation sizes for the tougher formations while keeping Spirit Stones might have the desired effect...
Top

Jaldon

Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:13 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.

Okay, please reference this for me. Who claimed this? Sorry, and I am not being rude, but I am not going back through all the threads in the Eldar forum to find every reference to what I said. Surely enough of us here have heard the claim that this change would ruin/destroy/break the Eldar army from some Eldar players. As this itself isn't the point of what I wrote it is irrelevant anyways, the point is that the Eldar HAD a winning record before the arrival of Spirit Stones. Seriously, exageration doesn't help.

Brevity is the actual word as I was in, very short sentences, stating what has been claimed by others as a reference point to my remarks. It doesan't help that you are pointing them out as a complaint.

Brief sentences in the written word DO have a tendancy to seem short and rude. I DO understand this and it is why I started out right at the top by stating I was not trying to start a flame war and that my answers were going to be clear and concise. I was hoping the readers would understand this and move on to the points of what I wrote and not be overly concerned with the staements meant to open my remarks.

My concern here is that we're going to end up with a situation like the eldar suffer in 40k. In 40k, a large number of eldar unit types have little value because the roles they perform are redundant. In 40k, shining spears are more expensive and less effective then guardian jetbikes, which themselves are more expensive and less effective than warp spiders, etc. What I fear is going to happen is that in E:A, falcon troupes and night spinner troupes will be increasingly displaced by the EoVs or titans or more big infantry formations.


I can understand and appreciate this as a concern, and I do believe it should be watched as a possible effect of the wholesale removal of SS, it is why we playtest.

My experience playing without SS has proven to me that it wouldn't happen, but that in itself IS a very narrow view and unacceptable as a reason because it IS play style that determines this for me. So I can easily see why this could happen and would support a change to prevent its occurance, if it can be shown to be a problem, despite my own experience. Which is why I do agree with this statment below.

Sure, some players will still use these vestigial formations, but the number will decrease as time goes on and players opt for usefulness over "fun."

As for fluff, and dying races, and playing in a non-eldar fashion, well that is purely your interpretation.

Yes, it is my opinion just as your remarks concerning this issue are your opinions on the fluff, background, etc..... Is their something wrong with using ones opinion as a rational for what they feel would be a more accurate interpetation of the background?

This is a discussion of different views after all, isn't it?

Also, the fluff for the specific rule was just tacked on as a half-assed way of explaining the effect.

Um, that is exactly what all fluff is, but it sure does make the game more interesting. Really, just how boring would it be if all the armies were the same, we might as well be playing Risk.

Depends on where you look. Certainly, the Eldar in the last few editions of 40k (and, to an extent, BFG) have been shown as well-led and highly disciplined, unlikely to panic and run screaming from enemy fire.


I never said they weren't highly disciplined, or weren't well led, or likely to panic. The fact is well disciplined, well motivated, well led troops, DO suffer a higher rate of casulties when they are tired, or have been exposed to prolonged action, and they do make more mistakes. These are all things that are reflected by BMs.

My point was there is nothing in the Eldar fluff that says they wouldn't be effected by these factors, and therefore shouldn't have an 'army wide' way of dealing with it as it removes this effect from them, when it shoouldn't

Spirit Stones was added to combat a problem that had been there previously, but wasn't anywhere near as evident later - in essence, changes made on old playtest data, which weren't themselves fully tested.


I couldn't agree more, and I am still flummexed by the fact that I was off on a stupid Island with no land line when they were inserted and had no way of bringing anything up. Not anybodys fault, just was real shocked when I got back to the real world.

To be honest, I liked the slightly smaller formation sizes - yes, they were more fragile, but they were more characterful

Yup, so did I and for all the reasons you stated.

Perhaps reducing formation sizes for the tougher formations while keeping Spirit Stones might have the desired effect...

IMHO I really think that the SS should be tossed out the window, not because the Eldar army doesn't need something to replace them, they just might.

Rather, there is going to be no way to identify what needs to be done, if anything, unless we do.

Making up new rule ideas, including my Farseer Transfer idea, are pointless because we just continue to stumble over whatever one we are trying without having a real clue just what it is we are trying to fix. In effect the new 'experimental rule' is masking whjat could be the real problem.

Jaldon