If they were support they wouldn't need a price bump...

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

true, but I still wouldn't take them - I'd rather have a warp spider fm plus a vampire for the same points, same support slot and an extra activation (albeit, one off board). Or a storm serpent and a wraithguard upgrade for a normal guardian fm. Or a 6 strong Falcon fm with 2 firestorms plus a rinky dink ranger fm. The reason I take either of the core guardian fms is both for what I can do with them AND to get those 2 precious support slots. It's hard enough building a list with enough activations that does what you want without getting extraneous guardian fms, without then buying more guardian fms with those support slots.

by the way, that's a very cute and distracting pterodactyl

Complaining about the cost of black guardians seems strange to me. Compared to 600 points for a mounted autarch aspect SC formation in Biel Tan, they seem a good core option.

I think the problem with BGs and Ulthwe is that there is a tremendous synergy with their bumps, and their nerfs don't have the same major effect. SR5, plus 1+ init, plus no -1 retain, plus two retains, plus hit & run, plus avatar. All this for your core formations is a huge boon. Not only because this combination of abilities works together very well, but also because they are particularly valuable to the type of army Eldar are.

In my opinion Biel-Tan's major weakness as a general is that their command and control is not reliable in the way that other armies' is. There is a huge tactical difference between activating on a 2+ vs 1+, especially when you are stringing together multiple activations like Eldar. In my experience when you pull off the double retain rolling assault combo you usually win. It's just BT don't often manage to do it because they are generally activating each time on a 2+. If you fail an activation it leaves your fragile formations exposed, so you usually lose. The net result is that I rarely try it. Not so for Ulthwe, who can quite happily carry off three activations on the trot without taking a single action test. The difference between 100% confidence and ~50% confidence for the double retain is quite simply huge. Not only this, but they can also set up the double retain combo with great confidence of executing it first too, because they have SR5. Even ignoring all of these "force multiplier" synergies, initiative 1+ means an extra 1/6 of your formations will activate where they would not otherwise. That alone is arguably a 16.6% increase in worth - especially if those formations are assault-oriented (for whom a Hold action is not useful).

As an aside, the same 1+ init/farsight boon is conferred on Warlock titans. They curiously pop up far more than phantoms despite being 13.3% more expensive. It's less glaring than BGs of course because titans are expensive.

The other problem for Biel Tan generals is that the aspect formations are big. These are the game-winners for BT, but they need a deployment option (serpents/storm serpent/vampire) which makes them very expensive for a high-activation army like Eldar. This counterbalances their power (which is huge - normally overkill in my experience). Ulthwe meanwhile can buy cheap tactical options like swooping hawks (whose risk of teleport BMs is also minimised) and even cost effective assault specialists. And at the same time their game-winner equivalents (BGs) are cheaper.

I don't think any of this is beyond an easy fix though. Pricing can probably sort it.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

not really - mounted BG is 400pts, vanilla mounted aspects are 500pts. mounted BG plus Seer Council is 500pts, mounted Aspects with an Autarch and exarch are 600pts. 100pts extra for 2+ inspiring and 4+/5+ saves and either extra attacks, ranged attacks or first strike attacks really doesn't seem like much. As either of those are likely to be your BTS, the aspect option is far FAR more likely to survive. Believe me, I've played a huge amount with Guardians and take away their upgrades and they suck, big time. I'd much rather play with 8 strong Aspect formations and it's only the SR5 and a nostalgic attachment with Ulthwe (it's what I played when I first started Epic ~20yrs ago) that keeps me playing them.

Also, if you think Biel Tan's weakness is command and control, try playing Ulthwe - you're not likely to have more than 3 1+ fms on the table, even if you load up with BG and aspects, and you'll be failing activations as much as if not more than Biel Tan. It's the Eldar curse and it's far worse when your main troop option (as I play the 1:3 limit) is a 2+ fm.

I think I've covered both here and on the other thread why you're unlikely to reliably pull off triple auto retains with Ulthwe, especially if the 1:3 limit is reinstated. Given how Eldar accumulate BMs, it might happen to some effect in the 2nd turn, it's unlikely to happen in the 3rd turn.

The small aspect formation isn't a huge boon - they're largely assault specialists and, even if they don't have BMs, their 1+ inspiring is almost always negated by being outnumbered. They're useful for hunting artillery, small and or broken fms, but they'll just die against anything bigger. I've extensively used warp spider and swooping hawk fms in my Ulthwe army and I'm very careful about how I use them as a result.

How about dropping Ulthwé down to SR4? The reliance on Seers is already there with the Seer Council and extra Farseers (as well as extra Farseers simply from the extra Guardian fms), while elite Black Guardians are only represented by init1+.

A ratio limitation on Black Guardians is no more artificial than the normal army composition structure of hosts/troupes. The number of init1+ formation is also relevant to how good they are, as an automatic retain isn't that annoying or valuable if it has to follow a 2+ normal activation.

Points isn't everything. And the cost (value) of units is certainly not static, even within lists.

I dunno. Drop Ulthwe down to SR4 and what do you get for the army's restrictions (no void spinner, only guardians as core, 1:2 core:support)? It then becomes a list for people who love Guardians - why not just go for Biel Tan instead? I've been very tempted a lot of times and, for what it's worth (not very much I'd guess) SR5 is one of the things that keeps me as it's enough of a boost to make the other restrictions worthwhile (note, I don't think it's a huge boost needing points bumps, but it's still something of a boost).

Dropping Ulthwé down to SR5 will be the very last thing I do as Army Champion.

The "reliance on Seers" is not just on the field, but also in picking the very fights Ulthwé will participate in. I'd say the SR5 is the most defining feature of the list. I'm not changing that; everything else is negotiable, but not that.

I agree with Chroma; SR5 should be the reason to play Ulthwé, but that advantage needs to be properly costed.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

but does it need to be costed given the other restrictions in the list, compared with Biel Tan? The 1:2 core:support ratio really is quite a large restriction, which many people don't quite realise. Not meaning to be argumentative, just curious.

and, just to be a scratched record, I really think that the 1 per 3 restriction on Black Guardians should be reinstated. That has a profound implication on the cost vs. benefit of SR5 over SR4 and is a valid concern about balance. It really wasn't broken before, in any way that I can see, and putting it back in would be a simple'n'easy first step.

If the limit comes back I think it should be 1 black guardian host for each normal guardian host. Works the same as the old limit for 2-5 warhosts (total), scales more linearly for big games and nobody's going to play a game with one host now are they.

hmm, that's another take. So for the old 1 per 3 limit you'd have 1 BG fm for 1 to 3 normal, 2 BG fms for 2 to 6 normal and 3 BG fms for, ugh, my brain has stopped working. I think it would help to make it a hard ratio, like you suggested, 1 to 1 or 1 to 2, no rounding up fractions. Simpler in my mind. Then we can figure out what sort of BG fm no.s we'd want to see for balance purposes.

Can you explain the 1:3 rule a bit for those of us who haven't seen it for a while? I don't understand how you can get 2 BGs and 2 Gs using a "divide by 3, rounding up" rule.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

it's a little confusing as it's not a hard ratio (1 of x for every 2 of y), it's a one warhost out of 3 may be a Black Guardian warhost, with fractions rounded up. So, if you have 4 warhosts, then 1 1/3 of them could be Black Guardian warhosts. Round that up and you have 2 Black Guardian warhosts out of 4.

I think a hard ratio would be easier to balance. So, buy X no. of normal guardian warhosts, then you can buy Y no. of Black Guardian warhosts (no rounding). A hard 3:1 ratio would give you 1 Black Guardian warhost at 3000pts, 2:1 would most likely do the same but allow 2 BG warhosts at 4000pts, 1:1 would easily allow 2 BG warhosts at 3000pts.

4 hosts. Divide 4 by three, you get 1.33. Round up, you get 2.

1 BG for each G would be simpler and gives the same effect for 2-5 hosts (total), which is, I think, the numbers that will actually show up in a 3k army.