Reviewing Spirit Stones |
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones  Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:06 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (VanDamneg @ 13 Mar. 2006 (09:39)) | | 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) |
Ah, but then the rule won't scale. At 2000pts it has more power than at 5000pts.
If the wind is blowing in the direction of limiting the number of BM to be removed down to one per turn, why not go ahead and use the transferrable leader for the Farseer idea? I mean, everyone has at least one farseer in their list anyway (to summon the Avatar). If the ability doesn't get used that often, it shouldn't require a change to anyones preferred list. Sure, it'll mean one more ability for the farseer, but at least that way the enemy has a target to snipe that can remove the ability.
Disclaimer - such a rule would probably require a 25pt bump in the cost of a guardian formation.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
VanDamneg
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 24
|
|
I prefer this idea to 1/xpts although it makes Ulthwe somewhat better once again. What about a Warlock character upgrade available to guardians squads that confers the leader rule? Obviously this means more changes to the list which is more of a problem.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
Well, the thing is, then only guardian hosts would benefit from the change, and they don't really need it as much as, say, a falcon troupe might.
And, I agree, Ulthwe would need considerable revising, but nothing that can't be handled with point adjustments (or maybe they could drop to SR4 and have the multiple farseers be their unique hook).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
|
But wouldn't BT also go for more farseers?
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
VanDamneg
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:46 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 24
|
| Quote (semajnollissor @ 13 Mar. 2006 (16:38)) | Well, the thing is, then only guardian hosts would benefit from the change, and they don't really need it as much as, say, a falcon troupe might.
And, I agree, Ulthwe would need considerable revising, but nothing that can't be handled with point adjustments (or maybe they could drop to SR4 and have the multiple farseers be their unique hook). |
Then perhaps spirit stones should be a purchaseable upgrade for all formations, 25pts or so to confer leader ability. As a result if the eldar player wanted to give all his formations spirit stones he'd be looking at ~ 200pts which is one less windrider troupe or vampire.
As for Ulthwe, I'd rather not see a points raise for their units, I like the idea that a guardian is a guardian and should cost the same - this is just me once again.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
|
So why do the other lists get designed for tourneys but Eldar don't? Surely outside a tourney game other rules apply anyway?
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
thurse
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:13 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
|
|
If anything you have an example on where it's not needed.
|
Well, spirit stone did help me! I only meant that being limited to 3 uses per turn did not change anything in this battle, compared to the original rule.
It actually helped me removing the last BM on formations, which is a big deal. I could assault chaos SM next turn with no BM, and they stil had 1BM as they as their chaos lord died before...
It's about how viable the army is going into 4th turn and beyond.
|
Well, I almost only play standard GT games. Sorry if I misunderstood the purpose of this thread, as I think the spirit stone rule is problematic in GT games too.
I also think this points out why Leader (in it's usual placements in core formations) won't help
Well, leaders (or transferable leadership) can be killed, especially after 4 turns
Cheers!
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 13 Mar. 2006 (10:41)) | | But wouldn't BT also go for more farseers? |
Well, they could, for more insurance. So let's do a little thought experiment.
For arguements sake, let say the current typical BT army has 1 guardian host. Sure, there are some that have none (but those guys are crazy, since they give up the free avatar), and there some that have more (but those guys might just be waiting for some other craftworld list to be finalized), so lets say they just have 1 host currently.
Under the rules that give transferable leader to Farseers, some players might decide to bump the number of guardian hosts up to 4. I doubt the number will go higher than 4, since this thread shows that 3 is enough to be comfortable (with one extra for insurance). So then they play a few games with their extra guardian hosts.
Now, here is where it gets interesting. So, of the people that went from playing 1 guardian host to 4 guardian hosts, some of them will want to go back to playing their old lists (after all, part of the reason they were playing those lists was because they liked how they played/looked). So, they might try to play with 3 guardian hosts instead of 4 - giving up their insurance to play an army that they prefer. Some will go even further and play with just 2 guardian hosts.
In the end, I figure that the net change due to giving transferable leader to Farseers is that we'll see 2-3 guardian hosts per BT army instead of 1-2. Also, I think that if the points adjustments were made based on this rule change, even fewer people would change their lists. The people that really want to play BT will go on doing so, while the people that want every advantage to win will have to choose between a) more "cheap" Farseers or b) troupes that are more effective at winning the game. As always, it will come down to a choice between abilities, and players will have to chose the one that they are most comfortable with.
And then there is the obvious - any change in the rules will result it many players changing their lists. If list adjustments do not result from a rules adjustment, then I'd say the change was too neglible to be worth the effort in the first place.
So, right about now I feel like Dr Watson just before Holmes points out some obvious flaw in his reasoning, so what say you, Sherlocks?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Chroma
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:55 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
|
| Quote (semajnollissor @ 13 Mar. 2006 (17:44)) | | So, right about now I feel like Dr Watson just before Holmes points out some obvious flaw in his reasoning, so what say you, Sherlocks? |
My response is that, essentially, the core complaint about Spirit Stones, coming from opponents of the Eldar, is that they "got it for free". It was something "tacked on" near the end of playtesting, but the point values for units were not adjusted for getting this "boost". (The second most common complaint being it was "unfluffy"... which wouldn't have been a problem if the ability had been called something else.)
As a rule, Spirit Stones is very simple, everything that's been thought up to replace it is more complicated or fiddly. I think the simplist solution is, and it's been arrived at from much playtesting and anecdotal experience, a mere 10% increase in Eldar point values. That takes off some of the Eldar "edge" and prevents having to make all kinds of new rules.
For me, it's the simplest and most elegant solution to the "problem" of the Eldar.
_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer
Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
VanDamneg
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:16 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 24
|
| Quote (Chroma @ 13 Mar. 2006 (18:55)) | | Quote (semajnollissor @ 13 Mar. 2006 (17:44)) | | So, right about now I feel like Dr Watson just before Holmes points out some obvious flaw in his reasoning, so what say you, Sherlocks? |
My response is that, essentially, the core complaint about Spirit Stones, coming from opponents of the Eldar, is that they "got it for free". ?It was something "tacked on" near the end of playtesting, but the point values for units were not adjusted for getting this "boost". (The second most common complaint being it was "unfluffy"... which wouldn't have been a problem if the ability had been called something else.)
As a rule, Spirit Stones is very simple, everything that's been thought up to replace it is more complicated or fiddly. ?I think the simplist solution is, and it's been arrived at from much playtesting and anecdotal experience, a mere 10% increase in Eldar point values. ?That takes off some of the Eldar "edge" and prevents having to make all kinds of new rules.
For me, it's the simplest and most elegant solution to the "problem" of the Eldar. |
I think a points increase across the board is not necessarily the way to go. Some less useful eldar units could be left as is and others increase in points. However I think points increase is the way to go (effectively same as optional upgrade but not optional).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:10 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
@Dysartes,
Well, I thought the same thing as you.
However, when MC23 was responding to my protest of the current test request, he was clear about what the Eldar list was built for... see his quoted post from page 2 in this thread...
| Quote (MC23 @ 06 Mar. 2006 (18:06)) |
What you are still failing to realize it seems that this is not a rule suggestion at all. This is a fact finding experiment. All replacements for Spirit Stones at this time has been based on conjecture or anecdotes.
Truth be told Eldar suffered from Blast marker management before Spirit Stones (minor for Tournament play but obvious in anything that last longers than 3-4 turns). Now they excell with Spirit Stones.
Where we left off at the end of playtesting was there was no specific formation that this neccessarily could be attributed to. All the forms of a specific Leader, like other armies have, did not satisfy problem and that's why it was never used.
Since we've had Spirit Stones, the original problem has been lost and replaced with a bigger one it seems. We have to go back to the original problem. We have to find out if it is an issue with specific formations only or if it is after all an issue with the army as a whole. This is why we must follow my suggestion. We cannot build any sort of reasonible solution without knowing what it is we are trying to address. |
cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
