Reviewing Spirit Stones |
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones  Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:21 am |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 13 Mar. 2006 (01:59)) | 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. |
Tactica - I'm definitely not saying the revenants need changing as I think they are good enough. I was really just commenting that personally they are not my favourite eldar flavour ?
Back to topic I do of course agree with your idea - I think we need to just give this ability to some pure vehicle formation types (eg falcons, firestorms, spinners, prisms), and see how it plays. I also agree with you and dysartes that we should stick to concentrating on tournament conditions.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:47 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
@Markconz,
Cheers for the clarification. 
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:08 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (Markconz @ 13 Mar. 2006 (17:12)) | | Quote (MC23 @ 13 Mar. 2006 (11:28)) | | 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. |
8 formations (10 including Vampire and Avatar) in the next games - I don't see how Biel Tan can possibly have 'much larger' formation counts while still retaining their character, and especially not if they want to use any titans at all. Aspects are 300 each after all, even without upgrades! What craftworld are you using??? What does your army list look like that you are actually getting use out of this rule?? Even the Ulthwe player with about 10-11 activations on table didn't use it. |
Well, you know, you don't actually have to take any aspect warriors. I know that might go against "the character" of the list, but if you're going to play in a strict tourney atmosphere, the BT list is the only list there is (if you want to play eldar).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:04 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
|
Incidentally as a quick simple fix, inelagent as it might be, whats wrong with the straight 10% point increase?
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
dysartes
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:04 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm
Posts: 908
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 13 Mar. 2006 (23:10)) | @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... |
Well, Tac, good to see we can agree on something 
Let's put it this way - without checking with JJ, it has always been my understanding that an AC is in charge of developing the army lists for a GT environment. If the AC wants to spend some time looking at units which won't feature in the core list, but have featured in the past (Collector's Models) then that's OK, but the priority is to get the GT lists sorted.
The GT scenario is a framework for us - it provides a structure for the playtest games, and scenarios outside of this framework are not what the lists are designed for. You can still use the GT list to give you a rough idea of "balanced" forces, but change the framework and the balance changes.
I've seen I'm not the only AC who thinks this (TRC seems to agree). I've seen that others in the community agree with this.
I'm just wondering who has their wires crossed._________________ The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby!
Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress
Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
VanDamneg
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:31 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 24
|
| Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 14 Mar. 2006 (06:04)) | | Incidentally as a quick simple fix, inelagent as it might be, whats wrong with the straight 10% point increase? |
This seems to make most sense though I feel that some units (maybe the fireprism) shouldn't be increased in points. On a rather different tack I also think that it would be best to make sure these 10% are mulitples of 25 otherwise it'll lead to having 10pts left over, not hugely important I know.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:36 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 13 Mar. 2006 (23:10)) | 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... |
Well, I think it is also important to remember that there are some of us that believe that the weakness in the list (sans spiritstones) does indeed affect GT armies in the GT scenario. So, while MC has one opinion, I have another, you have another, that guy over there has another, etc.
I think it has to do with the composition of a person's typical army list. Certainly, if you use small formations that have roles that overly expose them to enemy fire, then a fix did (or will again, if spiritstones are dropped without an alternative in place) seem necessary.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:12 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
| Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 14 Mar. 2006 (06:04)) | | Incidentally as a quick simple fix, inelagent as it might be, whats wrong with the straight 10% point increase? |
I think there are internal balance issues also. A straight % points change does not address those.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Chroma
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:19 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 14 Mar. 2006 (15:12)) | | I think there are internal balance issues also. ?A straight % points change does not address those. |
What are the internal balance issues?
_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer
Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
@semajnollissor ,
Well, I think it is also important to remember that there are some of us that believe that the weakness in the list (sans spiritstones) does indeed affect GT armies in the GT scenario. |
I don't think that any here would disagree with you. The presence of the current Spirit Stones definitely impacts GT games. Thus the problem.
I think the goal is to make it have less and ideally a more targetted impact on the Eldar armies being played in the GT games.
So, while MC has one opinion, I have another, you have another, that guy over there has another, etc. |
Also true. Opinions are like... well, you know the saying.
Unfortunately, there's only two opinions that really matter. The army champion, and Jervis Johnsons - and since JJ typically differs to the champion, well - you know who's opinion matters more than yours, mine, and the guy over theres.
Referencing MC23's comment of
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.
Considering 1) that the E:A
Spirit Stones rule has no franchise core development basis behind it, 2) that eldar don't really suffer from BM management issues in the GT scererio of 3-4 turns and 3) the fact that the champion said
Spirit Stones was mainly put in to cover games beyond GT scenerios and 3-4 turns, we can extrapolate that the champion's own opinion is that the
Spirit Stones rule clearly does not need to impact the entire Eldar list for GT scenerios on the level that it does today.
Ironically enough, this extrapolation aligns quite well with a significant portion of the people posting on these boards. So there's populace of opinions that have a common vein aligning to some degree with MC23's above statement.
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.
Considering MC23 said the Eldar list was developed for more than just GT scenerios is also concerning. Considering the 'original problem' was for games going beyond turns 3-4 it means the original problem was beyond GT games. It means MC23 wants to design Spirit Stones to take care of the original problem beyond GT game lengths and have it also apply to GT games.
NOTE: We can extrapolate from what TRC and Dysartes have said the army champions responsibilities are.
It means we have an army development fundamental principle conflict amongst development champions.
I think it has to do with the composition of a person's typical army list. Certainly, if you use small formations that have roles that overly expose them to enemy fire, then a fix did (or will again, if spiritstones are dropped without an alternative in place) seem necessary.
Sure - but all GT lists have that problem. That's not something unique to Eldar.
Nor is it justification for the Spirit Stone's rule in GT games.
Cheers,
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:24 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 14 Mar. 2006 (10:00)) | | I think it has to do with the composition of a person's typical army list. Certainly, if you use small formations that have roles that overly expose them to enemy fire, then a fix did (or will again, if spiritstones are dropped without an alternative in place) seem necessary. |
Sure - but all GT lists have that problem. That's not something unique to Eldar. |
But see, I think it is something that is unique to the Eldar, at least in the published lists. In general (here some more hyperbole, just so you know), the eldar don't get the BM management advantages of SMs or Orks, they lack the range of the IG, and they lack the formation sizes of the IG and Orks.
There are exactly three large formations available to the Eldar: both warhosts and the EoV troupes. These formations do fine now, and did fine before spiritstones were added. However, formations like falcon troupes and windrider troupes (among others) are difficult to use in a way that justifies their inclusion in the list without some BM management assistance. Even the longer ranged formations like Night Spinners and Fire Prisms are out-ranged by their small-formation IG counterparts. Now, I'll admit, spiritstones went too far since it helps everyone, not just the formations that needed it. But, there are seem to be some people out there that want to go back to the way it was, and that is just as bad, IMO.
Sure, hit and run helps alot, but it cannot always get your units back into cover, must less out of line-of-sight. Basically, the way I see it, without some BM management assistance, the Eldar list becomes choose formations X, Y, and Z to win, choose formations 1, 2, and 3 to have a good personality. Are the other lists like that too? If they are, then that's too bad - lets fix them, too.
|
I think we fully agree here.
Its not an all or nothing in respect to which units get it with Spirit stones.
If targeted to the units that actually need it, and removing it from the units that don't - the issue would be dead.
Frankly, I don't understand the reluctance.
Its not like we haven't had ample time to become aclimated with the list and derive sound opinions.
Especially not when so many seem to agree on the exact solution... i.e. give it to the formations that need it, take it away from the rest.
No brainer - Spirit stones issue resolved if MC23 would just consider it... we could all then move onto the next issue.
NH and others have all outlined several sticking point issues IMHO.
)