ALternatives to Spirit Stones |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones  Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:15 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (Markconz @ 28 Feb. 2006 (14:27)) | |
2: The enemy can't target hit and run either - so what?
|
I'll disagree - there is a response, "Overwatch."
There is no counter against Spirit Stones - they just always work.
(And actuallywith my proposition you can target SS by destroying enough AV's so that their are other units in the formation). |
Accept we disagree on the presence of other units in the formation. I'm currently amongst the camp that feels it should be ONLY given to LV and AV formations.
3: No one wants to give it to EOV judging by the poll so far, don't compromise
Fair enough - I recend the offer. As originally stated - I don't want it on EoV.
5: In 40k transported infantry benefits from the Grav Tanks abiltiy to ignore supression - why should it not get this in epic? As i said to another poster - why should falcons lose their ability to remove BM just because they have infantry inside them?
See other posters to follow your response here. THey accurately summarize "why not."
Also what justification is there for giving spirit stone rules to Vypers - they don't get anything like it in 40k, if they were to get it (maybe to represent their agility or something??) then surely jetbikes should get it too?
I'm not really keen on Vipers getting it - but I'm happy to make a concession for E:A. I'm happy to say that LV and AV get the Spirit Stones rule. Jetbikes = no. Balance and fluff. Vipers are at least vehicles in 40K even... Jetbikes are not.
I will wait a bit and then do another poll with forced choice options this time, including Chromas 10%'er.
I think it would be a good idea.
I think there needs to be a distinction between the following,
1. AV
2. LV/AV
3. LV/AV/EoV
4. AV with infantry in the formation
5. LV/AV with infantry in the formation
6. LV/AV/EoV with infantry in the formation
|
MC23
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:21 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
|
Just so you guys know, I'm still of the mind set of limited number of extra Blast markers being removed. If you only had something like a floating 3 Blast markers you could remove then the choices of what really needs to have are far more obvious.
Also for the record, while I have stated that Eldar infantry do not need additional BM removal, I have never stated that they should never have extra Blast marker removal. There is often more important forces that need it and a fix applied only to Infantry would miss most of these problems. For the record I will state now that I think if any fix applied to just vehicles then we will probably start to hear calls for a leader option again for Infantry. And we'd still be back at square one. We don't need two different rules for the same desired effect.
I'm not that keen on using some sort of "dumb rule", that is the thinking on what gets it is made for you. I'd like to hear a subtle rule explained simply (that is something I haven't been able to do with it). Eldar should be a more difficult army to use but a very rewarding experience (right now they are only difficult for your opponent, a complete reversal). How you use (or don't use) hit and run should be an important part of playing Eldar. How you manage their fragile nature should be as well.
Here's my proposal, purely for information gathering purposes. Only remove 1 extra Blast marker per 1,000 points or fraction there of (close to my original estimate of the nudge Eldar needed at the end). See how much that affects your game. Keep track of where you use it, and where don't use it (and how often). If this finds what we need to do, then we can see how to fashion rules to give us this effect. Guess work does not have to be a part of this. And we shouldn't punish any army compostion at this time so nothing else should be restricted. The only other guidelines are these extra Blast marker can not be taken off the same formation and they do not apply to Broken formations (mostly because it makes it tricky to explain) or Flyers (they use a different system anyway).
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:58 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Ginger,
I'm not sure I followed your last post.
MC23,
Your intention is well met regarding managing the fragility and all.
However, I'm at a bit of a loss when I contrast that statement to our proposed 'vehicle only' option for spirit stones.
Nothing says fragile like - "You don't deal with BM well - so stay in your ride until you are absolutely needed!"
If we were to 'hypothetically' give this Spirit Stones ability to AV only for argument sake - I wonder how bad the army would really be. I suspect it would operate quite nicely still. After all, the full move consolidates, the triple activation farseer event, the vehicle hit and runs, etc are all still at play. The only difference is the infantry, LV, and SHT as a whole should suffer from BM a bit more.
There may be a shift to adopt a few more vehicle heavy and a few less infantry horde style lists - which isn't necessarily a bad thing for a 'dieing' race that is 'fragile'.
I think any calls for 'leader' would be unfounded if the AV's had the Spirit Stones rule.
What's wrong with giving it a go anyway?
I don't see the value in simply saying - you get Spirit Stones where ever you need it up to 3 activations a turn. I don't even know that the Eldar would need more than 3 a turn in many cases with rules like Skimmer pop-ups and hit and runs.
I think its a much more restrictive approach to simply say - today - all units have the bump. That's a problem. Tomorrow - these units "X, Y, and Z" are not going to get the bump. They don't deserve it in design concept, and they don't need it for the list to be balanced - so "poof" its gone for them.
Therefore, I for one would encourage you to steer away from the "any unit in the army" can use the Spirit Stones special rule... and start working toward, "Only these unit types or formations will have it in the future."
Lets get to the heart of the problem. Army wide benefit is the main problem.
[Digression Mode]
BTW: My new eldar army should be on the way tomorrow. I will no longer be dependent upon my firends army to playtest my Eldar theory in the very near future.
[/Digression Mode]
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:40 am |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 02 Mar. 2006 (02:58)) | MC23,
Your intention is well met regarding managing the fragility and all.
However, I'm at a bit of a loss when I contrast that statement to our proposed 'vehicle only' option for spirit stones.
Nothing says fragile like - "You don't deal with BM well - so stay in your ride until you are absolutely needed!"
If we were to 'hypothetically' give this Spirit Stones ability to AV only for argument sake - I wonder how bad the army would really be. I suspect it would operate quite nicely still. After all, the full move consolidates, the triple activation farseer event, the vehicle hit and runs, etc are all still at play. The only difference is the infantry, LV, and SHT as a whole should suffer from BM a bit more.
There may be a shift to adopt a few more vehicle heavy and a few less infantry horde style lists - which isn't necessarily a bad thing for a 'dieing' race that is 'fragile'.
I think any calls for 'leader' would be unfounded if the AV's had the Spirit Stones rule.
What's wrong with giving it a go anyway?
I don't see the value in simply saying - you get Spirit Stones where ever you need it up to 3 activations a turn. I don't even know that the Eldar would need more than 3 a turn in many cases with rules like Skimmer pop-ups and hit and runs.
I think its a much more restrictive approach to simply say - today - all units have the bump. That's a problem. Tomorrow - these units "X, Y, and Z" are not going to get the bump. They don't deserve it in design concept, and they don't need it for the list to be balanced - so "poof" its gone for them.
Therefore, I for one would encourage you to steer away from the "any unit in the army" can use the Spirit Stones special rule... and start working toward, "Only these unit types or formations will have it in the future."
Lets get to the heart of the problem. Army wide benefit is the main problem.
[Digression Mode]
BTW: My new eldar army should be on the way tomorrow. I will no longer be dependent upon my firends army to playtest my Eldar theory in the very near future.
[/Digression Mode]
Cheers, |
I agree entirely with your post Tactica.
I think we need to replace the 'army wide benefit' with a 'formation specific benefit', and it appears the majority of the playtesters are in agreement with this idea.
I think we need to choose (or have MC23 choose) one of the several (very similar) rules proposals that have been suggested, and playtest it.
I and another local eldar player are looking forward to doing just that.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:19 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
Remind me again what was wrong with giving Farseers a transferable leader ability? Seriously, was it just because it would force people to take more guardian hosts in the Biel Tan list? Are there people out there who don't take any, forgoing the free Avatar?
Seems to me that giving farseers the ability to throw around leader in the end phase would address alot of the issues:
You can snipe the farseers to remove the ability.
The number of blast markers removed is limited to the number of farseers present on the table.
It makes sense from the available background.
The downsides:
It will make players rethink their army list.
It means Ulthwe will have to undergo further balance testing.
Okay, whatever, I'd like to reiterate that we need a rule to test "from the horses mouth." So this 1 BM for every 1000pts of army is it? Okay, lets test it for 2 months, and we'll get back to you. (but at least let the guys at the SG forums in on the plan, and the yahoo guys too, if there are yahoo guys).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
thurse
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:35 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
|
|
I have read a lot of interesting ideas, and after having thought a bit about it, here is my humble 2 cents :
1) Special rules should be created when there is no existing rule/mean to achieve a goal.
2) In the tau list, where there was an issue with BM, the network drone upgrade was created. It gives leader to an armored vehicle for 25 points. Why cant we do something like that with the eldar list?
I like this idea because you pay for the upgrade, you dont have to take it if you dont want to, and the leader unit can be sniped or destroyed.
So my proposal is to make spirit stones (or whatever you want to call it ) an upgrade, that could only be taken by specific units?
What do you think about it?
cheers.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: ALternatives to Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:40 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
|
Hi Markconz The trouble is that we are not designing a list from scratch - we are trying to amend a published official list so as to replace an army wide special rule with another army wide rule (though more limited in scope).
Altering one paragraph in a published list is a lot easier and more likely to happen than altering multiple data entries, points values etc. | Actually, I am not sure I agree with you here, as I believe the Swordwind expansion is now only available as a downloadable PDF from the SG site. Furthermore, the most current version of the core rules are held there enhanced as the result of discussions similar to these (superceding the hard copy versions in the shops).
This is why I agree with MC23 that we should try to decide what to alter rather than getting bogged down in the mechanics of how it will be acheived (as this will soon become self-evident in my experience).
At present, we seem to have two possible themes :-
- Limiting BM removal to a particular set of formations
- Limiting the number of BMs that can be removed across the army
There are a few variations on each theme which should be tried out under play-testing conditions, and where possible, considered simultaneously for a given situation to present the different results of each theme / variation. (Variations include;- whether to make it "targetable" or not; what vehicles are included; the number of BMs to remove etc)
As results start coming back we should start to get a better view of the strengths and weaknesses of each Theme / variatioin and be able to give a more balanced view on any detailed mechanics required.
Finally, as I mentioned earlier, I personally quite like both the limited BM removal suggested by MC23 for it's simplicity, and also the unit upgrade in a formation for the reasons Thurse suggests (though precisely which formations should benefit is a matter of conjecture at present.  )
All the Best
Ginger
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
