On the EpicUK West Lothian Question:

- Should EUK people be able to veto/automatically enact change on NetEA lists, despite almost never playing them, against the will of the TC community at large?

Of course not.

- Should EUK people's comments about balance, tactical style, etc. be listened to?

Absolutely, yes.

Only the latter question actually applies to today's debate, so frankly, all this EUK vs Everybody Else stuff is irrelevant, today.



Steve certainly will have, as the list hasn't changed for years.

IIRC the 1 per 3 thing came in around about the time we were testing it, but I don't remember if it was before or after as it was a long time ago and I was not the Eldar player but one of his opponents.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm pretty sure that limit was in the original draft from Jervis. Black Guardians were only normal Guardians with 1+ init back then (no separate formation, no extra farseers) and the limit was there because not all Ulthwé Guardians are Black Guardians.

I really have no issue with any EpicUK players posting their experience playing NetEA lists and I'm sorry to everybody if I came across that way. I only think that if comments based on a formation/list/race's power are to be relevant then those observations need to come from playing with that formation in the correct context, ie. using the NetEA list. Clearly there would be many cases where a NetEA formation would be overpowered if played in an EpicUK list or vice versa and this is most definitely one of them.

I'm only struggling to see how one, perhaps 2, init1+ black guardian formations (which, truely, need to be mechanised to be effective) in an army are so game breaking. They've never been so in the games I've played and I've never got the sense from my opponents that they think that they're broken either.

You realise though that the NetEA list has been in a state where the Black Guardians had no such 1:3 limitation for about a year at least - and although it seems to be a mistake its still been the NetEA version of the list for that time (looks like longer than a year as well to me - as it seems to have been lost in the 2009 draft, although there are many mistakes in that so it's hard to know what was meant and what wasn't).

So effectively you havn't been playing the NetEA list in the last year (maybe longer) just the version of the list you thought was correct (and the one that almost certainly was correct in intention - just not reality).

So now a year later a few people have come along and said you know this whole army of strat 5 init 1+ mech guardians is bit powerful.

I never realised that 1:3 limitation had been dropped or accidentally removed, so I've been playing it with the old/correct/original structure the whole time. I also assumed, wrongly, at the beginning of this debate, that everyone else had been playing it the same, as I didn't know that it could be played any other way.

My initial concerns through the early years of Ulthwe playtesting was that this list, compared to the Biel-Tan list went from a maximum of 1 formation (Warlock) to the often seen 3 formations (Warlock and 2 BG formations) that had the possibilty of auto retaining. It was not just triple retaining that was causing me concerns but this list had the possibility of doing 1+ followed by 1+ retaining on 3 occassions per turn.

The Biel-Tan can do a triple retain on 1+,1+,2+ (or 1+,2+,1+)with no BM's but it is obvious to the opponent where the auto retain is coming from (Avatar or Aspects followed by the expensive Warlock ). Though not easy to stop the expense of the Warlock means the list is usually built around it so either lacks activations or if too many cheap activations (usually Rangers) are taken doesn't have many other effective formations to drive home advantages gained.

The Ulthwe can do the triple auto retain on a 1+,1+1+ then next set of activations could be 1+,1+ (Avatar or Aspects followed by BG's or Warlock ). They don't have to take the expensive Warlock to be able to triple retain but it is one of the nastiest list to face when things go right for it.

Added on top of this, the 1+ formations will rally easier to get rid of BM's in the end phase.

Before players state that opponents can put BM's on formations to try and stop this remember that can be done on any list and doesn't stop something from being unbalanced in the first place. Otherwise we could have left Warhounds/Terminators etc. at their old point values and just told opponents to just put BM's on them.

I find the Strategy of 5 is OK especially with a few units being un-available to the Ulthwe, the only problem I have is the possibilty of multiple retains on 1+.

How is this worse than BT retains with the SC reroll? With 1+/2+ formations and an SC reroll, I've never seen the BT list have the slightest problem with triple retain based on weak Initiative rolls. Pretty much the only thing that stops it is if the player didn't take enough Farseers and the ability gets completely wiped out.

Is this a tournament issue? If you build an army for triple retains BT has a good chance of failing one over four-five games, while Ulthwé has a much smaller chance.

Is that even a relevant consideration for NetEA?

When people say it is unbalanced because it can do X, it is relevant to question why the next closest list that can also do X is not considered unbalanced. It goes to both the question of how much the problem is perception-based and what potential remedies are available.

It's about fairness to the opponent. Being able to activate three formations in a row without rolling once just doesn't 'feel' fair to the opponent. Things like that sour games.

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

That's a different consideration from being overpowered or not though.

It's even more important for list design.

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

If it was only possible 1 or 2 times per game Then I wouldn't have any reel concerns about 1+ retaining as it would be a negligible difference to the BT list.

Though with the Ulthwe list as it was and with the lists I was seeing at the time it was possible to do a 1+ retain 2 or 3 times per turn (Aspects/Avatar followed by BG's or Warlock)and as the list stands now it could be possible to do a 1+ retain 4 or 5 times per turn (no BG's limit). I'm not saying it will happen that many times a game but it is possible.

If that isn't giving you and others concerns over possible balance issues and especially the feeling of fairness for opponents then again I'll end posting my concerns on a list I'd like to be able to play with a confidence in it's fairness for both players .

Then go back to the old limit. It gives a practical maximum of 2 Black Guardian units in 3000 points (you need 7 hosts total for 3). And the formations doing the initial 1+ activation will be small Aspect Troupes or the Avatar.