Reviewing Spirit Stones |
|
thurse
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones  Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:40 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
|
|
The sooner everyone here understands that there isn't a simple problem and so there will be no quick fixes. The desire of that quick fix has become too counterproductive for any progress at this time.
|
1)Well I've never wanted a quick fix, and neither have many other people here. A lot of propositions were made, but it was just ideas. After that we have to rationalize that a bit...
2)I really thought your approach was right at the beginning : starting to see were the problem was and what was the impact of limiting the spirit stone effect to 3 formations.
3)I started to diverge when I learned that our playtests were crap because the issue was not for the GT scenario. Well, the SS/BM issue is closely linked with formation size, which are defined for the GT...
4)Some of us tried to send some feedback on your proposition, and would like to know what you think about it.
5)If you want to know how this forum can be productive, have a look in the tyrannid section.
Best regards.
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:45 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (MC23 @ 29 Mar. 2006 (18:48)) | | Quote (Tactica @ 16 Mar. 2006 (18:58)) | | You've definitely taken the steam out of my sails for all things Eldar... wow. |
A few posters here have done the same for me, I'm sad to say.
At this time I've found this forum not much use for me and I have been taking a break from here.
The sooner everyone here understands that there isn't a simple problem and so there will be no quick fixes. The desire of that quick fix has become too counterproductive for any progress at this time. |
MC23,
Perhaps you could drop Tepoc a line.
You guys have willing and able minds. Strong willed perhaps, but we are here ready to "HELP YOU" get this fixed.
Let us help you.
We ask for guidance. You've given us one option, but it clearly had no impact in solving the problem. So we are back to - needing guidance.
We've provided several suggestions, but to no avail.
Again, we ask for guidance in lieu of the recent suggestion having no impact on results or the problem.
I solve problems for a living. Large, complex, multi-million dollar problems.
This problem of spirit stones is not that big in the grand scheme of things.
Problem resolution may not be a quick fix, but it does not need to be a multi-month endeavor either. We've had a significant amount of play test with the release of Swordwind.
If someone in a leadership position would champion this cause, identify the problems with spirit stones alone with the issues it solves, a new proposal that addresses the majority of the same "issues it solves" could be presented and tested.
Doing nothing, giving up, or claiming that the burden is too large is a leadership issue - not a community issue.
Again - There's a problem. We all know it. We want to help. Doing 'something' in test is better than doing 'nothing' at all.
This forum can only be as productive as the management allows and embraces.
We (the public, enthusiests, gamers, and testers) ask for your Leadership, Guidance and Commitment to make this happen.
Please help.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
thurse
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:34 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
|
I didn't participate to the swordwind playtests, and I'll be glad to have a quick summary of the results.
I'm a bit lost as some people say the BM problem only appeared in long games (5/6 turns) and some do not agree.
Tactica, will you be the nice guy who will post that? 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:07 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (thurse @ 30 Mar. 2006 (11:34)) | I didn't participate to the swordwind playtests, and I'll be glad to have a quick summary of the results.
I'm a bit lost as some people say the BM problem only appeared in long games (5/6 turns) and some do not agree.
Tactica, will you be the nice guy who will post that? |
Thurse,
Playtest summary of post swordwind being published would be a summary of every game you've ever seen posted on Eldar Swordwind.
I'm in no way prepared or capable of compiling and providing such data. 
In general though,
The issues around the E:A Spirit Stone rule, as I understand them are...
1) rule doesn't have core design justification for its inclusion as written (spirit stones exist in the fluff, but they don't do that!)
2) The rule was written, as per MC23, to address a situation that occurs outside of GT games - bad justification for any E:A army rule!
3) The benefit of the rule extends to more units than even would warrant it - in those games that go beyond GT games. Games played and reported have proven time and time again that every formation in the entire list does not need "Leader."
4) With the rule in place as written, based upon the GT point pricing, the benefit of the current rule makes the units within the GT list too cheap for their impact on the 4 turn GT game.
Therefore, if my understanding of the issues are accurate as viewed by the masses and majority of players, my perhaps limited logic would dictate that...
1) remove the current army wide rule. Its a no-brainer.
2) Without the rule in place, playtest to see if ANY formations even need such a benefit during the majority of GT style games played. Some would argue its not needed at all, others would argue that its needed sparingly across the list. Fine - lets see where its really needed - if anywhere.
3) If needed by some formations, develop a new rule that achieves the necessary level of BM management (Leader) for ONLY those units/formations that NEED the rule to adequately perform at an acceptable level for the points currently being paid.
4) Review the points list wide to see if changes need to be addressed in absence of the SS rule. As many have reported that the list works without the rule in place at all, one would think this step is more precautionary than anything else.
With all due respect to MC23 and the alike, regardless of the "complexity" of the problem, the approach to a solution seems quite simple to me. Perhaps their are other issues beyond those that I have an appreciation for.
Its worth noting - many have reported on this forum that when they remove the rule from their armies in their GT 4-turn games, that they still are winning 50%+ in their circles, though it does make a given game more challenging as the Eldar forces don't 'shrug' off BM so easily.
Seems like a very encouraging feedback. Seems pretty simple.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:52 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Its worth noting - many have reported on this forum that when they remove the rule from their armies in their GT 4-turn games, that they still are winning 50%+ in their circles, though it does make a given game more challenging as the Eldar forces don't 'shrug' off BM so easily. |
I think the majority of playtests have been with limited BM-removal schemes, rather than none at all.
2) The rule was written, as per MC23, to address a situation that occurs outside of GT games - bad justification for any E:A army rule! |
This was my initial reaction, too. I think it is for a lot of people, so I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this one.
The army list proper and the list's special rules regarding army selection and deployment are GT-specific and don't, in my opinion, ever need to be considered outside the GT scenario.
However, the core army special rules are intended to affect the army in
any scenario, not just in the GT scenario. It would then follow that ideally the army rules should allow the army to function over a wider range of encounters than just the GT - breakouts, ambushes, planetary assaults, whatever. There have been a number of scenarios published that can easily go 5-6 turns or even more, not to mention any home-grown ones.
To that extent, I understand MC23's point and even agree that non-GT situations should be taken into account to a certain extent with the core army rules. After all, if an army can only work well within the relatively tight confines of the GT scenario that does cut down on the options and the fun for a lot of people.
===
That has nothing to do with the relative merits of Spirit Stones vis a vis non-GT scenarios. I'm just trying to explain it in a way so that people might understand MC23's point. To be honest, I didn't "get it" with respect to what he was talking about until just recently.
_________________
Neal
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:11 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
NH,
Point well stated and received.
The problem with that line of thinking is development must draw a line somewhere. Until Eldar, that line was GT scernios only, and turn 4.
So, where do you 'reasonably' draw the line *IF* you are allowing development attentions to go *beyond* the GT scenerios?
i.e. if not turn 4... turn 6? turn 8... how about 10+ and the 10,000 point game?
Some obvious extremes, but the point is genuine. All development must occur on the same playing field with the same guidlines and principles. Lest you create an imbalanced army in GT scenerios because it was developed with consideration byond the norm.
Case and point - Biel-tan Eldar in Swordwind as aforementioned in this thread.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:44 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
So, where do you 'reasonably' draw the line *IF* you are allowing development attentions to go *beyond* the GT scenerios? |
That is the tricky part. I agree that you cannot exceed the intended design parameters by very far before you start creating more problems than it's worth. There are, however, clear instances where it makes sense. You ought to be able to run a 5-turn breakout scenario where you have to cover 6-8' of game table to escape without making major rule changes, for instance.
And for the record, regardless of the validity of the non-GT considerations, I still feel that the Spirit Stones rule fails. My group probably plays more scenarios than GT games by probably a 2:1 ratio or more. Even in long games (up to 8 turns or so) I've felt the Eldar have way too much staying power to accurately reflect the background material.
_________________
Neal
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:08 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
Okay, I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but here my PoV.
One thing that also needs to be considered for a given list (besides balance issues) is how much enjoyment a given list provides. One measure of the "funness" of a list is how much variety a player is allowed when a player chooses his army. For good or for bad, the Eldar army is much more restricted than the other lists (a player only has 2 primary [warhost] formations), while other lists have many more. That means that the variety an Eldar player is allowed is reduced somewhat. If, by poor planning or design, certain unit types are less efficient than the overall average/mean/median found in the game, then the variety a player is allowed is further reduced by pressure to choose a competitive army.
In many ways, unit-to-unit balance can never be fully achieved, but in my mind, the spiritstone rule went a long way to make the less efficient eldar troupes more desirable. I know that how the rule was implemented worsened internal balance issues, but when a player wants to play a specific combination of formations, he will often choose his army without regard to internal efficiencies.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:23 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
semajnollissor,
I'll absolutely and 100% agree with you that a list must be 1) enjoyable to play as well as 2) balanced.
I think the general intention is that these two concepts be treated and addressed as independently exclusive concepts.
Example: A list should not have to be imbalanced in order to be enjoyable. If it does, then there's another problem.
As it pertains to Eldar, I do think they are slightly to moderately imbalanced right now. I think they are absolutely a joy to play. For power gamers, some of their enjoyment may come from the imbalance.
On the other hand, I think many here would say much of the Eldar's enjoyment comes from the versatility and flexability in the list. This statement may come as a shock to those that feelt he Eldar list is constrained. To those like minded individuals, I would propose that the Eldar
Can be played as a shooty force
Can be played as a h-t-h force
Can take an all infantry army
Can take a mechanised infantry army with bikes
Can take an all Medium and MBT skimming vehicle army
Can take a superheavy skimming army with 100% protected troops until gated into play
Can take an air assault based force with SH Transports, Bomber support only air, Fighter only support - or a blend of all three
Can take blended vehicular, infantry, air, and couple with great titan support.
The titans can go h-t-h (powerfist) or fire support - or both. They are the only list presently with variable weapon outfit titans.
I'm sure there are others options/varieties of Eldar....
Take these and couple in the rules that Eldar have - full move post combat res, hit and run, wraith gate (vehicle or objective), new weapon tech, holofields, summoned war engine... etc, and the list options are further extended as compared to the other lists in E:A.
By the way - I'm only talking about the Biel-tan list. When you consider the other craft world's manipulation of the Biel-tan list, the options may only increase.
Perhaps the desired or ideal level of 'choice' is not there in the Eldar list - as some players may like. To them I would say - fear not, its quite flexible. Its quite enjoyable. I just purchased a massive Eldar army. I think they are great and have a tremendous amount of options of play. I think they are one of the most versatile lists in the game presently.
Spirit Stones - as written and IMO, is not needed in order to maintain that level variety, flexability, and enjoyment. However, we'll never know for sure if we don't test something useful... example, a proposition where the entire list doesn't have Spirit Stones.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:11 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
Ah, but I never said the Eldar could not field any of those types of forces, I just said they are more restricted than other races (and they are).
The thing with Eldar is that unless you are playing to the style of Biel Tan (assaulty infantry), you pay a premium (in unwanted warhosts) in order to get at the army you really want to play. No other army forces that upon a player for a reasonably composed force.
You are also right in saying that alternant craftworld lists will fix this (that's a good thing, to me) - but those other lists aren't official, and they won't be for quite awhile. Furthermore, some of the craftworld lists further restrict a player's choices rather than simply substituting one requirement for another (that's a bad thing, to me), like with the Saim Hann list - God forbid we send any infantry through the wraithgate. So for me, it isn't enough to hope for a better variant list in the future, because odds are my ideal list will never happen, so I feel I have to be a booster for my playing style in the current discussion.
And while you are again correct in stating that the spiritstone rule is not needed to maintain the level of flexibility that you listed, I believe something like it is necessary to make those "flexed" forces viable/competitive when compared to a main-theme force constructed from the same overall list. That's because no matter how much a player want to play with an army because he/she thinks it's cool, if it isn't competitive the player will find some other force to play. I have a problem with that if said army is a resonably constructed force.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:21 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
| Quote (semajnollissor @ 31 Mar. 2006 (20:11)) | | The thing with Eldar is that unless you are playing to the style of Biel Tan (assaulty infantry), you pay a premium (in unwanted warhosts) in order to get at the army you really want to play. No other army forces that upon a player for a reasonably composed force. |
*cough* Sigemasters *cough*
But seriously, I disagree that the Eldar are seriously hindered in flexibility with respect to force composition. There are a few options not present that other armies have but I would argue that most, if not all, of them are pretty much violations of the background material.
Of course, maybe I'm beating a dead horse, too, as we've had that discussion.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:43 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (semajnollissor @ 31 Mar. 2006 (14:11)) | |
The thing with Eldar is that unless you are playing to the style of Biel Tan (assaulty infantry), you pay a premium (in unwanted warhosts) in order to get at the army you really want to play. No other army forces that upon a player for a reasonably composed force. |
Point is well met, you want to play a non Biel-tan Eldar list, but since its the only thing you have - you pay a premium for manipulating the Biel-tan list to fit your non Biel-tan interests. I wouldn't disagree with that. I think you are correct.
However, I could see where one might challenge the conclusion you draw about the situation being unique to Eldar.
Example: I want to play an IG MARS Armored Regiment. Its all MBT and SHT. There are no infantry in that force. However, the only thing I have to work with is Siegemasters or the Steel Legion list in E:A. No Mars forgeworld armored regiment... so, manipulating the Steel Legion list, I pay a premium for taking single SHT tanks instead of companies. I don't even want infantry, but I do want a Supreme Commander... so then I have to a mechanized infantry formation with chimeras just to get my SC that I need for E:A game mechanic purposes.
You are also right in saying that alternant craftworld lists will fix this (that's a good thing, to me) - but those other lists aren't official, and they won't be for quite awhile. |
I completely understand. So if you want to play something that's not Biel-tan, there is a premium - unforatunatly, I agree. However, I don't think that's a problem for the Biel-tan list to solve.
Furthermore, some of the craftworld lists further restrict a player's choices rather than simply substituting one requirement for another (that's a bad thing, to me),
Well, I think that's probably intentional. Unlike Black Legion Chaos - All Eldar Craftworlds don't have access to All Eldar toys. Its kinda chalked up to 'the nature of the beast'.
...like with the Saim Hann list - God forbid we send any infantry through the wraithgate.
LMAO - as that list isn't done yet, it sounds like that would be a geat place to start your crusade for change if thats the style of list you are looking for i.e. bikes + infantry... or perhaps another craftworld if the bikes were just an example.
So for me, it isn't enough to hope for a better variant list in the future, because odds are my ideal list will never happen, so I feel I have to be a booster for my playing style in the current discussion.a
Completely understand. I applaud the effort. I would just note that if you are looking for something out of the Biel-tan list that is not traditionally 'Biel-tan' - then I probably wouldn't get my hopes too high. Example - we are never going to see a Biel-tan Titan Legion come out of this list... nor are we going to see Strategy Rating 5 across the board in Biel-tan. Such 'themes' just aren't part of this lists background.
Perhaps the better approach would be to figure out where your playstyle best aligns with whichever craftworld, and start the thread. Get the list going. Get some concepts and ideas down. Generate a test group and put your interests at the heart of the development. They probably won't end up exactly the way you hoped for initially, but your interests will atleast be addrssed within development. You also won't be attempting to adapt within the constrains of another craftworld list which perhaps doesn't align as well with your interests that another craftworld could... just a thought though as I don't really know what your playstyle is that you are referencing.
And while you are again correct in stating that the spiritstone rule is not needed to maintain the level of flexibility that you listed, I believe something like it is necessary to make those "flexed" forces viable/competitive when compared to a main-theme force constructed from the same overall list.
So you are siting a specific list or playstyle again that would need the SS rule. Interesting. I don't think we are going to address your points cost issue within Biel-tan as it pertains to the play style you are referncing, but perhaps you could shed some light on what your playstyle/list/army looks like for a different purpose. Your insite from playing the list in your style might at least give us a feel for which formations are in need of the "leader" rule. Not because we are attempting to make your playstyle viable, but because whatever it is that you are fielding - it may be abstract enough to isolate formations enough to show which formations are in need of E:A Leader.
Also, maybe I'm reading between the lines a bit too much, but it sounds like you may have some experience playing said list or style without Sprit Stones and have come to a realization of which formations may need the rule in the long run. Please share your thoughts on this.
That's because no matter how much a player want to play with an army because he/she thinks it's cool, if it isn't competitive the player will find some other force to play.
I assume we are talking about GT lists now where the points are at play and equal forces are being used. I would absolutely agree with the statement.
A competative Biel-tan list is one thing. A competative abstraction of the Biel-tan list is another. Some tools are needed to make a project work.
If I take Tau and take all Firewarrior Cadres with no upgrades. I'm going to have 8 guys for 200 points over and over again until I run out of points. I have a lot of wounds, but I can't hurt a AT target to save my arse.
Conversely, if I play Steel Legion IG and I take SHT companies only - and I take all baneblades - the list would be legal. Maybe this is my choice playstyle list... I just like baneblades.
However, the list would absolutely fail against someone with h-t-h combat oriented or that had lots of MW and TK shots.
The point here is that although you 'may' build a particular list from what's published, it doesn't mean its up to the development team to make that style of list viable. They are options and choices as it pertains to that List. In this case - the Biel-tan list. The list gives you the tools to make a Biel-tan force. The player is the architect and carpenter utilizing those tools.
If you buy a bunch of screws and drywall - but you only have a hammer, then you'll never get the drywall hung.
Cheers,
