Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

[Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=10347		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  Chroma [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal
Here's my take on an update for Ulthw?.  This list is assumed to be using the Eldar 1.8 changes.

Added:

Nothing

Changed:

Two Troupes per Warhost

Removed:

Nothing... I think.

Please take a look and comment viciously!
Author:  Markconz [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal
Revenants 600, Phantoms 700.

Your support for 'two troupes' proposal is where? :O
I thought most people were against that at this stage?
Author:  Chroma [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal

(Markconz @ Aug. 20 2007,21:37)
QUOTE
Revenants 600, Phantoms 700.

I'm still going with Sotec's 1.8 proposal which hasn't altered the points cost of the Titans.  If he changes them, then I'll certainly follow suit!

Your support for 'two troupes' proposal is where? :O
I thought most people were against that at this stage?
Well, re-reading the thread I posted about it, I'd say it was pretty much up in the air, with some against and some for... so, that's what playtesting is for.

Ulthw? is *supposed* to be Guardian heavy and, with all the Troupe options, I don't see it becoming "cookie-cutter" at all... the main similarity between different people's Ulthw? lists will be "a lot of Guardians", which is precisely how the army should look.
Author:  Markconz [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal

(Chroma @ Aug. 20 2007,20:51)
QUOTE

(Markconz @ Aug. 20 2007,21:37)
QUOTE
Revenants 600, Phantoms 700.

I'm still going with Sotec's 1.8 proposal which hasn't altered the points cost of the Titans.  If he changes them, then I'll certainly follow suit!

Ok... but what are most other people actually going to be using here...? ERC is a dead duck. And if you are really go with 1.8 why change the shield formation?

Also note these lists will be fundamentally unbalanced, especially with firestorms left as is. Hmm perhaps I should make some updated versions for people to use based on what you do.

Once again the problem with the utterly hopeless ERC rears its head - grrr.
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:46 am ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal

(Markconz @ Aug. 20 2007,21:37)
QUOTE
Your support for 'two troupes' proposal is where? :O

Here I am, I think that people should be testing this. Don't forget that Guardian hosts are relatively cheap in comparison to an Aspect Warhost.

I am also interested in peoples opinions of Black Guardians. I do not think that they are worth the extra points cost especially as I can't add wraithguard and lords to them, but would like to hear others experiences.

Tim
Author:  Soren [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:53 am ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal
I?m knowing only players play this list because of SR5. Any other options are not rally interesting to them, they differ not much frum the biel-tan list, but SR+1 for free is like chrismas for them.
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal

(Soren @ Aug. 22 2007,08:53)
QUOTE
I?m knowing only players play this list because of SR5. Any other options are not rally interesting to them, they differ not much frum the biel-tan list, but SR+1 for free is like chrismas for them.

So they don't like to use the 8 strong Aspect Hosts that BT get or do they use 2 Aspect Troupes together (say in a Raider).

Might we want to limit the Aspect Troupes in this list then?

Black Guardians are used here with Wave Serpents. Guardians are good in FF when Wave Serpents are there to deflect first 4 hits.
This is one of the ways I have used them. However I finally came down to using them with Wraithguard & lords out of a Storm Serpent or Wraithgate until they were split off from BG and only normal guardians could take these options.

BG can take War Walkers and Jetbikes. Is anyone planning to use these?
Author:  Charad [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal
Big no for that kind of updates. Ulhw? should be guardian heavy, and what were crews that drive falcons and jetbikes etc? correct, guardians! Not allowing ulthwe to have those nasty engage aspect warhosts and limited aspect troupes is enough. Also Void spinners are best artillery unit in the list.

BG can take War Walkers and Jetbikes. Is anyone planning to use these?

Never, I just have never found a good role for them in any situation.


Why I play ulhw?, is that I always have (okay, since 95 when I got my firts eldars at hand) and always will. It is a nice blend of militia and special units and very characterful army indeed. Also there could be something with that nice colour scheme too! :D

This is feels like some other fixes, don't fix something that ain't broken! :)
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:01 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal
I'm inclined to agree with Charad, a case of not broken don't fix it. I think this two troupe proposal is unnecessary and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Guardians drive the tanks and jetbikes... and that seems a better way to conserve eldar lives than making them all walk.... It's the Aspects Ulthwe are low on.

@Tim - Biel Tan could take minimal guardians and lots of troupes too if they really wanted to do a tank heavy army. No reason for Ulthwe to be limited any more than Biel Tan here I think.
Author:  Chroma [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal

(Markconz @ Aug. 22 2007,13:01)
QUOTE
@Tim - Biel Tan could take minimal guardians and lots of troupes too if they really wanted to do a tank heavy army. No reason for Ulthwe to be limited any more than Biel Tan here I think.

That's exactly the reason why Ulthw? needs a "downgrade".

Both Biel-Tan and Ulthw? could take a "minimum cost" Warhost army with maxed-out tank Troupes, and they'd both cost exactly the same amount of points.

Yet Ulthw? would have SR5 and, therefore, be better.  

*Especially* in a Tournament Scenario enviroment, that SR5 is a strong advantage, as examples, it's one of the only things that can potentially disrupt a Marine Drop Pod army, they will always get to pick table edge/corner against all other armies with a 50/50 chance against Marines

Ulthw? doesn't pay for the advantage at the moment.  And it *IS* an advantage I, for one, want them to have, but it needs to be paid for.
Author:  Charad [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal
They do have downgrades already. It is a big disadvantage to not have those extremely deadly Engage units apart from warlock titan.

If SR-5 should be paid with flesh and blood, do not limit lists flexibility (write few lists and you see how they all start to look), instead adjust some points costs.

Again, if that is so big issue, why them marines have equal point cost with titans and airforce than imperial guard? makes no sense either...
Author:  Chroma [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal

(Charad @ Aug. 22 2007,14:19)
QUOTE
Again, if that is so big issue, why them marines have equal point cost with titans and airforce than imperial guard? makes no sense either...

Actually, I agree that it makes no sense that they cost the same, that's part of my point., but that Imperial "issue" should be debated elsewhere.

I have made several Ulthw? lists using the "2 Troupe" restriction and they don't wind up "cookie-cutter".  With three Warhosts (2 normal/1BG) that's six Troupe choices I can make, with additional Aircraft/Titans in the mix, that's a lot of variety, not to mention the variety of ways the Warhosts can be kitted out.

With Ulthw?, I normally play with 2 Black Guardian Warhosts and 2 "normal" Warhosts, so that's eight Troupe options.

What is, if you have one, your "standard" 3000 point Ulthw? army Charad?
Author:  Charad [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  [Ulthw?] Army List Update Proposal
You are right that with min guardians, max tanks ulthwe list has advantage compared to biel tan. But how often do people make those lists, both have their unique style and good tools using it.

Many epic lists have good choices of making lists, why should eldars have even more limits?

I usually have 1 BG and 1 orginal guardian formation, then 1-2 swords of vaul, some EoV:s, usually some air and rest is for fun units (jetbikes, shield of vaul, rangers etc.) With your current revision, 3 warhosts are minimum in 3k games, and if bought with serpents 350pts, same with vampire, 400 with storm serpent + other upgrades. So that really limits using other choices.

Maybe similar rules for some units could fit like aspect troupes have, that one per warhost is max. that would limit only ?broken?units and don't affect overall army composition. (still I don't feel it is right choice)
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/