Here is what I think are the defining features of the Ulthwé Craftworld

- heavy reliance on Seers
- a standing army of Black Guardians. They also have regular Guardians, as they still have civillians and everybody must help out defending the craftworld
- fewer aspect warriors than normal craftworlds

This is currently implemented as SR5, extra Farseer units, some Guardians being init 1+ and aspect troupes limited to only four stands. Some people think this is overpowered. So if these features are going to get axed, what can they be replaced with?

They also have a notable fondness for Webway Gate travel/attacks.



Let's have a look:

SR5 - A great advantage to the whole list, allowing them to play more aggressively.
Extra Farseer units - A small advantage to Black Guardian formations.
Init 1+ - A large advantage to Black Guardian formations, both when activating, and when rallying.
Aspect troups limited to 4 stands - In most cases this is actually an advantage, not a disadvantage. We discovered that during the Biel-Tan testing years ago.


So, where are the drawbacks to balance out this more powerful list style?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

For me, I'd just like to make everything in the list cost more; that's been my desire from the start, but it has never gained any traction due to the mistaken belief that many have that "things should cost the same" regardless of other differences in lists... eg, Warhounds and Thunderbolts in Marine or Guard armies.



The formation costs more and doesn't have Wraith construct options.

Also, all the core formations are mainly made up of unarmoured infantry.

That being said, the main "disadvantage" of the list is the ability to only take 2 Troupes per Warhost.

Price the 4 stand Aspects properly. 200 pts before Exarch maybe. Price Black Guardians properly too. Everything else doesn't necessarily have to cost more, but it's always an option.

The point of Ulthwé was to deny them the Aspects which BT rely on, and make the Black Guardians able to pick up the slack.

Smaller Aspect formations is not really a downside, as the BT list Aspects are probably oversized from optimum.

See lists with formations of 6 Leman Russ to represent their rarity; you see them more often than steel legion 10 russ formations.

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

Smaller Aspect formations are not being presented as a "downside", but as a "defining feature"... I don't think anyone has said the smaller formation is bad!

Personally, 200 points might not be a bad starting/base price for them in the Ulthwé list.

If the defining feature is "fewer aspects" then it should be a downside...

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

No, size is not the issue, cost is. The problem is that Ulthwé have cheap Aspect formations, not that they have small ones.

Keeping the same per-unit cost regardless of formation size is a bad idea in EA.

We're agreed there.

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

How about a graded price on the Black Guardians? Ex. Each formation costs an extra +35 points so so. So one formation might be 200, the next would be 235, the third would be 270. It would underscore the cost of bringing so many elites to one battle.

I don't know if that would work but I figured I'd throw it out there. It would hopefully offset the advantage of bringing three formations of Black Guardians without penalizing lists that don't take advantage of this particular army build.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I'd rather see the old guardian-black guardian ratio be brought back, to be honest.

I have to admit, I'm a bit mystified by this thread.


I would say this is noticeable but not huge. It's mostly important against high-SR opponents. Against SR2 IG, for example, the difference between +2 and +3 is a minor effect statistically.


Agreed, but it is reflected in the formation price.


They have a higher per-unit price.

If you figure the basic Guardian Warhost at 15 points per Guardian (which is what they work out to across all the lists), that means it's 45 per Farseer for 150 points. The per-unit total for a Black Guardian host would be 180 instead of 200. That is a ~10% markup. In addition, the second Farseer adds no new special abilities, just durability to the abilities the formation already has. While that is definitely worthwhile, it's not of the same magnitude as adding those abilities with the first unit, so the second Farseer should probably be counted as fewer points than the first. Finally, the Black Guardian formation has a notable reduction to strategic options, in that it is lacking the very popular wraith construct upgrades. That's not huge, but it's worth a few points.

Overall, that looks like it's worth about a 15% markup to me.


Agreed, but again, they have a higher per-unit price - 175/4 versus 300/8. That's +1/6 cost in addition to the normal fragility/flexibility tradeoff of smaller formations.


In theory, ~15% price markup on Black Guardians and Aspect Warriors should cover their formation-specific advantages. Less strategic flexibility in troupe selection and the removal of one of the best artillery units in the game (the Void Spinner is in nearly every winning army list in EUK, and is absent in most of the losers) are intended to cover the SR boost.
Edit: Also, the absence of a Supreme Commander option.

I can understand an argument that those might not be enough of a "markup" to cover the bumps, but I have a hard time believing that the list is grossly unbalanced.

It's a reaction to the claim that Ulthwé should lose 1+ Guardians. While my opinion is that it's not overpowered (the missing Void Spinner is definetly a disadvantage amongst the other stuff) I'm not ready to argue that I'm right and people who have played more Ulthwé than me are wrong. I would like to see what they want to do about it apart from "make Black Guardians init 2+", because I think that would a) go against important background and b) may junk the list.

edit: Aspects may still be a problem at 175, even though it's a markup over BT. 200 could be tested. I still think it's a disadvantage for a list to lose the main "hammers" (aspect hosts) and having to use inferior troops (Guardians) to cover the same niche.

Thing is nobody is saying it is grossly unbalanced, the list is just slightly too good with too many 1+ activation (with farsight) formations in it. I'd say it is less unbalanced than was thought of the older Eldar lists (most thought they were 10% overpowered but they were probably only 5% over) just the BG's dropping to 2+ initiative (maybe with a slight points drop too) would see the list at a par with other NetEA Eldar lists in my view.

Or perhaps just a greater limitation on Black Guardian formation availablility: price increase + restoring the 1:3 ratio of Black Guardians to Guardians.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter