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

Ulthwe overdone for price
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5687		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Dobbsy [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
This is a little overdue  :blush: but here it is...
Having played Chroma in a couple of games last month, I came away with a few notables - the main one about the Ulthwe, being they are far too cheap per formation if they have a 5 strategy.

Given all the Eldar abilities like spirit stones etc this is almost abusive to give them a 5 strategy and not make them pay for it. What you get is a hard to beat army (BielTan) and make them harder still, given only SM's get such a high strategy.

In the games we played, the Eldar OUTNUMBERED me in activations by 4!! This isn't even fluffy, let alone correctly structured points-wise. I thought Eldar were a small, dying race!

Anyway, just wanted to put my concerns forward here so maybe the Ulthwe list can be adjusted. Not holding my breath though  :;):
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
Quote (Dobbsy @ 02 Feb. 2006 (22:59))
In the games we played, the Eldar OUTNUMBERED me in activations by 4!! This isn't even fluffy, let alone correctly structured points-wise. I thought Eldar were a small, dying race!

Anyway, just wanted to put my concerns forward here so maybe the Ulthwe list can be adjusted. Not holding my breath though ?:;):

To be fair Dobbsy, my formations were much *smaller* than yours... ?:D ? Even if I had a lot of them.

As an Ulthw? player, I agree that we're getting SR5 for free. ?Even with the limitations in the list, Ulthw? is the *best* choice for any other non-Aspect based Eldar army because of that SR5. ?All the units cost the same, but you're more likely to go first and you've got a chance of dictating table sides and deployment even against Marines!

I feel the SR5 *should* stay for Ulthw?, but that their units should cost slightly more. ?In fact, I've started taking a 10% handicap on points when playing Ulthw? and it hasn't hurt me at all, and has made the games I've played a lot closer. ?That percentage might be high, but a 5-10 point increase on all formations in the Ulthw? list wouldn't be far off; it's enough to eliminate an extra formation or two, which I think is reasonable.

Tonight I'm playing a 2000 point game vs Alaitoc, so I'll let you know how it goes!
Author:  code_ronin [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
Quote (Dobbsy @ 02 Feb. 2006 (22:59))
In the games we played, the Eldar OUTNUMBERED me in activations by 4!! This isn't even fluffy, let alone correctly structured points-wise. I thought Eldar were a small, dying race!

Small is relative. Considering most comments in the fluff are written from an Imperium perspective, a Craftworld is going to appear "small" in comparison to the billions of worlds of the Imperium of Man.

And what does that have to do with strategy rating? Or the number of activations a force can field? Are you suggesting that the "smallest" races all have lower strategy ratings and fewer activations?

Now, any arguments you have about the army being too hard for the points is likely justified, but don't use the GW fluff as justification. They have already admitted that it is written like Imperium propaganda.

So, what do you think should be done about it? It sounds like you don't like strategy 5, even though the fluff would support that (long-lived race, seer councils, etc.). It also sounds like you don't like high numbers of activations. It seems to me if someone uses lots of small units they are going to have a lot of activations, dying race or not.

Is it the combination of the two factors?

I also suspect that there is something wrong with the Eldar lists and that the other Craftworld lists bring this out because they amplify certain aspects than the Biel Tan do. For example, I think Jetbikes might be too powerful for the points and this comes out in the Saim-Hann list because of the number of jetbikes that you have to buy.
Author:  yme-loc [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
The Biel-Tan list is slightly overpowered when compared to ork horde and steel legion (its very powerful against marines but thats mostly because of an underpowered marine list - combined with a paper, scissor, stone effect.)

Compared to speed freaks and siege masters the eldar list is balanced (it might even be a touch underpowered compared to these lists), and its best not to compare any lists to the completely broken and overpowered feral orks.

However the Ulthwe list takes an already slightly overpowered and easy to use list and gives it strat 5 and a better commander, the only thing you lose for this are Void Spinners (which is indeed a slight loss) and the replcement of aspect hosts with a limited number of aspect troupe's which as far as I am concerned form a number of games is not a weakness at all (aspect troupes are great - but the limited numbers of them makes this balance out to aspect hosts).

It doesn't quite balance out especially considering how powerful strat 5 is for eldar, it really does make a lot of difference.

Having said all that I am not sure what the solution is perhaps go to an earlier idea (much earlier) where the strat 5 is linked to the seer council commander - this at least makes it a more fragile bonus and gives the opponent options to deal with it perhaps on a seer council at 75pts (their 2 MW FF attacks probably warrent that cost anyway).
Author:  code_ronin [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
Good analysis. Thanks.

I imagine that tying a strategy rating to a unit was disregarded earlier because they did not want to make more special unit rules.

My suggestion for the Saim-Hann initiative was to tie it to the Wild Riders unit (i.e. it is 2+ unless the formation has a Wild Riders unit, then it is 1+).

So, does that mean that every formation's cost should increase because of the increased strategy rating? I think your idea of tying the rating to the Seer Council works because, as you say, you can apply whatever appropriate cost it should be to that unit. If people want to play without the expensive Seer Council (which is the justification for the rating), they don't get the higher strategy rating.

Makes sense.
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
Quote (code_ronin @ 03 Feb. 2006 (15:13))
So, does that mean that every formation's cost should increase because of the increased strategy rating? I think your idea of tying the rating to the Seer Council works because, as you say, you can apply whatever appropriate cost it should be to that unit. If people want to play without the expensive Seer Council (which is the justification for the rating), they don't get the higher strategy rating.

Well, even if the Seer Council isn't on the field, they've still directed Ulthw? where to go and where to fight.  And would the SR change if the Seer Council was killed? (Didn't see that one coming! *laugh*)

And even 75 points or so, isn't equal to the advantage SR5 gives.

*My* simple solution is just increase the base costs of all formations by 10%, rounding to the nearest 5.  It's been working fine for me.

More to come later!
Author:  code_ronin [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
Quote (Chroma @ 03 Feb. 2006 (15:28))
And would the SR change if the Seer Council was killed?

Yup!

Quote (,03 Feb. 2006 (15:28)]And even 75 points or so @ isn't equal to the advantage SR5 gives.[/quote)

First, get acceptance for the idea, then hash out the point cost.

[quote="Chroma,03 Feb. 2006 (15:28)"]*My* simple solution is just increase the base costs of all formations by 10%, rounding to the nearest 5. ?It's been working fine for me.

Sounds good. Playtesting allways beats paper drills.
Author:  Tactica [ Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
Quote (Chroma @ 03 Feb. 2006 (09:28))
And even 75 points or so, isn't equal to the advantage SR5 gives.

*My* simple solution is just increase the base costs of all formations by 10%, rounding to the nearest 5. ?It's been working fine for me.

More to come later!

Chroma,

This sounds like a good place to start.

We've experienced the same phenomenon, though we hadn't come up with a good suggestion to resolve the imbalance yet.

This sounds adequate.

Cheers for the idea.

It would be nice to get some feedback from several Eldar players to see how this adjustment of 10% would impact their lists and game results over time.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:59 am ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
I sense a consensus on the ground amoungst those epic players I know in londonthat all the swordwind lists are a bit overpowered. Neal sticks it at about 10% which is very precise :) Certainly the siege list is overpowered (my fault). Feral orks from the one playtest we did rolled over everything and the eldar. Well, no comment :)

So if this assertion is correct and the strat 5 eldar are better than normal eldar should they not have a bigger points hike? Or is everyones assessment of eldar that they aren't a bit overpowered? Certainly I'm not helping battlestats posting all these loses against Tau!
Author:  code_ronin [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:56 am ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
So the other group thinks the Biel Tan list, for example, should have every cost pumped by 10%? :whistles:

Something to try, I guess. I know I did not like the +25pts for S-H Wind Riders, and +25pts for the upgrade, as it made odd amounts for the formation.

A good example is the cost of Falcon transports for an Aspect Troupe; it puts the formation at 410pts. 410! Might as well make it 450, as you can't buy anything with the odd numbers left over.
Author:  yme-loc [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
I dont think the Biel-Tan eldar list is too overpowered, any problems really come down to the spirit stone rule, combined with a few slightly underpriced core formations (revenants anyone?).

Ulthwe takes this slightly overpowered list (no more than 5% against guard and ork horde) and gives it a significant boost in the shape of strat 5 (this probably does push ulthwe up to the 10% mark).

I agree with chroma that charging 5-10% more for ulthwe formations (once any points increases to the Biel-Tan list are taken into account) might be a simple solution. But it just doesnt sit rightly with me, I certainly wouldn't disagree with it if a consensus was reached on this though.
Author:  MC23 [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
I hate having this same debate over and over agian.

1. The core Eldar list is a bit too strong because of Spirit Stones. Don't expect and sublist to fix this. If and When Beil-Tan changes it will affect all the other craftworld lists as well.

2. Point costs are based on most effective use of formations Beil-Tan's Guardians are most effectively used to support Aspect Hosts in Engagements. Ulthwe Guardians have to support other guardians which were not designed to surve engagements very well. If at all anything Ulthwe guardians should be cheaper by default. But number of affordible formations and Strategy 5 help counter this.
Author:  MC23 [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
Quote (code_ronin @ 03 Feb. 2006 (10:13))
So, does that mean that every formation's cost should increase because of the increased strategy rating? I think your idea of tying the rating to the Seer Council works because, as you say, you can apply whatever appropriate cost it should be to that unit. If people want to play without the expensive Seer Council (which is the justification for the rating), they don't get the higher strategy rating.

This was dropped from the previous because no other army has a supreme commander that works like this. All other armies have a set Strategy rating and Ulthwe does not need to go agianst this.

Background wise, why should a race known for plotting the future generations ahead be at any loss for a recent death? These things would have been accounted for.
Author:  MC23 [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
Quote (code_ronin @ 02 Feb. 2006 (19:07))
I also suspect that there is something wrong with the Eldar lists and that the other Craftworld lists bring this out because they amplify certain aspects than the Biel Tan do. For example, I think Jetbikes might be too powerful for the points and this comes out in the Saim-Hann list because of the number of jetbikes that you have to buy.

The two concerns I see right now with core list

1. Spirit Stones went too far and has to be rained in.

2. Wraithguard, either too good and/or too plentiful


Bikes could very well be another issue. But I can tell you the points won't stay the same for current Saim Hann, The discount has got to go. Funny thing is people complain about Black Guardian jetbikes with mounted formations too expensive.
Author:  code_ronin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:24 am ]
Post subject:  Ulthwe overdone for price
Quote (MC23 @ 04 Feb. 2006 (15:11))
Bikes could very well be another issue. But I can tell you the points won't stay the same for current Saim Hann, The discount has got to go.

So, when you say "the discount" do you mean that +3 Jetbikes should be something like +100 pts and +6 Jetbikes should be +200 pts?

If so, that would certainly diminish the army and remove the 'horde' aspect of it. In fact, it would remove the horde aspect completely, as buying 12 bikes for, say, 450 pts is not much better than buying two Windrider formations at 500 pts (which would also be 12 bikes). But the two formations gives you an extra activation for those points.

The question then becomes, how to represent to upside-down Force Organization Chart for Saim-Hann in 40K (which I assume is the major Saim-Hann "reference").

I think there has to be some form of discount, to encourage the purchase of a larger formation rather than two smaller ones. Just lessening the discount might do it.

Well, I was thinking about trying 6-unit Bike formations. Better start practicing.

When are all of these changes supposed to come down, start being discussed, etc.?

Thanks.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/