Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Reviewing the Core List

 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:52 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Does anyone really feel that the Falcon Troupe is significantly better than a Scorpion?  It's significanlty more fragile (both armor and vulnerability to suppression), has shorter range, lower to-hit values, and against anything with a decent armor save (which, as an AT unit is most of its targets) averages about the same kills.

The troupe gains more from sustained fire, but it's shorter range makes that use less likely and you can no longer pop-up and sustain.  Basically, I'd say that's borderline for even being a valid consideration.  On a double move, the Scorpion outshoots it by a wide margin.

It's better in or supporting an assault and has some flexibility in formation structure so that it can be more multipurpose.


I really can't agree that there is a premium over the Scorpion based on internal balance.  It has some specific uses that might make it attractive for certain styles of play, but overall, I think the Scorpion is usually better.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
When you up the cost of a Falcon formation you are also upping the cost on the Fire Storm.  

Neal, I don't think that the Falcon troupe is better than a Scorpion, although I bring them because I have them (I have a lot of them, actually), AND it gives me an option to field AA for the Eldar.  
Scorpion will hit with MWs about 3 times average.  Falcons will hit about 5 times with non-MW hits (that's with the 30cm shot included).    :80:  I think.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
The Falcon question is a tough one. I don't think they are better than an EoV, not because they can't match the fire power (they can) but because they are more vulnerable and quite a bit harder to hide. One falcon (or on EoV) is easy enough to hide, but fitting 5 falcons inside a terrain shadow while keeping them spread out enough to protect against BP attacks is a considerable pain. That's especially true later in the game when the enemy is often able to cover both sides of a give piece of terrain.

That being said, I agree that in a one-to-one comparison they come out ahead of the tanks of other races. They do seem rather cheap; they have far more fire power than ork or SM tanks, and are faster and at least have the possibility of hiding. But, they never seem all that effective in the game (kind of like predators, really). Of course, unlike SM tanks, they don't gain the benefits of ATSKNF, and unlike ork tanks, they can't bring any extra friends along to bolster the size of the formation.

In the end I think the best way to tell if Falcons are undercosted is if they are a popular formation to use (like the revenants are). By that measure, I'd have to say that they aren't that big of a problem, but YMMV.






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
MC23,

I don't want to beat on the core Eldar list as I like it as both an opponent and an occasional player of the list (when my friend had the models readily available for me to borrow anyway)... but I digress.

I do applaud you for taking on the critisism and recognizing the need for a change.

I think the main issues are known pretty well, spirit stones impact list wide, jet bikes cost, reverant formation cost (due to fluff I do not think they should be split up!), wraithXXX costs, etc.

I think NH make a good point about the Falcons that I had not considered before.

Phoenix bombers do seem a bit cheap, but I don't think this falls into the major problems of the list.

As you tread this course, being mindful of experimental rules on the horizon is a must.

Anyway - I applaud this effort and am happy to see it finally being genuinely discussed with the AC's watchful eye and initiative. This is encouraging. :)

Personal note: One thing I've not seen mentioned is the wraith gate. There's no counter to it. I think that it causes problematic situations across games with multiple different opponents. On the other hand, I think its very Eldar-ish and don't want to see it go away.

At minimum, I'd like to see
1) the wraith gate forced to be the last objective the Eldar player deploys.

2) I also think there should be some kind of a cost increase associated with it.

3) I don't think all craft worlds should have access to it.

MC23, thanks for listening and I'll be staying tuned here on this one. Glad to see this discussion taking place.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
Quote (Tactica @ 16 Feb. 2006 (14:32))
Personal note: One thing I've not seen mentioned is the wraith gate. There's no counter to it. I think that it causes problematic situations across games with multiple different opponents. On the other hand, I think its very Eldar-ish and don't want to see it go away.

At minimum, I'd like to see
1) the wraith gate forced to be the last objective the Eldar player deploys.

2) I also think there should be some kind of a cost increase associated with it.

3) I don't think all craft worlds should have access to it.

On point number one, wouldn't that make the wraithgate better? I mean, the wraithgate is placed in the eldar player's half of the board, which means that it replaces either the blitz objective or one of the two objectives placed by the opponent. By your statement, it sounds like you'd rather it be placed by the eldar player, which would put it in the opponent's board half.

On point number two, that's a possiblity, but I'm pretty sure the things that can use the webway have that reflected in their point costs.

On point number three, I would very much disagree with this, especially for the major craftworlds. Maybe this would make sense for that one craftworld stuck in the Eye of Terror, but even that is just a maybe (and that one isn't a major craftworld, in any case).

Also, the gate may be difficult to counter, but not impossible. It is possible to blockade the gate in such a way that the eldar formation would have to take an engage action to get out. And if you do it right, you can keep the number of units that can come out of the gate and partcipate in the assault down to a small fraction of the total number of units in that formation. It may be difficult to pull off, but certainly not impossible.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote (semajnollissor @ 17 Feb. 2006 (00:06))
On point number one, wouldn't that make the wraithgate better? I mean, the wraithgate is placed in the eldar player's half of the board, which means that it replaces either the blitz objective or one of the two objectives placed by the opponent. By your statement, it sounds like you'd rather it be placed by the eldar player, which would put it in the opponent's board half.

On point number two, that's a possiblity, but I'm pretty sure the things that can use the webway have that reflected in their point costs.

On point number three, I would very much disagree with this, especially for the major craftworlds. Maybe this would make sense for that one craftworld stuck in the Eye of Terror, but even that is just a maybe (and that one isn't a major craftworld, in any case).

Also, the gate may be difficult to counter, but not impossible. It is possible to blockade the gate in such a way that the eldar formation would have to take an engage action to get out. And if you do it right, you can keep the number of units that can come out of the gate and partcipate in the assault down to a small fraction of the total number of units in that formation. It may be difficult to pull off, but certainly not impossible.

On point 1, I have to agree with Sema'. You can partially dictate where it's going to be placed. That's better than having it smack dab in you half of the board.

On point 2, can you be certain that's the case Sema'? I think the points for the gate should be specific to the gate itself, not the units coming out of it, surely?

On point 3, Countering a gate is no easy task. you'd have to dedicate a formation to it and it would get summarily executed by the rest of the Eldar army for being over extended.






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Is the 'rolling assualt' a problem (especilly with jetbikes). I.e attack, reposition, support another attack etc.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:51 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 17 Feb. 2006 (03:48))
Is the 'rolling assualt' a problem (especilly with jetbikes). I.e attack, reposition, support another attack etc.

Yes, lets ditch the special eldar consolidation move and double retain  :;):

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:07 am
Posts: 61
Hi,

Shortly after the Eldar list first came out I felt that some of the list composition was un-Eldary.  So I came up with a list of things I would change to make the list more Eldarish.  Note that these are not ment as changes for balance but may be used as such.  Hopefully one of these ideas has merit or inspires someone else...

Firstly, large infantry formations don't seem right.  I would reduce the host formation sizes to 6 and recost.

Secondly, the spirit stone rule seems to have a very poor background reasoning.  It's kind of like saying Orks get a +1 to rally because they are green.  That they can't count makes much more sense.  <-- personal opinion!  I would at least change the fluff reasoning behind this rule if not the rule itself.

Using the hit and run rule to hit and hit has been complained about before.  I would add to the hit and run rule that Eldar formations that use the hit and run rule to withdraw from combat may lend support to other formations that turn.

And finally as a alternative to the Spirit Stone rule I would give the same benefits to any formation consisting solely of armored vehicles.  I don't have an Eldar codex but it is my understanding that they can upgrade their vehicles with spirit stones and that this adds some regenerative or better command and control (I forget, its been awhile) abilities to the vehicles.

Just some random thoughts...

^2


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am
Posts: 720
Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.
My 2 Cents From The Eldar Front

I want to make this very clear, next to my beloved White Scars SM Chapter, my Biel Tann Eldar are my favorite army. Not only was I excited when JJ posted the Eldar v1.0 list, I was beside myself with joy that it was Biel Tann Eldar!

That said, my primary goal in playing games like Epic-A is to have fun, and let me make this very clear, I do not equate victory on the battlefield as required to have fun. Fun, to me, is fighting a good, close, well fought battle (win or lose), with armies that have unique capabilities, and compare well to each other in their chances of obtaining victory. In my book 60% is too high a consistant victory level, when it should be 47% to 55% instead.

So for me the way an army 'feels' is more important then whether I can put together a 'beardy killer army' that wins most, if not all, of its battles. Truth be known I win less then 50% of my battles no matter what army I am using, but because of the fine people I game with I gain the ultimate prize and have fun 99.9% of the time (That .1% covers the rare battle where one players has horrendus dice rolls).

The opinions I am going to voice below aren't to strip the Eldar army of its capabilities, and leave it a weakling flopping in the breeze, I wouldn't do that to my second most favorite army. But I do want to field a balanced army list that plays like the fluffs says it should, and IMHO the changes I propose will do that (I Think).

(1) Outside Spirit Stones I really don't think there is anything wrong with any of the other Eldar special rules/abilities and I do not think any of them needs to be changed or modified. This includes Wraithgates, Double Retains, Hit & Run, Avatar, etc.....

Note that the problem isn't that the Eldar can perform a 'rolling wave' attack using a double retain, they can and should be able to do this as it fits the Farseer fluff (The see into the possible future thing). The problem is that with Spirit Stones they can, with formation management, do this every single turn at least once. Replacing Spirit Stones with something less 'all encompassing' would force Eldar players to better plan, and execute, these 'rolling wave' attacks, and make them pay a much heavier price for failure then they do now.

Spirit Stones IMHO need to be toned down because they encourage players to use the Eldar in a way that goes beyond what the fluff intended, while all the other Specuial Rules/Abilities do the exact opposite.

(2) I do not think there is a need to do an across the board up in Eldar formation costs. The up and coming changes in the assault rules and the skimmer rules, which we have been using for some time now, does a lot to offset the present under-pricing of the Eldar formations, in general. For Example: Before we started using the proposed skimmer rule everybody in my home group felt the Falcon and Fire Prisim formations were under-priced and should be somewhere between 275pts to 300pts. After using the new skimmer rule for awhile nobody felt they were overpriced anymore.

(3) Eldar Titans are superior to everybody elses and this is as it should be. I actually feel the Warlock and Phantom Titan are at about the right price, only the Revenants seem under priced. A simple boost up to 700pts should correct that problem, and if that is too high then drop it back to 675pts, but only by testing it will we know.

(4) At one time I didn't feel that Wraithguard and Wraithlords were underpriced at all, but after purposely abusing my use of them over the last couple of months and it has changed my mind. I know think that both upgrades should go up 25pts each upgrade (not each unit) and that the Support Weapon Platforms should be reduced to 35pts.

Jaldon :p

_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 19
Jaldon I'm with you almost 100% with you from your post. ?The only think I even close to disagree with is the last point:

I really need to learn to properly quote, but you said:

(4) At one time I didn't feel that Wraithguard and Wraithlords were underpriced at all, but after purposely abusing my use of them over the last couple of months and it has changed my mind. I know think that both upgrades should go up 25pts each upgrade (not each unit) and that the Support Weapon Platforms should be reduced to 35pts.

This is my personal opinion, but I don't think Wraithlords should be upped because of their vulnerability to AT fire, I DO believe Wraithguard need to cost a bit more because they DO rock. ?Support Weapons I dont know about, but at 35 I might use them more.

Fuzzymiles

P.S. the discussion on a possible alternative to Spirit Stones is going pretty well in the Spirit Stones post. (<--IMO) ?:80:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
I'm back (and this has been a far more productive thread IMO)..

I've been trying to pay attention to what people play and what they don't. That does give insight to how these things preform. From this I've seen 3-4 problem in the army

Revenant Titans (and they do seem to me a better Choice than the Phantom or Warlock)

Wraithguard (people are willing to pass on Black Guardians to take these)

Jetbikes ( too good or too hard to be EPIC Eldar)

and these things do share a somewhat common feature, they are some of the most resilent things in the Eldar army.

Thinking about that made me rethink about Eldar armor in EPIC and having anything but some form of a 5+ save.

These units have a 4+ or better
Avatar 3+ I
Farseer 4+ I
Jetbikes 4+
Vyper 4+
Striking Scorpions 4+
Warp Spiders 4+
Wraithguard 4+ RA
Wraithlord 4+ RA
Nightwing 4+

The bikes with a 4+ armor with hit and run 35 cm skimmer. I've been lazy and haven't assembled beyond 1 formation yet but I know how I like to use that 1 troupe every game. I know 4+ corresponds directly to 40K but it might work out too well EPIC with hit and run and mobility. I've wondered lately how they would perform at 5+ instead of just upping costs.

The Wraiths, what can I say. These are some of the toughest models in 40K. With the Wraithlord (toughest of the toughest) I don't think I have too much of an issue with their save (of course they are often over looked as an option now). Wraithguard on the other hand I'm really starting to feel is over the top with 4+ RA. 4+ or 5+ RI might be better suited for the EPIC game. Wraithlords might have to be reconsidered as well being the sole 4+ RA model but that could go 5+ RA as well or even 3+.

Those are some radical ideas to mull over.

_________________
I am MC23


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
I could live with jetbikes having 5+ armor, but the question arises about whether vypers should be adjusted as well, since they're a 1-for-1 trade. I don't think vypers would be worth the effort if they only had a 5+ save, being LV's makes them too vulnerable as targets of opportunity.

As for the wraithguard, going from 4+ reinf to 5+ reinf is a fairly big change. That would almost be enough to change their use from shield units to just plain gun units. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but it is something to consider. What should the wraithguards' role be, exactly?

Finally, if you really want to get drastic, you could change the wraithlord to a LV, and give it a 3+ Reinf save. I realize that would be the best armor in the game, but it would be more vulnerable to enemy fire. Eldar players would be more likely to put?them up front to take AP hits that would otherwise erase their guardian stands - so they'd be exposed to a whole lot of AP fire. But, like I said, only if you want to get really drastic.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 19
Well, I am generally against changing the units armor values, Jetbikes have a 3+ Armor (can become 3+ invulnerable save with a turbo boost) and a 4 toughness in 40k which is astounding for Eldar. ?Wraithlords are toughness 8, 3 wounds, and a 3+ Armor (bolters and any other small arms have no chance to wound these beasts). ?Wraithguard are Toughness 5 and 3+ armor. ?Overall, these units should be the toughest things in the Eldar army. ?I think jetbikes are honestly right where they need to be in terms of toughness, they take damage better than Space Marines. ?Wraithlords shouldn't be LV's because they can't be hurt by small arms and are rarely going to feel the burn even from heavy tank weapons. ?Wraithguard, as a unit, I really like them. ?I like their abilities and their toughness, and this makes me quite biased when it comes to them, but if we kept the points at 150 and gave them a 5+ RA save, I would be willing to try that. ?I hate myself for agreeing with that. ?:down: Anyway, Jetbikes are tough, Wraithlords require entire Terminator or Dreadnought units to kill, and Wraithguard are very close to Terminators in toughness due to their Toughness stat.

Fuzzymiles


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Reviewing the Core List
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:23 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Quote (Squared @ 17 Feb. 2006 (05:09))
And finally as a alternative to the Spirit Stone rule I would give the same benefits to any formation consisting solely of armored vehicles. ?I don't have an Eldar codex but it is my understanding that they can upgrade their vehicles with spirit stones and that this adds some regenerative or better command and control (I forget, its been awhile) abilities to the vehicles.

Yes I seem to recall something like this - and think it has some merit as an idea.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net