What are the issues with Spirit Stones? |
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones?  Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:57 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
So you two think that the ability should be automatic? I dunno. I certainly wouldn't mind that, but it seems that it would annoy the opposing players just as much as spirit stones do. I mean, at least with spirit stone you still have to pass the initiative roll.
I figured when people talked about "transfable leader" they meant that it should function in a manner similar to how the leader ability does. Thats where my version started.
So, what was everyone else actually thinking?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
dysartes
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:48 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm
Posts: 908
|
At least it's controlable - your oppo can break formations w/farseers in (how would that work if they were in a Wraithguard stand, anyway?), or kill them to reduce the effectiveness, which is more than they can do to Spirit Stones, so it be a definate improvement to my line o' thought 
_________________ The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby!
Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress
Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Doc
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:48 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:29 pm
Posts: 126
|
|
I think i would prefere this, based on markconz' post
Remove spirit stones rule.
Give Farseers Emolden.
Embolden:
"During the rally phase, a number of formations equal to the number of unbroken farseers you have in play, may each remove a single blast marker when they succesfully rally. Declare if the formation recieves guidance from the farseer before you roll the dice."
although i have to admit i should play with the revenents before i comment on their points cost. (only used once with zero success)
i do feel that the points costing for the wraith constructs are the wrong way round, but that is based on only a few games with them
_________________
Without disappointment, you can?t appreciate victory.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Fuzzymiles
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:12 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 19
|
|
No, if the formation fails the initiative test, they don't get the BM off, but I personally don't like the idea of having to declare BEFORE you roll.
So I would go more along the lines of:
Embolden
If the Eldar player has an unbroken Farseer on the table, then he/ she may remove one BM from any Eldar unit when it succesfully rallies. ?He/ she may do this once per unbroken Farseer that was on the table at the beginning of the Rally phase.
The intention is that for each Farseer, the Eldar player can remove one extra BM from a formation that sucessfully rallies, but only one BM per UNBROKEN Farseer and no more than one BM per formation.
The reason I don't like assigning the numbers before the roll is that such an approach takes the idea of weakening the Spirit Stones a little to far IMO.
Fuzzymiles
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:08 am |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
| Quote (Fuzzymiles @ 17 Feb. 2006 (22:12)) | No, if the formation fails the initiative test, they don't get the BM off, but I personally don't like the idea of having to declare BEFORE you roll.
So I would go more along the lines of:
Embolden
If the Eldar player has an unbroken Farseer on the table, then he/ she may remove one BM from any Eldar unit when it succesfully rallies. ?He/ she may do this once per unbroken Farseer that was on the table at the beginning of the Rally phase.
The intention is that for each Farseer, the Eldar player can remove one extra BM from a formation that sucessfully rallies, but only one BM per UNBROKEN Farseer and no more than one BM per formation.
The reason I don't like assigning the numbers before the roll is that such an approach takes the idea of weakening the Spirit Stones a little to far IMO.
Fuzzymiles |
So you like my idea - but you want it done at the time you rally a formation.
The reason I suggested the end of the rally phase is just because it is simpler from a bookeeping perspective, ie you just count up number of unbroken farseers at the end of the rally phase and take off that many blastmarkers all at once. No need to have recordkeeping of the number of farseer rerolls left all through the rally/rout movement phase.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:55 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
I'd like to point out that most other special abilities are able to be used, even if the characters that have them are in a broken unit (the SC re-rool is what I'm thinking of). I dont think that allowing a farseer to use the ability, even if he's in a broken formation, would be all that unbalancing. I would guess that in most cases he'd end up using it for the formation he's in, anyway. Under that circumstance, it would seem silly if the Farseer couldn't help his formation, in any case.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:54 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
|
It would be good for ulwetha - they are farseer focused. But biel tan is aspect/war focused - lots of guardians here less characterful.
Perhaps spirit stones could become something else in each craftworld list - each time embodying that craftworld and encouraging its signiture unit type.
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:46 am |
|
| Purestrain |
|
|
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
| Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 18 Feb. 2006 (07:54)) | | It would be good for ulwetha - they are farseer focused. But biel tan is aspect/war focused - lots of guardians here less characterful. |
Which is why I also suggested giving leader to exarchs as a balancing factor.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:40 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (semajnollissor @ 15 Feb. 2006 (09:09)) | | Quote (MC23 @ 14 Feb. 2006 (23:10)) | | I use a form of transferable leadership. Due to Ulthwe I limit it to 1 per formation to try to keep Black Guardians 2nd Farseer more of a back up than add on. |
I'm not sure how you mean this. Do you mean that only one of the farseers in a warhost can transfer his leader ability to another formation, or do you mean that a formation may only be aided by a single farseer per turn?
I disagree with the former, but the latter seems to be sensible. |
I use both actually. I don't think Eldar need more than 1 extra marker removed per 1,000 points. Ulthwe being Guardian heavy alreay pushes this and Black Guardians with 2 Farseers would break it in my opinion.
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (clausewitz @ 15 Feb. 2006 (13:30)) | I seem to remember that one of the arguments against the transferable leader concept was a possible "mis-use". ?This invovled using the farseer not to keep the small tank formations in better condition but to strip BMs from assault formations for the next turns assaults. ?Which puts the eldar somewhat back to the unwanted hit-and-hit style.
Is it planned that the rule be worded in some way to prevent that? ?Or is this not the problem I remember it being? |
You might be thinking of the transferable marshal idea that I demonstrated how badly that could be abused on 1 day. Hell Spirit Stones alreaday does more than that.
The only restriction I recall to prevent "abuse" was 1 formation couldn't benifit from more than 1 "transferable leadership" each turn.
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:59 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (Markconz @ 17 Feb. 2006 (15:29)) | [quote="Fuzzymiles,17 Feb. 2006 (18:19)"]?
Give Exarchs Leader. Give Farseers Emolden. |
Exarchs are too plentiful. They should not get anything else. Beside they are currently a bargian for what they give you.
_________________
I am MC23
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MC23
|
Post subject: What are the issues with Spirit Stones? Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:09 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 174
|
| Quote (semajnollissor @ 17 Feb. 2006 (12:10)) | Okay, so if Sprit Stones are to be replaced by Farseers with transferrable leadership, how exactly should the rules work?
When would the farseers be able to perform this action?
Should it be available in the middle of a turn when a unit wants to marshall?
Should it be limited to the end phase when formations are rallying? |
Only during end phase Rally. Eldar's small size means the get a great benefit from Marshalling.
Is the ability declared before a formation roles to activate/rally, or after? |
I think It's simpler after. If we try to restrict the number before this point then you start to negate the whole thing at this time.
Should a formation be able to be aided by multiple farseers in a turn? |
I think if you want to gamble then go for it but for the sake of simplicity, no.
Should a formation that has a farseer in it benefit from the farseer's ability
in addition to a formation that is aided by the farseer?
You it gets to remove 1 from itself and another formation? I'd say no.
