Reviewing the Core List |
|
Fuzzymiles
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List  Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:15 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 19
|
|
One point on the Wraithgate issue, is that, for the ability to use the Wraithgate, we give up the ability to garrison our infantry (except rangers and warwalkers) in any way, shape, or form and that is a major difference between us and everyone else. ?I agree that a smart Eldar player will use Wraithgates to assault with full strength units and cause damage, but an overwatching unit near the gate can put BMs and cause casualties even as the unit moves out, so there are ways to counter the gate other than just jumping on top of it and praying.
Fuzzymiles
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:52 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
|
Lalonde, I firmly believe that the new skimmer rules will effect the Eldar significantly, and not just for the EoV.
Scorpions will be the least effected because of their toughness (a whopping 5+ RA) combined with their range. But the other units will pay.
Cobras, Falcons, Fire Prisms, Vypers, Storm Serpents, and the Fire Storms. I address the fire storms separate from the Falcons because -even though they are dependant on the falcon to field- the ability to hide these AA will drastically change. That means that even Eldar AA will be mitigated by this small change in the skimmer rules. In fact it may bring about the hit-n-run tactic many are complaining is missing from the game (if unable to pop up, people will be pulling more move-shoot-moves which will change how often Eldar can create casualties).
I am not including Void Spinners and Night Spinners because they are artillery and function primarily as indirect fire units, not pop-ups.
This is not picking on you, Lalonde (because there are too many people saying the same thing), but these are not a "few point tweaks". These are SIX point tweaks you are suggesting across every type of unit on top of the core rule changes that people are suggesting.
Baby steps, people!
I suggest to all that we pick the 1-2 formations that really need a change (I can see the Revenants needing a bump, plus... who?) then decide what to do with the Spirit Stones (as annoyed as I am to see them touched at all).
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lalonde
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:16 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 2:06 pm
Posts: 25
|
To me, 500 pts (assuming transportation) for a finish off type unit designed really for lightly armoured targets is a bit too specialised for my tastes.
First strike is all well and good until you go up against big units or units with a decent save.
Give me quantity of attacks and a decent save of my own anyday. 
Moscovian. I honestly don't think 6 minor point changes are 'giant steps' especially when we're talking 25 or 50pts
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:44 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
With jetbikes affecting Vypers and Scorpions affecting other EoVs, it's actually ten formations.
And it isn't just the point cost. It's the point cost on top of the other changes that can and will take place.
That is not a tweak. That is a 'death by a thousand cuts'.
Once again, Lalonde. It's not you. It is this odd push from so many people to change so many things all at the same time that frustrates me. 
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:01 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (semajnollissor @ 16 Feb. 2006 (18:06)) | | 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. |
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I have too.
My opponent has always... and I mean always... placed the wraithgate on my half of the table, and I've always let him.
That is why this thing seems too powerful to me.
In my opponent's defense, I have my own copy of Swordwind, have read eldar more than once, and i too have made this error when playing the Eldar against my opponent. LOL... wow... hmm...
I need to re-evaluate my position on the wraithgate.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Question:
Where the heck is the wraithgate rule in Swordwind. I'm not a main Eldar player - and for the life of me I couldn't find it last night.
Page reference would be great.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:55 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
It's in the Eldar Technology section (I think it's alphabetical, so Wraithgate would be at the bottom).
No idea what page # though.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 23 Feb. 2006 (11:55)) | It's in the Eldar Technology section (I think it's alphabetical, so Wraithgate would be at the bottom).
No idea what page # though. |
NH,
Thanks for the response... I seen the Webway Portal - but that's not the "you may replace one objective" rule... guess that's what i'm trying to say.
(forgive my lack of Eldar speak)
I'm looking for where it says which objective may be replaced with the Eldar webway portal rule (what I'm calling the wraithgate).
hope that clarifies my request,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:45 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (Hojyn @ 23 Feb. 2006 (12:00)) | | Actually, it's in the army list section, page 71. The Eldar Technology section has rules for Webway portals, but nothing on the Wraithgate itself. |
@Hojyn,
OMG - TY! I thought I was loosing my mind. I looked all over that darn book last night and I know I had read it more than once before... LOL
Big Thank you.
Just a general complaint about E:A.
Special rules preceding army, special rules preceding army list, special rules in notes sections of data sheets, and special rules in the army list itself.
We all like to say 'a army' doesn't have that many officially declared 'special rules' but when we hide 'main rule breaking text' all over the place - it gets annoying when you are looking for the special rules for the: "Wraithgate!"
 
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:34 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
There are only 2 places to look for race-specific rules.
Rules which apply regardless of scenario (new tech, special abilities) are in the army description section before or in the data sheets.
Rules which only apply to the GT scenario (points, formation structure, deployment options) are before the army list.
That said, the mechanics-in-datasheets is something that annoys the snot out of me. If a unit has special rules (like SM drop pods) it should be in the tech section.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Reviewing the Core List Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:25 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
[quote="nealhunt,23 Feb. 2006 (15:34)"][/quote]
There are only 2 places to look for race-specific rules.
Rules which apply regardless of scenario (new tech, special abilities) are in the army description section before or in the data sheets.
Rules which only apply to the GT scenario (points, formation structure, deployment options) are before the army list.
|
@NH,
Agreed - but what about the special rules that are actually listed in the army list... case and point,
wraithgate: Page 71. It tells you how its used, which objective you can replace, and what rules the selection uses which is a reference to web portal technology - but with a caveat that its small and that only certain units can use it - etc... this is all right in the army list purchasing section.
So in this case, would you not say this is a "3rd" special rule potential location in a rulebook?
That said, the mechanics-in-datasheets is something that annoys the snot out of me. ?If a unit has special rules (like SM drop pods) it should be in the tech section. |
Exactly, this is what I call special rule location "number 4"
and it doesn't stop at drop pods...
- Tau Supreme Commander
- Imperial Titan Stepping
- Etc... (and the list does go on)
?
?
Much better than trying to gun them all down.