Page 12 of 15

[ 212 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Reviewing Spirit Stones
Tactica	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:03 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (nealhunt @ 07 April 2006 (09:59)) ...... this is factually incorrect. ?The individual entries/posters can be identified. NH, I didn't say you couldn't identify individual owners of entries or posters on battle stats. [EDIT: my coments to original text that is no longer posted[/EDIT] _________________ Rob
Top

thurse	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:13 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm Posts: 185 Location: Dundee, Scotland	@Tactica : I agree but it is not beacuse a list has a 50% win ratio that it is balanced : - Balanced or not the SS rule might still be a bad rule ( illogical/not fun and so on... ) - It doens't show internal balance issue ( e.g. : wraithlords/wraithguards, titans,... )
Top

semajnollissor	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:16 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm Posts: 1673 Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA	Quote (Tactica @ 07 April 2006 (10:03)) I wish I understood why you are so convinced that other playtesters are actively malicious and manipulative. I don't see this statement anywhere previous to your post (nor do I see an "edit" statement), where did it come from? Anyway, I'd like to reiterate my request for army lists by those people claiming that the SS rule makes no difference (my theory being that they are light on armor troupes, heavy on infantry warhosts/titans).
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:23 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	I don't see this statement anywhere previous to your post (nor do I see an "edit" statement), where did it come from? I have mod rights, so it doesn't show if I edit a post.  I went back and cut it immediately after I posted because I wanted it gone, but apparently Tactica read it in the 30 seconds or so that it was up. _________________ Neal

Top

semajnollissor	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:30 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm Posts: 1673 Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA	Just goes to show, anything you post on the net will live haunt you forever. Good luck on any of us running for a major political office
Top

Moscovian	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:29 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm Posts: 6414 Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA	Tactica, I understand your position.  I just think you are wrong. My statements are based on a number of assumptions... 1) That the goal of everyone on this thread is to balance the Eldar list. 2) Balance can be measured by win/loss percentages being 50%. 3) These measurements are based on games played. OKay, I will break down why I believe Battlestats is the best tool to measure the success of the Eldar list balance (note I said BEST, not GOOD). (0) It is a large pool of data.  The larger the pool, the more accurate.  Within that pool of 160+ games, I do believe that there are some bad reports, scenario games, etc.  However I believe this number to be very, very small.   Why do I believe that?  First and foremost, gamers are probably the most honest group of people I have ever been in touch with.  Proof?  Look at the Good trades vs. Bad trades on EpiComms.  How many bad traders are there?  ONE, and nobody knows what happened to him (speculation he met an untimely death   ). If you truly believe that the data is bad, you could say the same thing about the batreps that are being posted here.  I could argue that the people with this Spirit-Stone-hating agenda are posting batreps that purposefully mislead everyone to drive their misguided points home. I don't actually believe that for a moment (and I don't think you do either).  But if you do, then you can't trust anyone's information and you have deeper issues than playing with toy soldiers. So I choose to believe that the vast majority of the data posted is accurate.  Ergo, the batreps are les accurate since they represent a smaller pool of data.  And even if there is malicious data, who's to say that it isn't on both sides?  Once again, the more info, the more accurate.   Last point on Battlestats.  There is a checkmark to identify if you used tournament rules or not.  I am unsure if the bar graphs posted is just for tournament games or all, but the data is certainly there if we need it. Please go back and re-read my last two posts.  I made reference to IF the spirit stones didn't make a difference, we should leave them in. I don't agree that it will make no difference.  Two batreps don't convince me of anything.  Twenty barely convince me.  I actually believe the Eldar will get wiped out without them.  Games will drop into the 40% win range. Thurse's comments that the SS rule might be a bad rule regardless of the win/loss ratio seems silly to me.  The rule is there to manage BMs.  You can call it whatever you want, justify it however you want, but it is BM management.  Just like a Commissar, a leader, TSNKF, etc. We don't disagree with Epic rules on moral grounds.  Either they work to balance the list or they don't. If you want twisted logic, here it is:  Complaining that the SS rule completely unbalances the list and is responsible for the the Eldar winning too much, then claiming that its removal has little to no effect on the game. WHAT!? Your assertions that the Eldar win too many games are based on.... what exactly?  Personal experience?  Exactly how many games have you played with/against the Eldar?  Even if it is a hundred, it is YOU, a single person, who is making a judgment.  Data becomes more accurate as you grab it from various players, point values, etc.  Not from an individual. My final point is this: the list is published.  The rules obviously play fairly well otherwise you would hear everybody screaming.  IMO Once the core rules get changed and more people play them, the skimmer updates will be THE nudge that sends them to the 50% range.  Changing the Spirit Stones is not a nudge, it's a shove. _________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories... It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top

Hojyn	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:43 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am Posts: 876 Location: Brest - France	Quote (semajnollissor @ 07 April 2006 (14:06)) Could those people who have played games without spirit stones post their army list for each of the battles. One of our claims is that spirit stones are needed by some formations more than others. Therefore, it would be useful to know (at least in a vague way) how many and what types of formartion were being used. EDIT: Added 1 Falcon troupe (which I had forgotten) in army list for game 1. Sure, I should done it before. Here's my list for game 1 (a shameful defeat vs. Space Marines) : Wraithgate Avatar Vampire + Aspect Warhost (6 Avengers, 2 Reapers + Autarch) Vampire + Aspect Warhost (4 Scorpions, 2 Avengers, 2 Reapers + Exarch) Aspect Warhost (8 Hawks) Guardian Warhost + Wraithguards Falcon troupe (1 Firestorm) Ranger Troupe (4 Rangers) Scorpion Nightwings Nightwings I lost this game due mainly to several mistakes on my part (I hadn't played Eldar in quite a while and it showed), but at no point would the Spirit Stone rule have made any difference. Also, I think I used too many aircraft formations and lacked some punch to control objectives. For game 2, I changed my army list to: Wraithgate Avatar Aspect Warhost (8 Avengers + Autarch) Aspect Warhost (8 Reapers) Guardian Warhost Falcon Troupe (1 Firestorm) Falcon Troupe (1 Firestorm) Scorpion Scorpion Storm Serpent Revenants Vampire Raider This turned out to be a much more efficient list. Note that I left the Vampire empty because I wanted to compare it with a formation of Nightwings. It costs 100 points less and I found it very efficient, so I think I'll use that again. As for BMs in this game : after turn 1, my Revenants and my Guardians were left with BMs they would not have kept if I had used the SS rule. Same thing for my Dire Avengers after turn 2, so instead of assaulting with them, I chose to use them as support for another assault. Also, the fact that I had BMs on some formations made activations more difficult, which is as it should be after an army has been fired at and has suffered some casualties. Keeping the ability to activate with no negative modifier, even after you've been hit, is a powerful advantage granted by the Spirit Stones rule.
Top

Ginger	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:13 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm Posts: 5483 Location: London, UK	Holyn Could you inform us of the fate of your Rangers, the Falcon troupes and the various EoV. Thanks Ginger _________________ "Play up and play the game" Vitai lampada Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top

Hojyn	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:28 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am Posts: 876 Location: Brest - France	Quote (Ginger @ 07 April 2006 (18:13)) Holyn Could you inform us of the fate of your Rangers, the Falcon troupes and the various EoV. Thanks Ginger Well, the Ranger met an untimely death on the Marines very first activation. Whirlwind missiles... The Falcon troupe in game 1 was destroyed by teleporting Terminators. Out of the 2 Falcon troupes in game two, one was reduced to 1 Firestorm by a Thunderhawk loaded with Devastators and Dreads, the other did not do much besides controling objectives. The Storm Serpent ended the game with -1DC and 1BM (it removed one of its 2 BMs at the end of turn 2 ; with SS rule, it would have kept none). Both Scorpions made a good use of cover and were not shot at for the whole game (and destroyed a pair of Warhounds as well ? ). The Dark Reapers in game 2 came out of the Storm Serpent in turn 3 to give the coup de gr?ce to the Space Marines, so were not affected by the (lack of) SS rule. That's all I can remember for now. I'll try to be more thorough next time. Heck, I might even do a batrep ! ?
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:22 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

Quote (nealhunt @ 07 April 2006 (10:23)) I don't see this statement anywhere previous to your post (nor do I see an "edit" statement), where did it come from? I have mod rights, so it doesn't show if I edit a post. ?I went back and cut it immediately after I posted because I wanted it gone, but apparently Tactica read it in the 30 seconds or so that it was up. NH, Thank you for your revision. I think we both appreciate each others perspective. Semaj, I've removed the quoted text from my original post. Cheers, _________________ Rob

Top

Tactica	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:31 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (Moscovian @ 07 April 2006 (11:29)) Tactica, I understand your position. ?I just think you are wrong. I understand. Thankfully we have disagreements. If we all agreed, we wouldn't need the forum. _________________ Rob
Top

Moscovian	Post subject: Reviewing Spirit Stones Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:48 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm Posts: 6414 Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA	Fair enough.   As I see it, there is only one way to solve the SS rule. You and me, matching Eldar armies, at the bikes racks, 3 o'clock high...   I love you, man!!!   _________________ 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 Spirit Stones Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:30 am

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

Moscovian, Well met. BTW: I was in a hurry earlier, I didn't respond to your questions you presented... in fairness, I owed you a response. Your assertions that the Eldar win too many games are based on.... what exactly? ?Personal experience? ? My assertions are based upon what I understand to be the majority opinion from E:A players the places I've played epic in. Those are, Various locations locally in the midwest around STL, MO and Chicago, IL mainly. There are other periodic games, but these are the main locations of my experience. Beyond that, my opinion is formulated from what I understand to be a significant amount of the army champions. I don't want to speak for any of the champions, but more than one of them has said that the BT published Eldar are either a. not balanced, b. are not pointed right, c. need a nudge, or d. undeserving of the SS rule. I'm admittingly paraphrasing what I understand those comments from the various champions to be. Vocal champions regarding the Eldar most recently are NH, TRC, CS, and Jaldon. I don't know if D has taken a recent stance on them. There have been more in the past. If you respect these champions opinion, this is relivent info - if not, OK. This assertion also comes from online 'personalities' that I've grown to trust over the years through a multitude of conversations, batreps, and various gaming related forums aligning with 40K and/or Epic. Many of those personalities are not Champions but appear to be tactically sound players with good judgements. That judgement is of my own pure evaluation admittingly. Finally, there are the people on these boards that don't fall into any of the above categories. They are the 'other' people that appear to agree with the stance that Eldar are winning too much in E:A. Exactly how many games have you played with/against the Eldar? ?

Well, I'd love to say hundreds, but that's simply not true. In current E:A, I'd estimate that I've played against Eldar BT somewhere in the 25-30+ range. Eldar as a whole, I'd say I've played against the many craftworlds somewhere in the 35-45+ range.

Playing or using the Eldar, I've played right around 15-20 games, probably no where near the amount you have. (all borrowing a good friends list)

I've observed more than I've played the Eldar in, but in the neighborhood of the same amount.

I don't consider myself an Eldar expert or even an E:A eldar veteren. I do consider myself reasonably informed Eldar opponent - and most recently, an E:A Eldar player.

I'm actually quite the growing fan of E:A Eldar. I've recently purchased a relatively large Eldar army - of which Honda can attest to if you would like as he's seen the majority of the army in person. Feel free to PM him on the validity of this last bit of information if you like.

Even if it is a hundred, it is YOU, a single person, who is making a judgment.
That's true. I am the one making the assertion. You will find in this thread and in this forum that my perspective is not unique, or even rare. Does that make the claim any more valid - absolutely not.

Data becomes more accurate as you grab it from various players, point values, etc. ?Not from an individual.
I'm not going to disagree with you at all.

I think we both can agree that data is not scientific unless observed from a controlled and experimental environment. My assertions (whether shared by others here or not being relivent to you) nor battlestats qualify as such types of data.

So in the end, to formulate my opinion, I have only my own data, my experiences, public responses in these forums, batreps that I've read, other champions, and my selct trusted online associates to draw an informed opinion from. To me, all of these seem to point in the same direction.

Does it mean a hill of beans difference to you. ?I'm not trying to change your mind either though.

At this point, I don't know what the right 'fix' is because I don't know that we've all agreed to what the problem(s) is/are.

I have proposed a way to start identifying whether SS claims are accurate. Temporarily drop SS and log measurable metrics. Report batreps. My goal is not to push the agenda, but simply to see if claims are correct relating to SS.

We would learn whether or not the rule is causing unnecessary imbalance. We would also learn if specific formations 'need' the rule.

Its one of many possible paths to identify answers to existing questions of course.

A blind elimination of the rule is not my suggested fix - as again, no idea of what the problems are for sure around SS - or if that's even the source of the problem(s) for sure. I can't suggest a fix without proper identity of the problem.

PS - wish I could throw down a game with more on the boards. I always like to see two online personalities match up for a good batrep. Just makes the games that much more interesting to me.