Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

What change do you think is appropriate, if any, to Dark Eldar Barge of Pleasure/ground based AA?
Poll ended at Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:05 pm
No change to Barge of Pleasure 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Add 2x 30cm AA5+ for free 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Add 2x 30cm AA5+ for +25 points 18%  18%  [ 4 ]
Add 2x 30cm AA5+ for +50 points 18%  18%  [ 4 ]
Something else (please specify) 5%  5%  [ 1 ]
Dark Eldar shouldn't have ground based AA 59%  59%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 22

Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure

 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:29 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8371
Location: Worcester, MA
The Dark Eldar don't need ground AA from the games I've played. Like others have mentioned on this thread and many others, the lack of it helps define the list. That was the intention when the lists were first written and it should hold true now as well. Beyond that, there's no need for it play-wise. The Raven is on par with the Nightwing as an interceptor, they're the nastiest in the game and you can get them starting at 200 rather than 300 points.

mordoten wrote:
Take out the kasnarark (or whatever that idiotic thing is called), the tormentor titan (DE should NOT have titans!!) and make the Slavebringer a part of the 1/3 titan/AC limit and you´ve made the list way better already.

Also cut away alot of the upgrade options. This is not an ork list. Why should warriors be able to upgrade their unit with scourges? That makes no sense.


Removing a unit or option from a list this late in its life won't go over well. They might be worth considering if there was an actual balance issue that points couldn't address but "it's stupid" or "they shouldn't have it" don't rate. If you don't like them, don't use them. The people that spent the time to convert and paint them should continue to be able to play with them.

Mard wrote:
But seriously, Jim is looking at a lot of posts everywhere about DE, not just taccoms. There are a lot of players out there who play Epic but don't post/visit this site because it's too hard to sign up and they're shouted down by older members


If they can't join the site, a PM to CyberShadow on their behalf should be all it takes. The later point though I don't understand. They don't want to contribute because people don't agree with them? Why are we catering to them at the expense of the people who are here and contributing when they have the freedom to use and make any list they want?

If the idea has enough of the community and games behind it then it'll carry. If it doesn't, people are likely not going to agree with you. Show some games to help get your point across. Leaving because you think people are yelling at you isn't going to persuade anyone of anything other than you weren't very serious about it.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15 | Raven Guard 2018-04-23


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8474
Location: Manalapan, FL
mordoten wrote:
What other sites on the net is harbouring lots of experienced epic players? Would be great to read their thoughts!

And it's too bad that they are so offended by posts made here so they can't participate in the discussion and polls thats being conducted here about the list. Especially since the governing body of the NetEA has chosen to use this forum as their primary channel of communication with players worldwide.


I have to agree with ^this^. Inability or unwillingness to engage (for whatever reason-not pertinent) simply means that their experiences playing with or against a list are unable to be considered (or remain unknown) and at best are anecdotal then. I'd love to see their active input as it only enriches the process. Concerns and viewpoints if they don't join the process mean that they simply don't get considered in the equation (sadly).

"Shouted down" is not the same as "debated and made to intellectually support an assertion". In fact I will often come at things in a discussion from a particular viewpoint that I don't personally have simply to make sure we've considered things in various lights to get a fuller picture. Now granted I come from a people that have an extensive culture of debate so such things don't appear to me as antagonistic nor aggressive but I am not the world so fair enough to take a fresh look at ourselves from a hypothetical newcomers perspective. Cheers.

Good bad or other, it's not really the discussion at hand about NetERC/NetEA processes as this is the manner in which the org has deemed to engage and interact with the public here (though tweaks and ideas and questioning our internal bias should be freely made over at the appropriate place in the forums).

I would really like to see some more input, especially if it comes from a fresh source by encouraging them to engage here. Tell them to don't be skurrrd. :)

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 am
Posts: 361
Location: Oz
My intention for the list is to represent the Dark Eldar as a fully formed army. Hence the desire to keep the tormentor and the executor. One of the bias I have in list development, however, is to avoid auto-include units, beyond what is thematically necessary.

At present dark eldar players are required to include at least one fighter formation for AA. I also like the idea from the EUK list that a dracon and incubi are a required option, as my PoV is that it is a thematically valid auto include. I like the dual BTS constraint less.
But my intention will be to create a list that has multiple valid builds rather than a static template that creates or drives people down a single type of build.

At present I see that dracon and incubi, plus one fighter or one bomber or two fighter formations as a minimum. This accounts for 600-650 points of a dark eldar army (using EUK points) which can limit build types. And doesn't necessarily promote multiple viable lists. I would personally, like to see the inclusion of a GBAD unit for dark eldar to encourage different viable lists, with appropriate restrictions to ensure that it maintains thematic viability.

To achieve this endstate I intend to playtest both the Barge of pleasure and the tormentor as 30cm 2×AA 5+ to see what impact it will have on list builds and thematic stability.

I will also make one note that the argument the list should remain static or hamstrung or limited based on its original design is a logical fallacy, as the list is being looked at for redevelopment due to issues in the original design (points, structure etc) that make it unpopular, and uncompetitive in a tourney environment. I'm not saying this as a carte blanche to make the most competitive and broken list for the tourney environment (squats and beefcake, I'm glaring at you here), just something that is fun, challenging, and competitive to play and collect. Therefore anything is on the cards, within reason, in the initial phase of list redevelopment.
This is inturn moderated by my inclination for small initial changes and the list approval process. I think this is all healthy debate so far though, and I would like to see the results of playtesting once the intial draft is released. Which for all you watchful and patient punters should be complete sometime this week, work has meant that i was busier than expected over the last week and a half, then through Greg for clearance before being published.

Cheers
Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:07 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3148
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
So you did a poll where 62% of the voters (when i write this anyway) votes against having ground based AA and then decide to go ahead and implement it anyways??

Isn't that the opposite of community development??

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 891
JimXII wrote:
I will also make one note that the argument the list should remain static or hamstrung or limited based on its original design is a logical fallacy.


Incorrect. Changing the theme of a previously in-development list is the most dangerous way to invalidate model collection and generate ill-feeling. From the look of things you want to rebuild Kabal of Pain's Way into a brand new theme for a Dark Eldar army (a full-on, all-out army) and while I applaud the ambition in that it might be best if you do that under a different name, rather than smashing the theme that was originally envisaged.

The theme and tone of the list often generates the reasons 'why' certain weaknesses and strengths are as they are. Considering that, please don't turn the "raiding" list into the all out warfare list. Generate a new title and go from there.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 am
Posts: 361
Location: Oz
Yeah fair point DK about theme and reasons for collecting. Invariably people will be dissapointed with the new list, because of one reason or another. But i don't think the list will stray too far from its roots.

Also the list as it stands isn't a raiding list in my opinion, despite the fact that the design notes say it is. I would consider the titan a fairly high end, heavy piece of machinery. I don't see jack sparrow in space (POTC VII apparently ) kicking around with one. So in much the same way as i say it's an army list and the previous design notes say it's a raiding list, it really just comes down to individual interpretations of what each means to the person observing it.

And correct. Saying it should stay the same because that's the way it was designed is circular reasoning, a form of informal fallacy.

Cheers
Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 891
JimXII wrote:
Also the list as it stands isn't a raiding list in my opinion, despite the fact that the design notes say it is. I would consider the titan a fairly high end, heavy piece of machinery.


The titan has been one of the most controversial units in the list, as far as I've seen in discussions I've read of the Kabal list. It being included absolutely does make the list seem less a raiding one, but still when 'raiding' has been established as the intent for the final, citing currently included units as a reason to divert from that intent and establish a new theme is more specious than reaching for a circular reasoning argument. There's no stating the list should stay the same, however there's certainly a disagreement with your positing that current formations must establish a theme, rather than the statement of intent establishing how we should approach balancing formations in the list.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:39 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 am
Posts: 361
Location: Oz
I'm not sure I understand your post at all DK.
Im unsure what you are arguing and what you are inferring about my argument.
If you don't mind could you please break it down so i can address your points.
Cheers
Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:52 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8371
Location: Worcester, MA
JimXII wrote:
I will also make one note that the argument the list should remain static or hamstrung or limited based on its original design is a logical fallacy, as the list is being looked at for redevelopment due to issues in the original design (points, structure etc) that make it unpopular, and uncompetitive in a tourney environment.


That's a false premise, or at least a flawed one. We're already polling for changes, yet we've had no discussion on whether or not it's unpopular and/or uncompetitive due to its design. Nor have we had discussion on what exactly needs changing, if anything.

The list has made appearances in over half of the New England tournaments. I'd argue any lack of showing has more to do with lack of models than how the list is structured or pointed. I'll give you that I've never seen a DE formation take an upgrade, that was the impetus behind this, but can't remember anyone mentioning lack of AT or AA in the list to its detriment.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15 | Raven Guard 2018-04-23


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 am
Posts: 361
Location: Oz
Hey Dave,
There is a couple of threads that discuss list redevelopment.
I wanted to raise a few pointed questions that i hadnt seen raised already in those threads, so didn't waste people's time. And would also focus my own thoughts for the draft release of the proposed playtesting list.

Here are a couple of them. Feel free to contribute to those threads as appropriate and i can pick up your comments from there.

viewtopic.php?f=86&t=31610

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=31372

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=28426

viewtopic.php?f=86&t=26909

viewtopic.php?f=86&t=29632

Cheers
Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 am
Posts: 361
Location: Oz
And you're right AT and AA aren't mentioned in any of these threads that's why i raised it to discuss here because it has featured anecdotally in our (oz epicau and facebook) discussions.

Cheers
Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8474
Location: Manalapan, FL
Man those threads bring back some memories. Some things I'll note is that in them it's mentioned
-Lack of models/difficulty of models/kitbashing models being a demotivator for building an army (might explain why a fringe army is even more fringe- I know I'm not planning on starting DE until there's way more Stygian stuff from OSM released)
-Issues addressed / questioned seem to me to be more about the upgrade structure instead of list viability and competitiveness. Perhaps that's the first place to be looking at this list? I suspect there's more internal balance issues than external in this list (and certainly the limited tournament data appears to imply that)

I'm glad to see some honest discussion around this faction and army. DE are kool and it's good to see them in a fresh light.

Just something of a general note:
I believe there was some proverbial "raised eyebrows" in these DE polls less about the content as opposed to their presentation which as a bystander with no horse in the race mind you, could be read as your decision has already been made without community involvement and feedback and more was received as "I've decided to rework the list, which of these specific changes to this area I've decided on do you want" and not "what are the strengths and weaknesses of this list and what's clugy or warty that you think we should look at?". I'm not saying anyone's at fault, I just think that's likely were some of the reactions are coming from. After all sometimes its the medium, not the message

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Last edited by jimmyzimms on Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 am
Posts: 361
Location: Oz
Hey JZ,
That's really useful feedback.
You are right about the lack of models presenting problems for collectors. Kit bashing is cool but can be tiresome for an entire 6mm army. I am really excited about the upcoming proxy miniatures available through some of the excellent manufactures.

The second point is a shame and is exactly what i was seeking to avoid. So useful feedback for future approaches.
WRT the dark lance. I think DE AT is pretty spot on as is. The ravagers are excellent units when used right. And probably don't need any adjustment at all. That's part of the reason why i posed the question as i did to gauge community sentiment. It just so happens that it fairly clearly aligns with my own.

Thanks JZ.
Cheers
Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5402
Location: London, UK
[Rant mode on] ;)
    As others will confirm, I have long campaigned against power-creep in the ‘air game’ because of the significant impact that air units can have in E:A. Unfortunately others have not agreed with me. As a result aircraft have tended to gain power (albeit slightly) relative to costs, and correspondingly lists have tended towards greater AA to counteract this. That is not to say that lists must have air-power or AA, just that it tends to skew the game. I have run successful tournament Biel Tan armies without either aircraft or AA – but I did build in significant resilience with redundant formations to allow for inevitable casualties and also used a strategy that countered anticipated air assaults.

    Ground AA used in this respect is primarily required to counter air-assaults, though it can also deter ground-attacks. It provides three levels of protection; placing a BM, causing a hit, and (possibly) destroying the enemy formation. Newcomers to E:A often underestimate the effects of simply placing a BM, which means the defenders start the combat 2+ up on the assault resolution (all other conditions being equal).
[Rant off]

To the question here, I am unsure whether ground AA is necessary in the DE list, especially as it seems to be contrary to the stated design and seems to be a deliberate weakness to be overcome / exploited. Other lists seem to work without ground AA, and as stated, there are other air assets to reduce the impact of enemy air-power. The Barge (of pleasure) in the E-UK list has slightly different and weaker stats, which is intriguing given the questions posed in this thread. Finally the Harlequin list has access to the DE units including this one. Having AA on the BoP would remove one of the designed weaknesses of that list as well.

These are the reasons why I voted “no” to this poll.

However, if it is felt that AA really must be added, perhaps a single AA5+ at 15cm would be sufficient to place a BM to defend against air-assaults on the formation (as opposed to ground attacks)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:36 am
Posts: 90
I agree with Ginger

- Kendall


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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