New version!

Previous discussion is here.

Changes:
Fire Prism cost reduced to 50pt.

The list is available from Armyforge at this link:

http://traitor-legion.appspot.com/choos ... ltan_NETEA

Note this is not the list in the index - Adam wants to keep that the compendium list to keep things simple for newcomers.

Now's the time when we all need to buckle down and test the changes from this and the previous version. I look forward to seeing feedback and battle reports!

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Wraith Guards FF extra attack miss "MW"
Firestorm battery si supposed to be AP4+/AT5+/AA4+, not AP5+/AT5+/AA4+

Thanks for the catch on Wraithguard. I've changed it in my file, and it will be there in the next upload.

Every file I have, including my hardcopy of Swordwind, shows AP5+/AT5+/AA4+ for the Firestorm Battery. Is it possible this is an EpicFR amendment?

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I recheck ... and we were both wrong.
You were right, it's AP5+, but there was something else : the 2nd shot ! The Firestorm battery was "pulse", so it need the "2x" attack.

That I'll fix.

I'm about to reupload the file to the OP as 4.1.1 including these two fixes.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Can I ask what testing you did on the Fireprism change? You mentioned that it would need testing in the other thread but seems to have been inserted directly into 4.1 already. I think they should stay at 65 points. Why do they require a downgrade in points?

If you're going to downgrade them, then Firestorms should probably go up in cost. They're too cheap and extremely effective. 2x 45cm AP5+/AT5+/AA4+ and 4+FF for 50 points...? Compared to Tau Skyrays at double the cost with essentially only a 60cm AA being the main difference. (Skyray Smart Missile is 30cm range IC; Seeker missiles don't work beyond 30cm due to ML rule thus cutting the shooting prowess beyond 30cm; and Hunter missiles are 2x 5+AA; 5+FF). The argument for a 60cm AA buble is a strong one but at twice the price Eldar can put twice as many 4+AA on the board and cover roughly the same air space with at least a single hit per troupe....

I notice nothing is going up in price with all these changes, is that correct?

BTW Eldar won at Heavy Bolter 2012 this last weekend, so they're far from weaklings as everyone seems to think.

My rationale for the cost reduction is twofold - first the various bits of mathhammering in the other thread, second the fact that I have never, and have never even considered, taking Fire Prisms as part of an SoV troupe becuse they aren't worth the extra cost. I honestly am not sure they will see much use with the downcosting either.

As for actual testing, that's why I've updated the lists. I've noticed that around here discussions go on for weeks until the change is made, then people go out and playtest it. I can't get the number of games in to do the testing myself, so in order to get sufficient testing to happen I need to get everyone on as close to the same page as possible. I've found the way to do this is to include the changes in the master list, then remove them if it proves neccessary. I've made it clear in each thread that it's time to get testing - hopefully the community will step up to make that happen with me.

As for costs. EoVs in troupes of more than one and Fire Prisms have been reduced in price. Hornets have increased from 41.66 points to 58.33 points per, though the overall cost of a troupe has decreased. These are the only pricing adjustments that have been made.

I can look into the Firestorms for you. They look on a par with the 50pt Hydra to me at first glance, but I'll look into it a biit further.

Finally, I agree that Eldar are no weaklings. You'll note that the things I've changed are universally those that aren't used much - my intent is to make internal balance adjustments and not external ones. It's much the same as the round of changes you made upon taking up the SM AC position. If these things affect external balance than obviously they need to be rethought. Without more than the two (maybe only one?) games played under the new lists I can't make that call.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I presume the wording should be "Five or six Falcons for Fire Prisms"

So, for 250 point we can buy 5x Fire Prisms with 60cm AP4+/AT2+ lance?

This makes an interesting choice against Scorpions. Initially Scorpions lose out; even with the latest upgrades to 60cm 3x MW2+ they are outranged and out-gunned by the prisms when performing hit-n-run shooting. Over the entire game Scorpions might provide a slightly more resilient and reliable platform as they are harder to suppress and have slightly better AP shooting.

However, many people want to use the FireStorm element, so you now get a formation with 3x AT shots that are slightly better than Scorpions - but then the Prisms still do not stack up well against Falcons - so more are swapped out to yield a long range shot with better medium range shooting.

This does present a slightly different tactic by extend the effective range of Falcon shooting; with a single Fire Prism present, enemy formations can be 'clipped' , where all the falcons/Firestorms are positioned to hit a single enemy unit whilst the Prism ensures their hits can be allocated to other units deeper within the enemy formation.

Is this the sort of thing that was intended?

Yes. Not sure how I missed that stray 'f'.


Not sure how an AT2+ Lance shot is better than a MW2+ shot. Lance won't affect non RA targets, and also does not ignore cover like MW. The cost per shot is less, but Scorpions are far more resilient, as you note. I'm not sure which I'd favor at this point. Probably Fire Prisms for pop-up tank sniping and Scorpions for more direct intervention.



That's always been possible with SoV Troupes - it's just 15pt less expensive to do now. I wouldn't find it worth it either way - the high FF on Falcons means if you're hanging around at exactly 45cm from your target you're missing half the utility. Falcons are excellent prep/support units for engages.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Yeah that’s a fair enough point.

Yep definite point conceded here.

Looking at it I guess the 1x4+AA looks worse by a smidge than the 2x 5+AA for the Skyray but the Firestorm still seems the better tank to me with a 4+ FF and 5+AP/AT including Hit and Run. They’ve always been able to down aircraft better than my Skyrays in the games I’ve played against them and they are very helpful in engagements too – whereas the Skyray isn’t that much help there. I'm just not convinced they are half the points of a Skyray (or conversely, the Skyray is twice the tank that the Firestorm is)


Cool, that's what I assumed but wanted to get it from the horse’s mouth as it were.

Don't forget the Firestorm gets 2 attacks at AP5+/AT5+/AA4+ not just 1 attack.

Reading the list I'm sure you got it correct the first time, it doesn't look right with "for" in the units allowed section.

You're not stating that the formation is 5 or 6 Falcons that can be swapped "for" Fireprisms (as with
Firestorms), you're stating that the formation can be 5 or 6 Falcons "or" Fireprisms for 50 points each.

When I said 'missed', I meant 'didn't see'. I don't want to be reuploading constantly like I did the last round - I'll fix minor stuff like that all at once, or at leat once I've reached a critical mass.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Eeep! I did miss that! Thanks for helping me rest my case...

I don't think there is even a case to be rested ?

Are firestorms good ? Yes
Do they need to be fiddled with ? No
Does the Tau list need work ? Maybe
Are they fair comparisions with all the Tau markerlight rules and eldar special rules factored in ? I dont think so.