i never knew that. makes sense.  thanks for the heads up. epic wins again.

cheers

Tim NZ

Having played eldar as my first army since i started epic  when it first came out and over the years, and having played under most of the rules systems, other than the net epic erratas, i dont really see the need for big changes to the lists.
There is alot i agree with in some of the prior posts and some that i find a little baffling, alot i think stems from the fact that people play from diffrent rules sets and i guess this has been a nagging problem for epic for a while with a lack of a unified list world wide.
That aside some of the things id like to see get attention are as follows and i realise they have been mentioned prior in this thread but this is just a collection of what i personally would like.

Pulsar weapons.

I understand these come in various sizes and strengths which reflect the stats based on the diffrent mounted varities within the army, but are not the scorpion and revenant weapons roughly the same ?  yet the ranges  and hit rolls are far diffrent ?  my main concern being range on the revenant id like to see that go to 60 along side the scorpion.  I dont expect this to get a well recvied response and can see some of the game reasonings behind it but thats just my 2 cents.

Fire Prisims.

I play these current as the 60cm 2+ AT and upgrade to Falcon formations, and i think they work fine as is, giving them AA i dont really agree with, but if it HAD to been done i would like to see it as a seperate stat line to the main gun and certainly not lancing. maybe disrupt ?  but who knows.

Cobras.

These are my little babies, i love the idea fluff and concept behind these and really like the models past and current, but i really dont feel the current stats really grasp the feel and niche that they are meant to fill.  yes they can take some BM's and have the amour but they are relativly slow  ( i know this will spark some of you up but once again this is my personal view no slander intended at all ) and there range just doesnt feel right at all. they are realtivly easy to break as its rarely a achivable task to advance them under cover to take advantage of there full potential. Id like to see this get a little more love so they get more field time.

Howling banshees.

This deserves its own thread and im sure we all have our own thoughts on them. but they need some love aswell.



and finally in regards to the +1 for double and marshels activations i really dont see this a being needed if you plan your army well and also play your game a turn ahead. as others have said it would be just taking away a weakness they need to keep them balanced.

Disclaimer : the afore mentioned is all just personal opinons and were typed under the influence of alcohol.


Cheers


Tim NZ

I suspect the different Falcon costings were based on their potential in different circumstances:-

As a formation by themselves, 250 points +50 for one more is correct because even a 6x unit formation is vulnerable to BMs, while it does pack a punch if allowed to sustain (12x 3+ and 6x 4+ in the extreme case). The problem with sustaining is that they are then static and will inevitably suffer - so this should be a very rare situation.

BUT 8x Falcons, each carrying a Guardian, provides both a monster assault and better firepower. At 50 points each, the 550 Guardian+Falcons formation would be the same cost as WS mounted Falcons and a support formation but have better resilience than either. With Aspects and Exarch at 750, this goes well OTT, being faster with more short-ranged firepower and better assault than equivalent titans.

At 65 each, the Guardian formation is now 670 but is better in many respects than the Revenants, while at 870 the Aspect formation is still fearsome. I do not know of anyone who has tried either, basically because of their vulnerability and the number of other formations that can be bought for the points.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Spot on Tim.

Much of the debate has been caused by the way that the earlier 1.8 Eldar stats were added to the Markonz Handbook and widely adopted in the Antipodes, but which were not 'official' and not adopted by Jervis Johnson in the 2008 official changes. This has left the community with a major split over the Eldar list which the current NetERC lists are trying to resolve.

I might add that the earlier 1.8 changes followed significant debate on ways to reduce the 'overpowered' Eldar, basically because certain formations played better by sustaining and being static (using Spirit Stones to remove BMs).

My contention, apparently supported by other people and the UK championship statistics is that the more limited official changes have corrected the problems without the additional changes to unit statistics.

With this on mind, I am suggesting we adopt much smaller changes to redress weaknesses with particular formations, and possibly the small revision to Spirit Stones to make the Eldar slightly more mobile while under BMs.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Following on from the earlier post, my suggestions for Fire Prisms is to retain the original Fire Prism formation, but permit people to buy extra units to redress the problems with the formation resilience, while also addressing the apparently overpowered nature of the AA.

So my suggested stats would be:-

AV 35cm move, 5+ armour, 5+ FF, 6+ CC
Prism Cannon    75cm range   AT4+ / AP4+   Lance
Eldar AA misile  60cm range   AA6+
Notes   Skimmer

Formation cost 3x Fire Prism for 225 points, 1-2 extra 50 points each.

If these statistics are felt to be underpowered (though there are a number of people who would disagree) then we can find alternative stats and costs. To aid ths debate I suggest splitting the AA component from the Prism Cannon because IMHO it is the 'Lance' ability which causes it to be overpowered, especially in larger formations. Indeed, I believe this was part of the reason why the AA component was removed to allow for larger formations in the 1.8 stats.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I would not name the AA attack 'Eldar AA missile' as Fire Prisms are not armed with anything of the sort.

I'd just give it to the Prism Cannon under an and label, as in:



Prism Cannon    75cm range AND   AT4+ / AP4+   Lance  
                     60cm range          AA6+


No need to invent new weapons that don't exist in the background, when you can just play with the stats.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Thanks for that - it makes more sense and is a little less contentious

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Squads of Three are just to easy to break and as far as 3 for 225pts that just way more then I would be willing to pay for them.

Hence the permitted upgrade of 1-2 Fire Prisms giving you the 5x FP formation for 325 (which a number of people have liked) and which conforms with the equivalent NetERC formation costs.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I would prefer to see a flat +2 tank upgrade (for 100pts) personally; I'm not keen of the high flexibility that 0-x upgrade choices grant... the less flexibility, the greater the balance.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm finding the logic of reverting to a rule whereby the Fire Prism has a greater range than the Scorpion a bit hard to see.  I appreciate that it had a range of 75cm in the original rules, but I don't think it's right for it to exceed the range of the Scorpion, which is why I am in favour of keeping the 60cm revision which was proposed.

I'm also still not sure why the Fire Prism really needs an AA firing mode, but I willing to listen to convincing arguments in favour of it.

_________________

On the range, don't forget that the original range was 75cm with AT4+. I do not know why this was reduced to 60cm in the 1.8 revision, perhaps BL has a view on the range of the respective weaponry. However the 15cm is no great issue either way.

I am less confident about the improvement to AT2+. I am suggesting AT3+ as a compromise that improves the lethality of the formation, while still encouraging doubling. Don't forget that when doubling the 5x shots still get a potential 2-3 hits, and 1-2 kills on a RA target. Sustaining will definitely embarass an RA target

On AA it does give the FP formation a second minor role which it had in the original list. Without this, the formation ends up with such a niche role that it will be rarely used even with 5x units and 75cm range, because the points can be better spent elsewhere. Dropping AA Lance and reducing the AA range is a reasonable compromise IMHO.

On the cost, 325 for 5x FP seems about right for the stats I am proposing, but with 60cm and no AA, I suspect that 250 is nearer the mark - however in this case I would suggest that we would just have a fixed formation size of 5x FP. As always, costing is difficult but it seems better to err on the high side, so comments like "way to much" and "not for 3x FP" are a welcome indication.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

As you wish master  

Wh40k stats of the Prism Cannon:
Focussed shot
Range 60", Strength 9, Armourpiercing 2, Heavy 1, 3" Blast (= a longer ranged Lascannon with an area of effect)

Dispersed shot
Range 60", Strength 5, Armourpiercing 4, Heavy 1, 5" Blast (= a longer ranged Whirlwind shot)

Fire Prisms can combine multiple Prism Cannons for one improved shot. The shot then counts as twin-linked. For each Prism Cannon after the first the shot gains +1 Strength (maximum 10) and -1 Armourpiercing (minimum 1).

In Apocalypse the Eldar Sunstorm (3-6 Fire Prisms) the combined effect is even more severe (Apo.Bar.(X) = Apocalyptic Barrage Template. Thats 5 overlapping 5" Blast Templates. X is the number of 5" templates):

3 Fire Prisms, Focussed shot
Range 60", Strength 10, Armourpiercing 1, Heavy 1, 3" Blast

3 Fire Prisms, Dispersed shot
Range 60", Strength 7, Armourpiercing 2, Heavy 1, 5" Blast

4 Fire Prisms, Focussed shot
Range 72", Strength D, Armourpiercing 1, Heavy 1, 5" Blast

4 Fire Prisms, Dispersed shot
Range 72", Strength 8, Armourpiercing 1, Heavy 1, 7" Blast

5 Fire Prisms, Focussed shot
Range 84", Strength D, Armourpiercing 1, Heavy 1, 7" Blast

5 Fire Prisms, Dispersed shot
Range 84", Strength 9, Armourpiercing 1, Apo.Bar.(5), Pinning

6 Fire Prisms, Focussed shot
Range Unlimited, Strength D, Armourpiercing 1, Heavy 1, 10" Blast

6 Fire Prisms, Dispersed shot
Range Unlimited, Strength 10, Armourpiercing 1, Apo.Bar. (6), Pinning

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Just to point out the obvious, players will always compare the FP formation to the 3 fal/2firestorm formation for 250

The current formation is in essence a distilled version of that, better laser, better AA, same cost, more fragile.

Incidentally why not a 3 or 6 formation since they come in packets of three?

FIRE PRISM GRAV-TANK
Type Speed Armour Close Combat Firefight
Armoured Vehicle 35cm 5+ 6+ 5+
Weapon Range Firepower Notes
Prism Cannon 75cm AP4+/AT4+/AA5+ Lance
Notes: Skimmer.

FALCON GRAV-TANK
Type Speed Armour Close Combat Firefight
Armoured Vehicle 35cm 5+ 6+ 4+
Weapon Range Firepower Notes
Falcon Pulse Laser 45cm 2xAT4+
Scatter Laser 30cm AP5+/AT5+ -
Notes: Skimmer, Transport 1.

If you want a 1-1 replacement for the current FP you need something to make the choice over a moving falcon a real one, but without AA doesn't that simply eclipse the falcon? Both in the Eldar list would be tanks for primarily anti armour work, how to differentiate?

_________________
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

Because apparently having the best AA coverage in the game isn't enough, they need more.