I believe the War Walker issue is actually similar to the Salamnder scout vehicle issue with Minervans.

At 100 for 3, they are priced correctly, and at 125 for 4 their value is exponential and underpriced, but at 150 for 4 or 200 for 6, they become much less valuable than other options, especially for their role as objective holders, light attrition, and scout screening.

Concerning their use as 3 strong, I must disagree with some of the above posters that they get all killed in a single shooting phase. As their deployment allows for 20 cm coherency, it is extremely difficult to have more than 1 and definitely not more than 2 within both LOS and range of a shooting formation.Thus 1-2 always survives to hold an objective late game, or act as scout screen.

Furthermore, their 20 cm move makes them better Phantom escorts than Rangers. Also the point I was trying to make mentioning them as terminator déterrent, was more in their role as scout screen than their role as Terminator killer. Terminators in my experience tend to pillage Revenant formations and Pulsar phantom formations, especially when upgraded with a Chaplain. Considering their cost, it is common play around here to protect such valuable formations with scout screens. 100 pts. War Walkers would fulfill this role admirably.

Of course, 125 points for 4 War walkers would definitely solve the issue in terms of playability of the formation and attractiveness. One might think, perhaps wrongly, that they have too much punch for such a low price. As mentioned above, though, Minervans have already set a precedent with the Salamander.

I personally think that making the bright lance better is pretty controversial. Yes, it seems its power is inferior to a Lascannon in general use, but that is a rare case within the Eldar arsenal where a weapon is not as good as its Imperial counterpart, and honestly not enough to warrant a change imho. Especially as it is quite Deadly on the Nightwing. War walkers could have 2 scatter lasers, but then the miniature really does not support that.

Concerning the Wraithlord, that is another debate in and onto itself, which my be worthy of its own thread.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I would never let fast scout formations like war walkers survive to turn 3 if possible, even if they are strung out it will be easy enough to finish them off, it's also very difficult to effectively screen a pair of revenants from air assault with 2 scouts unless you're cowering in a corner somewhere....

I have to agree with Kyrt that at 100 points, the roles of scout and terminator deterrant is admirably filled by the rangers who can always be buffed with a spare 25 points, I'd be FAR more wary of having my chaplain/librarian sniped by overwatching rangers

It's sad that they don't have much of a home in the list but I think 3 war walkers for 100 points is just too fragile and less flexible than the alternative

Of course your findings may be different, try playing more games and posting up some batreps and you may change people's minds

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Allow me to put forward the following hypothesis:

- If the BT army list did not allow for 4 man ranger formations, but only 6-8 strong ranger formations at 150 + 25 each extra, and allowed for a 3 strong WW formationthat could be upgrade to be 6 strong for an extra 75 pts or 100 pts., would you pick the 100 points WW formation? And if you did, would you find use for it?

--> If you answer yes to those questions, then have we found an accepable solution to the WW problem?

Alternatively, to build on Ginger's argument, try the following hypothesis:

- If the ranger formation was left untouched, but the WW formation allowed for 4 War walkers at 125 points, with each extra at + 25 to a max. of 6, would you pick the War Walker formation? Would you try spamming it?

--> if you answer yes to the first question, and no to the second, then have we found an acceptable solution to the WW issue?

If the conclusion to the reasoning is both times yes, then the question is which one of the two solutions is preferable, from an external balance perspective.

Edit: Just to be clear, my argument was never that 3 WW was altogether better than 4 Rangers. Only that the 100 pts. slot switch might solve the WW issue, while still maintaining Rangers as an attractive choice.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

This would get the WW used but I feel the rangers would then be in the same situation as the WW are now and be rarely used.



With the Eldar armies I see being played now, at tournaments too, I can see with this option allowing spamming of those cheap formations, in combination of the 2 not just WW's.
I already see, depending on the size of the game, 3-5 ranger formations and high activation armies.
For me this option would allow 2-3 extra activations of cheap and useful formations and very high activation armies which are already very boring to play against.



As always, other players too, test and report back. Even if either of these are to be used there would be a need for testing for a decent period (as with all changes in all lists) before it became part of the official list.

I would never use a 3-strong WW formation, I think it's too vulnerable, so I would only use upgraded formations, I might use a spare 100 points to buy an activation with them, but wouldn't expect them to achieve anything



I might use 4, it's the magic number in these cases, I would probably use several units of them yes... depends on your definition of 'spamming' really, it could certainly be used to make frustrating 'popcorn' lists, which I have little interest in playing.... I also wouldn't bother upgrading them, I'd rather put the points into buffing a ranger unit, or towards another formation

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

If I had no other option I would probably use the 100 point formation purely as an activation, to use up my spare points. Basically I think rangers are really useful, so losing them would in my opinion be a backwards step. The reason I say 3 WWs are too fragile is because a) they can't hide in cover as easily (especially on overwatch in the open) and b) the enemy only needs LOS to 1 unit to break the formation. EUK players will almost certainly recognise that problem from 3-unit fire prism formations

So my answers would be "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second.


I would probably pick them, yes. Although I am unsure whether 125 for 4 it is too cheap or not. On the one hand it "seems" about right compared to rangers, but on the other hand WWs tend to do better than one might think in practice. It does seem like it would be a solution, as I said 200 points is just problematic vs 2x rangers (and as Ginger says, jetbikes).

I would not spam them but only because I have no interest in playing that way. I do take cheap scout formations, mainly because I like to use expensive mounted aspects and need to balance out the army with activations, but I never take more than 2 formations of rangers for example. In my games I would probably usually take one formation of either rangers or war walkers, but sometimes I might take one of each.

So my answers would be "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second.

Don't worry I understood you, I just think it turns 1 attractive choice into two mediocre ones.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I agree with this completely, it nerfs rangers without really offering a useful replacement

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Couple of points that I’d like to add to this discussion.

I have used War Walkers in my (UK) Iyanden lists both testing and at a tournament. (I had to check when and was shocked to see that it was back in 2011 when I played them as it didn’t seem that long ago.) Where you don’t have the same options as the BT list the War Walkers come in and make a good formation. Unfortunately apart from the odd shock factor and lists where they are needed to boost the defensive line I don’t think that you will see them that much. Oh and playing a game against Yme-loc many years ago, he gave me a shock and a half when his WW overwatched a formation of mine.

On the issue of small formations, I find that I have to husband them carefully if I am trying to be offensive with them. I will often spend half a turn wincing at my opponent’s activations as I’m sure they are going to destroy one of my smaller formations.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Just noticed Mymeara had a 3-strong WW formation option.

Has anyone played it under that list?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

175p for 6 sounds interesting. It's something I would be willing to try. In that role they would work more like scouts then armour hunters but that is fine.

Giving the BL 4+ AT would make them an interesting low cost AT unit throwing out 3 AT, Lance hits and 2 AT hits after moving. Worth trying as well.

Having played a number of Biel-tan games in our gaming group over the last year I have some observations as well.


- We have played the scorpions as 3x 3+MW and that has worked out very well. No one has felt them to be OTT with that configuration but 3x 2+MW has received mixed reactions. 2x 2+ MW ended up with no scorpions (again). So to conclude, 3x 3+ MW seems to make Scorpions show up from time to time but no one has adopted scorpions as a main stay and that feels about right. We also haven't had any complaints about questionable balance from any opponents with those stats. If this feels to weak I would rather upgrade the range to 75cm then give them 2x 2+.

- The group discount for Eldar SHT's haven't really seen them show up in groups all that much. Some scorpions in pairs but no Void Spinners. We also haven't had a group of three yet but with 3x 3+ MW it seems feasible even though two Revenants are probably better for the same points cost.

- Only a few games with Fire prism. I would like to see some more games before I can comment on that.

- Phantom Titan Pulsars: Most players still rather want them to show up then a Warlock and warlocks are still more frequent then Dual pulsar Phantoms.

- We still need more testing on the cobras. The occupy an odd space with their abilities.


Suggestions:
I'll try to limit the amount of suggestions, we have enough changes to keep track of here.

- Giving the cobras 3 BP ignore cover should let them fill an ad-hoc role in the absence of enemy super heavies or enemy super heavies that tend to hang around on in the backline like shadow swords.
OR
Just give the Cobras a serious AT TK ability and do away with the pieplates all together. I favor this solution mostly because that would give them a good and solid role that would be much easier to balance in my opinion.

Questions:
What is up with eldar air? Our eldar players generally aren't especially fond of fielding eldar air. Is there something we are missing here? (This might possible be tad bit off topic here)

Virtually nothing is 'wrong' with Eldar air, you just have to use it correctly. Nightwings are expensive, but the best fighters in the game. Vampires are fragile, but can deliver a formidable load (providing enemy AA is avoided / knocked out). Phoenix bombers are just a tad overpriced, hence the cost reductions. At 325 (and esp. if 300) they provide a solid attack with added AT capabilities, can be used to intercept enemy A/c and the 5+RA makes them the most resilient Fighter or bomber in the game (though it can still be shot down)

That sounds reasonable.

The Vampires have been used somewhat but the Nightwings and, as you said, the Phoenix bombers especially have felt a tad bit overpriced. However I'm more then willing to take your word on it and try using more air units.

Your perspective on Nightwings tends to change cnce you have shot a Vampire loaded with wraith guard, or a Thunderhawk full of terminators, out of the air.

Seriously, the fact that there are three of them makes them expensive but it does mean that they have a genuine chance of neutralising an air assault (about 60% in the case of a vampire raider I believe). Flak by and large tends not to be very effective, giving only a small number of shots or being avoidable. More useful as a deterrent IMO.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

[/quote]
I love Eldar air

Vampires are my favorite delivery mechanism for Aspects.

I take Nightwings whenever I can afford them (ie, when not playing Titan-heavy). They rarely disappoint - they are excellent AA, and very useful ground-attack vehicles too. Never wasted points, which Firestorms can sometimes be.

Phoenix bombers are just too expensive at 3K points, even if they are nominally very strong. I'd like to field them at the 4K or 5K points levels, but we rarely play that here.