No problem mattthemuppet, and I apologise if my comment came over a bit strongly, that was not the intention.

However, it illustrates the problem that we have as a community. There are a number of groups around the world who have been going their separate ways including the French, the EPIC-UK group and those using 'the handbook'. While most races have only small differences, the Eldar lists went through an extensive debate because they were perceived both as overpowered and not playing in the desired way. A lot of changes were put forward and these have resulted in significant differences in the Eldar lists now used by those groups.

The NetERC lists are an attempt to try to bring things back together, but we are now debating from different perspectives, and this makes it even harder to decide how to proceed from here.

My strong preference is to go back to the 'official' Swordwind+ list and then reconsider those other changes on a case by case basis. For example, the 5-6 Falcons formation makes good sense providing a balanced choice between resilience and army flexibility. However the changes to Revenants seem to be less appropriate.

Part of the original thinking behind the 'Swords of Vaul' formation was to provide a means for using Fire Prisms, but doing this allowed formations of up to 6x Fire Prisms which presented balance issues; so AA was dropped and further changes then proposed. I am suggesting an alternative approach for Fire Prisms that keep closer to the original formation and unit stats.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

The current Net-EA Eldar lists have been around for years, used and tested by many people and to some are the only Eldar lists they know.

You may be more familiar with the swordwind list and strongly prefer to go back to something closer to that but it’s unnecessary and anyway the choice is not yours to make; the majority and the army champion are happy with them.

Well, I am not sure some of those assertions are true. The Handbook was only published in it's final form some 18 months ago, was never considered 'official' and is not used in the UK tournaments or by the French and European communities (I cannot speak for the Americas, but suspect that views there may also be split), so I would suggest that it is only a minority that actually use it. Don't forget that the Handbook is only available on this website, while the 'official' Swordwind list + errata is available on the GW site.

Additionally the draft proposal contains further changes, albeit minor ones, over and above those in the Handbook that further weaken key Eldar units.

The point is that I believe we need to take this opportunity to try to unify the community while finding the most appropriate statistics. Starting with the Swordwind+ stats and weakening units towards the level of the Draft list is IMHO a better approach than doing the reverse, especially as the UK tournament stats seem to demonstrate that the Swordwind+ list is already reasonably balanced.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I would hate to be a first timer to this board, half the time I don't even know what lists people are using or are talking about.

Firstly on the Fire Prism. I just can't see what the original Swordwind stats are supposed to do. It's some sort of attempt at a combined AT/AA formation where 3 Falcons, 2 Firestorms can do pretty much a better job and have more units. Fire Prism has the weapons range but that's it, the Falcon matches or beats the firepower of a Fire Prism at 45cm against RA targets (Worse against 3+RA, Matches at 4+RA, better for the rest) and that leaves out getting to 30cm for the scatter laser too.

Fire Prism at AT4+ Lance, Falcon at 2xAT4+, Firestorm at 2xAT5+
4+RA - Fire Prism, 0.25 casualties; Falcon, 0.25 casualties; Firestorm, 0.17 casualties
5+RA - Fire Prism, 0.33 casualties; Falcon, 0.44 casualties; Firestorm, 0.3 casualties
6+RA - Fire Prism, 0.42 casualties; Falcon, 0.69 casualties; Firestorm, 0.46 casualties

Then you throw in two Firestorms as well at the same cost for AA and 4 additional AT5+ shots. NetEA Fire Prism at 60cm AP4+/AT2+ is overpriced as 3 Falcons with 2 Firestorms is still a better RA unit hunter (Combined firepower at 45cm slightly worse at 4+RA, better at 5+RA).

The Swordwind Fire Prism has a distinct case of two roles where the combined Falcon/Firestorm formation beats it in actual firepower whether shooting at RA targets or Aircraft. Fire Prism only has Range in it's favour.

There is also the case to consider that only 1 Craftworld uses the Swordwind stats (Biel-Tan) all the others use the NetEA stats.

no offense taken Ginger Perhaps it's worth getting in contact with Chroma (he is the Eldar champion, right?) to see what the deal is with updating Eldar for an official list publication, then perhaps start a new thread with a list of what needs to be changed and why. Otherwise this discussion, though interesting, will ultimately prove fruitless.

I'm not sure the 5-6 prism fm under current NetEA lists has caused much of a balance issue - I've only read a few batreps where people have used them and they've never dominated or seemed to destroy more units than any other. I'd advocate leaving them as they are, but if the Swordwind stats and fm size has to be used, then I'd take them with some kind of AA and a long ranged lance for 200pts for 3. Any more than that and I'd rather have falcons+firestorms.

_________________
numquam culum es

Chroma will likely respond more in time I suspect, he's just holidaying in Australia at the moment so internet discussion quite reasonably takes a back seat for a while.

An updated list of official Net-EA lists is being developed and worked on by Chroma himself actually and things should become a bit clearer and more cohesive worldwide once that project reached completion.

The Eldar lists in there are the Net-EA ones developed and championed by Chroma though, which may not please Ginger, but no situation at this point will please everyone and re-starting development from scratch or a much earlier stage all over again is not needed or a good idea, the lists here are pretty good as is now.

honestly, what's that all about? That man needs to get his priorities straight

_________________
numquam culum es

As a frequent opponent of Eldar through various versions, I feel like the EA version is just fine. My primary opponent usually plays Saim Hann and just about always takes 2-3 of the Vaul formations and although fragile, used properly (which he does) never cease to rip me up one side and down the other.

So put me in the column of "no changes needed".



So having played against the Eldar layered super AA umbrella, a ground specific AA formation was completely unbalanced. It was nearly impossible to crack the AA umbrella because of the synergy of having super Prism AA tanks shielding Nightwing fighters which then protected Phoenix bombers and Vampires. It wasn't that the individual formations/squadrons were so OTT in and of themselves, it was how they worked together to be nearly invincible.

Also keep in mind that just because a list is lacking a unit/formation, does not equate to a lack of capability. For a real life example, consider the US armed forces. With a few exceptions, Air defense is not projected by fielding lots of AA armored vehicles, it enforced by dominating the skies via the Air Force. The US Army hasn't been subject to air attacks in nearly 50 years.

I felt that removing the AA from the Prism was a tough, but smart move. Please do not bring it back.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Well, I did get in a match of EPIC last night... and I'm participating in the Heavy Bolter 2009 EPIC Tournament on the weekend Down Here...  

So think of it as practical priorities instead of theoretical ones.  *laugh*  I'm back home mid-November and I can address things more then.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Again, I am not even suggesting restarting, but rather asking that in the context of the Swordwind list modified by the 2008 errata, we reconsider the numerous unit changes proposed by the NetERC on a case by case basis to agree whether they are still required.

The whole point behind removing Spirit Stones was to encourage a much more conservative strategy, because it is usually hard to recover Broken Eldar formations, and very easy to break them. My contention is that encouraging the player to adopt this conservative approach has already balanced the list, toning down the way the list plays; so the other unit changes may not be needed.

For example, why drop RA from both WraithGuard and WraithLord, effectively turning them into fearless Aspects for more than twice the cost per Aspect unit? My UK tournament opponents and other friends do not seem to have problems dealing with them. So what is or was the issue here?

There will be some pros & cons that are probably well understood, so lets have a quick debate, vote on the stats for each unit and go with the results.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I do think the armour save of the jetbikers still needs to come down to 5+ ; given sufficient time (or a sufficiently fast player) they are very, very hard to deal with... so that's an ERC change I'd be in favour of seeing stay.

I like the ERC Fire Prism stats, and that change seems more about what's appropriate to the background (the Fire Prism is *not* an AA tank in the background), than about balance.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Er... this hasn't occured in the NetEA Eldar lists; both of the above units have RA.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

- - - re-checks more carefully - - - Ooops! My mistake. Thanks Chroma.

But I suggest the principle of reviewing the various unit changes is still sound.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt