Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Firestorms
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=10223		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:34 am ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
Firestorms have been criticised as overpowered, being able to be taken in large numbers and effectively shutting down enemy air too easily, and being comparatively better value than falcons as they basically able to perform the same function but with additional benefits. Furthermore they are good in any role rather than being a specialist unit which some have argued is not a characteristic eldar approach.  

So what is an effective solution to give them a slight tweak down? First option would be to reduce the AT value by 1 to truly differentiate the unit from the falcon, and make them less of an automatic upgrade choice. Second option would be to reduce the AA by one, to make it a less deadly AA unit.

Vote now:
1. Reduce AT value by 1 (so 2 x AP5+/AT6+/AA4+)
2. Reduce AA value by 1 (so 2 x AP5+/AT5+/AA5+)
3. Something else (state below)
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:58 am ]
Post subject:  Firestorms

(Hena @ Aug. 07 2007,10:50)
QUOTE
I'd probably start by restricting them to one unit per formation. This would help in their fielding in larger numbers.

Note that you can have 0-3 Firestorms in a Shields of Vaul formation too, as well as 0-2 in the Swords of Vaul formation.
So you could have Shields of just 3 Firestorms.

My problem with the 0-1 in a formation idea is that it if the unit is too good, it becomes an automatic choice rather than a decision.
Author:  Moscovian [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
EDITED THIS LINE (NOW IT MAKES MORE SENSE) I think having a poll without "do not change the Firestorm" is already reflecting a bias, first off.

Second off, the Fire Prism has had its AA removed leaving the Firestorm as the only non Titan with AA.

Third, the Shields of Vaul formation IMO is still the least tested and the least necessary of all the changes. ?If memory serves it popped up in version 1.6 or 1.7 (maybe even 1.8) and it was dropped in very much the same way spirit stones were dropped into the original Eldar list. ?The problem to me lies with the Shields of Vaul formation allowing 0-3 of these things, not with the unit itself.
Author:  Reddeth [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
1 per formation seems the most reasonable solution to me.
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Firestorms

(Moscovian @ Aug. 07 2007,13:13)
QUOTE
I think having a poll without "do not change the Firestorm" is already reflecting a bias, first off.

Yes it does indeed. Compare the stats to the Falcon. Something is obviously not right in the balance there, so I want a solution to that.  The Firestorm does basically everything the Falcon can and more - more useful against infantry, and aircraft (very valuable ability), and only a little less effective against armour. This issue is just not at the 'is it a problem' stage IMO.
Author:  Moscovian [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
The Falcon and the Firestorm have different missions and different amounts of availability.  I'm not sure comparing them makes the argument.

If the Shields of Vaul formation wasn't around, this poll would swing widely in the direction of DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.  The problem isn't the quality of the Firestorm - it is the quality PLUS the quantity.  While I understand that a correction to either could work, I'd like to see the Eldar stop going through the unit stat changes.  After agonizing discussion, the unit change never made it to version 1.8.  The problem in my eyes is clearly the Shields of Vaul formation that is truly a gross combination when you have three of these things.  But even then at a formation size of 3 it shold be relatively easy to break.
If you want the Firestorm fixed, just change it to maxing its availability to 1 per SoV formation (or don't let that formation exist at all).
Author:  Dave [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
I'm going to agree with Moscovian on the "no change" thing.  But  on the other hand, they do seem cheap.  I see the Firestorm's role the same as that of the Hunter, a dedicated AA add-on.  Considering that the Hunter runs at 75 points though I think the Firestorm is under-priced.

I like the SwoV Firestorm 1-2 upgrade limit, maybe an additional cost of 25-35 points might be fairer though?

The same thing with the ShoV, 3 Firestorms should definitely cost more that 175 points.  At 25 points per upgrade that would put them at 250 for a formation of 3 which I think would be better.

I don't think the stats should change though.  The Firestorm battery is what?  a triple linked long barreled scatter laser?  I think its current stats reflect that well.
Author:  Irondeath [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
How about this change:


Swords of Vaul: 5-6 grav tanks; any mix of Falcons for 50 points or Fire Prisms for 65 points, 0-2 Fireprisms may be replaced by a Fire Storm for no additional cost

Shields of Vaul: 3 Night Spinners for 175 points. A single ?Night spinner may be replaced with a Fire Storm for no additional cost, 2 Night Spinners may be replaced with 2 Fire Storms for +25 points?additional cost, 3 Night Spinners may be replaced with 3 Fire Storms for +50 points?additional cost.

Part of the attraction of Fire Storms is the relatively low cost of the formations they come with, so you get cheap activations and good AA, in small packets that can be well-placed.

A pure Fire Storm Shield of Vaul formation is also a decent FF-support unit, doubling to place BM, cover the area with an AA umbrella, and supporting another formations? engage (say Windrinders).

Upping the costs to match ability might reflect this
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
Eldar used to be able to get a 3 Fire Prism formation that was 75 cm AA, and could always add two Firestorms to a formation. Imperial Guard get a 3 Hydra formation. Orks can have hundreds of AA added to a formation if they want.

The people who are criticising the formation numbers are missing the point IMO. The problem is not the formation, but the individual cost of the tank for the abilities. It is overpowered compared to a Falcon (or other units) and that IS a problem.
Author:  Moscovian [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
But its stats are appropriate - so something has to give.  Either points or availability or both.  The options on this poll just don't appeal to me.  No biggie - you did five other polls just fine. :)
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:25 am ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
Ok Moscovian now you are seeing the point, and there is an option on the poll for 'state something else' as you just have :)  The important thing is that this tank is clearly unbalanced so it HAS to change somehow (and in my view irrespective of what happens to formations). No change just should not be an option if we are being realistic about balancing lists, and this poll reflects that.

Points is an option I guess but just tweaking the AA or AT might be more popular.

To look at points, if we were to compare it to a Hydra, both are similar AA tanks and currently both cost 50 points, but the Firestorm is clearly much better.

Hydra has AP4+ and an extra 30cm range Ap5+ shot, while FireStorm has AA4+. Even if we were to say that the increased AP and the 30cm AP5 on the Hydra made the tanks equivalent (which I certainly wouldn't - the increased AA is much more valuable than marginally more AP), then the Firestorm still has +5cm movement, AND Skimmer, AND hit and run, AND better armour, AND better FF on top of that (not to mention being in an army with SR4+ and double retains)!!  

So I guess you could say that the Firestorm should be being exchanged for Fire Prisms rather than Falcons (ie 65 each rather than 50), while in Shields formations at 58.33 points they might already be close enough given the greater vulnerability of these smaller formations. Or should they cost even more than this - quite possibly when you look at that list of advantages compared to the Hydra?

However so far no one else has bought up this points option, and just a simple AT or AA drop seems pretty popular... (edit sorry Irondeath also mentioned points - doh!!)
Author:  Charad [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:19 am ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
Eldar should have the best Aircrafts and AA units. Other lists have also their typical units costs lowered, because they give armies nice flavour.

Best solution for limiting firestorms is to not allow them in shields of vaul formations.
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:27 am ]
Post subject:  Firestorms

(Charad @ Aug. 08 2007,08:19)
QUOTE
Eldar should have the best Aircrafts and AA units.

Yes but they should pay for them. That's why Nightwings are 100 points, Thunderbolts 75, and Fighta bombas are 50....

To suggest otherwise doesn't make any sense for a tournament list.
Author:  yme-loc [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:28 am ]
Post subject:  Firestorms
Its clearly overpowered - personally I dont like either the sword or shield of vaul formations, both are open to abuse in the new age of the all tank biel tan army?

The shield of vaul formations are probably the worst problem in terms of getting numbers of fire storms - personally I would change these back to the 3 nightspinners and leave the upgrade as 2 firestorms in a 5 (not 5-6) strong sword of vaul tank formation.

Then perhaps make the firestorm a 65pts upgrade along with the fire prisms.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/