Another test game of the 2.1 list. Brief over view with comments on changes.

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=30358

My 2p for what its worth:-

Hornets
Seem to fill the role as scouts quite well. LV makes them vulnerable and formations of 4 for 200 (5 for 225 in E-UK) seems about right.

Vampire Hunter
A powerfull beast rarely seen in the UK tournaments (only 5 Saim Hann lists since 2011), but spammed in two of those lists suggesting it may be a bit cheap at 225.
250 or 275 (as here) seems more plausible. Note Vampires are notoriously weak against even modest AA, so much depends on the opponents army and whether enemy AA can be suppressed or destroyed.

Phoenix Bombers
Were overpriced at 400, and rarely taken historically. E-UK cost at 300 is (IMO) too cheap and thus liable to be spammed. 325 is spot on as far as I am concerned; yes it is a powerfull formation, but 5+ RA is roughly equivalent to 4+ armour so still much weaker than THawks, partially offset by formation size. As Greg says, these stats have stood the test of time and should be left alone.

Saim Hann 'jink' save
Adding Invulnerable saves to Jetbikes and Vypers is probably OTT, and begs the questions raised here about Shining Spears and possibly other lists. I strongly suggest kicking 'the thin edge of the wedge' out before it opens up the flood gates of requests for further changes

Adding scout to Windriders
This potentially causes problems and is totally unnecessary with the presence of Hornets which fulfil this exact role. OTOH formations of 6x Vypers have been around for many years and the stats have never been questioned before. IMO just leave this well alone.

Fire Prisms
Leaving the best till last
The original stats (also used by E-UK) have been around for years and are fine. The main issue is that for purists, these stats do not really represent the Fire Prism seen in the "fluff", and historically the 3x FP formation was seen as too fragile (it isn't). Consequently the SoV formation was introduced to solve a non-existent problem and the Net-EA stats for the FP have been fiddled with ever since.

IMHO the answer is to return to the original stats (despite the concerns over the AA capability), because this does make the FP appropriately different from the Falcon and the Scorpion. I would then change the SoV formation to read
Note,
Worded this way round because 3x FPs in a 6x unit formation may be OTT. The wording can be revised after testing

Interesting points made,

My 2 biggest concerns are with the Bombers and the Prisims.

Firstly the Bombers.

The issue i have with the bombers is the fact you are paying such a high cost for a 3 bp and 3 dc formation with a few AT shots, with what i consider pretty average amour. I would consider a 350 point cost fair if you maybe have it pushed to 4 p though a option like Wing leader and 2 bombers, the only difference is the wing leader unit has 2bp instead of 1 bringing the total to 4. Otherwise i see no use for ever taking bombers at 3 bp regardless of the points.

Prisims.

I like gingers idea for bringing them in line with the UK stats and just fiddling with the formation make up, it not only gives them distinction as mention by ginger from other units, it is a small step closer to having a cohesion of units between all lists regardless of make up.


Side note about the vampire, why is it 275pts in siam hann and only 250 in the Fir lorian titan list?
It would be nice to get unit uniformity for races between lists. I know this is all a work in progress and it takes time, these are just some of my thoughts.

Tim_Nz

Points are not standardized amongst lists and never has been a design goal (unlike STATS between lists). A great example is the Whitescars Terminator formation has a nice points drop as they're forced to take Land Raiders with them. It's one of the primary list balancing mechanisms employed (the others being formation composition and core/support structure ). That being said, it doesn't mean that they should be priced differently in that example and knowing the history of the Titan Clan list, that's a typo or just pure mishigas by AoC.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Ginger, surely euk prisms at netea prices is way ott, not to mention the fact they're in a far more resilient and less suppressable 5 strong formation?

Just do 3 for 250 like swordwind and call it done

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

Thanks for the reminder Kyrt. Perhaps +25 per FP would be more appropriate?

I totally agree with the point about reverting to Swordwind for FPs is the ideal, but there are many who are "very attached" to the SoV formation, especially the notion of adding a sixth Falcon and adding FPs. Hence the attempt at a compromise.

I think the 250 for 3 formation is fine as well, and just have the SOV formation option for falcons and Firestorms.

I intend to do just that in the next few weeks or so.

OK, just took 4.2.1 Saim-Hann to Sydney Titans, wit h the following list:



Two narrow wins (Necrons and Adeptus Mechanicus), and one convincing defeat at the hands of some Vraksians. As these were my 3rd, 4th, and 5th games ever, I'm not going to make too many comments about list balance because I have no real idea of how to separate my inexperience from balance... So, ahead!

Hornets: 4 for 200 seems good. They hit hard, but are very very fragile if targeted, which is as it should be. That said, I found them far better as dedicated AT units than as scouts, to the point that I'd actually prefer them to lost scout in return for a points drop/more units. Basically, these fill the role that Vypers would have if they could do more than place BMs. Maybe I'm just bad at screening. Great at AT fire, which is good because nothing else in SH is: I'd always want 2 units at 3k, and would be interested in how it feels to run 3.

Vampires: I was lucky to not face very much AA, and they did quite well for me. I do feel that the Pulsars should be 45 cm, though: don't air-mounted weapons only lose 15 cm range, normally? This wouldn't actually change very much, but would provide a way to snipe Hydra formations and similar (which is hard otherwise, with the lack of heavy aircraft or decent artillery). Good units, and never managed to dominate the games I played. 275 seems fine: there aren't actually that many targets they excel against, but a good utility unit.

Jink save: I think I made... maybe 3 of these over three games? Didn't make much difference, but was nice to have. Ambivalent as to whether this stays, but should probably be added to S-H Shining Spears if it does. If this gets removed, I'd definitely want to add Walker to bike units in return (they're better than normal Eldar bikers, and that should be represented some way).


Other comments: I don't see why I'd want to take the scout bikes over Hornets, ever. This could be me underestimating the importance of garrisoning them (I suppose they can trigger first-turn assaults?), but in a list that struggles to get a good activation count I don't see them as justified.

In general, this list really struggles against armies with long range firepower (looking at you, Vraksians). Everything seems built around crushing assaults with the bikers, but if you can't close range without dying in a wall of overwatch fire that won't happen (could also be that I just wasn't aggressive enough, and should have taken the hits on the chin). Added to this, the initiative 2+ on Wild Rider formations means it's *very* easy to double-fail that key activation roll at the top of turn 2, leaving a lot of fragile bikers to die in the open. Has there ever been any discussion of bumping Wild Rider hosts to 1+?

I won two of my three games, but didn't manage to get any Blitzes (couldn't get enough units to the blitz guards to overwhelm them: no air assaults or heavy artillery made this hard), or BTSes, or TSnPs. I feel that winning with this army should be very possible with more practice, but that getting 4-0, 5-0 crushing victories would be pretty implausible (far more so than BT Eldar). Comments on this?

Yep, totally get that. As I said, they're a fun list to play with and I'm happy with how I went for my first E:A tournament. My post was purely my initial thoughts regarding the list: I'm going to need quite a few more games under my belt before I start proposing concrete changes. No promises on when it'll be, but I'll try to do a proper battle report of my next game.