Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 2
  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Firestorms
1. Reduce AT value by 1 (so 2 x AP5+/AT6+/AA4+) 47%  47%  [ 8 ]
2. Reduce AA value by 1 (so 2 x AP5+/AT5+/AA5+) 18%  18%  [ 3 ]
3. Something else (state below) 35%  35%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 17

Firestorms
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:34 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
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)

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:58 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(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.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
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 of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Reddeth
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:00 pm
Posts: 39
Location: Victoria, Australia
1 per formation seems the most reasonable solution to me.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:55 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(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.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
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 of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:18 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA
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.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Irondeath
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:36 pm
Posts: 653
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




_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:27 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
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.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
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 of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:25 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
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!!)

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Charad
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:19 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:59 pm
Posts: 1212
Location: Finland
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.

_________________
Rats Keep Running...

Dark Eldar Dracon
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:27 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(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.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
yme-loc
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 599
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.

_________________
Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK
[url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 2
  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net