Thanks Stompazilla, a really thoughtfull post that I agree with on the whole. My particular beef is the way the army tends to stop dead when damaged (ie BMs). Hence my proposal to make Marshalling and Doubling slightly easier rather than using other BM removal mechanisms to make all activations easier.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Fire Prism AA seems to be one of the issues, IMHO caused by adding the AA stat to the main weapon.

While I have suggested elsewhere making AA a separate weapon with its own stats, others have suggested that the Background and (inevitable) WH40K comparisons do not support any AA capability.

Without AA they become an even more 'niche' formation, but would you still want to pay 250 points for 3x FPs with 75cm AT4+ Lance?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Again an interesting comparison with the 'swords of Vaul' formation.

Why do you think the Scorpion weapons would need to be increased to 75cm if the Fire Prisms range was left at 75cm? After all they are different weapons with different to-hit stats, and in some respects the Scorpion is better (RA and not suppressed by BMs).

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Chroma has made the same observations about using Falcons to transport Aspect 'troops'. (of 4x) and the expense and vulnerability of Falcons in the large Warhosts.

So would anyone take Falcons as transport for 8x unit formations if they were cheaper (say 50 points each)? Note this would provide a 550 point formation of Falcons with Guardians that would be very shooty and pack a big assault punch (which is probably why the are costed at 65 points ).

Like others have said, it is probably best left alone, at least as far as transport costs go.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Thanks Ginger.  Eldar are my main army and i have put a lot of thought and serious gaming time into getting to know how they work etc so it's nice to hear that my overall conclusions are shared by other members of the community.

In my experience it's just part of the army that stops and even then not dead.  3+ activations due to BMs can be annoying but they're not impossible and if done properly do not really present me with any huge problems.  I know in advance that the fm is going to be unreliable this turn and can take steps to minimise the damage by either marshalling (even on a hold order) or maneuvering to a better location (Usually both unless on a hold).  For me, Eldar is all about the concentration and preservation of strength.  My experience is that the eldar rarely stand still, even when activations are failed.  To do so is to get mauled.

I guess what i'm trying to say in a long winded way is that i don't believe the eldar should be strengthened by finding ways to overcome their natural weakness when they are already one of the strongest armies there is, albeit requiring a bit more finnesse than some of their counterparts.

I would just like to state that I agree with most of Stompzilla's comments. The only thing I differ on is every so often using falcons as an upgrade with aspects.

Ginger, the +1 modifier to Double and Marshall orders, I assume that this would only come into effect if the formation already had BMs, if not we could have Falcons (without BMs & initial activation) doubling on a 1+

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

didn't realise Fireprisms still had AA - I've been playing them without pretty much from the beginning of my Epic gaming (last year or so). I've also been playing them with 60cm range and as part of a Sword of Vaul fm. Bit hard to offer comments on list balance when there are different lists in use

_________________
numquam culum es

Yup, that would be the intention. The principle is that this would allow Eldar formations with BMs to move on a 2+ but fire/assault on a 3+. Since both Marshalling and Doubling reduce the effect of firing, this just helps the Eldar 'bugging out' defensively and initial positioning rather than standing around like lemons to be 'mauled'

And while I do agree with Stompazilla that the army requires finesse, I find myself continually frustrated when trying to Marshall / move and failing the activation. I might add that this is within the context of the UK tournament that contains many very skillfull players (who gleefully 'pounce' when given the opportunity), and also in part due to my 'renowned' dice rolls .

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

The NetEA Fire Prisms do *NOT* have AA on their weapon, and that's what this discussion is supposed to be about.

Stompzilla, the discussion over "Are Fire Prisms worth it" is not based on their Swordwind stats, but on the NetEA stats of "60cm, AT2+/AP4+, Lance":  Would you pay 250 points for three of those?

Good discussions though, sorry I can't write more at the moment, but we're off to explore Sydney.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I know, hence the confusion

I'd pay 200pts for 3 happily, doubt I'd pay 250pts for a more fragile fm than falcons (which are fragile enough anyway) with fewer shots. If your opposing army doesn't have much RA, fire prisms are really not all that great compared with falcons.

Hope you enjoy Sydney, it's a beautiful place (just wouldn't want to live there). Make sure you get a boat ride out to the zoo - the zoo's so so, but the ride there and back is awesome, particularly if you get the last boat back in the evening when the lights come on (should still be dark early enough for that I think).

_________________
numquam culum es

Hell no!  

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

I have been using the NetEA lists as there is a tour coming up in a week and there is no chance I would take 3 Fire Prisms for 250pts, they would be just to easy to break.

Just a few brief comments before I go to bed.

I largely agree with that which has been said already, but I think the fast but fragile mantra really should be reflected by the rules, so even though Blast Markers have cost me dearly in some games, I think that this is the Eldar's weakness, and should, therefore, remain unchanged.

I'm happy with the Scorpion and Cobra as they stand, although it must be said I don't use the Void Spinner or Storm Serpent (I only play with second edition models, and those tanks didn't exist in the Space Marine era), so I haven't used them, but the fact that I don't feel the need to use them, suggests to me that the Scorpion and Cobra are good enough.

Falcons and Fire Prisms are both a bit awkward.  

I don't think Falcons should be cheaper than Wave Serpents, since the Falcon is meant to be more of a fire support platform as well as a transport, and this should be reflected in the cost.  I agree there is an issue with their transport role in terms of cost, but they make for a solid fire support troupe, so I think that this counter balances that problem to a certain extent.

The Fire Prism (née Prism Cannon) was originally, in the background, designed to have a niche role as an anti-super heavy tank/titan weapon, but this has rather been overlooked in more recent times (both in Epic and 40K), and I feel that this is why its role has got into a bit of a mess, since it is trying to be 'jack of all trades' in an army of specialists, which is not a good thing in my opinion.

I agree with the NetERC changes that were made, and I don't think that it should have an AA fire mode.  If it is to be changed at all, I would like to see it become more of a threat to heavy armour, rather than infantry, as this is how I believe it should work, according to its original background.

_________________

One intruiging consideration is the Epic-UK tournament statisitcs, which use the original Swordwind statistics except for the removal of Spirit Stones and restrictions on Warp Spiders. In 147 tournamant games the Eldar have managed 35% wins, 37% losses and 29% draws against the 'official' armies. This would seem to suggest any changes made should be minimal.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Personally the Fire Prism with NetEA stats should have a points modification to ~225pts (for 3), 250pts is too high but 200pts is probably pushing it. This change would be put in the NetEA army list documents and the NetEA tounament mods document (should it remain as it is).

On falcons, they are really fragile but pack considerable punch. I still think they're tempting if you lower the number of units requiring falcon transports through Hawks/Spears or waveserpents. Over waveserpents they have the weapons advantage but are disadvantaged in transport capacity (Leading to prohibitive cost) and armour.

Maybe someone can do some explaining on the points costs in Biel-Tan. Falcons in Aspect warhosts are 65pts each and Waveserpents 50pts each. Falcons are 50pts each in a formation of 5 but there they are arguably more useful and hence should cost more. The intiative difference is one explanation but then Waveserpents are 50pts each for Guardians too. Would falcons at 50pts in an Aspect warhost tread on the toes of the Falcon Troupe bearing in mind you've got 300pts of aspect warriors to buy too.