Also the ability appeared in 2nd edition Epic, IIRC?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It did. Not sure it needs resurrecting though.

Correct. There several Deathstalker Prism Cannons could fire at one Deathstalker. If this fired-upon Deathstalker hits a target the target also receives a number of hits the Deathstalker has received from his comrades.
See attachment for full rules:

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

A formation of 5 or 6 Fire Prisms using the NetEA stats can do many things that the same number of falcons cannot. The extra 15cm range means they can more easily avoid return fire (both by simply remaining out of range of return fire, and by having a larger choice of cover to hide in). Their higher to-hit value means that they can double and still be be counted on to actually score a hit, even after half the formation has been destroyed. And finally, as a lance weapon, they can fairly reliably destroy enemy MBTs.

While falcons can deliver a huge volume of fire at 45cm, it is usually on a 5+ to-hit due to doubling. That means that both falcons and FPs will probably score the same number of AT hits, but the FPs do it at greater range and with the lance ability.

I don't see the need to add back the AA ability. I also don't see the need to add any more MW ability (I mean, we should be avoiding the MW creep as much as possible; give the marine players a break). I understand wanting to add the chain fire option, both because it would match the current 40k rules, and because it's a throwback to SM/TL, but not with MW please.

I'm not opposed to having some form of chain firing, but I do think it falls under in category of rules that are purposely avoided in E:A.

I've play-tested FPs at 60cm AT2+/AP4+ and found them to be [at least] as capable as falcons. I think they may be a bit overcosted at 65pts, but I'm not sure allowing them at 50pts won't be undercosting them. I also think that changing the FP from AT2+ to AT3+ would make them clearly inferior to falcons.

If people do think AT2+/AP4+ is too good (I don't believe that it's too good), then consider making the stat line AT3+/AP3+ to represent the ability to choose between focused or diffuse fire modes.

I have to say that I am a big fan of the NetEA fireprism statline. I think that it fills the role of tank-hunter quite well, and that land raider detatchments and IG LR formations (and even enemy titans) would much rather face 6 falcons than 6 fire prisms.

wow, that's a blast from the past. It also reminds me why games back then used to take 8-10h rather than the 3-4h they do today

_________________
numquam culum es

I'd be happy to play test them at 50pts per fire prism.

One option to limit their effectiveness would be to keep the 5-6 tank entry but limit the no. of fire prisms to "replace up to 2 falcons with fire prisms". I don't know whether that should be in addition to 0-2 firestorms, don't really see why not. That way you have an increase in anti-RA firepower, but the disadvantage of only having 2 shots at that range. It'll also avoid the scary vision of 6 unit prisms blowing up leman russes all over the battle field!

_________________
numquam culum es

I don't see Wraithguard as over powered as upgrades, and they seem reasonably costed at first glance in the list. Although they have a nasty punch they are slow unless you pay extra for transport (storm serpent, vampire or wave serpents), which bumps up the cost considerably, and although they're nastier in some respects than aspects, they have fewer no.s and no inspiring for the same points, which instantly puts them -2 on resolution compared with aspects. On the flip side they won't lose any units to assault resolution. Doesn't seem particularly clear cut one way or the other.

I've never played with them, but they do look interesting and I LOVE wraithguard. Might have to try them out soon.

_________________
numquam culum es

I would be opposed to limiting fire prisms in the same way firestorms are. Firestorms are limited because of the way the aircraft rules work (too many AA units break the system). With the NetEA statline, Fire Prisms aren't effected by that problem.

While a 2 falcon, 2 firestorm, and 2 fireprism formation might be attractive in some situations, I've found that monotype formations work better. That means that Fire Prisms will be less likely to be taken over an all-falcon (or 4 falcon + 2 firstorm) formation.

In the few games I've played using the NetEA fireprism, I've used both single-unit and mixed tank formations, and I prefer the single unit formations. the mixed formations just don't accomplish as much because they can't specialize.

Surely at 50 points it would be sheer murder with AT2+ lance weapons? I mean for 250 points what would you rather, a super heavy zapper or 5 AT2+ lance shots at the same range?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Well, that's the problem. At 65 pts, they're not that attractive, because you end up paying a 75-90 point premium per formation and in return you get less tactical flexibility.

The real question is how much more (if any) should 5 fire prisms cost over 5 falcons or a single scorpion?

I say 50 pts tops, but probably less. That would put the fireprisms at 60 pts a piece instead of 65. At 55 pts a piece, they might be too cheap.

Oops. Had overlooked that Fire Prisms cost +15 points. Thought they where +25pts.
So yes 60pts would be better.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

only against RA targets - against other AT targets they'd trade 1x AT2 at a slightly better range versus 2x AT4. I'm utterly pants at maths, but that seems to make prisms slightly better against non-RA when doubling vs. falcons and slightly worse when advancing.

Against a Scorpion SHGT would be more complicated as that brings RA, DC, MW and lots of other acronyms into play I'd be fairly even between the 2.

_________________
numquam culum es

fair enough, it was just a suggestion. I'd rather have them nerfed every so slightly (AT3 lance?) and the same cost as falcons than the other way round, but that's just my view. As it is, they're one of those units I've tried and never got much done with so they're often relegated to the "if I'm playing 4-5000pts, I might take them" role.

_________________
numquam culum es

Yes, let us not go back to those "good ol' days" please. It's tough enough getting people to play Epic, let's not make it an endurance sport.  

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Problem I have is with them is in the Iyandon list where they are a core unit. That's all.

As for being slow, they still gain the Hit & Run skills of the Eldar which is beyond my comprehension to understand.

Also, their charge of 30cm to use their 2xFF (EA)MW effectively puts the idea of them as slow out the window. I caanot understand the extra FF attack. IMO, they should be 1xFF MW and do away with the extra normal attack.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats