If you check out BL's assesement in post #73 you will see that the standard range is indeed 60", but this is increased up to 84" when 4-5 units are linked together. I am suggesting that the 75cm AT4+ represents this ability without using a 'special rule'.

As to the assessment, this strikes to the heart of the debate about the unit's stats. If the Fire Prism is supposed to be a MBT alternative to the Falcon, why give it worse assault capabilities? IMHO it is evidently not supposed to get 'up close and personal', but rather its role is to pick off targets at long range and avoid contact where possible.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Honestly, I strongly dislike the 75cm AT4+ stat. If the purpose of the unit (i.e. how the game designers intend for the unit to be used) is to sit back and shoot, then giving it a single shot with a 50% chance of missing (or worse) is counter to that purpose.

Falcons have volume of fire to counter their 'low' to-hit value. But with Fire Prisms, even a pristine formation of 5 will be little more than a blast marker application method. Assuming you're targeting 4+RA and the FPs can put out max firepower for 4 turns (fat chance of that), then that only averages 5 kills per game. That's hardly seems worth it to me.

The AT2+ stat is what makes the FPs useful, because you can actually rely on them killing things. Sure, they have to get a bit closer to get into range, but they can double (move-shoot-move back), effectively fire further than 75cm, and still have a better hit roll.

Now, FPs may be too powerful with the 60cm AT2+ stat for a mere 300pts for 5 (or 360 for 6, presumably), but that's what playtesting is for. If they are too good at that price point, I'd prefer AT3+ at 60cm over AT4+ at 75cm.

Yes, this is a concept I had picked up on, so if linking is represented by the the overall statistics of the Fire Prism, that's fair enough.



Okay, but how is it better in terms of range than a Scorpion?  I still cannot see any justification, certainly not in terms of the background for this.



I think the Apocalypse rules are poor in general, but this rule is exceptionally poor in my view.  Why would a combined shot automatically have a longer range?  Remember, they are effectively pilfering this rule from the old Deathstalker Prism Cannon, and linked shots did not increase its range in the original rules if memory serves me correctly, so why should this be the case now?



I think this is more or less my thinking too.  I suspect that AT2+ could well be too powerful, but I think AT3+ at 60cm really is the way to go here.  I've been using the 60cm range for my Eldar (I use the Handbook rules), and I find it to be an appropriate range, so I see no need to revert to 75cm.

_________________

While I understand the reluctance for keeping the range as 75cm, I also think people are missing the point. This is not about total number of kills, but rather about balancing the cost of Fire Prisms with the Falcons (and other troops), while also allowing the FPs to work differently, to have their own niche.

Dropping the range to 60cm reduces the Fire Prism to virtually the same role and tactics as a Falcon. Under these circumstances the Falcon is clearly much better than the Fire Prism even with AT2+ as the Falcon has more firepower and better assault stats, so there is really no contest.

Retaining the long range AA role on the Fire Prism would redress the balance slightly, but IMHO it is the extra 30cm over the Falcon that is the big differentiator, because this gives the Fire Prisms more flexibility in their tactics.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I understand what you are getting at, but my opinion is that the niche you've given the FP with your stat line is something that will be passed over by most players. FPs would still not be able to effect the outcome of a game as much as falcons could, and even those are poor choices compared to other formations.

I don't think it's enough to have a unique role. A unit/formation has to have a relative value that is comparable to the other available options. In the choice between a unit that may remain safe for the duration of the game but won't effect the game much versus a unit that will most likely get destroyed but has a good chance of taking alot of enemies with it, then the latter will usually win out. It gets worse when you consider the fact there are even better option available in both roles.

If the Fire Prism has a range of 60cm, it would still have a 15cm advantage over the Falcon, and this is nothing to be sneezed at.

I play against Marines, for example, and vehicles such as Land Raiders and Predators have a range of 45cm, so if I have a formation of Fire Prisms, I can keep them out of range of these vehicles, and Space Marine Devastators and Tactical squads which could be supporting them to boot, but I don't have this option if I want to shoot at them with Falcons, so I think that the Fire Prism formation would be something I would consider instead of, or in addition to, Falcons on that basis alone.

_________________

Something else to remember when these stats were done the FP offered more guaranteed shots at RA targets than the pulse weapon. The change to pulse takes away some of the randomness and has increased the falcons average firepower.

_________________
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

Why is keeping the lance ability on the FP impossible? We did play the FP with 60cm AT 2+/AP 4+ lance @ 325 for 5 of them and it gave them an edge above the falcons because they could hit RA targets at long range (and even terminators, if the lance is allowed in infantery..we did allow it). As I said previosusly, the niche is then, that you attack the big ones with the prism and the transports and such with the falcons. The ability to hit infantery too was a bonus in versatility for the prism too. I think that every army fields some RA somewhere so a prism formation is always worthwile to snipe them off from far away. Would this be enough of a niche for it?

I don't think anyone is suggesting dropping lance?

_________________
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

Yeah, even though I keep writing out the stat line, and omitting the lance ability, I do mean to imply that the FP keeps the lance ability. It's just that, when comparing 2 different options, I was trying to highlight the the differences, and assuming all else remained the same.

Ah ok, sorry. Then I just misinterpreted this. I am pro AT2+ (or 3+) lance @ 60cm.

i am in full support of  the AT +2 / AP+4  60 cm lance    stat line, and 60 pts per model,

I think this is balanced compared to falcons gives option and varity, and its not so much the FP that needs the range change to make everythign balance and fit its the scorpion in regards to that aspect to shift everything along the ladder one section in the rnages to give it perspective.

and rather than put it up for debate any longer take a poll and  go with the descion of the masses.
As it stand with this ruling and a fair few others on the forums, i can respect and admire the fact you want player tested input and a concensus  (spelling ?)   but at the end of the day someone  weather it be a poll, army champion   or whom ever needs to put there foot down and say, this is the ruling otherwise its pretty much a never ending cycle and also a big part of the reason there is still no global rule set.
As the saying goes you can't please all the people all the time,and it feels like that's what's trying to happen at the cost of the epic rules.
This isn't a dig at anyone just a personal opinion, its just frustrating seeing no forward ground being made and the same things getting bought up over and over again with no resolution.

Cheers

Tim NZ

in my opinion fire prism can have the same price of falcon or maybe +5 , because falcon have transport capacity ,more shoot , but with shorter range , better ff value. Fireprism have lance ability and more range  ; so i think they are different role but similar on performance.

The Fakcons transport capacity doesn't matter if compared to Fire Prism. Because in the Shield of Vaul formation Falcons can't transport anything because the formation includes no Infantry.

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