Or 150 for 4, plus 0-2 at +25 points each.

That's a 17 point surcharge at 4 for 150 and 9 point at 5 for 175.

Plus it's 25 point increments for all those people who get fussy over that.

At any rate, it's not like people are actually clamoring for it though.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Seems sensible.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I am really unconvinced (as they say) about these proposed changes. I suspect that four strong formations of LVs would be horribly fragile. Sentinels rarely survive the first contact with the enemy, and I cannot see war-walkers doing any better. So IMHO they need to be taken in 6x unit formations, which defeats the intention behind the exercise.

Personally, I am convinced the issue lies in how they are used. I suspect they are not deployed well and so end up as bullet magnets (because they are so fragile). Try putting them in a gate - especially out of a SS - against some armoured target and watch the fun. They also perform much better if kept within the first 35cm of the table, sitting on OW behind cover to pounce on advancing armour - and they do make reasonably good deterents to Marine dropships and IG tanks.

However, if we have to change them in some way to make them more 'attractive', I would suggest considering reclassifying them as AV. This would probably have a much better effect, and could possibly be justified by the RA armour - though that in turn might well need a review of the cost etc. (perhaps 5x AV for 200, keeping the other stats the same?)

There is an Eldar riding right up front for every laser and bullet to strike. There is no way that thing is an AV.

I'll be playing them at the tournament in November; don't hold your breath for any massive door smashing reports relating back to my War Walkers though. I'll report back and let you know what comes of it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I agree that 6 for 210 is somewhat annoying - i would only want them in 6's, otherwise I'd get rangers for activations.

I don't disagree with you here. I was only posing an alternative. I am sure if it was really desirable, we could think up some reasoning
And as TRC says, increasing the cost to 210 for 6x Warwalkers just wont work. So what else has been considered?

Dropping the costs of 6x to 175pts ?
permitting upgrade 0-2 at 25pts ea?
permitting mixed Ranger and Walker formations?

- - - or just leaving alone, as a slightly sub-standard formation?

Increasing the cost actually works fine given the odd pricing of Fire Prism upgrades to Swords of Vaul formations. If you end up being short 5-10 points on a list it won't be the end of you.

The problem I have is that we have changes being implemented that are arbitrary. No complaints about the war walkers at all, yet they're changed. The Army Champ needs to weigh in.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I've heard something with Chroma : the Fire Prism might cost less (from the actual 65pts to 50pts).
I don't know if that is still in the Eldar draft forecoming update.

Question, on what does Chroma base these changes. Does he run them with some people first? Feedback from forum(s)? Mathhammers?

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

I have to agree that there does not appear to be anyone complaining about Warwalkers, other than the army champ (Chroma) noting they are rarely used, and thus considering options to make them more attractive.

However, while I understand the point, increasing the cost of a formation in an attempt to make it more attractive does seem counter-intuitive.

If such a change is needed (and I have no strong opinion either way) I too would rather see 150 for 4, plus 0-2 at +25 points each.

Id agree with this one over any others i have seen / heard.


Tim NZ

It's that they're rarely used at 200 points; allowing for a cheaper formation of 5 was an attempt to make them more attractive.


It's the 175 point "divisible by 25" that's supposed to make them more attractive. It's been tested in-house with my group and been fine. That it's taken this long for someone to notice it really speaks to how rarely War Walkers are used.

The "Four for 150 + 1-2 for +25 points" might be fine then.

And, once more, allowing "variable" unit sizes in small point increments is *NOT* "min-maxing"; there are certainly "sweet spots" in such pricings, but that is "point efficiency", not min-maxing. "Min-maxing" is taking the minimun number of crappy/cheap/"required" things to get the maximum number of good things, *NOT* spending all your points.

Min-Maxing is playing the metagame. As a powergames. Taking the options to maximise overall effectiveness. Be this cheap or expensive options doesn't matter.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176