IIRC warwalkers were not discussed then, mainly as the intentions were to tone thte list down a notch or two; this debate has been how to tone WWs up!

When I first started using them, and they were destroyed very easily, I would have said that there was a case, however, I agree with Ginger that if you learn how to deploy them and use them correctly, they are a very effective unit. On that basis, I see absolutely no reason to change their cost or unit size at all to be honest, it just add an unnecessary tier of maths to the army list for no obvious reason in my opinion.

_________________

Am I missing something? You already CAN take just 4 War Walkers, and for 10 points less than proposed! (check my math: 4x 35 = 140, right?). The Saim-Hann and Great Court of the Young King cannot take them at all, Yme-Loc and Fir Iolarion can only take 6, but everyone else is 4-6.

When I took WW's, I'd usually take 5 for the 175-point cost, but thats just me. Now I cant take them at all with my Saim-Hann so doesnt affect me currently.



So what youre saying is you never spend all 3000 points in your list; that using all of what is given or allowed to you is Min-Maxing? Wow. Sorry bro, not buying, but on top of that, I expect to never see your BatReps fielding full points value.

Kealios, I believe that E&C was referring to the debate of whether or not a change from 6-for-200 is warranted at all.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Ahhh. Mustve been pre-Halloween candy addling my brain I didnt play with the previous version of 6-for-200, so no comment on that. The 4-6 at +35 works fine for me.

Well, looks like the spirits have spoken.

I'll be changing the formation back to 6 for 200 in Biel-Tan or would people find the "4 for 150 up to +2 for 25 each" as a decent compromise?

I prefer the flexibility. Go for 4 with the option for up to two.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Going for 4x for 150pts, 0-2 upgrade @25pts ea is certainly a compromise that meets most requirements. And it is not as if there are great cries to prohibit the smaller formations - personally I cannot see them working well, but then I have not tried it .

One question though - has anyone tried increasing to 8x units for 250pts? If going down this path, is it worth taking the lead form the Rangers and having the same options?

You could go with that option if enough people prefer that compromise. I'm happy for it to revert to six for two hundred myself, but I haven't played to this set of rules for anywhere near as long as the rest of you, so you will all probably have a better idea of the best option than I do.

_________________

Personally, I don't see a driving need for changing it to 4+1+1.
However I'm not an Eldar player so meh. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think leaving it at 6 for 200pts is appropriate. There isn't anything shown or discussed to warrant the change.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

It appears that the AC has made up his mind to change the costs regardless of discussion, so I see no furtther need to keep this thread open any longer.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I'm always open for discussion. That's why I don't write things in stone.

The current vote has an even split between the "six for 200" and "four for 150 + up to 2 for +25 each".

Would this just be for Biel-Tan or all Craftworlds, as, prior to the NetEA draft docs, the other "core" Craftworlds had the variable sized War Walker Troupes already and it was only Biel-Tan that still had the fixed-at-six Troupe.