Are you sure you didn't get to vote?
The poll has no closing date.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

So that would put options (1) and (3) at the same vote count: 15/15 as it currently stands.

Gotta love democracy. *laugh*

Option (1) is contained within option (3), so is that not a good compromise? Or at least something to test?

I quite like using five Warwalkers at 175.

Totally agree Chroma, but have you considered 4x units at 150pts, upgrade 0-4 at 25pts each, bringing the formation shape in line with Rangers?

Problem is that option 3 gives you a 50 point discount for those trying to min-max their lists

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

Not really. The total formation cost is less, at the coat of having a formation at the edge of viability. Just one over the anti-magic number of three. The first four Walkers are actually more expensive, at 37.5 pt (versus 33.33), with a discount of couse on the final two. I'd still go with a formation of five or six, just for endurance.

_________________
SG

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

The per unit cost is un-important, as is the function of the formation.

When I look at a list, if something can give a cheap activation, it is usually picked over an upgrade.

Pricing them at 150 merely gives the player more choice to min-max their list.

The question then comes, do Eldar need a boost to their activation count?

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

Again, that is *not* min-maxing, it's point use efficiency; it's totally different. It also gives a smaller, weaker formation. The Eldar already have a 100 point formation, if they want to maximize activations (which is also not min-maxing).

I have not considered going up to eight units Ginger, I think the formation may start getting too cheap... eight for 250 seems like a pretty nasty garrison with overwatch.

If the only formation size ever getting selected is the 150pt 4-unit formation, then it's min/maxing.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

So would it not behoove us to playtest to see if this is the case? Personally, a five or six man squad and a squad of six or seven Rangers would be my choice, as I would be able to interlock my scout screen, and offset the 175pt cost of the Nightspinners.

_________________
SG

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

Agreed - but also very fragile, and competing with other 250 pts formations. They die horribly to air power, and most other formations only have to wave a feather vaguely in their direction to break them. They are also much less of a concern to infantry formations, so overall I have a suspicion they would not be too overpowered - but woe betide the armoured formation that comes within range if they have not been 'prepared' beforehand

Anyway, I thought you were looking for ways to make them more desireable - would an 'uber' garrison do the trick

So.... why do they need even more cheaper formations? Would not a better proposal be how to make them a viable 200+ point formation for the sake of these not being taken merely as an activation boost?

Sub 200 point formations are usually/mostly taken for the quick activation boost rather than taking upgrades. Why increase this problem with yet another option?

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

I take nightspinners (175pts) for disrupt barrage and because I can't take Voidspinners (Ulthwe)
I take rangers (4 to 6 man teams) for anti-air/teleport assault screens or to make speedbumps
I don't take Warwalkers because they're slow, LV, have terrible saves, die like flies, and for only 50pts more I can get a 5 strong falcon fm that gives me awesome AA and AT.

It's not always about activation count. I'd take 4 for 150pts because it'd be nice to try them again without getting bothered when they turn out to be pointless.

I'd take 4 groups of 4 every time, because I have 16 walkers and four of them feel left out everytime now.

Although I really like the idea of being able to swap them out with a ranger at no cost. That makes a ton more sense.

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

Lsrwolf, are you suggesting a modified formation something like:-

"Scouts"
4x Rangers @100pts or 4x War Walkers @ 150pts . . . . . . . upgrade 0-4 Rangers or Warwalkers @25pts each

It is an interesting idea, but given the option I suspect that you will find the formations will actually work better separately rather than combined. Rangers will slow down the Walkers, while Walkers will make the Rangers more fragile by allowing AT fire to target them as well (and removing the OW cover save). You can try it if you like though, and tell us what happens.

Final thought; is it 'fluffy'?

Which is a notable concern:

The reason for many of the Eldar formations being in 3's or 6's in the Beil-Tan list was that 3 is a holy number for the Eldar.
The more you drift away from that with formation size tweaks here and there, the more you lose that little fluffy bit of fun.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter