Priced the same price as a Falcon, and maybe with a range upgrade?
That actually sounds like a nice Fire Prism IMO.

Alternately just head back to the past and use the old stats, which ok are a bit outdated (Fire Prisms aren't an AA unit in the background anymore and haven't been for a long time) and crappy at AT or AP, but are at least a fantastic AA unit and are balanced in that role.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I can't agree on the Phoenix Bombers. Reinforced armor, AT, AP, and BP weapons, interceptor abilities... They are ruthless killing machines.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I recall that the 75cm AA fire prisms were somewhat contentious back in the day, because of their ability to thrash thunderhawks. A 75cm radius AA unbrella is a pretty big chunk of the tabletop, and I believe people even complained that the Eldar already had plenty of AA options. And remember that the firestorm didn't show up in the list until later in development of Swordwind, so for much of the testing, the fire prism was the only AA AV. Otherwise, I suspect JJ would have made the stats more inline with the 40k 3rd ed stats (i.e. no AA).

That said, if people have problems with the 60cm AT2/AP4 version of the tank, there hasn't been much discussion on it (at least not as much as with the titan powerfist or the scorpion/cobra EoV discussions). I think the stats as they stand now are (mostly) what they ought to be to give the fire prism its own role. I think increasing the weapon range would be a bad idea, because then it could move-shoot-move and snipe the enemy table edge. If it is too good as is, then just drop the lance ability or reduce the AT to-hit value to AT3.

As for the nature of the formation, I prefer allowing them to be mixed and matched with falcons and firestorms. Most other armies are allowed simiilar formations, and I don't see any balance or fluff reasons for restricting the Eldar in that way. Overly restricted lists can get boring to play.

My only problem with the Fire Prism as it currently stands is the cost. I don't mind its stats being as they are, and I never did find the idea of its being an AA vehicle very appealing.

_________________

The 50pt Fire Prism was my own gut feeling, too. Not sure about a range boost, largely because the range is representative of it's current rules in 40k. It's negotiable, though.

_________________
SG

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

It's 40k range is 60" or 72"?

With extra range it would be worth the extra 10-15 points each. Without, 50 sounds good.

Also, unless I am mistaken current 40k allows it to shoot large barage templates. This would allow it tohave better AP values. Perhaps AP3+/AT3+ lance could be ok?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

40k Fire Prism has a 60" range. It can shoot large barrage templates at S5 AP4 or small blast templates at S9 AP2. This optimises it for killing light infantry and heavy tanks. Not an easy thing to represent with a succinct statline in Epic. However the Fire Prism is the Eldar's dedicated tank killer in the fluff, so biasing the stats in that direction is a reasonable compromise, IMO.

_________________
SG

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

I agree. The dual purpose nature of the Fire Prism in 40K was not in the original background, so while we could change it, there's nothing wrong with leaving its stats primarily geared towards an anti-tank role. It's not as though we are short of anti-infantry options in Epic Eldar armies.

_________________

Actually, I would say we are more short of those than of anti-tank options.

What great guns have the Eldar got against infantry?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I agree that they are good, but are they worth 400 points, or put another way, are they worth ~2 other air formations - - -

The issue being both that they are relatively more expensive than other Eldar formations, and not twice as effective than other air formations. Even at 350 points, in the E-UK tournaments they are very rarely taken.

This is partly because they struggle to find a unique niche; Nightwings are so good as fighters and have reasonable ground attacks, while Eldar artillery with disrupt are arguably better barrage weapons, and 150 points cheaper.

Rangers, Dark Reapers, Wave Serpents, Support platforms and Heavy weapons, Night Wings, all the artillery, Cobras, not to mention the various MW armed units . . . .

Yes, I agree, and, going more widely, I think that it's also important to say that looking just at guns, as Lordotmilk suggested, doesn't take account of the effectiveness of Eldar units in FF against infantry during assaults.

_________________

FF, FF kills infantry dead all the time.

On Fire Prisms

IMO the original attempts in 2008 to correct the perceived flaws were misguided, and have caused more problems than they fixed.

I strongly recommend returning to the original stats, formation and costs and then revisiting the debates. In no particular order

• The three strong formation.
  This is less of a problem with 75cm range and sensible tactics, as demonstrated in the E-UK tournaments.
• The 75cm range.
  This seems a reasonable approximation given that the 40K rules and mechanics do not translate well to EA, and seems relatively well balanced in comparison with other EA weapons.
• Whether the FP should have AA at all.
  IMO AA provides a nice differentiator from the other AV without which the FP is rather lacklustre - especially if the range is reduced to 60cm and the Scorpion fire-power is increased to 3x shots.
• 75 cm AA being OTT.
  This is probably true, but is easily fixed by changing the stats to include an "OR" line, revising the AA range to something more appropriate.