All sensible, but ultimately depressing As you say, there is no correct answer so it just seems one of those irreconcilable issues that is pointless flip-flopping over at GW's and ACs's whims. A while back there was a general thread on this topic of dealing with changes and the consensus (or maybe just my skewed view of it!) was that each list should be given a specific theme and not changed, with new lists created when sufficient differences emerge for a critical mass of players to support their development.

The reality is, we will have enough reasons to change units just to take care of balance - and even that is subject to a huge influence from meta game shifts. For instance, in the early days of Swordwind scorpions and fire prisms were very popular, as were cobras. I recently found some early tactics guides from Fanatic or whatever it was called, and was struck by how different the favourite units were from today. A lot of that is probably down to the pulse change, but not all of it. I definitely think that the activation-centric meta of today was nowhere near as strong back then. So my point (eventually) is: don't be constrained either way as to whether the prism conforms to 40K or to Epic 40K because it is not something you can convince everyone to agree with. Instead, just try to get it balanced and only change it for that reason. And in my view, the fewer differences there are between NetEA and Swordwind, the better for new players.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

It's a touch more complicated than that, as a look through Semaj's post regarding the history of Fire Prism explains. It's not just a case of comparing with 40K, it's also a case of comparing with Epic during the Space Marine era.



I don't see the need to reintroduce AA. I'd take the Fire Prism as a dedicated AV tank if it were cheaper. At the moment, it's simply way too expensive. If I want AA, I look at other options.

_________________

I don't disagree with your views Irisado, its just that I think we will struggle to find appropriate stats, costs and formation sizes that are both balanced and sufficiently attractive without Lance AA.

That and the facts that these were the original Swordwind stats and are used by E-UK without problems either way.

I guess it is a case that we are going to be 'wrong' whatever we do here

Probably .

The problem is that there's no consistent design concept to work with. The Fire Prism used to be a niche weapon, and then became a jack of all trades fire support tank, and now it's pretty much the latter, but without the AA. All of which adds up to not being able to find much in the way of precedent, because its role can be argued from multiple historical view points.

_________________

At this point I'm fairly decided on keeping the FP stats and reducing the cost. I'm going to be working up new list versions in the next couple days to reflect this and the results of the Hornet poll. I think it will be more balanced, maintain continuity with the versions from the last several years better, and help define the FP niche within the SoV Troupe framework. I look forward to seeing playtests - hint, hint.

_________________
SG

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

Well IMO the SoV formation was poorly conceived in the first place way back in 2007-2008, and I consider it significant that Jervis did not adopt any of the proposed Eldar formation changes at that time. The point being that as a community, we have not made such significant changes to any other formations in any of the core lists (SM, IG Orks, Eldar etc) available in the SG website since E:A was first published.

I am also concerned that there is a significant divergence between the NetEA and E-UK views on this subject, though I am obviously unaware of any correspondence between these (and other) bodies. Although the E-UK did use the NetEA approach in tournaments for some years, when they published their 'approved' Eldar lists, the E-UK reverted to the Swordwind approach. I suggest that this actually forms 'sufficient testing' for the purposes of this discussion, though obviously YVMD.

Indeed, a quick glance at the E-UK army lists used over recent years will reveal that Fire Prisms formations are used in 21 of the 77 lists, which means that effectively the NetEA are trying to fix a problem in the use of Fire Prisms that does not seem to exist as far as E-UK are concerned.

That said, the main difference is in the argument over the use of AA, and here the two camps will likely remain divided not least because of the checkered history that has already been discussed. So this seems to boil down to a question of whether to follow or ignore the 'fluff'; anyone got a coin to flip?

The best part about reducing the cost to match falcons imo is eliminating that silly 15 point cost number that doesn't tie in with any of the other values and makes taking prisims a huge inconvenience more than anything else.

Gavin, EUK have never used the NetEA fire prisms. Or used NetEA Eldar lists in their tournaments. I'm not sure why you say they have.


The points about why NetEA changed the Fire Prism have been well addressed, but suffice it to say that it boils down to a desire to reflect what 40k has been for the past 20 years, and that it was only a quirk of coincidence that meant Jarvis tried to bring back the AA ability at the same time as the "real" Eldar AA tank was released for 40k.

Most of the people arguing for a return to the Swordwind stats are EUK players who will never use NetEA lists anyway.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It ties in with one thing - a formation of all Prisms (base 5, all upgraded to Falcons) cost 375. Not that it's not annoying when you want to use a number other than 5.

I always wondered why they were a single formation, fire prisms don't synergise well with falcons/firestorms, and I would assume you either end up with an all FP or 3 falcon/2 firestorm unit in most cases..... perhaps adding a firestorm to the former for some air defence.....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Checking back on the lists, it seems you are right, though I could have sworn that we used the NetEA SoV formation in competitions around 2008-2009. Irrespective of this, do you know why the E-UK rejected the NetEA Fire Prism stats and the whole SoV approach more recently in their version of the Eldar codex?

And as for the "last 20 years" it sounds like you want a a jelly;
something that fits into a variety of molds with a variety of distinct tastes

So, [Spitballing on]
Why not have two or three different versions of the Fire Prism to reflect each of the incarnations - - - -?

The need for a change from the originally determined vehicle was not seen as being needed as FP's were being used.

You could easily turn that question around, Ginger. Since the focus is on tournament play, why would EpicUK change away from something that works in Swordwind - the official list? Especially to something that (we now know) does not work. They don't make changes just for the sake of tinkering, or at least that's what I take from the notes given in the codices! You can't really go wrong if you start with the official list and make only the changes needed to maintain balance.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list