Ha ha well ignore all my posts to date, as it seems i have been referencing a out dated list where there was only the option to take them as pairs, after viewing the 4.2 update it totally mitigates anything i have said.

Cheers for your responses.

Tim_Nz

Hey Greg I made a comment in your last battle report thread (vs Legio Gryphonicus) but thought I would raise it here too.
The wild riders seem (to me at least) to be at a pretty big disadvantage when it comes to engaging into cover, as the dangerous terrain rolls play havoc. This is unfluffy(in my opinion anyway) as they are highly skilled riders, much more so than their human equivalents, and quite a handicap for an engagement army. Are you willing to consider giving them the walker ability(perhaps as an army special rule so you don't have to create new units) or are you happy with your play testing to date, and the number of engagements into cover that are lost?
A well dug in army on over watch would be a real pain for this army to deal with. Perhaps this is how you want it to play (which is fine btw) but I just thought I would raise it here for discussion.

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/

Thoughts on that as someone with very few actual experiences with SH (but who will be taking them to Sydney Titans next month):

As is, S-H have a whole bunch of disadvantages compared to B-T (lower SR, more restrictive Warhosts:Troupes ratio, Wild Riders aren't really all *that* hard hitting), and no real advantages that I can see. Adding Walker to all bike/vyper units (and I would include Shining Spears as bikes for this purpose) seems like a small but useful step towards giving S-H some actual advantages over stock Eldar in their supposed area of expertise.

Speaking of Troupes: I only just noticed that the new S-H build only allows 2 Troupes per Warhost. Given the need to use lots of Troupes for all long-range firepower, MW attacks etc, this seems quite harsh. I can't find any discussion about this from earlier: mind giving a brief explanation of the rationale behind this?

I would rather see them not get walker or any other special rule regarding terrain.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Ok not too many then. I thought it might be more than that. I guess that it's one of those situations that you just learn to manage.

I understand the reluctance too. If you put it in then everyone else who has jetbikes says "hey what about my guys" and eventually you end up with some lists having walker, some not and power creep etc.
I guess if the play test data indicates that they need a boost this might be something to consider.

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/

I play S-H now and then amongst the Eldar lists i play and personally don't feel they need walker or it is something I feel i have been missing, the DTT has never really been a issue for me personally.


Tim_Nz

Whats the reason for lower SR than Biel-Tan?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Also a question, not sure if this is the right place for it, but why are the fire prisims not a free upgrade/ swap with the falcons like the firestorms are ? I ASK BECAUSE AT 15 PTS per change not only is there no synergy within the points make up of the rest of the list, i find they are a more specialised unit and the falc0ns are just as good if not better as a all round pick, there has been some discussion in our local group about it and i thought i would post here to se what the response was, this may ave been addressed in other posts but i couldn't find anything.

Cheers

Tim_Nz

I would also echo some of the comments made earlier about the Siam-Hann regarding the penalties of the list:
-lower initiative
-more restrictive choices (2-1 instead of 3-1 for support choices)
-less army choices and few warhost choices (that are significantly different from each other)
as compared to Biel Tan.

Over the past 3 months I have chosen to play Biel Tan over Saim-Hann due to the above perceived drawbacks (although I have a massive host painted in Siam-Hann colors).

My recommendations would be to:
-up the initiative (on par with Biel Tan)
-allow a 3-1 support choice
-allow supreme commander in either shinning spears or wildrider warhost
-create a support formation of jetbikes to replace rangers (rangers don't fit the theme of Siam Hann) with scouting ability
-tinker with Hornets
-tinker with Wildrider Warhost

Unfortunately the wildrider hosts are cool but just not enough to warrant losing 1 initiative, void spinners, vampire mobile warhosts, plus a whole lot more.

IMO the Siam Hann army is currently very dependant on good initiative roles and gate/storm serpent delivery.
I would like to see work done to reduce those dependencies.

Yes this has been tested and rejected by the board twice, about making the fire prisms upgrade free. It was done when testing with BT4.2. Suggestion included making them a 5 or 10 Point upgrade. I’m at this point still think weather to take a 5 point upgrade or try another approach…


- What was the common reasoning for the rejection of the idea behind a free swap?
- Is another option to have a single cost to upgrade the entire formation, so the compromise is that you have to take entire prisim formations in exchange for the cheaper / free upgrade?
- I personally think the SR for S-H should be 4 based on the idea that all Eldar lists have farseers and they help weave the strands of fate which give them the edge in strategy, also package that with higher intelligence it seems to make sense.
- As for the scouting option, I would like to see a bike scout over rangers or walkers, it sits more in snyc with the theme and really a bike seems a much better scouting option to me than a walker fluff wise. ( but this is a very minor issue for me)
- Over all I find myself always coming back to B-T for army selection at the moment as i find S-H ( even though my entire army is S-H themed and painted) just lacks that punch and solidity, it could jsut be my play style maybe but i feel within the list im forced to take to many vanilla bike options, maybe the list needs some tweaking within the host choices themselves?


Cheers.

Tim_NZ

Thanks, still a work in progress. As it has been for years. lol

I think adding hornets to the formation is a ok option if you limit the ratio they can take for a random example a 1:3 like the army restrictions on war engines / titans to regular formations, thus not letting the army min / max spam hornets.
As for not being able to use the wraith gates i think that is a totally fair trade off if you add hornets, as that would make the deep strike capablity of the AT in the formation far to strong for sniping off enemy artillery etc.
As for the AV 4+ bikes i wdid play them under that ruling and to be honest it was to strong, for me i just took mass formations of vanilla bikes and literally rode over everyone on pure amour really. Maybe something along the lines of 5+ with a 6+ invunrable to represent the speed and agility of the bikes making them harder to hit or to represent the wildriders skill in using their bikes?
As for the fire prisims, if you went with a seperate formation option, i think they need to be the same as a falcon set up 5 - 6 with the firestorm substitution option.
Unless im very stretched for points i ALWAYS take 6 strong formations of falcons / prisims. it means 2 casualties don't break the unit. But that is a personal preference.