I presume the wording should be "Five or six Falcons for Fire Prisms"

So, for 250 point we can buy 5x Fire Prisms with 60cm AP4+/AT2+ lance?

This makes an interesting choice against Scorpions. Initially Scorpions lose out; even with the latest upgrades to 60cm 3x MW2+ they are outranged and out-gunned by the prisms when performing hit-n-run shooting. Over the entire game Scorpions might provide a slightly more resilient and reliable platform as they are harder to suppress and have slightly better AP shooting.

However, many people want to use the FireStorm element, so you now get a formation with 3x AT shots that are slightly better than Scorpions - but then the Prisms still do not stack up well against Falcons - so more are swapped out to yield a long range shot with better medium range shooting.

This does present a slightly different tactic by extend the effective range of Falcon shooting; with a single Fire Prism present, enemy formations can be 'clipped' , where all the falcons/Firestorms are positioned to hit a single enemy unit whilst the Prism ensures their hits can be allocated to other units deeper within the enemy formation.

Is this the sort of thing that was intended?

My rationale for the cost reduction is twofold - first the various bits of mathhammering in the other thread, second the fact that I have never, and have never even considered, taking Fire Prisms as part of an SoV troupe becuse they aren't worth the extra cost. I honestly am not sure they will see much use with the downcosting either.

As for actual testing, that's why I've updated the lists. I've noticed that around here discussions go on for weeks until the change is made, then people go out and playtest it. I can't get the number of games in to do the testing myself, so in order to get sufficient testing to happen I need to get everyone on as close to the same page as possible. I've found the way to do this is to include the changes in the master list, then remove them if it proves neccessary. I've made it clear in each thread that it's time to get testing - hopefully the community will step up to make that happen with me.

I can look into the Firestorms for you. They look on a par with the 50pt Hydra to me at first glance, but I'll look into it a biit further.

Finally, I agree that Eldar are no weaklings. You'll note that the things I've changed are universally those that aren't used much - my intent is to make internal balance adjustments and not external ones. It's much the same as the round of changes you made upon taking up the SM AC position. If these things affect external balance than obviously they need to be rethought. Without more than the two (maybe only one?) games played under the new lists I can't make that call.

Looking at it I guess the 1x4+AA looks worse by a smidge than the 2x 5+AA for the Skyray but the Firestorm still seems the better tank to me with a 4+ FF and 5+AP/AT including Hit and Run. They’ve always been able to down aircraft better than my Skyrays in the games I’ve played against them and they are very helpful in engagements too – whereas the Skyray isn’t that much help there. I'm just not convinced they are half the points of a Skyray (or conversely, the Skyray is twice the tank that the Firestorm is)

Yes. Not sure how I missed that stray 'f'.

Don't forget the Firestorm gets 2 attacks at AP5+/AT5+/AA4+ not just 1 attack.

Eeep! I did miss that! Thanks for helping me rest my case...