I do use AT2+ lance & AP4+ @ 60cm no AA for the fireprism. It is from Marckonz Handbook. With this stats mixing them with falcons is not that useful.

I did use falcons as transports for my black guardians from time to time. I then use 3 Serpents and 2 Falcons wich adds nicely to the firepower of the formation. You can then double up somewhere, fire your guns and support an assault. Expensive but quiete resilient and powerful.

Actually they first appeared in Wh40k and THEN in Epic40k.

The Hydra got special AA capabilities in Apocalypse, the Fire Prism got nothing.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Are you sure? The Epic model was definitely released before the 40k one. The Epic FP came out in October 2007, while the 40k Falcon wasn't released until December that year, and the Fire Prism came out some time the following year (can't find details of exactly which month). And I don't think 40K rules for the Fire Prism were released until the model came out.


Valid, but it's worth bearing in mind that this happened after Swordwind was released. I don't think it's entirely fair to expect the Swordwind list to reflect changes in 40K that happened after it was written.

Honestly, I prefer the NetEA stats for the FP; it loses some abilities it didn't really need and in return gets better at what it's supposed to do. But the idea that AA capability was thrown in out of the blue isn't true.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

Hmmm have tu dust of my old WDs to confirm or deny that.


Me too.


Never said that.

Edit: Seems to be true. Epic40k Eldar where released before the Wh40k Falcon.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

From the best of my memory:

Way back when, in the days of 40k 2nd Ed and Epic SM/TL, there were death stalker prism cannons and firestorm tanks in Epic, and no tanks for eldar in 40k.

Then E:40k was released, and the death stalker and firestorm were rolled into one tank: the fire prism, which had AA ability.

Then the Fire Prism was released for 40k (at the tail end of 40k 2nd Ed). As 40k had no AA rules at the time, the Fire Prism was billed as a tank hunter.

Fast forward to Epic Swordwind development, and the fire prism kept the AA ability from E:40k. Then, sometime near the end of swordwind development, FW released a firestorm (falcon conversion kit). The firestorm was added to the Epic Swordwind list, but the fire prism was kept the same (with AA ability).

The Net EA changes effectively bring the FP back in line with 40k.

I know you didn't, but this does seem to be the perception that some people have, and I just wanted to point out that it's erroneous.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

Erroneous or not, it seems that a number of people do not feel that Fire Prisms need AA, which further restricts the potential use of the unit.

So what is the problem with having AA on Fire Prisms?  
- Is it because the presence of AA is considered unnecessary etc?
- Is it the Excessive Range and Lance capabilities that makes AA overpowered?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Its because the bloody things shot down one of my fully loaded thunderhawks because I got mixed up between online and tourny stats!

So is the choice the current statline or one that makes it an alternative falcon?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Personally, i like the current (Swordwind) stat line.

For me it is the feeling, that there already is a AA tank...the Firestorm. If the prism would have AA too, then the firestorm would be pointless in an army of specialists.

As I said earlier, I like the stats without AA. But that is just personal preference.

Removing the fire prisms AA gives it no role at all, other than a long ranged, expensive Falcon and also almost halves the ground based AA range of Eldar.  In addition people are currently using Fireprisms with AA and new players downloading their rules from the GW web site will be using fireprisms with AA.

In my mind there's no point in changing what is a pretty balanced "OFFICIAL" list - that has already undergone balance changes in the 2008 errata and risk alienating current players like myself along with new gamers with changes to a unit that most people would agree is fine as is - simply because "There's no indication in 40K that the prism has AA".  Especially when the 40K fireprism was taken FROM Epic.

If the NETEC is not to make itself just a fringe organisation it needs to be very careful and cautious when messing around with long established and official lists.

I see your point stompzilla and I think you are right.

I just want to point out, that I never had any AA issues with the firestorms and Nightwings. If the FP has AA then what is the role of the firestorm? At least, the models are beautiful

I always saw the FP as long range anti RA. So very specialised but it was more flexible than falcons because of the AP 4+. Want to annihilate Rhinos go falcon, want to kill Warhounds or Leman Russ go Fireprism.
The thing was, that we started with Marconz Handbook and still use it so our FPs never had any AA. I could very well live with FP AA.

I think, that it is very important to get these drafts ready so that everyone has the same basis.

The firestorm is the alt falcon in that situation. I.e. 4 falcons, 1 firestorm and the formation of prisms as opposed to what happens now which is 2 fp/3 falc no prisms.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

As TRC says, if the Fire Prism has AA (in some capacity), then the Eldar player has two options :-
- 3x Falcons, 2x Firestorms (good AT, average AP and good AA)
- Fire Prism Formation (Anti RA, average AT, average AP, poor long-range AA)

Note, I have in mind a proposal to keep the Swords of Vaul as 5-6 Falcons (0-2 Fire Storms), while increasing the original Fire Prism formation to 3-5 Fire prisms using a separate stat of AA 6+ 60cm (to ignore the debate on the main weapon range). Cost of the revised FP something like 225 for 3x FP, 50 points per extra Fire Prism.

This would provide the 5x FP formation that seems the popular choice / points combination and a slight drop in the original FR formation to make them more attractive (and to compensate for the reduced AA stats).

What do you think guys?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Ah ok. Thats sounds reasonable with AA6+ for the prism. Would the AA shot keep the lance ability? That would further differentiate it from the firestorm.