News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?  (Read 2528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Grey Mage

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
  • Champion of Shinning Spears. Remember them well.
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2004, 02:35:00 AM »
A mobile ordanance weapon would be a no no, this would cause many balance issues, also if not ordanace then the Fire Prisms would be easyily shot down by Anti-Armour weapons

A little green to be talking about balance issues, but youll learn eh? Ever heard of a bombard cannon? they used some really big guns on ships while the moved and on tanks... still do. It works fine... balance is in points and selectablitily just as much as rules.
otherwise youd never beet necrons ;)
-Is he insane or a genuis?

-Who cares? it worked.

If you do it right, no one will notice you doing anything at all.

The secret to destruction is simple- everything that is made can be unmade.

Want it simpler?-everything burns.

EO History: 6/0/5

Offline Lazarus

  • Infinity Circuit - The Voice of Reason
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Space Wolves & Imperial Guard
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2004, 09:07:04 AM »
the eldar DO need some kind of real ordanance.  i like the idea of 2 modes of fire (hammerhead)
maybe a looted whirlwind? (lol)
"If someone used the ridiculous cover saves rule on me I'd probably punch him in the face. If he's still standing he would be entitled to punch me in the face, take my army, and my woman if he can. This is known as the Conan rule of play, and is not forbidden in the core rules and encourages serious amounts of sportsmanship." - Carniflex

Offline Philip Bright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 682
  • Country: se
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2004, 01:01:03 PM »
I have never seen anyone else have another tank like it, and it never came up, but the thought of adding +1 S, blast, ordnance or such (in that order) for every other Deathstalker linking up might be a good idea.

I think this might be a sulusion fore the Prism problem! we get an ordinance wapon and GW sells 2 hi prise models I think this is a win-win situasion!!!!! Skip upgrations relese a Deathstalker instad!!!!  :D  :D  :D

Offline Lokust

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 510
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2004, 09:56:16 AM »
I still think reliability is the key issue of the fire prism.  Vypers with brightlances are cheap enough that you can afford redundancy.  Fire prisms are too costly to do this.  Not necesarily too costly in terms of points, but costly in terms of force org slots.  Between falcons, reapers, war walkers, wraithlords and even support batteries, the eldar have too many other awesome heavy support options.  If you were to fill two of those slots with prisms, just to get a degree of redundancy and reliability, I think you'd be denying yourself access to some of the best stuff the Eldar can put on the field. 

The other issue is that it's only a small blast.  That means if you target troops, your enemy has probably spaced them well enough that you'll only get 1 hit and maybe 2 partials at best.  If you fire at troops then, you almost definitely won't get your points back (assuming you hit an average of 3 times in a game, and still have to roll to wound).  At least you will insta kill most models that you do wound, assuming they don't have crazy invulnerable saves.  If you attack vehicles you may do better but you still have a good chance of failing to penetrate armor or only generating a crew shaken result.  And it's already been mentioned that against any truly tough armor, brightlances are a better choice anyway.  If you're using it against vehicles then the blast radius has gone to waste.  At that point, a falcon's D3 S8 pulse laser shots(to say nothing of its other armament) seem more reliable for tank hunting than a fire prism's single S9 shot.

Maybe if you played on an 8' by 8' table... then the range would make it useful enough to try. 

Make it a large blast, and up the points by 30 or so and you'd have a much more interesting heavy support option. 


Offline Eldanesh

  • The One and the Prime
  • Ancient
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 920
  • Remember Sammy Jankis
    • Cool Mini Gallery
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2004, 03:56:50 PM »
Puh-leez,...I don't take Prisms for the same reason I don't take Avatars, Guardian Jetbikes or Shining Spears - cost efficiency. 90% of my opponents are Marines or Chaos Marines and to concentrate 120+ points in a single shot that hit's only half the time is ridiculous. After 6 years of using this tiredass codex, it's all numbers, probablility and and return on points values that my opponents have been aware of for a long time now. There are more efficiency positive choices to take in given slots. And yes, I've tried the tactic of Guiding the Prism with the Farseer, but rather than having him tactically flexible he toddles after the Prism and makes an even bigger points reward for the obligatory Marine Whirlwind that makes him and the Prism a bloody mist by turn 2.
The Laughing God laughs at you, not with you.

Offline Velox

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Nihil umquam facile.
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2004, 03:58:52 PM »
I still think reliability is the key issue of the fire prism.  Vypers with brightlances are cheap enough that you can afford redundancy.  Fire prisms are too costly to do this.  Not necesarily too costly in terms of points, but costly in terms of force org slots.  Between falcons, reapers, war walkers, wraithlords and even support batteries, the eldar have too many other awesome heavy support options.  If you were to fill two of those slots with prisms, just to get a degree of redundancy and reliability, I think you'd be denying yourself access to some of the best stuff the Eldar can put on the field. 

The other issue is that it's only a small blast.  That means if you target troops, your enemy has probably spaced them well enough that you'll only get 1 hit and maybe 2 partials at best.  If you fire at troops then, you almost definitely won't get your points back (assuming you hit an average of 3 times in a game, and still have to roll to wound).  At least you will insta kill most models that you do wound, assuming they don't have crazy invulnerable saves.  If you attack vehicles you may do better but you still have a good chance of failing to penetrate armor or only generating a crew shaken result.  And it's already been mentioned that against any truly tough armor, brightlances are a better choice anyway.  If you're using it against vehicles then the blast radius has gone to waste.  At that point, a falcon's D3 S8 pulse laser shots(to say nothing of its other armament) seem more reliable for tank hunting than a fire prism's single S9 shot.

Maybe if you played on an 8' by 8' table... then the range would make it useful enough to try. 

Make it a large blast, and up the points by 30 or so and you'd have a much more interesting heavy support option. 



Disclaimer: I'm about as green as you can get, so feel free to disregard/scoff at anything below based on that fact.

Most of the improvement suggestions I've read fall into two camps: improving the sketchy reliability (which you've enumerated quite nicely) or giving the Prism Cannon a bigger bang to make sure the enemy really feels it when a shot hits home.  The first set of fixes are the more prosaic of the bunch - increased BS for the tank, having the cannon act as if twin-linked, a BS bonus when using a Targeting Matrix, or whatever.  This also seems like the safer approach, as well - there are a lot fewer ways to increase reliability, and the effects are generally better known and playtested.

Balancing the big risk of lousy marksmanship with the reward of a bigger kaboom at the receiving end might be more "in character" for 4th edition, though, given the "big risks vs. big rewards" mantra that Games Workshop seems so fond of.  It's also more entertaining ground for speculation - ordnance templates, combined hits from multiple units, etc.  However, this is more likely to result in 2nd-edition-style rules creep and has a less predictable impact on game balance, particularly if the "reward" bit has to be bumped quite a bit to make up for big risks, high point cost, consumption of a valuable Force Organization slot, or what have you.  Plus, I'm not sure units with really high risk quotients make it into peoples' forces, regardless of the payoff...

The lack of definition regarding the Fire Prism's role doesn't help, either, since it's hard to make a change that is simple, balanced, and applies to all of those ill-defined roles.  My guess would be that we'll see GW slot the Fire Prism into a "vicious tank killer" or "ruthless troop harvester" role and fit the Prism Cannon's abilities to that role at the cost of its abilities in the other.  But we shall see.

So, enough with the rational consideration.  As someone who was motivated to finally play after years of only painting by the Fire Prism characterization in Dawn Of War (however ashamed I am to admit it,) I'd like to see some kind of interesting nastiness added to the cannon.  How about tracing the path of the beam to a vehicle/terrain bit/board edge and laying a small blast template on every unit intersected?  Or throwing stuff around by causing everything that survives the hit to scatter from its original location, possibly getting thrown off the board, out of coherency, or destroyed by movement into nasty terrain?  If it makes a solid hit a "woohoo!" sort of event, I might even have to start playing with Eldar instead of just painting random models because they look cool.

Offline Trevelyan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2004, 08:53:09 PM »
I have been critisied by all the Eldar players around me because I bought a fire prism, and I know it only has BS 3.  Althought to tell you the truth I like my fire prism as it is. I play to win, and that's why I play Biel-Tan with farseer guided and fortuned Reapers, and Banshees in wave serpents, but I like having a wild-card unit that I can throw on the field and uses as a fire sponge and every once in a while have it destroy something, making my oppenent fire even more at it.  Forget about what everybody tells you about fire prisms, it all depends on how you play, if you like statistics good for you, don't get one. Otherwise get one and have fun with it, after all this is only a game.  And, I see nothing wrong with mobile ordance, I have been thinking about making a ordance vehicle with the vdr rules, if i can ever get my hands on a set, that has two settings something like this; 60" str 6 ap 3 ordance and 60" str 9 ap 1 heavy 2, sort of like a spin off of the dark eldar disintergrater, only much stronger and much more expensive.

Offline -=Abyss=-

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • ~Holding Heaven in your Arms..~
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2004, 10:45:06 AM »
Now that I think about it Eldar do need a mobile Ordanace weapon, and maybe I was wrong about the balance issue, but if it was direct fire wouldn't it make it rather short range?
Index Astartes Litanies Verse 1:13: TO ME MY BROTHERS!

Offline Lorizael

  • GW Shill: Infinity Circuit: Synergistic Spotter of Numpties
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6784
  • Country: 00
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2004, 10:47:19 AM »
Slightly off-topic but I've heard the VDR rules mentioned quite a bit. Where can I get a copy of these rules from? Are they in the FW Imperial armour books?

Offline Lazarus

  • Infinity Circuit - The Voice of Reason
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Space Wolves & Imperial Guard
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2004, 11:02:33 AM »
2004 chapter aproved.

69Lazarus.
"If someone used the ridiculous cover saves rule on me I'd probably punch him in the face. If he's still standing he would be entitled to punch me in the face, take my army, and my woman if he can. This is known as the Conan rule of play, and is not forbidden in the core rules and encourages serious amounts of sportsmanship." - Carniflex

Offline Dread

  • Warlock
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2370
  • Country: us
  • Voidraven, the stone skipping across the universe.
  • Armies: Eldar, DE, Harlis, Necrons,  sisters, Death guard
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #30 on: January 2, 2005, 11:10:29 PM »
You want a fix, just make it an indirect G60" barrage weapon, no direct fire. Raise the points up 20  or more.

Also, I'm not sure and correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember right, guide and fortune can't be used on vehicles only troops
"Burning thru the universe in search of peace only brings more war. Peace is an illusion, war is reality, that is the way of things"

                            Farseer Gol'Istria of    the Morea Nebula craftword

Offline Thrawn.

  • Pathfinder
  • Ancient
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1456
  • Keep running.
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #31 on: January 3, 2005, 08:53:40 AM »
Dread, Guide can be used upon Vehicles. I will try to look for the source that says so. However, Fortune on the other hand cannot be. But about the original question, it can be answered in two words.

Ballistic Skill.

As others have stated, being able to hit fifty percent of the time is a little iffy for a tank. Other have suggested making it a barrage weapon. However, I would be content if they just upped the ballistic skill by one. Just my take.
I have the flag.

I hate noobs. I hate vets. I hate those that hate. I hate hypocrites.

Offline Lazarus

  • Infinity Circuit - The Voice of Reason
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Space Wolves & Imperial Guard
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #32 on: January 3, 2005, 11:52:16 AM »
i agree on the ballistic idea perhaps offered as an upgrade like the taus get.....however, GW may just tell us that farseers have guide for a reason. (that would irritate me btw)

69Lazarus.
"If someone used the ridiculous cover saves rule on me I'd probably punch him in the face. If he's still standing he would be entitled to punch me in the face, take my army, and my woman if he can. This is known as the Conan rule of play, and is not forbidden in the core rules and encourages serious amounts of sportsmanship." - Carniflex

Offline PeregrineBF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
  • Hail Eris!
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #33 on: January 3, 2005, 12:17:42 PM »
They can be great to soak fire. If you have points to spare, let them run around in the back and shoot stuff. The enemy will divert attention to the big tank, hopefully ignoring that unit of dark reapers, or that pop-up vyper...

Prisms are a big expensive diversion.
Pope Peregrinatus the First, Deathbird of the Outlands, Master Pastor of the Church of Disaster, Guardian of the Great Wheel, Head Knight of the Order Of The Five Sided Temple, KSC, POEE. Church of Eris, Discordia.

Offline Lazarus

  • Infinity Circuit - The Voice of Reason
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Space Wolves & Imperial Guard
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #34 on: January 3, 2005, 12:22:18 PM »
most smart opponents will igonre the prism in favor of the reapers or other more dangerous targets. i know i would. its all about threat management and the prism does not rank as high due to single weapon and 50% hit rate.

69Lazarus.
"If someone used the ridiculous cover saves rule on me I'd probably punch him in the face. If he's still standing he would be entitled to punch me in the face, take my army, and my woman if he can. This is known as the Conan rule of play, and is not forbidden in the core rules and encourages serious amounts of sportsmanship." - Carniflex

Offline Culeagh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
  • I am.... Menshad Korum
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #35 on: January 3, 2005, 03:11:52 PM »
All of this talk of targeting upgrades and BS is nice and all, that would fix it. I'll take any upgrade that they want us to have, as long as it isn't some lip service smack.

But I think that the simplest, easiest upgrade is to allow it to become an ordnance weapon with an AP1 center. Prism tanks have always been lauded as anti-tank platforms and with a cannon like that (st9, ap1, ordnance) you are looking at some serious anti-tank power. This would make it exactly as effective against AV14 as a brightlance and more effective against lesser armor values.

Making it ordnance will increase the accuracy exponentially. Think of it, you always get your template out there, somewhere, maybe not directly on what you were aiming for, but who cares? It's a pie-plate!

I have a feeling that many people won't like the idea of eldar slinging around ordnance but nasty ordnance weapons are out there. Rules for moving ordnance slingers mitigate the effectiveness somewhat. Scatter happens too.

Happy Hunting
You will all die.

Offline Lazarus

  • Infinity Circuit - The Voice of Reason
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Space Wolves & Imperial Guard
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #36 on: January 3, 2005, 03:19:27 PM »
i DO like the idea of an ordanance template i just dont think well get it. making it a scatter die to hit wont make it more accurate either (33%) compared to 50%. it would HAVE to be guided. vs troops ok but you NEED the hole centered on the vehicle or strength is halved.

69Lazarus.
"If someone used the ridiculous cover saves rule on me I'd probably punch him in the face. If he's still standing he would be entitled to punch me in the face, take my army, and my woman if he can. This is known as the Conan rule of play, and is not forbidden in the core rules and encourages serious amounts of sportsmanship." - Carniflex

Offline Culeagh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
  • I am.... Menshad Korum
Re: Whats wrong with Fire Prisms?
« Reply #37 on: January 4, 2005, 01:20:54 AM »
i DO like the idea of an ordanance template i just dont think well get it. making it a scatter die to hit wont make it more accurate either (33%) compared to 50%. it would HAVE to be guided. vs troops ok but you NEED the hole centered on the vehicle or strength is halved.

69Lazarus.

Unfortunately for us the people that won't like this are the Space Marine and equivilent guys. But I think that if we all agree on something (whatever that is) then we should start making lots of noise about what we want. 

Most vehicles are fairly large. Even rhinos are large enough that a scatter of 2" or less will still get you a hit with the center hole. In that regard the accuracy is improved.  Hitting a dread would be a bit tricky, likewise for a truck, but as the target gets bigger the accuracy of the weapon improves considerably.

Is that better than BS4 vs vehicles? Probably so, especially when you factor in the bonuses for ordnance against armor values. But like I said, I'll take any improvement they are willing to bestow upon us.

Happy Hunting
You will all die.

 


Powered by EzPortal