Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like the old Prism (so muchI just bought 4 of the things for an Appocalypse prism unit) - though I hate the way it is so unbalanced - I wish they'd just upgraded the old metal bits to plastic rather that messing around with the design.

I managed to 'balance' one of my metal prisms by gluing metal washers to the interior door and floor of the Fire Prism itself. It's nice and heavy now.

Either way, a plastic kit is always welcome and completely removes the hassle of using it from-the-kit. The current Prism is simply a nightmare to glue on and glue together with a snug fit.
Plus, many Eldar players I know have had their flying stands break due to the unbalanced weight of the unit.

Or knock it off the edge of the table because of its lopsidedness. Friend of mine did that. He didn't even bother putting it back together.

Is it just me, or does the top canopy look different than the standard one? Might just be the angle though.

I was talking with a friend the other day, and I just noticed that someone else mentioned it as well, the Falcon really needs to be a dedicated transport. I would love to see a new Eldar "tank" come out to fill it's role. Not just another Falcon chassis, but something quite a bit bigger, i.e. Valk sized.

Not that I don't like the Falcon chassis, I do, and I hope they don't mess with it.

I love the new gun designs but don't like the new turrents. Looks like a horshoe crab humping a cochroach. The guns would look awesome on falcon turrents though.


That prism gun is more like how I always imagined it.

The new turrets are horrific. It works for the night spinner, but the fire prism looks atrocious. The freekin' gun is longer than the tank. I think we'll see a lot of conversions cutting out that long barrel piece.

this is nasty.

good thing i dont play eldar.

Also, is there any word anywhere on whether the nightspinner will be another FW to regular 40k crossover like the trygon?

Fixed...

That looks pretty good actually.

Yeah...I think it looks better stock than that, Oni.

As for the turret:
It works far better than the Falcon's turret with added gubbins.
It looks more like a "tank" turret than just a plain old Falcon with a big gun strapped on.

My thoughts on the Fire Prism/Nightspinner;

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah...I think it looks better stock than that, Oni.

As for the turret:
It works far better than the Falcon's turret with added gubbins.
It looks more like a "tank" turret than just a plain old Falcon with a big gun strapped on.

To each his own. If I were an eldar player (I used to be back in 2nd edition) it's how I would make it look.

I can respect that.

Your version just seems, to me at least, to look a little bit like a pacifier or a Lego vehicle.

But then, you could feel the same way about the standard one!

Oni, that looks brilliant. You just sold me on this kit.

Oni's 'shop actually does look pretty cool. I like the long barrel myself, but wouldn't be at all surprised to see a few fielded like that.

Oni's version looks like the old DoW Fire Prism. The smaller prism cannon looks pretty good.


Though the new long barrel does have a certain Eldar look to it...

Nice stuff! Makes me itchy dusting off that eldar again. But I have to finish my Tyranids first... Well, I think I will get two of those.

I certainly like the new Fire Prism design, brings it in line with the other eldar guns.

Greets
Schepp himself

I think the only reason that the Fire Prism was elongated is that the Nightspinner would look a little too similar.

Thinking I'll need to pick up two more of the current Fire Prisms, then one of the new ones - as the Command Tank for the Apocalypse Sunstorm Squadron... bringing the unit up to 6 models.

While I do like the new prism it being plastic it looks a bit like a modified pulse laser.

Love the Nightspinner, looks so much better than the forgeworld version (and that's the first time anybody's ever said that when comparing GW to FW )


Not sold on the new prism design but I do like Oni's version. I can see people building the longer barrel, though, if only for the extra 2-3" of range...

They are smexy looking. I like them both a lot, especially the turret and extended wings.

Some rumors regarding the Nightspinner's rules;
- Maximum range is the same as a battlecannon, it also has a minimum range (so assume barrage).
- Large blast that has the same Strength and AP as a deathspinner.
- It's rending.
- Units hit by it count as being in difficult and dangerous terrain the following turn (it doesn't create terrain though).
- Same point cost as a Fire Prism.

Rube wrote:- Maximum range is the same as a battlecannon, it also has a minimum range (so assume barrage).
- Large blast that has the same Strength and AP as a deathspinner.

You know you can just say "72 inches" and then list the Strength and AP. The Great Cease & Desist Letter in the Sky isn't going to swoop down because you report some rumoured rules.

Rending is less powered but in keeping with the fluff of how the things actually worked.

Rending is also the rule to hand out when you can't think of anything else, and are scared or giving it a good AP value.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Rending is also the rule to hand out when you can't think of anything else, and are scared or giving it a good AP value.

Yep.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Rube wrote:- Maximum range is the same as a battlecannon, it also has a minimum range (so assume barrage).
- Large blast that has the same Strength and AP as a deathspinner.

You know you can just say "72 inches" and then list the Strength and AP. The Great Cease & Desist Letter in the Sky isn't going to swoop down because you report some rumoured rules.

Yeah I know, GW don't have a copyright on random collections of coincidentally similar numbers (yet). I just stole those rumors off Warseer where it was worded like that, and didn't change the values out of deference to the original poster (also, laziness).

edit - how can say they were being lazy by giving it rending anyway, when it also gives a dangerous terrain test? That's another round of delayed rending if they try to move! This is literally the apex of GW's originality right here - IT RENDS TWICE!!1

H.B.M.C. wrote:Rending is also the rule to hand out when you can't think of anything else, and are scared or giving it a good AP value.

QFT. Monofiliment, my behind.

I think that rending does capture the flavor of the weapon fairly effectively, and the dangerous terrain test is cool too. I would have liked to see it ignore cover though.

I doubt they will see use over the Prism unless they are significantly cheaper, and I believe someone above me posted that they are the same points cost.