As discussed over here, the Scorpion is often seen as the "least" of the EoVs, so I'd like to see some playtesting done to see if a change in rate of fire will increase their usage.

The change in the Pulse rule probably hit them the hardest as, with a 2+ base to-hit chance, they were often getting all three shots.

So, please do some testing with both 3xMW2+ and 3xMW3+ to see what works best for the cost.

I look forward to your reports!

I have serious reservations about this. More shots means that there is a greater benefit/penalty based on to-hit mods. It encourages Sustain Fire actions and discourages "shoot and scoot" like the Eldar should be doing.

At +1 for Sustained Fire, it's +50% fire.
At normal fire, it's a noticeable increase in average number of hits, but not major (~+20%).
At -1, it's marginal (~+10%)
At -2, it's no difference.

It also means that there is a greater chance of no hits at all levels except +1, so the increased average comes with a greater fluctuation and reduces reliability.

Is it probably going to be more effective overall? Yes, I would estimate that it is. However, it's at the cost of making it less Eldar-ish.

3x 2+ to hit doesn't greatly encourage Sustain Fire IMO as unless you're shooting at targets in cover you're not gaining anything.

3x 3+ probably does encourage sustaining, mind you.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Is it so bad that the 3xMW3+ encourages sustaining? I mean, if you were in a situation where you could sustain fire, why wouldn't you anyway?

If a situation gives you the option to sustain (hang your butt out to return fire) or advance (fire then move to cover), the tactical desicion will have to be made which is the better choice.

With the 2+ to-hit, obviously there is no difference between advancing and sustaining, so advancing is a no-brainer (barring shooting at stuff in cover). Wouldn't it be better to create a real choice? I know I'd nearly always choose to advance either way.

The way I see it, the main problem of the current scorpion is that it will never effect more than 2 units. That would be okay for a unit geared to assault, but this is a big gun platform. It ought to be able to really reach out and touch something. For everyone except [maybe] marines, the scorpion is just an annoyance, whereas the other EoVs can really ruin someone's day with a lucky roll.

3xMW3+ increases both the likelihood of missing altogether (2.8% to 3.7%) and getting 2 or 3 hits (69% to 74%), but decreases the likelihood of getting a single hit (28% to 22%)

I'm not sure the worry about sustaining is too big an issue - if the Scorpion is in a position to sustain on something 60cm away, then most likely it will get pasted in return. EoV are fragile, in my experience at least, and it doesn't take much to break or destroy them.

I think the biggest issue is that, for me to take a Scorpion (I wouldn't give up my Storm Serpent for anything) I'd have to give up a falcon fm and it's 2 firestorms. Aside from Scorpions vs. Falcons debate, it's the Firestorms that I value

In theory, Eldar are fragile enough that it would be a risk to sit in the open and sustain fire. You'd need to seriously consider retreating. However, if you do enough damage, that doesn't happen. Instead of playing like Eldar, they stand there like IG, blast the snot out of anything that steps before them and basically try to win via toe-to-toe firefights.

Maybe I'm just gun shy after all the issues surrounding pulse weapons before the errata and the "stand and deliver" Eldar phenomenon. I don't know for sure that would happen with this change. I'm just expressing my concern so that hopefully people will take it into account if they test this.

I see.

Stand and deliver with 5 pulse falcons is one thing - under the original pulse rules there was a significant increase in potential hits in return for risking getting blasted in the return fire. That wasn't the case (obviously) with the scorpion, since sustaining rarely changed the to-hit value.

If the scorpion were to go to 3xMW3+, I'm sure that sustaining fire would be far more attractive than it is now (seeing as how it would be an increase from near 0% of the time to some more significant percentage). That doesn't mean people will all of a sudden start using them in death or glory attacks. The Eldar player will have to decide if 3 lucky kills will actually be enough to remove the threat of return fire. In many cases, it will not.

A complimentary discussion about the effect on choosing to double might also be worth having.

You mean when they DO test this... right guys?

I'm a bit late to the party, but personally I'd much rather see the suggested 2BP for the Void Spinner tried as a balancing option. The Void Spinner is crazily good compared to the other eldar options, and also compared to other races 250 points artillery. Like a basilisk battery but with reinforced armour, a war engine so harder to suppress/break, faster and a skimmer so can't be close assaulted/can dodge terrain, and it has Disrupt! Every time I see it I think - what the hell were people thinking?

Reducing to 2BP still lets it carry out the suppression at a distance synergistic role with other eldar formations, but reduces the obscenity a little. And makes the pair more attractive as for Cobras with their 2BP (only something you tend to do in bigger games though).

Scorpions are reasonable if you shoot and scoot and use them against high priority targets, it's mainly the comparison with overpowered Void Spinners that make them so obviously inferior. Scorpions are often preferable to falcons if you are facing artillery (especially if you are playing somethign other than Biel Tan and don't have Void Spinners). A Cobra style missile launcher with weak AA might be a more reasonable and flexible boost to the Scorpion if people think something is still needed. Like Neal I have serious reservations about the 3 3+MW shots.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

What difference would that make? The void spinner would still be a default choice as it would still be the only option to hit the opponents deployment area. If any change needs to be made then either it is to improve the scorpion or to downgrade the falcons formation as at the moment the falcons perform the same role and are clearly a better choice.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

I disagree, to me it's a question of relative power and tradeoffs in various contexts. Hitting deployment zone is worth something, but other capacities are also worth something (and air and some doubling units can sometimes also hit dep zone). Falcons die and are suppressed easily if you breathe on them, whereas Scorpion is more resilient.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

So what do you think the scorpion's role is?

The other 3 EoVs have pretty clear uses. The scorpion isn't so clear cut.

How should I be using the scorpion to get the best value from it? Then I can tell you how the scorpion stacks up against other unit covering that same role.

Guys, there's a thread devoted to the discussion of the overall merits of the Scorpions already. The link is at the top.

This thread is about the proposed change.

Oops sorry. Just tried to shift our posts to that thread but don't have mod access.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

I think I'm going to shift that thread to this forum, actually.

EDIT - Ain't got mod powers over there...