And this is an example of the problems with balancing the list. (I might add I think this was discussed during the "pulse rule" debate):-

• Doubling with a 3x shot 3+ Scorpion means only 1.5 hits on average, advancing would yield 2.0 hits while sustaining yields 2.5 hits.
  
• Doubling with a 2x shot 2+ Scorpion also yields 1.3 hits, but sustaining is the equivalent of normal firing yielding 1.6 hits

Effects that make it easier for the Eldar to activate tend to encourage people to try to sustain with the Scorpions to maximise their shooting, especially if there is a reasonable chance of three hits. And this is what people originally tried to correct in the 1.8 revisions.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

id like to know why the supreme commander doesnt have leader, just doesnt seem right.
and this not only applies to eldar if i remember rightly ?

Supreme Commander already includes Commander AND Leader.

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

This is correct.

The Supreme Commander special abililty contains both commander and leader, even for Eldar armies.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Has anyone actually tested the old proposal of allowing each unit with farsight to remove an extra Blast marker from any Eldar formation (once per formation, I'd reckon)?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Incidentally now it has been pointed out the benefit of using cobra singularly as opposed to in pairs should there be some sort of group discount for SHTs? Currently the only strategy I can think of where I would want more than one is with some sort of triple retain using 2 stormserpent SHTs followed by two retains out of the gates.


I seem to remember playing against it and it was a bit silly when a big mech aspect formation could shift 3 extra. Certainly encouraged guardian based/popcorn armies. Could try it again with proviso that it was done before the rally roll, not after?

_________________
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

One of the "unsung" abilities of the Eldar spacecraft is that you can pick the weapon load-out once you know what army you're facing, as the decision is made during deployment.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Actually, in the "other" Craftworld lists, with smaller Aspect formations, I almost *always* take Falcons in one formation; in the big Biel-Tan Warhost it can be too expensive, though I'd be interested in trying two Falcons and three Wave Serpents some time.

My prefered formation in Iyanden and Ulthwe is four Dark Reapers and four Falcons for a fantastic mixed shooting and firefighting formation; it tends to be able to do a lot of damage pumping out 8 AT4+ attacks, 8 AP5+ attacks, and then 4 AP5+/AT5+ attacks at closer ranges.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Intruiging. I have always had a poor experience with Falcons in their own formation, so with the additional cost and worse armour, I would never use them as transports over Wave Serpents.

I only ever take Falcons for the AA value provided by the Firestorms and their "scare factor" if I am lucky enough to get the formation near the table centre-line. If (and it is usually a big 'if') this formation is allowed to shoot, I agree Falcons have comparable fire power to the MBT of other races.

In my experience they seem to work best using hit-&-run to double into firing range and out again, which contradicts the transport strategy of getting close to a target and dropping off the troops. While I have not used other Eldar sub-races, I would agree that on paper, using them to transport one of the smaller aspect 'troops' would also provide a powerfull niche for shooting, though I suspect their weak armour is still likely to render the formation imobile against long-range shooting, unless they can find and hug cover.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I must admit that is somewhat amusing to me, as the Falcon  (Swords of Vaul) Troupe is one of my favourite and most effective formations!  I often take three, with four Falcons and a Firestorm.

Great for ripping apart armour and then positioned to support other formations' assault with their FF4+.

Jetbikes and Falcons leap-frogging across the battlefield have become greatly feared by my local opponents.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Maybe it's just a personal preference/tactics thing - I like the separate Falcon formation and Kev101 used 3-4 formations of them at Britcon. I don't think I'd ever consider taking it as a transport (the wave serpent's reinforced armour keeps it alive and soaks hits in assaults).

Can't really comment on how the transport Falcon does in the smaller formations of the variant lists but it's definitely over-priced in the Biel-tann list IMO and as far as I'm aware is never, ever, taken in competitive play here. Others like to comment on this from your own experiences?

I find Falcons to be one of my favourite units too.  You just have to use them with caution and cunning.

Having read through all of this thread since my last post, i have to say i remain to be convinved that the Eldar need any work:

Blast markers and leader:  The eldar are a truly excellent assaulting army.  Their firepower and maneuverability is amazing especially with skimmers and their engagement ability is second to no other army out there.  The down sides (Quite rightly IMO) are that they have paperthin armour, small fm sizes and are vulnerable to BMs.  This fits perfectly with the idea of a dying race who specialise in hit and run tactics.  Blast markers are one of the few ways an opponent has of trying to break the momentum of an eldar swordwind attack and is not a problem with the eldar IMO - it's a neccessary weakness built into the list and is, i feel perfectly fair.  The turn in which you have to marshall units is the break your opponent needs and has likely earned - from there it's down to the players how they deal with the situation.  Any good eldar player worthy of the name will shift the focus of his attacks and try to keep the pressure on and try not to let the opponent take advatage of the situation.  Yes, allowing easier blast marker removal would make it easier for the eldar player but i've yet to see a reason why the eldar player should have an easier time in negating their natural weakness.  I will admit sometimes it can be a bit frustrating but that's a problem for the eldar player to solve through thought and good play.  It's like asking for Orks to be better in firefight IMO.

Scorpion and Cobra:  I don't really see any need for changes to these vehicles either.  Yes the storm serpent and void spinner are IMO superior choices but that's largely down to my style of play and the synergy they bring to MY list.  In an offensive role though, i'd find it difficult to argue that there are better SHTs out there [Cobras and Scorpions]and that they aren't better suited to the role than the Spinner and serpent.  Both are war engine/MBT hunters and often form solid BTS fms when taken in pairs for very aggressive eldar players who don't take titans at lower point games.  Scorpions will chew through a tank company which is almost 1.5x as expensive as 2 scorpions and can do it without taking a hit in return, and Cobras are simply fearsome for everything that strays into range (Playing with the official swordwind and 2008 errata). What Ork player in their right mind would want to send any units within 80 cm of a pair of Cobras? They are not seen less often because they are inferior to the other 2 superheavies - they are everybit as good, you just see less of them because their role is slightly more specialised.  For extreme damage potential though you can't really go wrong.

In Fact it should be cheaper than a Serpent as it´s not as good as a Tronsport for Assault Troops. The only Aspect that can make use of Falcons are Dark Reapers. In Biel Tan it´s realy much to expansive to get a Formation like this on the table.

I think "Transport" Falcons should be 40 Pts. for Biel Tan... after all you only use one Part of the Formation, if you want to use the Falcons, the Aspacts are gonna do nothing, if you use the Aspects the Falcons won´t shoot very often... (exept DR)

_________________
www.ttc-cosmophobia.de

Doesn't matter how cheap they are, no-one will take falcons as an upgrade in Biel Tann armies.

Being able to put your first 4 hits onto 5+RA in an engagement is too good an ability for aspects who are often only equiped with 5+ armour themselves.  Also being able to carry 2 units makes it much flexible and often results in the fm losing it's mobility much less often than if you were using falcons.  In addition, Aspects are not a shooty unit.  Their role is to get into an engagement and rip something up, moving on to support a second engagement.  Falcons just muddy the waters for no real gain.  You could make them 10pts each and i'd still likely choose the serpent.

Falcons are just something fun you can do when you play silly big games.

Back to rant:

FPs:  Is anyone seriously trying to tell me that an eldar unit with 35 cm move, 75 cm range, lance, hit and run, skimmer and Lance AA at 75cm range isn't worth 250pts?  Yes they get seen less often than falcons because they are more of a niche unit but they are seen.  I've seen them myself in tournament lists (They murder thunderhawks and warhounds) and unlike nightwings they can be used to capture objectives.  TBH i've been trying to find ways of fitting them into my own tournament list recently.  Lowering their cost will simply make them a no-brainer choice IMO.  Yes, they are harder to use right but the pay-off can often be massive.  I thought that was supposed to be the point of an eldar army.  Used skillfully, fireprisms are epic but the fm is fragile.  Isn't that supposed to be the point of an eldar army?  Making things easier just because they require finnesse to use is IMO simply a case of dumbing down the eldar to make them easier to play.  They aren't supposed to be easy and that's the attraction and point, surely?! (Please note, i'm not questioning anyone's ability or showing off the size of my g2mer skillz, trying to tell anyone "How 2 playzor" but there are always going to be some things that some players find difficult to use, because of their inherent weaknesses, while others find marvellous because of their differing approach to the game).  The sword of vaul fm or whatever it's called is IMO simply just a long ranged falcon fm.  If you want to see less movement and more static play then allow fire prisms to be taken in falcon fms and upgrade the size or cheapen fire prisms.  Move 35cm and then pop up and shoot 3-4 75cm lance shots for no comeback with 75cm lance AA for only 200 pts?  yes please.

Just unneccessary IMO.

I just want to say that I am really against fireprisms with AA. It just feels wrong.

I only played them with 60cm lance without AA in formations of five for 325. For me, they performed well and killed of tanks and small titans from a save distance. The distance is their main advantage over falcons but they are a bit expensive for 15cm extra range so I mostly took falcons instead. If they were upped again to 75cm then I think they would be worth their points. But then, the Scorpion has to be able to shoot 75cm too.