Actually if i calculate the Falcons stats with my System the current Falcon appears to be overgunned.
The Pulse Laser has only 2 Strength 8 shots (= 2 x Krak Missiles = 2 x AT6+!) in Wh40k. Yet it has 2 shots in Epic.
For comparison a Vulcan Mega-bolter has 4 shots in Epic and 15 shots in Wh40k.
Conclusion: You need 7,5 Wh40k shots for 2 shots in Epic.

Also funnily the only shooting weapon which has actually Lance in Wh40k is the Bright Lance (only Wraithlord and Phoenix Bomber has them in Epic).

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

Umm, and the in Epic-ese for those not versed in WH40K, what do the 60", 72" and 84" ranges equate to in Epic cm?

Likewise, what are the stats of the Scorpion Pulsars?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

60" = 60cm
72" = 75cm
84" = Hmmm 80cm?

There is no "Scorpion" Pulsar. All Pulsars are the same.
The stats are:
Range 60", Strength D, Armourpiercing 2, Heavy 2, 5" Blast, Primary Weapon

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

W40K Mega Vulcain has 15 shots, yes.
But one of the four EA Mega Vulcain shots can remove a full infantry stand (average 5 W40K miniatures).

Reconsider your comparison between EA and W40K, especially when it's about infantry. And remember some W40K weapons use templates (like frag missiles) which complexify a bit more the comparison between the two systems.

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr

This is the repeated cry regarding Eldar, but it misses the point completely.

Eldar AA cover may be 'the best' but it is also the most fragile, and any competent opponent will destroy or suppress Eldar ground AA in turn #1. In the case of the current 3x FP formation, it only takes one hit to break the formation which is usually easily done. The point is that enemy should ignore AA at their peril.

Furthermore all other races can add AA to most formations and typically it is a lot harder to surpress. If Eldar want ground AA they have to buy the entire formation.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

And one action of shooting is several shots of shooting in Wh40k. This is already considered. This is why a Lascannon don't has 6+ shots in Epic (as one turn of Epic is considered a whole game of Wh40k)
Also note under my System the VMB would have only 3 shots.  

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

So from these stats, a range of 75 cm is not unreasonable as it could actually get to "84cm" or higher?

Also, I suspect that the idea of linking weapons together was ditched in favour of simplicity (though it would make a cool 'special rule'   )

TRC, on the numbers, while they may come in packs of three, we do need to keep the formation brittle and appropriately costed. IMHO 5x units with AA6+ is the most the formation should have, so two reasons for not having 6x FPs.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Well under my system the Prism Cannon would have:
60cm APMW4+/AT5+
or
60cm AP4+/AT5+

2 Fire Prisms shooting together as one single shot would make it:
60cm APMW2+/ATMW3+
or
60cm AP2+/AT3+
or
60cm MW3+

3 Fire Prisms shooting together as one single shot would make it:
60cm APMW2+/AT2MW+
or
60cm MW2+

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

just would like to agree with the comments about 3 stronge units of fireprisms being too easy to break, tried it twice before the swords of vaul formation was introduced to the ulthwe list then never took them again. The larger formation however is much more usefull and was a standard part of my ulthwe army. before the flexibilty of the list was curtailed, now i play gaurd.  

@ E&C

Quote: 

the less flexibility, the greater the balance.

The logic of this escapes me, perhaps it makes it easier to CREATE a balanced new army list (new craft world, marine chapter etc.), but that dosnt mean a flexible list is nessecarily unbalanced. reduceing the flexibilty of an army list definatly makes it less fun for myself personally to use, i dont want to field the same army every time i play a certain list. if nothing else it makes the game too predictable.

_________________
"god help me, i do love it so" - Patton

BL, I am intruiged why your system does not also increase the range?

Anyhow As I said earlier, when the Swordwind stats were originally put together it seems that they may have decided to use a simplified version that was a compromise using the range of the combined weapons but the power of the individual weapon (if they used your calculation).

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Look at posting #72. Only with 4 or more Firm Prisms the range is increaded.

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

- - and I am suggesting 3-5 FPs (popular opinion seems to favour 5 for resilience), for 325 points. So they would get 75cm?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I guess this illustrates the difficulty/ peril of trying to directly translate 40k to Epic. Apart from the scale, the game mechanics appear sufficiently different to make it a fuzzy issue at best. Besides, isn't the issue balancing the unit's composition, abilities and cost within both the Eldar list and the wider Epic universe?

Give it stats appropriate to it's role, tank hull and cost. I would stick with lance, 60cm range (only Phantom and Warlock pulsars have a greater direct fire range, not even Scorpions must 75cm and they're SHGT) and a single AP/AT to hit value, even if they AP and AT bits are different, as now. Trying to work out a balanced mechanic for the multiple linked prism stats would be very hard as it will be hugely variable depending on suppression and use.

Though I wouldn't sniff at free AA on the fireprisms (how did the discussion about the list in general get so specific?), I'm kind of struggling to see why. 5 FPs with AA6+ isn't much worse than 4 FPs and a firestorm, but with a great AA range and a more potent ranged shot. I just think it would also be difficult to balance (even without lance).

I really do see the Eldar lists as they stand as well balanced (other than the slightly odd Leader on Wild Riders in the Saim Hann list), that's worth bearing in mind when the urge to tinker begins

_________________
numquam culum es

Many agree with 'Not tinkering', but from which point; the current 'official' Swordwind lists, or the 'unofficial' Handbook that uses the 1.8 Eldar revisions? Both have been widely used, and their respective groups seem to be happy with their version.

I have tried to make it clear that I like the Swordwind lists, can demonstrate they are now balanced, and see no reason to make the further changes included in the proposed 'Craftworld Eldar' list. However, the original Swordwind list had a few issues, and I was presenting a small proposal to 'fix' the Fire Prisms in the Swordwind list by reducing their AA capability while permiting a modest increase in numbers and cost. (Banshees and possibly Phoenix Bombers also need reviewing)

I agree that the WH40K comparison is tenuous, though we do seem to make these comparisons, but am also suggesting retaining the 75cm range on the Prism cannon as one of the main differentiators from the Falcon stats.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

sorry man, I don't think I have enough history with EA to comment on the different lists and their various pros and cons. I've just been playing with the EA Compendium (which I thought, wrongly I guess, was the official + errata list) and I'm happy with that. Perhaps that's a different and deeper issue than that being addressed on this thread though

_________________
numquam culum es