The thing is, does that make them "too good when they sustain"?  *laugh*

There is the "fragility" factor, and I think the "too good" thing also played into the old Pulse rules, which are gone.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Brace yourselves for a wave of 8 x MW2+ attack comments any time about.....now!

For me, they are not too powerful. As the most expensive scout titans in the game and forced to be in pairs there should be some reason to field them! When they sustain they are quite good, but I was rarely given the opportunity to do it by my opponents.

Hey, at least it ain't 12x MW2+ attacks.

And people say the new Eldar Pulse rule encourages static play...  

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'd like to suggest that a 5th Night Spinner be allowed to be added to the formation (for whatever the appropriate point cost).

The effect on firepower with no BMs would be zero, but it would allow the troupe to maintain 2 templates with a single BM, in the same way a whirlwind detachment can have a single BM but still fire 2 templates.

The 5th tank would also give the formation visual similarity to a falcon troupe, which would be a pleasing asthetic.

I think that 5 Night Spinners are closer to being worth 400pts than 4 NS are.

Yeah, I thought that was the argument against the *old* Pulse rule!  *laugh*

If you're in a position to sustain like that, it means either 1) you've had to move up to the enemy and they can shoot at you or 2) the enemy has moved to you... and has shot at you!  *laugh*

When I get back from vacation I'll sift through the old threads for any clues.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

If anyone could give such a Troupe a few playtests, that would be spectacular!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Just a reminder that army discussions should probably take place in the actual Eldar section.

If you can tag your post title with the specific Craftworld, if appropriate, that would be great!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I do plan on play testing this list a few times, but not sure if I will be able to fit this formation. I just think they cost a little too much.

I'm okay with that, compared to the average 8.4 MW hits from sustaining with 3+MW pulse.

===


Moo?  I'd really like to see anyone back that up.

_________________
Neal

I've heard the opinion expressed by several UK tournament go'ers, including their chairman.

What they say is 'static' is actually the Eldar moving forwards at full speed, firing, then moving backwards at full speed to arrive back where they started... apparently the 2008 update incentivises this behaviour over more 'mobile' behaviours, in their experience (or so I was told a year ago anyway, opinion may or may not have changed in the mean time).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

That sounds silly to me.

I mean, isn't that the point of the move-shoot-move rules? What do they expect? The eldar player to hang their a** out to get shot?

If you find good cover within single move range of a good target, why wouldn't you keep moving back to it? It's not like it happens 100% of the time; half the time you can scoot from one set of cover to another.

The only way to get rid of that kind of playing is to ditch the abilty to shoot before a move. I don't see how the 2008 update makes it any more pronounced. Weren't people playing like that from the start?

Can't say I've heard any UK tournament goer's express this opinion.

Some think the new pulse rule took away a bit of fun (i.e. those that roll good dice  ).

From conversations I had many thought that the revenant nerf was a step to far and had concerns with other changes put forward in 1.8 and were pretty happy that Jervis accepted very few of them.

But I have obviously been in different conversations to E&C.

It wouldn't have been so bad if there had been an accompanying drop in points, but with the nerf they just weren't worth 650 points any more.

I really like Revenants (because I think they're cool and I love the models rather than for their in-game effectiveness), so I was glad when the 1.8 changes were dropped and they went back to being 3+. I'm now rather worried that downgrading them is back on the cards.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

I only remember a few of the tournament players who I game against regular saying the Eldar now played like Eldar after the changes,especially with the new pulse rule.

I do remember Joe and maybe few others weren't keen on a lot of the 1.8 revision.
A lot of players (me include)thought that it went too far and the list only needed a small amount change to balance it, which is what happened.

Matt Otter expressed the opinion to me (about Pulse-equipped Eldar now playing in a more "static" manner), and a couple others whose names I didn't catch, who may indeed have been as irregular as myself. Maybe Matt Arnold mentioned the same opinion to me once, I'm not sure at all about that though.

As I said, it was about a year ago (at last year's Open War, IIRC), so I could well have misinterpreted what was meant by "static", or mis-remembered in the mean time, etc.


===

As far as 1.8 goes, I do like that the NetEA lists have kept the stat changes to the Fire Prisms.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter