is there any option to lower the cost of the twin pulsar phantom (eg. to 700pts) and add the fist back on as a 50pt upgrade?

the only downside to Chroma's suggestion of a bump to 3xMW3+ is that it would also boost the power of the pulsar+powerfist combo, without necessarily making the twin pulsar that much more appealing.

One of the issues is the points compression between Revenants (overcosted IMO), Phantom (about right) and Warlock (undercosted) - it just doesn't leave much leeway to adjust things.

IMO Chroma's suggestion puts the Phantom above where it was before the pulse changes were done to the rules years ago. It used to be up-to-three shots; this would be a guaranteed three shots each. I don't see a need to playtest that when the original rule was deemed overpowered. Quite honestly I don't know why any change needs to be done at all. There are a lot of assumptions here about the Fist being better that I think need to be picked apart with more specificity. How many times has the player used the Pulsar/Fist combo? How many times for a double Pulsar? What opponent were they playing? What kind of heavy target density was there? How did they play the Phantom?

Not to pick on E&C but the top of the thread says it all: it was posted just as a passing thought about Pulsars because other Eldar stuff was being discussed. And just like the other threads, the statement "this is a problem in search of a solution" is becoming a common response (and rightly so).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

You make some very good points Bill, but the reason the pulse rules was changed was not due to it being "overpowered", it was changed due to it encouraging non-Eldar play. It was better for a unit with pulse to "stand and deliver" rather than dart around, because it wanted to maximize the number of successful shot; that style of static play was deemed inappropriate for Eldar so the change was made to "2 x" across the board as a "mean" number of hits, not factoring in that some units, Scorpions and those with Pulsars, were normally getting 3 attacks with their weapons, even on advances.

That's why I'm suggesting trying the 3 x MW2+ on Pulsars.

you're being far too rational Mosc, be gone with you and your logical responses!

I've played twin pulsars twice, once against Guard once against SM - both cases it was held back (fragile) and killed a few bits and pieces without gaining it's points. Pulsar+fist once I think, probably against SM (loooong time ago), went forward, smashed a bunch of stuff up and was killed. Definitely got it's points back (vaguely remember it wiping out an amped Tac fm and some other stuff). Not very conclusive though, I admit.

I think the fulcrum is the difference in play styles the two options result in - twin pulsars = hit'n'run or stand and shoot, as it would be risky to throw it into combat; pulsar+fist = run, shoot, assault the monkeys out of everything in sight, consolidate to support 2ndary assaults. The first play style gives you 2-3 hits per turn, which is unlikely to make that much of a difference (2 scorpions would be better and cheaper). The second play style can literally roll a flank and turn the game.

Is "gaining its points back" really a valid metric? In the first example you had a (probable) BTS alive at the end of the game, possibly also in position to claim or contest an objective, while in the second case you killed some stuff and then got killed in return. Is really case 2) better than case 1)?

It sounds to me that the first case he had a points sink that had minimal effect on the course of the game, BTS or not, and the second was able to remove a major combat formation, which, while it was destroyed in return, must have had a significant impact on the opponent's tactics.

While a unit does not neccessarily need to gain it's points back to be effective, the 4 shots a turn from the twin pulsar will struggle to infleuence the course of the battle, let alone dictate the opponent's strategy.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Erasing four Terminators, Leman Russ, or any other hard target, at range, once per turn might influence some opponents...

Again, if people could test and post about these proposals, it would be *VERY* helpful.

It's not the only metric by which to judge the usefulness of a unit, but it is a valid one. In the first example I killed 2 Land Raiders and perhaps a bike, so it took 750pts to kill ~200pts, so that meant that the other 3/4 of my army had to work that much harder to make up for it. In the 2nd example, it took out ~5-600pts AND then took fire from a lot of enemy fms before it succumbed, which allowed me to scoot around unmolested with the rest of my army and capture more than enough objectives to make up for losing my BTS. So, although there are other things to consider, as a crude measure it's not a bad one.

you might be a bit off on your maths there Chroma - on an advance, you'll get ~2.5 hits against a LR co. so 3-4BMs and 2 or 3 tanks per turn. Sure, that might irritate your opponent and thwart his plans for that one fm, but it's not likely to really change the course of the battle. Against termies the kills would probably be fewer as they'll most likely be in cover.

Compare that to an engage against a LR co, even unprepped and unsupported (which is a little unrealistic), you're looking at ~6 normal and 1-2Tk hits, so ~4 dead LR with ~4 return hits and 2DC off. Unless you roll terribly, you stand a good chance of wiping out that LR Co. Now that will dictate your opponent's strategy Plus, that isn't taking into account the firepower that you can put out leading up to that fight (which is, what 2/3 to 3/4 of the twin pulsar Phantoms?), plus consolidating and supporting another assault.

So, even with 3xMW3+ per pulsar, I'd still take the fist, especially as the uprated pulsar would also apply to the powerfist equipped Phantom..

My desired proposal for testing is 3x MW2+ per Pulsar... so that improves its standing against a Powerfist... and you're able to do that damage from the safety of your side of the battlefield for the most part...

oh sorry, missed that

would that 3x MW2+ (tk1 I'm guessing?) also apply to the pulsar on the pulsar+powerfist combo? If it did, wouldn't that just boost that combo as well? Then again, that might make Phantoms a little more popular...

I'd take killing 200 pts for no loss over losing 700 pts to kill 600 pts any day.

Now, I can agree that the effect of shoving a titan straight up your opponents throat and forcing him to deal with it can be far superior to having your BTS intact at the end of the game, but it's not something I'd call "making its points back".


More on topic, I've never tried a Phantom, but a dual pulsar is pretty specialized. Should it be balanced against an army with hard targets (russes, LRs), against an army without them, or try to find an "average"? If I knew I was facing a Russ coy I'd like to try one, but against an ork infantry horde it's a total waste.

that's fair enough - different people and groups play differently. It would be useful though if you'd share your metric for evaluating a unit's usefulness, that way I can understand your game style better

IIRC the big issue that Sotec was trying to resolve was Revenants, that would stand still and sustain effectively getting 12x MW2+ shots, which made them really potent (but very un-Eldar like). Applying the new pulse rule across the board improved the weaker weaponry (Falcon, Firestorm, Storm Serpent) but nerfed the stronger ones (Scorpion, and Titans). However it also simplified the game by reducing the number of separate dice rolls.

For clarity on this proposal, are we to presume that the 3x shots would only apply to the Scorpion, Phantom and Warlock (armed with Pulsars) rather than other units (armed with Pulse lasers)?
Otherwise you are at risk of reintoducing the 'Revenant problem'

The "3x" proposal would only apply to weapons that had a 2+ to hit with pulse in the original rules, since they were "most likely" to get three hits.

This is not an army-wide revisiting of the pulse rule.