Okay, maybe I am getting confused here but we had a pulse weapon that would have the potential to hit 1-3 times each. We wanted to change it because we felt it encouraged static play, but giving the pulse weapon a guaranteed 3 shots isn't going to encourage static play? What am I missing here?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

If its 2+ to hit you till move. If its 3+ you have an incentive to sustain. 2x2+ I think is enough.

I agree with this, I think giving Pulsars 3 shots would be a step backwards.

The Phantom with 2 Pulsars requires a different style of play and is more suited to a defensive/cautious type of player whilst the Fist is more suited to an aggressive/engage heavy style of play. Just because most play aggressive/engage heavy and prefer the Fist (as it is usually more effective in this style) it doesn't mean the Pulsar has to have a boost .

Are there stats from Epic-UK data for how often a Warlock has been taken compared to a Phantom? I'd guess they would show the Warlock taken rather more often (personally I've seen a Warlock used a few times but I don't think I've ever Phantom taken), which would suggest it to be better.

Isn't this discussion about the Pulsar and the Power Fist though not the Warlock and Phantom.

The pulse rule encouraged "static play" thusly: to maximize your shots, you had to sustain fire, because missing on the first shot, such as trying a hit-n-run double, or even advance, meant you got no hits at all; it was better to sustain fire and maximise potential hits.

With a fixed number of high quality shots, advancing, doubling, or shooting into cover isn't as much of a penalty, so you can advance to shoot and move away, or bound around on a double, etc, and still get volume of fire. With the fixe shots, there's no real advantage to sustaining, it's almost always better to be moving to take advantage both of Eldar mobility and firepower.

Does that make sense now?

Oh, I absolutely agree we do not need to revisit the Pulse rule. But at the risk of being a bit dense, why are you not applying this to the Phantom and Warlock as well as the Scorpion - otherwise you run the risk of confusing people by having different stats for a single weapon?
(While the titan's Pulsars are MW3+ 'Pulse' weapons, the Scorpion gets +1 for having twin Pulsar weapons giving it a MW2+ shot.)

Also, this need not apply to the Revenants which have different weapons (Revenant Pulse Lasers)

why can it stay at 2 x 2+ but change it to TK2 ? so your still only getting the same shots but making it more usefulfor what i see was its intended purpose to hunt superheavies and other titans ? giving it x3 just makes it a great general amour killer where as the tk2 shuffles it more sideway into a hunting roll ?


Just food for thought.


Tim NZ

My mistake, it's for the Phantom, Warlock, and Scorpion that I'd like to see this tested.

Okay, I understand where you are going with this now, although I am still dubious about the need for such a change. You're the champ, but I think you are opening up a can of worms on this. The Eldar have been IMO a considerably stable list since the changes several years ago and mucking around is going to have unintended consequences.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

54 eldar lists in the database.

2 had Phantoms (one listed PF, the other doesn't say), 18 Warlocks, 8 Revenants and 26 without any titans.

The meta at UK tournaments is very biased towards the engagement game so I'm not surprised that warlocks are most popular.

Concur. The twin pulsar fits the Titan into a specific type of role which is always going to be less useful than a more flexible, multipurpose one. I've used the Phantom quite extensively and can say quite confidently that it is a very good titan. It's got more range than the Warlock and it's long range TK is useful. The Warlock mainly tends to see play time at higher points levels and it's fully worth the extra 100 pts, being able to retain on a 1+ and allowing 2 retains.

I always prefer the PF Phantom because I play an aggressive style and favour flexibility over generalisation. If you were to improve the Pulsar however (Even though I don't feel it needs it) I'd vote for 2x 2+, as this allows it to double, fire 4 x 3+ TK shots + the missiles and then still lend support to an engagement with 6 x 3+ FF shots. 3x 2+ would be far too good.

Regarding Phantoms vs Warlocks:
If the standard tournament list was 3500pts you'd see a lot more Phantoms - it'd certainly be a feature in my army list. As it is, it's 3000 pts and Eldar tend to need the activation advantage so, Titans aren't that common. Taking a big Titan at 3000pts tends to concentrate your entire list around utilising the titan making it uber important, hence people tend to find the extra 100pts for the Warlock because it's more reliable. With the jump up to 4000pts, it's often the only real time you'll get the opportunity to include a Titan in an effective army list (I'm always going to take a Warlock at 4000pts cos I like me big toys).

In short, the lack of Phantoms is mainly due to the metagame and the standard tourny points limits, not due to any deficiency with the Titan itself.

On the other hand, I'm not really aware of any meta where Phantoms are particularly well regarded.


I think Chroma's idea on how to make the various Pulsars viable is probably ok ; I think what EUK did with the Scorpion Pulsar is ultimately going to prove to have done basically nothing to make the Scorpion a viable unit choice.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I disagree. I think 75cm is very respectable and has made me think about choosing them in varient lists where there are no Void spinners allowed.

Good luck with that. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter