As a non Void Spinner player, I don’t have the model and don’t see myself getting one in the near future, I have tried out various different options of the other EoV. With this in mind, when looking at the taking a Scorpion it is a question of what role do I see for it. At my last tournament I took 4000pts of Saim-Hann to Britcon. This list included 3 EUK Scorpions. The role for them in this list was to focus on smaller formations with their MW shots hopefully killing two stands a turn and breaking the target formation. Now this didn’t always work, rolling 1’s & 2’s, failed activations etc. but the biggest thing that I found as a problem were the rules affecting pop-up attacks and units hiding behind cover. I found it very difficult to draw a line of sight to the units that I wanted to hit.

So the thing that I’m trying to bring to this discussion is that people need to think able how much & what type of terrain they are playing with and how the pop-up terrain shadow also affects the list.

I can definitely still see the benefits of a 60cm ranged Scorpion with a discount on multiple in the same formation, say 3x Scorpions for 600pts vs Revenants at 650pts.

I don't really fear scorpions even with the extended range.
Discount for multiples on EoV's is a no brainer IMO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

60 cm is mid-range in epic. Fire prisms have 75 cm range only in the UK so that's not relevant.

This leaves the Void spinner, which is heavy artillery, and the Phatom which has oversized weapons, and what I am suggesting is precisely his niche.

Concerning the range and the Eldar, I have played Eldar for years in all versions of 40k and one of the designed flaws of the race is very long range. Opposed to IG, Eldar do not stand a chance in a shooting game, and not because of of the power of the weapons, but because of the range.

I think that's good, was represented in Swordwind, and should continue to be represented in Epic. I perfectly understand that this is not the opinion of EUK (obviously), and I am not saying that EUK's decision is bad from a balance perspective, what I am saying is that it does not fit with the design framework of the Eldar list as well as it should.

It would be a bit like giving a heavy artillery unit to SM, or giving Orks a 4+ save Armored Vehicle. Could be perfectly balanced but out of flavour.





I am sorry but any argument along the lines of: "we are better tournament players and therefore know better" is really not very constructive. Also, we obviously have a very different idea of the meaning of hardcore. The point of the thread here is to find alternative Scorpion stats, and hopefully find an even better solution to the EUK one which has the design flaw I am mentioning, and besides does not really solve the problem of the unit, because for 250 points there really are better buys in the list for the same role.


@Tiny-Tim: Interesting point The new Skimmer rules really ***ed a lot of skimmer techniques. Going over terrain features at very long range has become really hard, thereby making very long range skimmers less useful (vultures anyone?). Do you have something in mind?

@all: how about just 60cm 3x MW 3+ ?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I'm opposed to 3x3+, simply because the improvement compared to 2x2+ is the greatest on Sustain Fire (50% more hits against targets in the open, vs 12.5% or 20% in other situations).

Either 75cm range or 3x2+ would get my vote. The advantage of 3x2+ is that the improvement is constant irregardless of to-hit modifiers. The question is if 50% more firepower is too much.

Just to throw some cold water on this, I don't think that Stomp was claiming that the UK players were better, instead he was describing the type of players that were used in the testing.

(Off topic, from what I have heard, there are some other countries which have some really WAAC tournament players - however this was for 40k & Fantasy, I'm sure none of the current Epic players would ever consider acting like this )

Yes, but in order to sustain, you actually have to spend 2 turns in the open, and at least one completely static. And we are talking of a 250 points unit with "only" 5+ RA and little ability in assaults.

I don't believe it is the same problem as for the Revenants, where the same argument was made at the time the MW 4+ to hit was argued. Revenants are far more resilient in the open because of their shield, and therefore less vulnerable to Shadowswords/Zzaps/Annihilators/Railguns/etc.

For the scorpion, the issue is more that at 3+ you won't want to double, but will try to advance. Which is fine imho. Arguably also, if you are ok with 3xMW 2+ because it is a 50% increase all the time, why would you be against the same increase but only on sustain?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

The Cobra discussion.



I don't understand how you draw that conclusion. In this incarnation of Epic, 60cm is a long ranged weapon. Even 45cm could be classified as being a long range in EA, although I would also accept a mid range label for this distance.



You're drawing some very strange conclusions based on very tenuous evidence.

I've played Eldar in 40K since 1991, and in Epic since Renegades came out, and I don't follow the point that you're trying to make. Yes, Eldar will lose a long ranged fire fight, but this is not because they don't have access to long ranged weapons, it's because they do not have long ranged artillery which drops massive shells and barrage. Trying to argue that the range of the Scorpion should not be increased on the basis that the Eldar are, for the most part, a hit and run small arms army is unconvincing in my view on that basis.




That's not how I read Stompzilla's post. His point, in my view, was that he has posted his view, which you have disregarded completely by just saying that increasing the range is a design flaw.



I think that you need to elaborate on your playing environment. Are you trying to boost all these units, so that they meet with your expectations for top tier gaming? If so, this is inappropriate in my opinion. Also, see Tiny-Tim's point about WAAC players.



I disagree with your presentation of the Epic UK solution as a design flaw. I don't play in Epic UK tournaments, but I don't think that it's fair to label their solution as a flaw. For it to be flawed, the change would have to have created some kind of imbalance, or made the Scorpion dysfunctional. This is not the impression I get from reading the posts from Epic UK players here.



Wouldn't that make it too good when opting to sustain? It then becomes pretty one dimensional tactically; whereas at the moment, there is little incentive to sustain, and using it as mobile gun platform makes it far more interesting to play in my opinion.

_________________

One 'idle thought'guys, 3* shots per Scorpion will make a a formation of three quite a potent force, and at DC9, potentially viable as a BTS. As such, I think it would be rather better than Revenants, so 750 points (thus no discount) would seem appropriate, and possibly even slightly undervalued.

Note, while 3* Void Spinners can be viable in larger games, I am less sure about 3* Storm Serpents or Cobra's (except perhaps for resilience in very large games). The point being I suspect going to 3* shots on the Scorpion may well preclude a discount for multiple EoV.

The same consideration needs to be applied to the weapon range and power on a three strong formation, though as Tim suggests, that may well depend on other factors.

AFAIK the Cobra has always had TK in its stats? Where do you see anyone proposing to add TK on any other unit?





15-30 cm short range, 45-60 cm mid range, 75 + long range.

If you want we can change the wording and say:

15 very short range, 30 short range, 45 cm mid range, 60 long range, 75 crazy range.

It doesnt change the point I was trying to make: Eldar in Swordwind only had two units 75+ range (Phantom and Void Spinner), it gave a feel to the army, I like it, I think it is worth preserving and am arguing for it here.




Was there a design intent in SM/TL other than: add tons of shootyness to miniatures? Honestly, no wonder they thought E40k was an improvement. At least there, there was no trying to hide the fact that Epic was all about adding firepower.

In 40k, how many Weapons in the Eldar armory have 48" range (45 cm in Epic)? and how many have 60"(60+ range in Epic?)? And how many have more than that (75 cm in Epic)?

Now I am not arguing that we should slavishly follow WH40k for anything really, except that the whole feel of the Eldar has always been for me : High assault power, Crazy Mid range shooting, no survivability. And it is not only a feeling, it is what the army lists provide, including the current NetEA BT, which is what we are talking about right now.

Giving the Scorpion very long range shooting adds a tool to the Eldar bag of tricks that was only filled by the very specific to BT Void Spinner, and the Phantom Titan, which is very special unit in its own right. Democratizing huge range in BT I think would be a mistake, in the same line as allowing SMs to have Heavy artillery, or SHTs.




This topic is about the Scorpion SHT, for which there is large amounts of evidence that a large number of players would like to see/feel the need for a improvement. I would rather we stay on topic.

I would gladly discuss with you of my mid-term goals for the Epic community here in Switzerland, but I do not believe this thread is about my agenda.



I don't think the EUk solution is a design flaw. I think it has a design flaw. I am glad however than distinguished englishmen are happy about the solution, but I do not see that fact as enough justification to adopt the same one here. I understand that you may not share my opinion however and am glad that you take the time to come out with it.

Concerning the design issue, I have already stated and argued what I thought, so unless you do not understand something, I would like to refer you to the above.



Please see my answer to Ulrik above on this issue.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

This is precisely why I would like for us to discuss the different EoV's and make them equivalent in power, before we go further on the multpiple EOV issue. Also note that you could mix and match the different EoV's in case of multiple, like 2 Cobras and a storm serpent, or2 strom serpents and a scorpion.

Concerning three scorpions at 650 points and with 3xMW 3+, I dont see them as a superior choice to Revenants, but as valid alternatives with different uses, don't you? If not, why?

@all: would you prefer 2x2+ MW (TK 1)?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

No !
I'm against any "TK" on Scorpions.

F-ERC has 2xMW3+(TK1) on the Scorpion. Have you tried it? If yes, what's wrong with it?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

_________________

@Irisado: As stated at the beginning of this thread, the 40k stats do not support 75 cm range. Arguably, there is very little in Eldar 40k that would support such a range in Epic. . If you have the codexes on hand, you would oblige us by telling us what weapons currently have more than 48" range in 40k.

Concerning the desirability for a change, again as stated in my first post, it seems a vast majority agrees the Scorpion could use a boost. You are obviously in a minority here.

Concerning the sacred cow, I disagree with you. Every list has some and they are very important. Also, I don't see how your argument on SM Heavy Artillery is relevant.

Concerning the use of words design and flaw and the possible different interrelations, my use of words was precise beacuse I do not think EUK 's reasoning on this issue wrong. I just think that the sacred cow I mentioned was either not taken into account or discarded which gave a flawed result in my sense. The reasoning was perfectly solid.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

my only comment on this is to request that people stop using 40k stats as a basis for anything...... I remember 2nd edition when an assault cannon could put out the same amount of firepower as 3 autocannons or 9 krak missiles.... it's pointless to use the 40k stats as a basis for any ruling in epic, if anything it should be the other way around, there is just no way that deathstrikes for example, should even be in 40k, as Curis' cartoon so eloquently points out.....

40k represents a small skirmish inside a bigger campaign (a single engage action in epic) why on earth are we judging epic weapons by those sorts of standards? a boltgun has a 24" range..... the best superhuman soldiers in the imperium of man have a gun with a range of ~130 feet.... seriously???

I say stop making the stats fit the 40k equivalents, make them fit the role they are intended for in the game of epic, unless of course that brings you out in a cold sweat and you can't reconcile it, in which case, maybe, just a teensy tiny bit maybe you might consider that you're playing the wrong game?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator