Even when factoring in speed and Holofields? I think you'll find that even with DC9 the Revenants are harder to destroy (maybe even when you factor in that they have to work closer to the enemy).

And not the same critical at all!

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

Assuming the range of the Scorpion is 60" in 40K, which it still is, based on the information I've seen in this thread, then yes they do support a 75cm range. Even if the range has changed since the early Scorpion rules, there is precedent for it having a longer range than is currently the case.

Regardless, the comparison between 40K and Epic can be exaggerated, and not always very useful, as stated above, so let's not get too carried away with this.

The key question is whether a range increase is a balanced and workable option, not whether it fits with 40K rules.



Which tournament community? Epic or 40K?

I still play 40K. How many games both of us have played in terms of 40K isn't going to get us any further forward.



I'm in favour of a change to the Scorpion if it's a positive one, made for the right reasons. I haven't seen anything yet which looks like a change for the better to me. It's a very easy to make the Scorpion overpowered, and that's my concern with changing its shot output, in addition to rendering it incapable of keeping up with mobile Aspect formations, and being able to provide them with anti-vehicle fire support.



Space Marines don't have artillery and super heavy tanks. You would be adding these to the army as new units. Increasing the range of the Scorpion is not comparable, as you would not be breaking a fundamental way in which the army operates. All you would be doing is increasing the range of one super heavy tank, which is supposed to have a long range in any case.

_________________

3 Scorpions w/ 75cm range can pop-up all day, whereas Revenants can't. That's a big difference.

_________________

LotM
While it may be desirable to try to make the various EoV equivalent in power, I doubt very much whether this is practical, not least because of the widely different capabilities and factors that affect each type. Mixing and Matching is certainly possible, but rarely practiced even at 5K and above - though increasing the Cobra range or the Scorpion shots may encourage experimentation.

On the comparison between three Scorpions with 3* shots and Revenants, much depends on the Scorpion weapon range and power when combined with the unit speed.
3* MW3+ at 60cm is pretty much equivalent. However 3* MW2+ is superior especially when combined with 75cm.

Out of perverse curiosity, since we keep refering to the WH40K 'guide' , could someone list the relevant speed and weapon stats for the Revenant, Scorpion and Phantom (together with a translation to E:A if possible), so we can have a uniform basis for such comparisons (flawed though they may be ).

Also just now, while I understand the intent, I agree with the others that 2* MW2+ (TK1) does not 'do it for me' at any range because it starts to move into the niche / role of other E:A Eldar units, especially if we go with increasing the Cobra range to 45cm.

That's a very valid point, but Indirect Fire doesn't prevent Guard Artillery companies from being a sucktastic BTS. Scorpions are more survivable than an arty company, but not that much harder once they are attacked. (RA on the 5+ save and skimmer is valuable, but is it enough?)

I'm not saying they're not viable as a BTS, but if Indirect Fire doesn't make an arty co viable, how can pop up attacks make Scorpions over the top?

On stats: I'm pretty sure it should be 3x 2+ OR 75cm, not both.

Actually another argument to find an alternative to the range increase would be that it makes mix/mathcing far easier. Cobras and Storm serpents are/might be at 45 cm range, so to mix with 75 cm ranged scorpions makes not much sense.

Concerning the stats for the different weapons, my first post states both revenat stats and scorpion stats in 40k.

The only stats missing are the Phantom ones.

Librarian Black Legion?

@all: is there support for 3xMW 2+ at 60 cm range?

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

Just checked the WH40K stats referred to in my post on p1 of the thread
Apparently Revenant and Scorpion use the same weapon in WH40K, though Scorpions are twin-linked.
However, the Phantoms are much stronger and longer ranged.

Allowing for the 'elastic' ranges in E:A and comparison with IG seems to be the reason the Phantom range was pegged back to 75cm, and the Revenants were evidently pegged back to 45cm to 'nerf' an obvious choice
Following this logic suggests that Scorpion ought to be 60cm, though 75cm certainly does give it more utility, which is evidently why E-UK use this boost.

So for the Scorpions I would prefer the counter-proposal of 3* MW3+ at 75cm, rather than 3* MW2+ at 60cm
That said, both will need testing preferably with multiples if at all possible.

Thanks Irisado and Tim, that was in fact what I was saying, not indulging in an Epic cock waving contest.

I can't help but feel that I've been straw-maned here. The argument regarding range and Eldar is a fatuous one. i think you'll find that swordwind fireprisms have a 75cm range too, so it was clearly not an intentional limiting of the range by Jervis or GW.

I've been over the arguments about why you'll never get parity with the different EoVs because of the different roles they have and the gaps they fill in the list. No-matter what stats you give the Scorpion it'll always be competing against Falcons and EUK fire prisms who have a wider spread of abilities, some of which are essential. The Void Spinner however is capable of filling a gap that Eldar have and has no other real competition for its spot. You could make the Scorpion have 6 x TK shots at 2+ and my BT list still probably wouldn't include any at 3000pts. Why? Because i need: Combat power and a SC, Guardians and access to farsight, Garrison units, AA units. Once all of these have been picked I'm very short on points. Void Spinners allow me to stop artillery from hitting my small fragile units, turn 1, and cover the entire board with artillery cover, especially useful for breaking up enemy attacks and placing blast markers. The Scorpion can't do any of these things and so is always going to be second rate in a BT army of 3000pts, especially if the range stays at 60cm. Remove the VS though, as is the case with other craftworld lists like Ulthwe and Iyanden and suddenly it's attractive, although, for me only because of the extra range. Without the range increase to 75cm I'd probably just take an extra 2 fms of Fireprisms or 1 FP and 1 Falcon because of their extra utility as AA units and greater range/weight of fire and maneuverability.

However it's been glossed over with strawman arguments and completely ignored, mainly i suspect because Lordotmilk wants the Scorpion to have more shots.

Oh and if we're doing the who's been Eldar-ing longest I started playing Eldar in 1994 in 40k and have played quite literally thousands of games with Eldar in both Epic and 40K including more than 1 40K UKGT final. I'm very aware of their characteristics and fluff. One purpose built war engine having long range guns does not in any way go against established background, so can we please drop this nonesense which is only turning into a sideshow and sucking effort away from the real debate which is improvements to the Scorpion.

Another issue to be factored in: Why pick NetEA Fire Prisms over Scorpions?

At 3xMW 2+ 60 cm or at 75cm MW 3+ for the Scorpion, the FPs seem lackluster, while they currently are a perfectly good choice in the list (5 at 325, or 6 at 390).

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

Why would anyone take NetEA Fire Prisms full stop? They suck. Especially at that price. I can think of much better ways to spend 325 pts.

AT 2+ Lance, but I see your point.

However that does not allow for the way the Fire Prisms were nerfed in the 2008 revisions (IMO inappropriately) at the same time as the Scorpion was nerfed by the Pulsar changes. I believe this is one of the reasons that E-UK returned to these stats. Equally the E:A stats and mechanics have not translated the WH40K mechanics at all well - effectively they are almost competely different vehicles sharing the same name.

Consequently Scorpions and Prisms do different jobs in E:A, not least because in the original Swordwind stats, Prisms also have AA which is their differentiator over Falcons + FireStorms. We have to be very carefull here to retain the overall balance across the Eldar lists.

Comparing like for like under the original Swordwind stats, even with 75cm the Scorpion is more resilient and a better AT hunter and more generalist but at a shorter range; while the Fire Prism provides longer ranged hit-n-run against AT targets and an AA 'umbrella' under which to operate.

Worthy of note - if you were advancing or sustaining, then with the origin stats 70% of the time you had 3 shots (before the 2008 downgrade).

Averaging things out, it probably had an average of what, 2.5ish hits(?) on a typical advancing or sustaining action (no modifiers). It now has an average of 1.67 hits when advancing/sustaining.

So it has been downgraded in number of shots from what it originally had, and iirc not for balance concerns but for style concerns.

3x shots at 3+ would be an average of 2 hits on an advancing or sustaining action... Below its original number of expected hits (which as I said, never caused any Balance problems that I remember, Eldar lost "pulse" entirely because of style of play reasons). I guess the balance of number of hits will close as you add modifiers due to how "pulse" used to work, and I've not done the full spread of stats with doubling or cover modifiers, but my main conclusion is that when Advancing or Sustaining 3x 3+ is still worse than the original swordwind stats, stats that were "accidentally" downgraded, and were not downgraded due to concerns that they were overpowered.

The 2008 change to "Pulse" was not intended to be an upgrade or a downgrade, but to be a change to the Eldar playstyle (hopefully inspiring more use of fluid playstyles).


Food for thought.




Disclaimer- Some maths above is approximate and was marked with a (?). I have had four hours' sleep.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I have found great use in that formation. Admittedly, its use is very specific to RA heavy tanks, but specilaized weaponry is all Eldar are about.

They could do with a price decrease, perhaps, but sincerely I am happy with them, and I understand quite a few others are too.

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