i´ve noted that engines of vaul see litle use in eldar lists, some people use a couple of storm serpents in portal based armies, some use void spinners for long range support, but cobra and scorpion seem a bit underpowered...
do you use this super heavies and what role do you give to them?

storm serpent -> used usually in groups of 2 or 3 in portal based armies... quite fragile though, also seems like a one trick army
void spinner-> seems to be the most used, nice long range support its a bit better than night spinners for a couple more points.
scorpion-> nice macro weapons, but costs the same points than 5 falcons... wich are far better
cobra-> nice interesting main weapon, but with such short range and not being very tough it will be destroyed inmediately... never seems to pay its cost

main comparison would be with baneblades, 3 baneblades cost the same points than 2 of our engines... we´ve got speed and skimmer but they´ve got more firepower, better armor, better firefight and cost less points...

I don't think Falcons are far better. It's the normal tradeoff of AV versus WE - Falcons pack more firepower while Scorpions are more durable. Out of the gate Falcons are undoubtedly better, but put a little pressure on them and the Scorpion quickly starts out-performing the Falcons. Drop a barrage on each formation and you'll see what I mean.

Also, a baseline comparison of firepower can be misleading. With the Scorpions' higher base to-hit they suffer less from negative modifiers, so when you compare shooting at targets in cover and/or with a double move, the firepower gap reduces substantially.


I agree that Cobras are very hit-and-miss, but when they hit, they hit big. They require careful play to get into position, which isn't necessarily consistent with the way most people play Eldar.


Skimmer and speed is huge when played right - pop-up attacks, hit and run, and forcing FF in assaults are big, big advantages compared to IG's SHTs.

And don't forget that the Engines are in a SR4 army with potential triple activation, instead of SR2.

you sure that scorpions are more durable? statistically you need 6,75 hits to destroy one scorpion or 4,5 falcons... 5 falcons cost the same than 1 scorpion, so i would consider falcons at least as durable as the scorpion... barrages are the only thing that hurt more to falcons than scorpions but falcons do have more punch than the scorpion, scorpion may suffer less from negative modifiers, but falcons have much more firepower even against targets in cover or when double moving

You only have to kill two Falcons to eliminate the formation as a threat, that same level of attack will do 1DC to the Scorpion and not degrade its firepower at all; that's where the resilience comes in.

There was some talk about upgrading the Scorpion to 3x attacks vs 2x, as, under the old pulse rules it was the unit most likely to generate three attacks. Haven't seen any playtesting or reporting on it though.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Durability isn't just about destruction. You have to consider partial loss of the formation, suppression and breaking. War engines have advantages in all those comparisons.

So, as an example, compare 3 AT hits on each formation (just because the math is easy).

Falcons average 2 kills + 1 BM, usually breaking the formation in a single volley. When the Falcons rally, they will have 40% of their original firepower (3 units, 1 BM = 2 firing). If they get lucky and only have 1 kill, they are still at 40% of their firepower (4 units, 2BMs = 2 firing), 60% after a successful rally.

Scorpions average 1 1/3 points of damage, so usually the Scorpion will take 1 point + 1 BM, remaining unbroken and with full firepower. If it takes 2 points and breaks, it will rally back with 100% firepower compared to the Falcons' 40%.

There are also some non-quantifiable issues to consider. 45cm range is in assault distance of fast units if the Falcons cannot hit-and-run, while 60cm is not. The 60cm range on the Scorpions' weapons give it almost double the amount of area to find terrain for pop-up attacks and it needs less cover because it is smaller. Those advantages are minor and dependent on good play but they are relevant.

===

BTW, I agree the Falcons are the better choice overall. The are ahead both as pristine formations and as heavily damaged formations (because the Falcons are likely to have a straggler survivor that can run around being a nuisance, while the Scorpion would probably be completely destroyed).

I'm just saying it's not a "no brainer" that the Falcons are far better.

The two formations are definitely a lot closer now than they were prior to the 2008 rules mods, when Scorpions were the only sensible choice.

Speaking as an occasional Eldar player, the only time I'd pick Falcons over Scorpions is if I wanted to have some Firestorms otherwise Scorpions all the way. Due to the 60cm range it's very easy to pull off entire games in which the opponent never gets a chance to shoot at them (except for indirect and aircraft of course).

_________________

I always thought the problem with scorpions in particular is that they are less useful when you don't know what you opponent is fielding, like in a tourney situation. If you are facing massed infantry, scorpions just don't have enough shots to be more than a nuisance.

That is less of a problem with the other EoVs.

It would be nice if the scorpion had an alternate fire setting that gives it more shots at the expense of power (AP/AT instead of MW) and/or range (45cm instead of 60cm).