Battlefleet Gothic: Armada

Ire wrote:I'll treat this as a honest question.

Lances, in the TT, had a half chance of dealing what this game considers 100 dmg / turn.

Pulsars were lances that if they hit, had a 50% chance to deal another 100 dmg, followed by another 50% chance for another 100 dmg.

This variable damage meant that they had much much higher damage POTENTIAL than they do now, but much less reliability, and did not have anywhere near the restrictions on facing and movement.

they were not fixed mounts, and on the voidstalker actually had a 180 degree fire arc.

they were, easily, the most powerful non-ordanance basic weapon in the tabletop.

The eldar though needed a rework from the TT due to many reasons, and so many factors do not translate well.

tldr; yeah, pretty much.

Actually the Voidstalker pulsars did not have a 180degree fire arc, 2 of them shot front and left and 2 of them shot front and right. That is more than 180degrees, but only 2 per side while all 4 could shoot in the 90 degree forward arc.
Also the voidstalkers starcannons could shoot front/left/right. So you hade 270 degrees fire arc with everything but you loose 2 lances per side if you go past the 90 degree frontal arc.

Revener wrote:
Actually the Voidstalker pulsars did not have a 180degree fire arc, 2 of them shot front and left and 2 of them shot front and right. That is more than 180degrees, but only 2 per side while all 4 could shoot in the 90 degree forward arc.

Yeah. 90 degree front plus 90 degree side = 180 degree fire arc turret, but the clarification I suppose is warranted. After all, there was no fire arcs that acted as a 180 forward arc, all 180 weapons were adjacent arcs.

Ire wrote:I don't see how you can say your math is correct when you list 1/8th for 2 hits and the same 1/8th for 3 hits on the tt pulsar.

Except he's both correct about his math and the fact that observing that the sum of your probabilities is greater than 1 is sufficient to know you've made a mistake.

I have no idea how you're getting down to 1/16ths; that would require a 4th roll.

aprg wrote:

Ire wrote:I don't see how you can say your math is correct when you list 1/8th for 2 hits and the same 1/8th for 3 hits on the tt pulsar.

Except he's both correct about his math and the fact that observing that the sum of your probabilities is greater than 1 is sufficient to know you've made a mistake.

I have no idea how you're getting down to 1/16ths; that would require a 4th roll.

Yup, I'm wrong. Apologies.

I'll blame it on I should have mathed with percentages rather than fractions, being a citizen of the metric world.

Somehow I was mistaken on subtracting the exclusionary probability of the third hit from the second.

Ire wrote:Aside from that, yes, the pulsar we have here isnt hard to hit with, that's not the problem. The problem is compaired to the 90-180 degree turrets, the need to be driving straight at your opponent - the last thing you'd otherwise ever want to do - exposes you terribly.

Starcannons are also a pretty big issue. I have no idea how to make them a worthwhile weapon without doing something like outright doubling dps or completely rewriting them to an alpha weapon (thus supplanting the role of the pulsar.)

In tabletop, there was no issue with going straight at your opponent, since you could move again before your turn. And while it'd be interesting to see them change the Pulsars to be turrets, I doubt it'll happen, for several reasons, and I'm not sure if it should happen anyway. Pulsars seem like they should be a high risk, high reward weapon, with the way they're currently implemented, and as of now, if it weren't for Taunt(/Slaanesh), that simply would not be the case. Vaul's Blessing+Boost(hell, the Boost alone will get you away fairly fast if you can turn around with a halfway decent speed) gets you away just fine, and unless you're attacking from the front (why are you attacking from the front, Eldar? Do you enjoy feeding Slaanesh?), then they won't be able to close easily during that period (which is what they should be doing, really, since the damage they'll do for the brief period you're in range/visible is going to be minimal, in all likelihood). The Eldar right now aren't underpowered where Pulsars are concerned. Other places, yes. Not Pulsars.

The thing with Starcannons is that when they're played well/your opponent doesn't have Taunt on everything, they do alright. Not great, mind. My Shadows are worse than my Solarises, which might be more about speed or my skill than anything, but nonetheless. They need a boost, but too much of a boost and they'll be out of control too. 24 DPS on the Shadow would be rather ridiculous. Boosting the damage enough that where Pulsar play is about ducking in and out of range with your strikes, while Starcannon play is about attack runs, where decisions like where to break it off, if you should just go in the full distance and then boost away on the other side so you can have a nice little boarding attack, where you should lead it in from, how to flank effectively, and all that, would make for a variety of play in the Eldar while still keeping them acceptably powerful.