An optional rule I've had in my head for years involves fire arcs for Titans. Just looking at Warlords, Reavers, Phantoms and Warlocks, you would think that the arm weapons would have the capability of swiveling around to fire behind the Titan. That being said, I propose an optional rule: arm weapons for Warlords, Reaver, Phantom and Warlock Titans have a 270 degree fire arc, basically combining forward fire arc with swivel left or right. Perhaps in fairness for Orks, this could be extended to Great and Slasher Gargants.

Thoughts?

Hi!

I've been thinking about this. I agree with the 270, but how do you measure the extra 90 degrees (45 on either side) during play? An AT style template?

In the case of gargants they were suppose to be able to fire straight back! So their fire arc is 180 bisecting the model. This means you have to stay on a gargants flank so the other sides weapons can't target you. Being in front or behind is actually disadvantageous against a gargant.

Primarch

Technically warlord weapon were supposed to be a

I was thinking overlapping the front 180 with the side 180, allowing a Titan to fire straight back like a Gargant.

Hi!

I was think more of a 90 degree blindspot in the rear, but none for the gargant with the shortcoming that weapons on each side only had and arc of fire for that side.

Primarch

I'd be okay with that. You'd could figure out that blind spot the same way you figure out rear armor facing.

My only concern is the complexity. You start adding variant firing arcs you need to make it very clear what they are and very easy to calculate.

It is also a bit of a slippery slope. If titans have various firing arcs, what about praetorians? Super heavies? Vehicles?

Oh, when I say "Imperial based Titans" I am referring to the actual SM2 era "beetle back" Titans, not the newer Warlord that looks like a walking fortress or the Warhound that just looks... ugh. I'm really not familiar with those models, so someone who is would have to weigh in.

I agree, it would add a level of complexity. Then again, Titans already have a couple of levels of complexity above any other unit type, so there would be no need to add alternate fire arcs to other unit types. It shouldn't be too difficult to indicate fire arcs on the Datacard for each class of Titan. Titans are already getting a lot of (optional) complexity added with the Experience and the Plasma Generation rules. One more option shouldn't be that big of a deal. As with all options, all players have to agree to their use, so that shouldn't be an issue.

No need to be sorry for having an opinion. However, what has been said so far for Ork Gargants are not proposals. Their fire arcs (for arm weapons) currently ARE 180 to each side, directly to the front to directly behind.

Of course, now that I've typed that, I realize that I'm taking it as true from reading that here. [Takes a moment and looks through Ork PDF.] Actually, I cannot find where in the Ork PDF it lists fire arcs for any Gargant other than the Mega. Would someone please be so kind as to specify where that info is?

I'd be in favor of having such an option in the game, but I do agree with Bissler that it shouldn't be a baseline thing. Baseline should stay 180 front for all but Mega and Imperator. (That's not exactly what you said, Bissler, but it should be close enough.)

I don't consider this to be a 'weakness' of NetEpic. I consider it a strength. It means that all models have a chance of being relevant on the battlefield. This proposal would severely weaken the basic Infantry types, and they are already quite weak as they are.

Besides, this is already covered in the interaction between the target's Armor Save value and the shooter's TSM. Doing this would not add any "character" to any models. All it would do is render most Infantry nearly useless. Even moreso than they already are.

Titans, Knights, and other Super Heavies are already immune to such stands, as is anything with a 1+ save. Titans are immune to them because such a stand can never take down their Shields (which already require a TSM of -1 to damage). Thus this change is really not needed.