Quote: (Ginger @ 02 Jan. 2009, 10:28 )
I recall an old kids joke that might give a clue here:-
"Why do ducks have flat feet? To stamp out forest fires."
"So why do elephants have flat feet? To stamp out flaming ducks!"
So the question that come to mind is "Why do titans have flat feet? . . ."
A rather amusing joke, for certain. And I agree, some Epic-Koans would be rather hilarious! But still kindof missing the point. Titans can stamp out tanks after all just as efficiently as infantry!
I guess what I'm wondering is why is there only one 45cm ranged weapon which focuses on anti-infantry when we have two 60cm ranged weapons focusing on tanks? Especially as we've got large numbers of MW weapons which are generally better off firing at tanks than at infantry (Especially cheap, numerous infantry like IG) since tanks usually have better armor saves. While assaults are one way to try and deal with them, it'd be kinda nice to have a more viable alternative than the vulcan megabolter to put on a warlord or reaver, is all.
We have 2 AT-centered and 6 MW weapons (Not including the support missiles), would having a second AP-centered weapon be a bad thing?