Quote:
because your numbers ignore range, and gloss over the slot use.
Really? When we do a direct comparison using the same number of slots, there is never a time the destructor is a better idea. The added 15cm range almost never comes into play on the table. This is fact. Regardless, lets look at the numbers for the plasma family:
The Plasma Cannon pays 25 points for a 33% increase in shots and a 25% increase in range over the PBG. The Plasma Destructor pays 75 points for a 50% increase in shots and a 40% increase in range over the PBG. Looking at it a different way, the Destructor pays 66% more for a 25% increase in shots and a 20% increase in range compared to the PC.
Furthermore, over the course of a typical three turn game, both fire the same number of times. If you take a single destructor or PC, the destructor hits an average of 6.72 times while the PC hits 5.04 times on average. Ignoring armor for the moment or other saves a target might have, over the course of the game you can expect the Destructor to perform approximately 25% better than the PC. The PC on the other hand can expect a performance increase of 33% over the PBG. The key point here is that there isn't even a linear increase in capability between the PC and Destructor despite the Destructors tripling in cost.
That can read that the PC is too good and needs a nerf, but this is where our comparison to other weapons in the 25 point range comes into play which I've shown earlier the PC fits with pretty well statistically. That means the issue isn't with the PC, it has to be with the Destructor.
So going back to the destructor, if we increase the shots to 6 while keeping the price at 75 points the numbers look like this: The Destuctor pays 66% more than the PC for a 50% increase in shots which translates into a 50% increase in average hits. That's ok, the weapon is one of the most expensive options you can take and it should pack a punch.
Now lets look at the second option I mentioned. The destructor cost drops to 50 points and it gains +1 shot. This gives the destructor a 30% increase in shots over the PC which is in line with the PC's increase over the PBG we noted earlier. This also increases the Destructor's average hits per game to 8.4 which is a 20% increase over the current Destructor and a 40% improvement over the PC. Cost wise you pay twice as much as a PC. This is also an ok adjustment since it brings it in line with PC in terms of cost vs. capability.
This leaves us with how much is range worth. The PBG is free at 45cm and it regularly gets mounted on one of the fastest platforms the AMTL can field. The PC bumps the range by 15cm but still only costs 25 points which is inline with other battle titan grade weapons. Frankly, that tells me range in a titan list isn't worth much once you hit 60cm. That's something I've seen borne out in games time and again. The only time it hasn't held true is with the CLP, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
So, I don't know what you are trying to prove in the above post, but the number don't back your position in the least. Furthermore, your comparison is entirely bogus. Adding the PBG is a red herring. You can do the same combination with another PBG or a PC or even a GB or TLD: The addition of the PBG is entirely extraneous to the discussion.
Quote:
If the plasma cannon is fair, and any of your suggested changes make the plasma destructor clearly and significantly better than the plasma cannon, then how can these changes possibly be making the destructor "fair" too?
You are setting up a false comparison.
The entire point of this exercise is to see that each weapon is balanced in terms of paying a number of points that appropriately values the capabilities the weapon has. This doesn't mean all weapons perform equally. It means that a weapon that costs significantly more should perform significantly better than a cheaper weapon. In this case, the Destructor costs significantly more for an insignificant increase in capability. That's not balanced.