Overall i feel it is just a bit overpowered, but i am accustomed to play with less activations than my opponents so i can't see their weakness in that as others. Play with 9-10 most of the time in other armies.
Reasons,
for now.
- Reavers:
1. They have access to the biggest weapons even though they never had that in any edition of this game (haven't checked AT yet) and also to every weapon, and the miniature itself has the same weapon choices as the Warhound, save two base contact weapons. That's quite strange.
http://www.solegends.com/citcat1991a/ca ... ans-01.htmhttp://www.solegends.com/citcat1991a/ca ... ans-01.htm2. They are relatively fast for a titan (20cm).
3. For a titan they aren't expensive so you can deploy several with no big hurt for activations (taking into account it is a Titan list of course).
So we have a RELATIVELY fast and not expensive Titan with the option to carry all the weapons of the list. No surprise most people don't take the Warlord. It is not only a matter of the Warlord eating too many activations but the Reaver making it useless too by being too good compared with the Warlord.
My advice is to keep the biggest weapons from them, something similar to what was done in the UK list, not only for balance but to make the choices more tactical and so they need more thought, and drop 25 points from the Warlord or make only its exclusive weapons one rank (75 to 50, 50 to 25, 25 to free) cheaper. That second option sounds better for me as it makes the Warlord a better option tactically speaking.- Close Combat weapon:
1. It is the most damaging base contact weapon of all the lists in this game by a +50%, including the experimental ones as afar as i know, and Imperial Titans in particular and human armies in general aren't known for its CC power, so there is no point for them having the best one, neither strategically nor lore wise.
2. You can take several. Even with the extra surcharge cost you can create an unbalanced monster (with two would already be), unbalanced but still a monster.
3. It can be put in a Reaver, which can outrun infantry, so half the other army would need to retreat (and their strategy crumbles), throw him sacrifices which is OK if you know you are facing the list but in tourneys can be bad, or try to defeat him which is very tricky and luck involved or very costly with CC assault reliant factions but easy with ones more shooting and FF oriented.
3. It is just 25 points. At least isn't free like before.
4. You are setting an example for other lists, and the power creep expands, have seen it in newer lists trying to emulate this weapon.
Lower its power to the one of the currently second best weapon so EA+2 TK1D3 but i would go for EA+1 TKD6 and it would still be third best which is still OP for this kind of army but acceptable. This second option would help it differentiate from the other option for base contact, so it is a more tactical option. If you don't want to lower its power, at least put it at 50 points, but that wouldn't fix much, even if it costs an appropriate amount of points it still isn't good, it's still a behemoth of a weapon.
- Melta canon:
1. It is the second best FF weapon and almost the first, and the first is in a glass canon in an army that excels in quality of its FF. The issue is less than with the previous one as this is a reliant more on FF and shoots than on base contact army by strategy and lore.
2. Has also a MW2+ TK(1D3) shoot so have no big weakness as a weapon slot even if it is 30cm.
3. Costs only 50 points.
4. Again, as one of the best ones, it helps the power creep.
Just making it 75 points would be enough in my eyes. I don't see many ways to downgrade it enough for 50 points and i prefer to not to mess in its stats just in case another army uses it too.- On the other side:
1. Maybe they are lacking one type of troops, weapons or upgrade even though an army shouldn't have a good one of each. I'll play some more games and think about it.
2. Improving Warhounds could help with fast armies, but could end up easily going overboard.
My main advice is to play this army against another with a list choosing low activations on purpose, and see what are the strenghts and weakness compared with them. It would give a more objective point of view, i think.
Also, try crazy list ideas you think are bad when testing AMTL. Most of the times, even if the ideas are horrible, and idea can appear for the ''good'' AMTL list.
mordoten wrote:
Maybe removing the single weapon surcharge or including the carapace multilasers in the cost of the titan can help?
For the first, this isn't orks or marines. They aren't that flexible and this list can't use their system and should be kept that way for flavour. The idea of the surcharge is good for this. I was thinking that even for the OGBM could be good. How about instead of dropping it making it so only affect the third weapon on Warlords and Reavers and keep the Warhound as it is
OR doing the opposite and dropping it from Warhounds and keep the other two as they are? I prefer the second option myself.
For the second part you mention, are you refering about so the Warlord would have 4+1automatic and Reaver 3+1 weapons? Looks too complicated. There has to be a better option. I prefer lower the points or giving more options over giving extra things by default.