The Executioner plasma cannon may well be over-statted.

The key thing is to keep the unit balance, so recosting isn't required in all lists using plasma cannons. Whatever we come up with should be equivilent in power to the old slow firing stats. This is part of the reason I'm recommending 30cm AP5+/AT5+. Over a 3 turn game it's statistically almost idential (3x5+ as opposed to 2x4+)

Personally I'd rather see minor unit rebalance be necessary, than have the Plasma Cannon lose its identity as a vicious heavy-infantry killer. I know I'm speaking as someone who wants to use Plasma Cannons in his list, but it feels like 30cm 5+/5+ becomes rather mediocre compared to even the standard Autocannon/Missile Launcher at 45cm 5+/6+.

The hard part about statistical comparisons like that is it assumes three turns of Advancing and firing at units out of Cover. Considering how slow the Demolisher is, the Slow Firing allowed it to spend a turn Marching if it needed to, and when Doubling the 4+ got reduced to a still-decent value of 5+. Assuming one turn of no firing, the 4+ becomes important. Additionally, when all three turns are spent doubling, the 3x6+ comes up rather short against the 2x5+ firing. Sustaining would make the 3 shots with a 5+/5+ base profile come ahead, but there is essentially no scenario in which a Demolisher will spend an entire game sustaining.

Currently, the burst capability of the Demolisher is part of what makes it roughly equivalent to the Leman Russ. Due to it's greatly reduced range, it makes up the difference via the ability to drop 2x4+ shots once it does reach that range. Dropping Plasma Cannons to 30cm 5+/5+ will make them roughly equivalent to the Heavy Bolter sponsons, reducing the advantages of its specialization relative to the base Leman Russ. It won't have a 75cm main gun, and only Ignore Cover and AP3+ on the main gun to compensate for it's threat range being cut roughly in half. That alone is going to require rebalancing.

When I use Demos in my Minervans, I find 30cm AP5/AT5 to be... OK. IT's helpful to be able to use the sponson armament as AP or AT, but it 'feels' like a sponson that's half Lascannon, half HB. AP4/AT5 or AP4/AT6 would be better, IMO. Really good at killing infantry, but average to poor at armor hunting.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Don't really see the hassle in monitoring slow firing myself.

And I think you need to look at a thread that is over 2 years old and not reached a consensus.

I guess it's something the AC's with effected units (Rug and Dobbsy + anyone else?) may want to debate?

From my reading of the thread I see about even numbers or people for and against removing slow firing. I wouldn't get all excited just yet! And also remember the structure of the netERC is currently in flux.

OMG! It's hard to believe over 2 years has passed since the original post! But I still feel as I did on page 1.

There were some good counter-arguments but Slow Fire still just seems odd among the abstraction of Epic.

I'd be happy to see it removed if the ERC eventually consents. It would obviously help alleviate some teething/sticking point issues with some lists using plasma.

Now having said all that, are those wanting to change it prepared for a possible price increase for balance reasons....?

I will point out that 2 years ago Rug didn't see the need to remove slow firing.

From what I've read it looks like the people that didn't want change said so and shut up, while those pro changed continued to debate it. No surprise there then!

This is why in general it's a bad idea to point at a thread and say "see? Everybody Agrees with X, we should implement X" as only people who feel strongly about something will post about it; I for instance quite likes low firing and the variation in weans it brings. I don't think I posted in this thread before now though.

For sure people have arguments against it, that's obvious. The thing however, is are those arguments considerably more weighty than the reasons for it? e.g A reason against it is because it's fluff based. A reason for it is because it makes it reduces confusion. Out of the two, which is more important...?

The above are just examples not actual opposing reasons... err, sorry to go all political party ad-campaign on you - I'm a bit tired

Well, there seem to be 2 reasons for a change...it doesn't match 40k and people don't like book keeping.

The anti's say book keeping is fine and some will say matching 40k isn't a priority.

Also slow-firing is more fitting for large weapons who need an insane amount of energy (Titan-grade Plasma weapons...but even then it doesn`t match Wh40k behaviour) or have very limited amunition (which is, in essence, Single-Shot in Wh40k like the 4 missiles of the Manticore).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Except those who think book keeping is fine will not miss it if it is implemented unless they take perverse pleasure in having to keep track of what infantry/tank unit has fired what, and when

So the crux is now simply is it 40K or not? And I don't think that's a massive issue.

I'm sure there may be other reasons for the negative but I'm too tired to search for them right now.