Sounds a good idea.

Net Effect for Reavers with 2 Quakes & a CLP : +25pts
Net Effect for Warlord titans with 3 Quakes & a CLP : No change

Side Effect: Reavers & Warlords with Quakes but no CLP likely become viable.
Side Effect: Reavers & Warlords with AMLs or Inferno Guns + CLP's possibly no longer viable.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This change would just add 75pts to the other BP weapon/CLP combos (not as often seen, granted). This idea would do nothing to increase the other, rarely seen, BP weapons on Titans. It's true that the Inferno Gun and Rocket Launcher are not as good as the Quake Cannon but then they do not cost as much.

It has been mentioned that the 2x Quake/CLP combo is not unbalanced or over/under priced by many in previous threads.

I'd really rather see the Titan players pushed to win their games with a special rule than see any more tinkering with stats for the moment.

Again, I mean no offence so don't take any!

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I do not like the proposal. 2x quake + CLP is expensive as it is, why penalize it more for a combo that you've said isn't unfairly priced? Beyond penalizing Titan player, skitarii also uses the weapon points for the minorus and majoris why should they be penalized too?

I agree with Onyx.

_________________
-Vaaish

Because a 25pt ajustment is fairly small, whilst it would also make direct fire Quake Cannons an appealing prospect.

Regardless, it seems people only want Quake Cannons to be indirect firing weapons, so I guess I'll drop it.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I have expressed my view in the other thread about CLP and twin quake. I gathered in no uncertain terms that my view was nt popular, so no point raising it again.....

E&C, the problem I have is that the AML, which is the natural choice for an Indirect Fire BP weapon, then becomes priced out of viability. So does the Inferno Cannon. You may have solved one problem, but you create more.

Certainly allowing any BP Weapon to gain Indirect Fire at only the cost of a hardpoint will have a predictable outcome, especially for longer ranged, more powerful weapons. Costing the CLP at the highest price band will rule out it's use for anything but the most powerful weapons.

What other possible uses could the CLP have? If we make it do something else, and simply have the AML gain Indirect, we avoid the entire issue. Otherwise I still feel a variable price based on the number of BP weapons taken is the best option, if one that is unlikely to be adopted.

_________________
SG

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

I always thought that having Infernos shooting indirect was rather odd; it's a giant flamethrower after all.

On the other hand, I've never been tempted to use AMLs myself, with or without CLP; The QCs+CLP combo was just too useful.

How about just giving AML Indirect on the statline, along with the proposed changes above? The QCs alone gets a bit cheaper, CLP+QCs a bit more expensive, Indirect Inferno will be too expensive to field, and AMLs becomes a viable alternative. All good, as far as I can see.

That's a change to a basic weapon from several Imperial lists, akin to changing the stats on a Turbolaser Destructor or Plasma Blastgun, not something we've done to date.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

how about an upgrade that allows AMLs to fire indirectly without using up a weapon slot.
i still dont see how, if QCs+CLPs are not underpointed or overperforming, that there is any need to change them.
if you want people to use support missiles, you need to fix them, not the alternatives (again, i recommend slow firing or a points reduction, as its the one shot part that is stopping me from taking them)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Oh? I thought it was an "AdMech exclusive", like the Plasma Destructor or the TCCW. Which other lists use it?



I use support missiles all the time; My artillery titan usually fields a Deathstrike in the 4th slot (My default configuration for it is 2xQC, CLP, Deathstrike, CML, Legate); I only drop the Deathstrike for something cheaper if I really need 25 or 50 points extra. I find that one shot a perfectly good tradeoff for an almost-sure kill on most small war engines.

The AML?

Anything with a Reaver Titan. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

D'oh. Fair enough...

Just an idea here, why not have the CLP offer a more limited 'Indirect Fire' capability.
1- Ie, rather than 'doubling the range' and 'ignoring line of sight', have the CLP only provide an 'ignore line of sight' and not 'double the range'.
2- Or perhaps some negative to BP's or a '-1 to hit' of sorts, to a weapon thats using the CLP to fire.
3- Maybe the CLP grants the Indirect Fire rule, and still has to use the stationary rule of 'Sustained Fire', but it doesnt gain the '+1 to hit' benefit.

It's more text, and another rule/exception i know, but surely having Quake Cannons indirect fire with only a 30-90cm range and/or not get a '+1' to hit could be a sufficient nerf compared to 30-180cm and Sustained Fire capable...

Tee