I'd have thought you would find it unacceptable to devalue a functioning config and weapon option in favor of another. It should be noted that there is actually a model for the CLP too. If a problem exits it must be solved in a way that doesn't cause problems in other areas.



This really doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand. Literally nothing that's done will change that Quake CLP combo as useful short of removing the CLP entirely. What you want to do is take a valid and useful config and make it less useful so you can use a three Apoc Launcher titan with all the benefits of a CLP.



I did a run through of the Epic UK tourny lists and the reaver is just about as rare as the warlord. People just don't take Reavers or Warlords all that much and those who do don't seem to be in the top winning range. Disrupt really isn't that huge of a boost but it does give the apoc and standard reaver some teeth. You might get a BM or two more than you would prior which helps out in a breaker role, but you won't get any more damage overall.

There's no use arguing about it; what you want to do is not good for the list. If you feel there is an issue with the Rocket Reaver, look for a different solution.

_________________
-Vaaish

Yes, of course I'm aware there's a model for a CLP, I have one. As I said, I'm not trying to change it or get rid of it and in any of the situations where it actually gets used it would be unchanged and as good.

Do you know of anyone actually ever using a CLP + 2 AML combination Reaver? I'm unconvinced it's much of a 'functioning', 'useful' or 'valid' configuration. It's 625 with 2 templates and unable to attack the enemy deployment zone turn 1. I would choose to take a CLP + 2 IG Reaver instead every time – it'd be better due to the ignore cover and costing 50 points less.

I want to make the very poor 3 AML Reaver choice in the list better. If as a side-affect another poor choice is showed up as poorer in comparison (while not actually changing one bit) then i don't find this unacceptable at all. There's an existing 3 x AML Reaver model that exists and deserves to be a decent choice and the CLP is used in a number of other useful configurations in the list.


There's no call to change the allied Reaver. It's an expensive formation and less common than Warhounds but I have played with or against Reavers at least several times and they have performed fine. CAL often uses a Reaver with his SMs and has a high win record. Disrupt would be a significant boost making it more likely to break it's target formation and it isn't needed.


I disagree with you here. I'm suggesting a small change that would only affect the all AML configuration – making this a okayish rather than very poor choice would fix the internal balance of a model many people have and allow for a bit more variety in competitive builds. This wouldn't be 'not good for the list'.

I'm not sure what other alternatives I could suggest. Making the AML free would go too far in the other direction and you'll be unlikely to go for 15 points.

This sounds good; I've always thought the AML was a bit lackluster, even for its low cost.

yes, without looking back over all the battle reports for the specific one, I don't remember who but the combination is taken and used. I've used it myself on several occasions.

You keep bringing up turn one hitting the enemy deployment zone. It depends on the the board edge used and the placement of the model, but truthfully, being able hit the deployment zone turn one doesn't matter. Heck, lots of titan configs can't do that for the same points and don't even have a chance of pulling it off. Hold off activating it and smack something that does come in range.



You keep bringing up that it's a specific model people have. I'm sure that there are folks out there with the model built just like that, but how many people just bought the model for the weapons or bought the model and changed the load out? There's no way of knowing and it's really not a strong argument for change.

How many times have you fielded the configuration and what was the result? Are you basing this on game fact or theoryhammer?

_________________
-Vaaish

Isn't the AML 60cm range, with Indirect fire doubling that to 120cm it should be capable of hitting enemy deployment zones on a normal "tournament" sized table.

That is correct.

_________________
-Vaaish

That's my view as well. If I was in charge (good thing I'm not!) I'd remove any way of getting Indirect Fire for titans.

They got legs and that thick armor for a reason!

I'm of a contrary view - the AMTL really needs long range artillery, there is very little else in the way of power projection.

There's two things in the AMTL list that don't pass the sniff test with regards to barrage weapons.
1. The inferno cannon should not be able to fire indirect in any circumstance. It's just silly to be able to do that. It's a giant flamethrower for Pete's sake.
2. The fact that a god-machine needs a CLP to fire indirect at all. The need for a spotter has been abstracted out of every other list (as far as I know) out there. If a battery of three howitzers in the Baran list can fire indirect, than so should a Titan. I know there's a model for it, and there's precedent and all that, but its really hard to logically justify the need for it.

If getting rid of the CLP is too drastic though, I have a "two birds, one stone" type of suggestion. Add a rule to the space craft (Gothic cruiser and ark mechanicus, I believe) that adds "indirect" to all barrage weapons except the inferno cannon for the turn the space craft activates. If it can execute a pinpoint attack, then it can act as spotter for the artillery Titans on the board. I'm inclined to say that it should be for the whole game, but baby steps would be better/more acceptable to the community I suspect. This would make artillery titans more viable, and also make spacecraft more attractive.

This is a bit of a dark horse suggestion I know. But what the hell.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

I find the idea intriguing, but ultimately I don't see it as doing anything so long as the CLP is available. Free +indirect fire gets your more than 150 +indirect fire for a turn. The CLP is still the safe bet for artillery. Conceptually I think the need for the spotter is far stronger in an AMTL list because we are dealing with titans. Unless they field skitarii, the titan is self contained and doesn't have anyone running out there to spot for it like other armies might that you can abstract out. It just seems out of place for a Princeps of a Titan to go asking a guard unit to spot for him. Just goes against what we have in fluff about the behavior of titan crews.

Next month should be interesting at the least for AMTL, but in the mean time there is fairly strong pressure to not make any changes outside of point cost. That makes for a pretty sticky situation where cost of AMTL titans end up more expensive that allied titans with the same configuration so to that end I'm looking at a bit more extensive point adjustment to alleviate some of the issues we had when Ben bumped up the TLD.

TLD: 35 points
GB: 15 points
Apoc: 15 points

Stats wise I've wondered about the larger plasma weapons as well. They just seem pretty poor performers for the expense. I don't think I've ever used them and had them do much for me. I'm tempted to adjust the shots on the PC and Destructor to 4 and 6 respectively.

_________________
-Vaaish

On a "logic" point of view i'm kinda with captPiett - that the emperor's finest war machines can't fire indirect without a specific upgrade when most other barrage weapons can does seem odd. I also really dislike the need to take a CLP minorus in order to have an indirect CQ.

I'm throwing one from left field here, but (and i know this is unrealistic in the near future as regards approving lists etc) maybe the problem is the way the CLP works currently. If the MRL and QC could fire indirect automatically then the CLP could confer some other bonus - maybe a +1 to indirect fire or a range increase...

Then the resultant points increase to cover the extra indirect ability for barrage weapons may make more expensive direct weapons (plasma destructors for example) more attractive...

My 2p anyway.

Discussion is good, but let me put this particular line to rest. Titan weapons are never going to get the ability to fire indirect naturally. It just makes them too good.

1. AMTL suffers from lower activation counts which makes it hard for them to hold objectives late game.
2. Most titans are more than capable of spending a turn doubling or tripling to an objective they want to lock down.
3. Most titans really don't do a whole lot of damage which makes it hard to break enemy formations or drive them off objectives.

A reaver outfitted with three laser blasters puts out 18 shots a turn. It's enough to take out around two 4+RA AV. So over the course of a game, a single reaver might break a Russ Company or whittle down a Superheavy Company. Really not impressive for a use of 750 points. Of course, we can give the titan some MW weapons but they are all slow firing except for the Quake Cannon.

Same config, but with 3 Plasma Cannons. Against 4+RA, you are looking at a little under 4 DC out of two turns. Again, not exactly awe inspiring. In general, titans run on the conservative side with firepower but are hard to kill which usually makes for games where the titans clomp up to an objective, sit on it in cover, and watch it get contested while the smaller formations get picked off sending the game to a draw or points.

_________________
-Vaaish

All good points Vaaish.

So, playing devil's advocate a sec, why provide the option of indirect fire at all?
Why not remove that ability from the CLP and require all titan fire to be direct at all times, including with the Quake cannon etc?