Its been a point of contention for some time. Personally I like having the arty option and it does help titans have a means to pick off formations that do break since they also have limited air cover and thunderbolts aren't always available to strafe. It also affects the skitarii list where an arty minorus is useful.

Taking away indirect fire might help make the support missile something people take more often, but it does beg the question of what to do with the CLP. Iirc it originally let you carry some troop stands or a land speeder. Neither of those are very exciting though.

_________________
-Vaaish

However, you and Rug (and others I think) agree that titans should not have indirect fire, need not have the range to hit the enemy deployment zone (ie up to 90cm range) and ought to be encouraged to advance into the battlefield etc. Whereas the CLP + Quake cannon combo has always presented the diametric position, and consequently has been difficult to cost as it is such a 'no-brainer'.

What else would the CLP be used for apart from transport; as a landing pad for the Lysander a/c - why not some other a/c or skimmer with more 'bite'?

No, I don't agree titans shouldn't have access to indirect fire. Even without the CLP they still have access to support missiles which are indirect weapons. I think there is a possibility that if the CLP changed to no longer allow BP weapons indirect fire you might see more support missiles taken.

To be perfectly honest, while balanced, the AMTL list just isn't that fun to play. Most of the games we played with it were quite boring and anti-climatic for my opponents. It was almost guaranteed that I'd keep something on blitz with sentinels, advance to just over the center line and sit there while he tried to shift me the rest of the game.

Against Marines, it was basically wait for them to pick off sentinels and then swing in with termies and thunderhawks to smack down a reaver after going for the smaller titans. Guard I could usually guarantee one reaver dead in the first couple of activations with deathstrikes and after that little changed outside of trading shots with shadowswords. True there was some variation with objective placement, but the overall effect didn't change a whole lot.

Our games got much more interesting and far more fun when I stopped using the Titan list to start working with the skitarii.

_________________
-Vaaish

I'll be interested to see what EUK does, though I'm fairly sure we won't follow suit.

_________________
SG

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

I'm curious as well. Back on the subject of the CLP, the old rules for it gave you a recon land speeder that was used to direct barrage weapons. Basically letting you fire without line of sight same as we have now with the difference being the speeders LOS was used.

I guess that would be a more risky indirect fire since a savvy opponent would likely do their best to toast that speeder. For our purposes the CLP could require a lysander to be on cap to use the indirect fire rule.

_________________
-Vaaish

I honestly can't remember the last time I played a Titan list. Playing Skitarii for me is way more fun.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

I totally agree.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

IMO the AMTL will tend to be limited in their strategic and tactical feel purely because of the nature of the units and list, much like a siege list in that sense. Indeed, the options will inevitably become more limited as the number of units / formations diminish. However the reverse is also true, as you move away from a purely titan based list, both you and the opponent will have different dimensions to consider.
Just idly 'spitballing' as they say, but one possible option might be to consider restricting the units / formations that can contest objectives on the grounds that particular flavours of titan / unit are too valuable to be left guarding 'worthless' bits of terrain as they are needed to spearhead other assault legions etc. I am sure there are other possibilities to add a little extra 'frisson' to the list.

On the CLP, having recon land speeder(s) that support indirect fire sounds a little like the 'Markerlight' rule for the Tau, which might be a very interesting little addition here. This would give an extra dimension to the list for both players to work on. Is it worth looking for similar concepts for the Rocket titan or indeed other weapon systems, where a combination of units and formations are required in order to gain some special effect or advantage?

And I totally agree that Flamethrowers and other limited range weaponry should not be able to gain "Indirect" through the presence of a CLP or Recon vehicle, which is another reason for using this kind of 'combined unit' mechanic.

actually, the inferno gun was modelled as a melta weapon, not a flamer weapon atleast originally. the use of it as a BP weapon alone automatically makes any "but it's a flame thrower" arguement make no sense. Flamethrowers would use a spray template, this projects a template forwards, resulting in a circular blast. This to me, implies that it actually fires incindary shells of some sort, or at the least, big globs of napalm, that splast upon hitting their target, rather than a stream of fire.
As such, there is no reason to believe these weapons could not be modified to fire at greater range and over buildings.

Personally, I think that the arguement that "titans need to advance" shows that the list encourages a non-indirect firing route to begin with (i personally only use a quakelord as an indirect titan, and have never felt that a AML+CLP titan to be worthwhile, and even then, I take it because it's cool, not because it's good)
remember that to indirect, one needs to sustain, which goes against the "advance down the field" requirement to grab objectives.
the problem with CLPs is not that they're free. they're not free. they are the same price as numerous other weapons. taking a CLP on a reaver, represents a drop in firepower of a full third, and also encourages a playstyle where their FF and CC values will not be likely to take effect. CLPs are a bad choice for weapons no matter what you do, but unless you're then completely focusing the titan on indirect artillery, they're an outright terrible choice. CLP+1AML and 1 other weapon is a wasted titan.

If they were an upgrade, that did not take a weapon slot, they'd be more useful. you'd see people taking them on their single AML titans.
Alternately, make it so that a CLP allows for indirect fire even when on the move. that would make them an interesting option. Especially in conjunction with a Indirect fire upgrade option. (so, pay points keep weapon slot, gain regular indirect, or lose a weapon slot, gain better indirect for free)
if that happened, you'd see people be more aggressive with their artillery titans, because they can afford to be. at the moment, you take 1 artillery titan, because you need something guarding your blitz anyway. Let it fire on the move, and you'll see a tactical shift.

If you dont like the way an army list "always" plays, taking away options is pretty much always going to be a poor way to change it. giving it more options, increase variety, which increases playstyle options.

another option would be to allow indirect fire upgrade to fire indirectly but not double range, or to increase range but not fire indirectly.

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

I don't think we'll be removing anything in the list. I can pretty safely say changes to the way indirect fire and barrages work won't happen. You're changing core epic rules for how indirect fire and barrages work and that's a bad way to go about fixing something IMO. It's pretty clear that the CLP traditionally gave barrage weapons indirect fire so we should definitely be keeping that. I think the speeder idea or a spotter plane could be cool too.

I feel, though, we are at a bit of a crossroads with titans. we can either keep the list we have that's pretty balanced and has had a huge amount of effort put into it over the years under Ben, or we can attempt to fundamentally rework how a titan army plays.

Really, what defines a FUN titan list to play? Lots of big stompy robots cutting swaths through enemy formations that require concentrated combined arms to take down or disable?

Equally important, how about what would be fun for your OPPONENT to play against?

_________________
-Vaaish

i would prefer we don't do any major changes to the list. If we're going to rework a titan list from ground up, start with the chaos titans. If any arrangement works spectacularly well there, then maybe we can consider doing a partner list to the war gryphons.

but to throw away a balanced list right now would be crazy.

_________________
My shifting projects

QFT

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/

Then we do the only thing we can, keep the list as is and I'll post a couple of point tweaks in the play test changes thread.

_________________
-Vaaish

Yes, I agree that this is the best solution. Adds a bit more use for standard reavers and that istn't a bad thing.

For now a solution like this is on hold. See the playtest changes thread for what we are doing instead.

_________________
-Vaaish