|
To preface my remarks, I don't think that it's necessary to have many weapon systems scale up for all the chassis. I think we should limit it to the weapons that were historically available rather than expanding the principal to other systems. Instead, I think a weapon point/grade/hardpoint system is the best way to model allowing a battle titan taking a "scout" weapon.
For the few weapons that are available across chassis types and need to be scaled (Plasma, Missile Launcher and Turbolaser), it would be nice to come up with some sort of semi-standard scale up and naming conventions. For example, the largest plasma weapon is the "destructor" and the battle titan turbolaser is the "destructor" so maybe the smaller ones could share descriptor designations as well. Given the fondness for alliteration, maybe "Destroyer" could be a designation for the scout-level weapons (or whatever, but I used "Destroyer" below).
Finally, if possible, Warhound weapons should be configured to encourage firing on the move, so fewer shots and higher to-hit values would be appropriate. I think that based on the historical weapon availability and general background considerations, it's reasonable to give Warhounds a more AP-oriented set of weapons to choose from.
===
Plasma:Why MW4+ on "better" weapons? Well, when the Titan wants to use them effectively, it has to stand still (Sustain Fire), if it's moving fast (Double) it has less plasma to dedicate to the weapons.
I think Chroma has an excellent point with this. High quality shots promote firing on the move. More volume of low quality shots promote slowing down to maximize fire. This approach would harness the basic firing mechanics of the game to approximate the effects of all the plamsa fire/move special rule restrictions from SM/TL/NetEpic.
===
Warhound Weapons
Plasma Blastgun - 45cm, 2xMW2+, Slow Fire (published)
Vulcan Mega Bolter - 45cm, 4xAP3+/AT5+ (published)
Inferno gun ? Flamer AP3+/AT6+ IC or 30cm, BP3, Ignore Cover [one mode only, not an OR weapon]
Turbo Laser "Destroyer" - 45cm (60cm?), 3xAP5+/AT3+
"Destroyer" Rocket Launcher - 45cm, BP3
Turbolaser - makes no sense if you compare unmodified to-hit values, but with -1 to-hit or worse it's clearly the best AT option outside a Blastgun alpha strike (and an end of turn/beginning of turn Double/Sustain combo kills the Blastgun). I'm not sure that's a sufficient niche to consider it balanced, which is why I included a range option.
'Tactical/main/common' weapons (to borrow TRC's terminology)
Gatling Blaster - 60cm, 4xAP4+/AT4+ (published)
Turbo Laser Destructor - 60cm, 4xAP5+/AT3+ (published)
Multiple Rocket Launcher - 60cm, BP3 (published)
Plasma Cannon - 60cm, 4xMW4+, slow fire [possibly 6x MW5+]
Melta Cannon - 30cm, 2xMW4+, TK(1), +1EA FF (TK1)
Plasma - I think the 4xMW4+ is pretty balanced. It doesn't quite double kills compared to the Gatling Blaster but it has alpha strike ability. OTOH, 6xMW5+ averages the same number of hits without mods, but strongly encourages Sustain Fire. The problem is negative total mods are pretty common in the game, so it might suffer overall.
'Support/big/better' weapons - based on the poll, these should be slightly better and/or fulfill a dedicated role
Volcano Cannon - 90cm, TK(d3)2+ (published)
Quake Cannon - 90cm, BP3, Disrupt
Plasma Destructor - 75cm, 4xMW4+, TK, Slow Fire
The Quake Cannon might be too much - range increase and Disrupt as compared to ML - but unless many weapons on the same titan have increased range, range doesn't mean much.
Plasma v Volcano - Destructor has slightly more hits and alpha strike capability versus Volcano's d3 damage. Modifiers to to-hit rolls shift their relative effectiveness dramatically - better to-hit strongly favors the Destructor, worse favors Volcano. As noted above, negative net mods tend to be a bit more common in actual play.
Assault Weapons
Las Burner, +3EA FF MW
Wrecker/Ram, +1EA CC, TK(d6), First Strike
Power Fist/Claw - +3EA CC TK(d3)
Chainfist/Saw - +5EA CC MW
Transport - Needs discussion on what the troops can do and possible assault benefits. I would lean towards testing the old CI rule "Up to [half] transported stands may shoot with ranged weapons or use their firefight or close combat values in an assault."
Corvus Assault Pod - Transport (8)
Corvus Assault Head ? Transport (4)
Imperator Bastions ? Transport (12?)
Support missiles - One Shot, Unlimited Range, Indirect Fire - worthy of a dedicated discussion. Should get ~3 rounds of firepower compared to tactical weapons or ~2 compared to Support, imho. Could also be broken up into Tactical/Support options if needed for balance.
Deathstrike Missile (published)
Barrage - should be guaranteed 3 templates, probably IC or Disrupt - 6+2d3 BP (8-12), IC
Harpoon - taking control of enemy units is bad. The "keeps doing damage" option mentioned seems good but requires tracking over multiple turns. Another possiblity would be low level TK combined with high chance of inflicting critical.
Vortex - BP and TK, along the lines of the Cobra
Warp - Not sure if this should be used. Modest TK (d3?) and bypass all shields/fields would seem reasonable but begs the question of why you wouldn't just strip shields and Deathstrike.
Upgrades and Auxiliary systems - "head" weapons are really symbolic of broader (but still minor) changes throughout the titans.
Carapace landing Pad - indirect to BP weapons
Sacred icon - Inspiring
Carapace Multi Laser - 2x 30cm, AP5+/AT6+/AA5+
CC Head/System - +3EA CC
FF Head/System - +2EA FF
Gun Head/System ? 45cm 2x AP5+/AT5+
Devotional Bell - Probably needs dedicated discussion as well. Since it takes up 2 carapace mounts and has little in the way of actual weapon attacks that can be attributed to it, I think it needs to be combined with the Castellan Head/psyker abilities as in the older material. Something generally similar to the Eldar Warlock abilities (BP TK, EA TK, Inspiring) would seem to be about right for a system that takes up 2 carapace slots and a head slot. Plus, a Veteran Princeps would be required.
Extra Movement/Extra Shields - A system to allow this would be nice but I don't think it's necessary for an AMTL list. Should an ATIII project ever materialize, I think it would be almost mandatory.
_________________
Neal
|
).
