Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12162		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
These are the restrictions on weapon types from Apocalypse, of particular interest is the restriction on weapon locations for WARLORD TITANS.


Apocalypse says:
Carapace Mount
- Double Barelled Turbolaser-Destructors
- Plasma Blastgun
- Inferno Gun
- Vulcan Megabolter
- Apocalypse Missile Launcher
- Vortex Missile

Arm Mount
- Laser Blaster
- Gatling Blaster
- Melta Cannon
- Plasma Destructor
- Ragnarok Quake Cannon
- Vulcano Cannon
- Titan Closecombat Weapon


Triple-barelled turbolasers would probably go in the Arm Mount list.

The Laser Blaster has filled the slot of the old Lasburner.

Note that the Reaver Titan's weapon slots haven't been published yet, though with a little digging I could probably aquire a list, if it proved nessesary.

So, what do you think gents?
Author:  PlushWombat [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
I would like to see this as an option on the list.

I think the closer we can come to matching what's occuring development wise on ?the 40K/Apocalyse side of things the better off we will be.

If nothing else, perhaps the Apocalyspe loadout restrictions could be used when agreed too by both parties.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
I understand the reasoning, but I don't agree with slavishly following what Apocalypse is doing. Quite honestly, I don't care what stats Apocalypse has.
Author:  J0k3r [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
The only restrictions I would like are the one-shot missiles on the carapace and CC weapons on the arm mounts for obvious fluff reasons.  

My reasons are:
- Restrictions seem arbitrary, why no carapace gattling blaster for example?
- points costs are a better way of limiting things; if they dont you've got the points cost wrong I would say
- If the reaver can have Apocalypse Missile Launchers on arm mounts, why not the warlord (going by the alternate configuration FW Reaver here)
- Do you reallly ant to force me to take apart my titans, hmm ???  (well, not a problem for me personally...)
- I see no problem with tooling a titan to fit one enemy; it is fluffy (cant imagine not mounting the best tools for the job); It will generally be suboptimal in competiitive play;  Of course someone can be a prat about it, but that could be done for any list and in a friendly context theres more than one way to skin a cat.
- Finally ( and a little whimsically) Titans have a far longer lineage in Epic than 40k; its just possible we may know more about them form past versions of the game :D
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
Quite honestly, I don't care what stats Apocalypse has.

Except if GW ever redoes Epic's Titans, it will 'slavishly' follow what GW have done in Apocalypse.

This I promise you.
Author:  J0k3r [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 27 2008,15:01)
QUOTE
Quite honestly, I don't care what stats Apocalypse has.


Except if GW ever redoes Epic's Titans, it will 'slavishly' follow what GW have done in Apocalypse.

This I promise you.
That could be crossed when we come to it as would amount to such a sea change in policy that all other bets would be off anyway :)
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
- Restrictions seem arbitrary, why no carapace gattling blaster for example?

Lighter weapons are (mostly) restricted to the carapace, heavier weapons are allowed on the arms only.

- If the reaver can have Apocalypse Missile Launchers on arm mounts, why not the warlord (going by the alternate configuration FW Reaver here)

The Reaver's role is different.

- Do you reallly ant to force me to take apart my titans, hmm ???  (well, not a problem for me personally...)

No, I don't.

Absent from a model release I don't see a massive drive to update, in this particular case.

- Finally ( and a little whimsically) Titans have a far longer lineage in Epic than 40k; its just possible we may know more about them form past versions of the game :D

Jervis wrote Apocalypse. :)
Author:  J0k3r [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 27 2008,15:03)
QUOTE
Jervis wrote Apocalypse. :)

dammit, there goes that argument :p
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 27 2008,11:03)
QUOTE
- Restrictions seem arbitrary, why no carapace gattling blaster for example?


Lighter weapons are (mostly) restricted to the carapace, heavier weapons are allowed on the arms only.
Which, oddly enough, is the opposite of how it used to be.
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
Those are far more restrictive than in any previous version of titans.  The only things that have been consistent (and, imho, make perfect sense) is missiles and observation stuff (fire control, landing pad) on the carapace and CC weapons on the arms.

Those restrictions are totally arbitrary and pointless.  The 3-ML Reaver Titan from FW wouldn't even be legal.


Knowing Jervis, he's probably concerned about making sure people feel like they can buy "stock" models and not feel like they are going to be non-competitive, i.e. he doesn't want people to feel like they have to buy all sorts of optional weapons from Forgeworld in addition to their insanely expensive basic model.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?

(nealhunt @ Mar. 27 2008,11:17)
QUOTE
Those are far more restrictive than in any previous version of titans.  The only things that have been consistent (and, imho, make perfect sense) is missiles and observation stuff (fire control, landing pad) on the carapace and CC weapons on the arms.

I agree on all points.
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
I haven't seen enough imbalance in the list and weapon loads to justify this at this time. Lets find a problem first and then look for a solution.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
As i stated elsewhere i'm for:
First attempt should be to restrict CC and FF weapons to Arm Mounts only. And Missiles to Carapace Mounts only.
Then a restriction that a titan can't have more than two of the same weapon.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?

(BlackLegion @ Mar. 27 2008,11:48)
QUOTE
As i stated elsewhere i'm for:
First attempt should be to restrict CC and FF weapons to Arm Mounts only. And Missiles to Carapace Mounts only.
Then a restriction that a titan can't have more than two of the same weapon.

I don't see a problem with allowing more than two of the same weapon.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Should AMTL adopt these weapon slot restrictions?
I see no problem per se too. But i can't find an official(= made by GW) drawing or picture of Titans which have more than two of the same weapon apart from the FW Reaver which is a pretty recent addition.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/