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

Fixing the Rocket Titan?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25901		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  GlynG [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:19 am ]
Post subject:  Fixing the Rocket Titan?
I like the look and idea of the artillery support Reaver, as Forge World released, with 3 x Apocalypse Missile Launchers and would like to model and use one myself:
Image
This build really sucks in the current AMTL rules though sadly. The 2 x Apocalypse Missile Launchers and a Carapace Landing Pad alternative gives it longer range and makes for a weak and a bit underpowered but occasionally worth using choice, but 675 for a Reaver with just a 60cm direct fire only 9BP barrage seems very underwhelming/overcosted. With that range the Reaver would likely have to move to get targets in range and possibly not have any targets to attack in the first turn. A pair of Warhounds with 3 x Inferno Gun and any other weapon would be a better choice for cheaper I would say.

Given that many people out there are likely to have this model, which was on sale till relatively recently, it would be nice to do something to make it more playable in the Epic list. The AML is meant to be a longer ranged weapon that epic translates it as (a 40k Apocalypse Missile Launcher has 50% longer range than a Basilisk's Earthshaker or 180cm in epic), but we definitely shouldn't change the Epic Apocalypse Missile Launcher stats as it is very commonly used by the default epic Reaver. The Epic titan weapons gives the option of doubling the range due to a Carapace Landing Pad however.

Suggestion: could we a note or special rule or something whereby any titan armed only with Apocalypse Missile Launchers pays the +25 points surcharge as normal but counts as having a free Carapace Landing Pad as well (it wouldn't be modelled but could be put down to better sensors, communications and missiles).
Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
The CLP takes up a hard point on the titan and I don't see that changing. Why would you only apply the bonus with three launchers and not one or two? There's just nothing that lets you say one or two AML launchers give you nothing but with three you get magic sensors or better missiles. Any way you look to rationalize why a reaver should get the bonus CLP, you are in effect asking for a reaver with 4 weapons slots and that just won't happen.
Author:  Jaggedtoothgrin [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
why not make it so the CLP doesnt take up a slot anymore? make it an upgrade, rather than a weapon, so a 3 AML reaver still has to pay the single weapon tax (which i'm still not a fan of)
I dont imagine that will see an increase in the prevalence of 3 quake warlords (as it would, infact, make them more expensive) so I don't think it will make game balance issues.

the alternative, is to say that any battle titan that takes purely BP weaponry gets a free CLP upgrade (hell, maybe even let double inferno warhounds get it, the range is unlikely to assist them, as warhounds rarely stand still anyway)

the idea that a titan that is purely dedicated to artillery support would get the better quality artillery weapons is hardly unreasonable. In much the same way as a 9 basalisk company can buy upgrades, but a 3 basalisk platoon cannot, dedicated roles should be expected to be good at those roles
Author:  GlynG [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
Thinking about it more just make the change in the stats for the Apocalypse Missile Launcher. List it as '3BP, if all a battle titan's weapons are Apocalypse Missile Launchers they have indirect fire.'

That's not having 4 weaponsl then and the Carapace Landing Pad would remain unchanged and still have it's place, most commonly with Quake Cannon titans but also potentially with Inferno Cannon titans. Given that a 2 AML and CLP Reaver can already fire 120cm with it's AML while the default pattern Reaver nearby can only fire it's one 60cm - the range variation already exists in the list. It could be explained in various ways as I said, better targeting, communications, missiles, upgraded launchers, ect. All of which the AM would use especially on a dedicated artillery Reaver where they might not on a generalist Reaver armed only with one of them.

Rather than dismissing it out of hand stop and assess and compare the actual capabilities a 3 AML Reaver or 4AML Warlord would have. With the official model that comes with only 3 AML, an artillery type Reaver is obviously meant to be a used and valid configuration. It's not overpowered and would make a terrible weapons configuration into a usable okayish choice. Having 120cm range when sustained firing indirectly has the significant disadvantage of meaning it wouldn't be able to hit the enemy deployment zone on turn 1, unlike most artillery. It would be 675 for 3 AML (850 for a Warlord with 4) compared to to 725 for 2 Quake and a CLP. 50 points extra would be worth it for the extra range and MW, despite one less barrage template, but both would be valid choices with different pluses and minuses.
Author:  GlynG [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
the alternative, is to say that any battle titan that takes purely BP weaponry gets a free CLP upgrade (hell, maybe even let double inferno warhounds get it, the range is unlikely to assist them, as warhounds rarely stand still anyway)

I definitely wouldn't want to see this. Allowing 3 Quake Cannons Reavers would be too powerful and too big a change, same with all Inferno Cannons.

It's the all AML titan that is the issue, not other barrage weapons or the CML (it has traditionally taken a weapons slot in previous editions) in the list. They don't need a change.
Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
I'm typing this on my phone. Short answer: I will not create a special rule for this.
Author:  GlynG [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
The Carapace Landing Pad adds indirect fire to weapons without a special rule. There would be no special rule required here either. Just the following as a weapon entry:

Apocalypse Missile Launcher - 60cm 3BP, if all a titan's weapon choices are Apocalypse Missile Launchers they have indirect fire.
Author:  Angel_of_Caliban [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
GlynG wrote:
The Carapace Landing Pad adds indirect fire to weapons without a special rule. There would be no special rule required here either. Just the following as a weapon entry:

Apocalypse Missile Launcher - 60cm 3BP, if all a titan's weapon choices are Apocalypse Missile Launchers they have indirect fire.

Maybe its just me....but the above looks like a special rule to me. Granted its in the unit/weapons box but its still extra rules for a certain titan/weapons load-out.

For the record I'm not for any of the mentioned changes to the Titan, Missile Launcher or Landing Pad.
Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
Quote:
Apocalypse Missile Launcher - 60cm 3BP, if all a titan's weapon choices are Apocalypse Missile Launchers they have indirect fire.


That's a special rule regardless of where it's placed because it's conditional to a specific situation. Single Apoc launchers don't gain indirect as part of the weapon nor do two of them. It only happens if that's the only weapon you take.

If we entertain the notion of going this route, we devalue the already free CLP by making it unnecessary for the lower cost artillery titan. A chance like what you propose isn't good for the list. The configuration with all Apoc launchers is a functional and valid configuration as it stands although not optimal.

If we really wanted to mess with it, we could think about disrupt. It is after all saturating an area with missiles. It would also create three kinds of uses for differing weapons systems on the titans.

Inferno Cannon: Extremely cheap indirect fire titan that ignores cover

Apoc Launcher: cheap, but decently long ranged indirect fire titan that causes disrupt

Quake Cannon: Expensive, extremely long ranged indirect fire with MW

I would be hesitant of the effect on direct fire titans and the standard load out titans, but they could use a small boost to be more attractive.
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
^this^ seems elegant and simple boosts without resorting to hacks is preferred
Author:  Ginger [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
Is there an alternative of amending the list to require that the CLP be taken is any of the relevant artillery options are taken (Inferno Cannon, Apoc Launcher or Quake Cannon)?
Thus imposing indirect fire on this particular build of the titans
Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
Quote:
Is there an alternative of amending the list to require that the CLP be taken is any of the relevant artillery options are taken (Inferno Cannon, Apoc Launcher or Quake Cannon)?
Thus imposing indirect fire on this particular build of the titans


This isn't a viable route since it makes it impossible to build a standard pattern reaver and would force the Warhound to use a battle titan weapon. The last thing we need is artillery warhounds merrily jetting around the battlefield. We also don't want to FORCE people to to use artillery titans. They shouldn't be penalized a weapon slot because they want to use an inferno cannon or quake cannon.
Author:  Armiger84 [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
Problem is, while the triple AML looks cool, it really isn't optimal as a load out, regardless of its stats. The two options I would entertain would be adding disrupt, OR (not "and") increasing the launcher to 4 BP. Of the two, adding disrupt would probably be much less disruptive to game balance than a 12 BP 60cm attack on turn one. With disrupot, its more effective when in range to hit a target, with BP 12, it would generate a mobile 120cm diameter line of sight bubble of death that if nothing else, means you just spent 675 points on psychological threat.

I'd probably just pull the gatling blaster off a Lucius warlord and trade weapons :(

I'd cast my vote for disrupt, since a 3BP disrupt on most reavers would be effective, but not horribly game-changing.
Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
Just a note, the title of this thread is misleading. It's about fixing the rocket titan, not the artillery titan.
Author:  GlynG [ Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Artillery Titan?
Vaaish wrote:
Quote:
Apocalypse Missile Launcher - 60cm 3BP, if all a titan's weapon choices are Apocalypse Missile Launchers they have indirect fire.


That's a special rule regardless of where it's placed because it's conditional to a specific situation.

It seems more like a note to me. Some units have conditional notes that upgrade or change their abilities e.g. Gorgons have a note giving them FF5+ or 4+ depending what secondary weapon they choose or Daemon Princes have 15cm or 30cm move and different armour depending on if they have wings. This is slightly different in applying to a weapon rather a unit but I still I wouldn't classify any of these three as special rules.
Vaaish wrote:
If we entertain the notion of going this route, we devalue the already free CLP by making it unnecessary for the lower cost artillery titan. A chance like what you propose isn't good for the list. The configuration with all Apoc launchers is a functional and valid configuration as it stands although not optimal.

It would devalue a CLP and 2 AML combination, sure, but in favour of improving the 3 AML titan which actually has a model and is more important to fix. I don't see that it devalues the CLP in it's other uses, it's situational. 2 QC + CLP, say, would still be a valid and just as worthwhile, getting to MW barrage the opponent's deployment zone with 180cm range turn 1 would still be powerull and worth the extra cost.

Changing the Gatling Blaster on the Warlord that is rarely taken and regarded as underpowered is one thing, but the regular Reaver gets a lot of use and doesn't need changing or getting a significant boost by suddenly getting disrupt. That definitely shouldn't happen. We need a fix for the ATML lists, but not something that effects the allied Reaver.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/