Never mind if the Titans in the TL and AM turn out to be at a different points cost as their SM and IG counterparts with the same weapons loadout. Note that same units in different army list can be pointed different but be balanced within its respective armylist.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I guess it then depends on the modelling considerations.  Do people have loads of models with the weapons in the "wrong" positions?  If so does that matter?

_________________
-Vaaish

Yes, this debate (and Clausewitz's proposal) are reliant on the supposition that the 3x Reaver list is overpowered.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I will cheerfully take the army against any opponent that dares face me on vassal, its fast to play as well

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

So are MRL's warhound weapons now?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

You totally need to read the whole thread before posting the same thing as someone else.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Ok if it is a choice between external balance and internal balance, external wins 100% of the time.

How would you look at it Ben if there was a way of making those weapons more attractive?

Currently I see the weapon progression steps for the proposed 'free' weapons (not including the Corvus Assault Pod and Carapace Landing Pad as they are specialised pieces of kit) on Reaver Titans.

Rank 1 - Turbolaser Destructor
Rank 2 - Twin Apocalypse Rocket Launcher (extra bm, probably going to get a CLP)
Rank 3 - Titan Close Combat Weapon, Laser Burner, Plasma Cannon, Gatling Blaster, Apocalypse Rocket Launcher
Rank 4 - Twin Inferno Gun
Rank 5 - Twin Vulcan Megabolter
Rank 6 - Vulcan Megabolter
Rank 7 - Inferno Gun, Plasma Blastgun

Modeling wise only the Inferno gun is a problem - the old VMB looks like a gatling blaster and plasma can easily be a Plasma Cannon.

On that basis then only Titans with single Infernos are really losing out.

On a basis of I think its a vmb, I'm stuffed, its trickier. Here though the change in the special rule could help. Instead of a rule of 2 warhound weapons/3 battle titan weapons tax, it could be 2 weapons the same on a titan - balance tax. There would then be an exception for scout weapons (with TLD classified as a battle titan weapon also availible to scout titans)/VMB, IG, PBG on battle titans. This would not only encourage true multi role titans like we all used to see, but probably allow the cost of titans to come down by 25 points (625 reaver, 775 Warlord) as it wouldn't affect the core activation 2/3's mechanism.
It would be a slight boost for 'heavy weapon' builds, but very slight and that is balanced against the lose of all those void shield beasties.

So two options based on this idea. The straight change that accepts that scout weapons fall by the wayside on battle titans, or the more complex one that would require a bit more hammering out. I'll do a quick pdf of each so people can see what its about.

Both options incidentally would be with another support option - mounted tech guard. Maybe the options of Gorgons, Rhinos or Chimera.

Oh and why can't the MRL be included for the Warhound? +25 points, no affect on balance. Other than 'you can't in 40k' there doesn't seem to be a reason.


Did they have a picture? Nope

Oh and you have to admit Clauswitz's idea makes the Emperor a lot easier to balance in the list! It could even be upped in power (my God should it be tougher than a Great Gargant!!!)!

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I'm not convinced that the best solution is the one that makes several weapon systems essentially obsolete.

A Megabolter is not as good as a Turbolaser, so it shouldn't cost the same.

How would you look at it Ben if there was a way of making those weapons more attractive?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If players want a list that can it into tournaments and its a choice between this sort of thing or making their models obsolete, which do you reckon they would go for?
A Megabolter is not as good as a Turbolaser, so it shouldn't cost the same.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

It actually says 'no rockets for warhounds' or simply doesn't mention it in any list of weapons for warhounds - so omitted or barred?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It looked pretty silly on the old models, come to that.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

I saw a nice model where it was built into the back and chest. Bit like a battlemech.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

What about just moving the cost of the Reaver chassis up to 625 points?

That has the net affect on the lists TRC has been testing of eliminating an activation be it sentinels or warhounds. For example at 625 his lists would look more like this:

650 King Reaver, CCW, TLD, TLD, CML
600 Reaver, VMB, VMB, VMB, CML
575 Reaver, InfG, InfG, Las
500 Warhound Pack, VMB, PBG, VMB, PBG
300 Suicide hound, PBG, PBG
275 Warhound, VMB, Inf

625 King Reaver - CCW, TLD, VMB, CML (only AA attack)
575 Reaver - PBG, PBG, Las Burna
575 Reaver - InfG, InfG, VMB
575 Reaver - VMB, VMB, Las Burna
275 Warhound - VMB, PBG
275 Warhound - VMB, PBG

(more easily fixable since the sentinels can be plonked back in for the loss of teh TLD or AA or combining the warhounds into a pack)

Or the same lists with the chassis at 650 points:
650 King Reaver, CCW, TLD, TLD, CML
600 Reaver, VMB, VMB, VMB, CML
575 Reaver, InfG, InfG, Las
500 Warhound Pack, VMB, PBG, VMB, PBG
300 Suicide hound, PBG, PBG
275 Warhound, VMB, Inf
3125 ( doesn't come out very even so changing the singles to a pack would probably happen but it does still eliminate another activation making such as list only 5 activations which might result in one reaver being dropped or the list kept the same and cheaper activations added like sentinels)

625 King Reaver - CCW, TLD, VMB, CML (only AA attack)
575 Reaver - PBG, PBG, Las Burna
575 Reaver - InfG, InfG, VMB
575 Reaver - VMB, VMB, Las Burna
275 Warhound - VMB, PBG
275 Warhound - VMB, PBG
3200 (This list poses more issues since one warhound would need to be dropped in favor of cheaper activation with the points filled out on upgrades)

One flaw with doing this is that the standard pattern reaver would be 75 points more expensive than the same model in the rulebook. Of course this could be explained by saying that a lone reaver loses efficiency when working with lesser troops that it has not trained to fight alongside like fellow titans or some such nonsense.

_________________
-Vaaish

Seeing as the problem that seems to be the most serious is the fact that multiple Reavers with 'free' weapons seem to be overpowered, wouldn't one of the easiest fixes be to limit the numbers of 'free' weapons on battle titans? e.g. battle titans can have a maximum of two free weapons. I'm sure this has been suggested before, so what are the advantages/disadvantages of this restriction? It seems to be far more simple to keep track of than the carapace/arm restrictions, as well as being far less likely to require full scale rebuilding of titans that now have 'illegal' loadouts. It also avoids having to allow exceptions so that existing Epic configurations can be used i.e. the rulebook Reaver.

I think the problem isn't cheap reavers per see but the mass of reavers and warhounds. Or simple the sheer amount of void shields and war engines. Of course if you aren't obsessed with charging they last a lot longer The army isn't invulnerable but is damn good even when used badly and distorts the GT metagame too much. Of course all this is in my opinion

I'm a bit tired of 3 reavers incidentally, I'm going to try
800 Warlord, MRL, MRL, CLP, CCW, CML
575 Reaver, Inf, Inf, LB
575 Reaver, VMB, VMB, LB
500 Warhound pack, VMB, PBG, VMB, PBG
275 Warhound, VMB, PBG
275 Warhound, VMB, PBG
for a bit instead to see if its better (Yes ben, I know, play against it!) Tis less activations and not as assaulty to try and make me play more cautiously!

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x