The simple fact is that a reaver with "no" weapons would be pretty good in and of itself, based simply on its survivability and inherrent FF and CC attacks. It also doesn't help that some of the free weapons further improve the FF ability of the titan.

So, if Reavers (or Warlords) are too cheap with all free weapons, and you don't want to change their base cost, simply state that the must take at least X points in upgrades (where X is 25 or 50). I doubt anyone would really cry too much about having such a restriction. I mean, what percentage of all the painted Warlords and Reavers out there have such bare-minimum weapons loads? I wager a number << 1%. Heck, even those titans could be allowed if the rule were worded such that players are allowed to take less than X points in upgrades as long as they add 25 points to the base cost of the titan.

The problem with the other type of weapon restriction (the 40k-based limits) is that it would invalidate a significant portion (though perhaps not the majority) of finished models.

As for the effects of Warhounds, why not restrict the number of singletons? Unlimited* pairs of warhounds, but only 0-1 single warhounds?

Or hell, make all warhounds selectable in pairs only.

It has a reason that after the Horus Heresy Warhounds are now always deployed in pairs  

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

Except that you can buy single Warhounds in the Marine and IG lists.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Imperial allies only get a handful of Titans if they're lucky, on many occasions it makes sense to split Warhound packs and distribute them more evenly in the warzone (even if they still obey the same pack organization and merely roam a lot further from each other).

It would make a difference - say its the assault disposition.
Or you could have Reaver - pack, warlord - single/pack.

Though I wonder how far you could get with 2 reavers (625/600), 3 packs (1500) and 1 warhound (275). Now you are pretty 'light' in both armour and activations(and weapons, only one TLD in whole force, rest scout weapons), but a good player like Dave could perhaps run rings around someone?

Few more random thoughts, I wonder if I should revisit the Warlord titan army? I'd always dismissed it before but if you can force a 4 turn game marching turn one might not be all bad.

Something like
800 Warlord, MRL, MRL, CLP, CCW, CML
750 Warlord, Inf, Inf, Inf, Las burner, CML/Inf, Inf, VMB, Las burner, CML
725 Warlord, VMB, VMB, VMB, Las Burner
175 Gothic
150 Thunderbolts
100 Sentinels
100 Sentinels
100 Sentinels
100 Sentinels

Maybe I'll try it verses the OGBM in a re-match

Of course you could have a cheaper more risky BTS guard in the form of a Reaver, then try and get a bit more quality with the support (QC/support missile Reaver 750, MRL/CLP Reaver 650 so 50 points more or 150 more, for say some bombers).



I'm happy to consider that an official 'TRC proposal' for the list, regardless of what else might occur.

_________________
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'd far rather see this than to break the structure of the list as it is now with the other ideas floating around.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I feel very strongly the list of available weapon options should be kept as is and not moved to match the limited versions of titans they have crammed into W40k. All titan lists should be allowable too.

I'd rather either see a points rise on the Reaver if it's causing a problem, or perhaps better the idea of requiring a Reaver to spend at least 25 points on weapons and a Warlord at least 50 points.

I like this, possibly with the requirement being "You must buy X points of upgrades (for battle titans) per battle titan in your army."
Thus a quake cannon warlord could allow one or more other titans to use free weapons. The part in brackets is to avoid people using warhounds to meet the requirements.

Incidentally, why is the idea of pricing which is not in multiples of 25pts so horrible to some? It seems fairly clear that if the weapon upgrades are broken into 25pt bands there will always be some weapons which do not fit (i.e. not worth taking at 25pts, too good at 0pts).
If people end up with 5-10pts left unspent in a 3000pt game, who cares?

And one of the 3 original lists uses many non-25pt formations...
Ork formations can end up costing all kinds of funny numbers and that doesn't seem to be a problem.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

A random thought... how sure is everyone that warhounds are worth 250 each?

I know there is a surcharge of 25pts to take a single, but if warhound packs are a source of trouble, why not boost their price as well? I can even imagine, given enough of a points bump, unlimited warhound singles could be reasonable. You might even be able to drop the paired-weapon surcharge.

It may be a bit unsavory if they're more than what SM and IG armies pay for them, but that's a small price to pay for balance.

As for the possibility of point values not divisible by 25pts, I think that it would be silly to stick to that when very few other [official] armies do. Having some weapons set at 15pts and others at 65pts could help.

I think that now is the perfect time to do these minor point adjustments. The list is relatively balanced, and everyone has a good grasp of how it operates.

i found that this list has the same problem of the orkamedies ; you can field a huge number of medium/small titan with good weapons , so you have decente activation , huge number of void and dc point. Maybe to pump up some choiches (who said warlord?   ) in the composition list you may add a limitation : 1 warlord formation taken let you take 1 warhound or a big warhounds formation( 2 warhounds) ; 1 reaver let you take only the single warhound formation . In this way the max titan is 6 (3 reaver and 3 warhound  or 2 warlord and 4 warhounds ) , you have all the warhounds more vulnerable if take the reaver choice , and have almost the armylist of titan (i think leave near 400 point not titan). I think is a very good compromise  how do you think? Maybe you have to tweak also the point of the weapons selection because some weapons are far better than other  (turbolaser is better than other more expensive weapon for example)

I like the idea of pricing weapons at something besides multiples of 25. I've suggested this in the past and got shot down every time. So, I gave up.

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

Now is your time DS!

As I said before I think the hierarchy of weapons is something like

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

This system of points has no thought put into it but is just an example of how it could go for battle titans in the current list with no tax system in place (nothing to do with balance just an example of a hierarchy of costs)

35 - Triple Turbo Laser, Volcano Cannon
35 - 2 x Apocalypse Rocket Launcher (extra bm, probably going to get a CLP)
20 - Turbolaser Destructor
15 - Laser Burner, Plasma Cannon, Gatling Blaster
10 - Titan Close Combat Weapon, Apocalypse Rocket Launcher
10 - 2 x Inferno Gun
5 - Vulcan Megabolter
0 - Inferno Gun, Plasma Blastgun

_________________
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

No, it's not. I gave up lobbying for non-25 point multiples.

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