We usually ignore the Corvus requirement and haven't noted any problems with fielding Skitarii by themselves.

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

I would be quite keen to see some sort of tweak so that Standard Configuration Warlords and Reavers went back to 850 and 650 points respectively. Not sure how that would best be achieved, though.

_________________
"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 like what Vaaish said and it does make a lot of sense that way when you see the official reaver and warlord point spread for thier weapons.

Whilst I like the idea that would still leave create dificulties if anyone were to take a single TLD.

true but you can't appease everybody. we need to play with these idea's instead of just giving point and counter point. thats how R&D works.

I agree completely. I just thought I'd put my thoughts out there to try to stimulate a productive discussion rather than lurk quietly. It does make 2 TLDs the same cost as the laser blaster but that only takes up one hardpoint.

I realize that it makes it the same cost as the laser blaster, but then the choice becomes, take a single hardpoint and have 3/4 of the firepower or take up two hard points with the TLD and get two extra shots. I think it makes the Laser blaster a bit more favorable, but either choice workable. It also means you probably wont see many TLD armed single warhounds since it makes them pretty pricy with two TLD and taking one makes the points hard to fill unless you are planning on taking alot of TLD. It does, however, have the potential to cause the a single TLD to rarely show up.

_________________
-Vaaish

For "rarely" read "never".

At 35 points, and with no 15 point upgrade, the single TLD affectively costs 50 points. If two of them also costs 50 points, who'll ever take just one?

Yes, this would be good, if it could be actioned

Could the +25pt surcharge for taking purely multiples of a single weapon be changed to +Xpts per pair of such weapons?

It just occurs to me that Reavers are (perhaps) penalised by the limitations of their three weapons hardpoints. A Warlord can quite happily take three of one type of weapon, and avoid the penalty by taking a different weapon.

Of course, this may have been discussed previously, so apologies if this has already been thrashed out.

+++
I ought to add that I'm very happy with how the list works at the moment, so this is really just a bells-and-whistles tweak.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Not many people, but I was thinking that it would more likely show up with people who want to upgrade single warhounds and have several. It was my intent that the 2 for 50 points could only be taken on the same titan chassis to prevent a warhound pack from splitting them up to avoid the surcharge. In that case you could forseeably take one rather than the two because you'd be subject to the surcharge for the titan having only a single weapons system making it rather prohibitive to take two turbolasers on scout titans.

When it comes down to it, you could take 4 on a warlord for 100 points, and I think there would be better options plus it adds the surcharge. Take a weapon to break it up and you pay 35 points for the third TLD. On a reaver, after the first two, you only have one slot and taking the third makes you subject to the surcharge again. On a warhound, well you only have two slots so taking that boosts the cost making a single, even at 35 points a bit more livable especially if you have multiples.

_________________
-Vaaish

yeah. if you changed the costing to X per Pair, you could tweak the costings to be reasonable
for instance, dual TLDs on warhound is the problem, replace the "same weapons cost 25" with "two TLDs" adds a +5pt surcharge" (making them 35 point singles, but 75 points for two, which fits in nicely with the rest of the list)
you could even go further, and drop the TLDs cost down to 30 per, and make it a 15pt surcharge. dual vulcans is less of a problem so they'd only be a 5pt surcharge, dual plasblasters? i dunno, could be free, could be 10 depending on how you want to look at it. you could add a surcharge to barrage weapons, since they scale upwards.

adding small point surcharges helps two ways, firstly, it makes the list more granular, so we can fill out points a little better, and it allows tweaking of values much easier.

actually, a better way to do it would be to have a 4 string price cost, for first/second/third/fourth instances of the weapon

so for the vulcan, it would be "free/5/5/10" or something (so that first is free, second is 5, to take a 4 vulcan warlord would be 20 points. if you'd prefer, it could be written as "free/5/10/20")

is a the TLD really better than two vulcans? my maths says "not really" but with the current surcharge it's costing 10 points more than two vulcans. (bad analysis due to the cost of mounting on a warhound but still. a point to be made)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

I would be completely against adding more surcharges. It unnecessarily complicates the point values. With what you are speaking of you have surcharge special rules for practically every weapon which makes it confusing and difficult to create a list. As things are right now, the existing surcharge rule is straightforward and effective plus the only odd man out is the single TLD. I don't have a problem with it remaining 35 points if that's what it is properly pointed at. My suggestion is an exploration of a means to get a standard variant reavers and warlords back to 650 and 850 respectively with as little effect on the current point values as possible.

_________________
-Vaaish

but while simple, the flat, universally applied 25 point surcharge is not balanced

some weapons clearly gain more benefit from being taken in sequence (for instance, a triple apoc-launcher gets more from its duplication than a triple vulcan megabolter does. the megabolter could probably be better served taking a plasma as it's third weapon. certainly so if the 25pt surcharge applies, while the launcher reaver is almost always better off keeping its launcher, even for an extra 25 pts)

likewise, i do not believe that the TLD is infact worth 35 points more than a vulcan megabolter. let's extrapolate some maths X-treme shall we?

i have 6000 points with which to spend on warhounds. i buy 20 individual warhounds with dual vulcan megabolters (including the surcharge) which i then shoot at a bunch of tanks. if i stand still, my 80 shots will hit 40 times.
if i where to spend my 6000 pts on 16 warhounds with dual TLDs, standing still my 64 shots will hit 53 times. so, my Tank-optimised units killed a little over 25% more tanks than my infantry-optimised units did.
now those warhounds shoot at infantry. my 80 shot vulcans, standing still hit 67 times, whilst the TLDs 64 shots will hit 32 times. so here my optimised unit killed more than 100% more infantry than my tank optimised one did

add this in to the fact that there are usually more infantry than tanks for the points cost, and it seems like Vulcans are a better option.

now, tanks are usually more hardy (more tanks with RA than infantry, better saves for tanks in general than for infantry) and more of a threat to the warhounds, so the numbers above do not necessarily represent numbers killed, but i am not convinced that they're more than an entire vulcan megabolter better. (because they equally do not represent the value that 4 extra formations shooting can have regarding blast markers)
i guess the extra range on the TLDs is nice, but i'm still not feeling enough for anything more than a +25 point difference, and even then i'm not convinced

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Seems like the simplest option.

Don't go too crazy with the maths, it never ends well.

But.

- The VMB is shorter ranged than the TLD, meaning you have to Advance or Double more often. That's bad.
- Infantry are generally in cover, and vehicles are not. That's also bad.

Both combine to stack against the VMB.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter