I'm splitting this on from the Titan Legions- Post your list thread as it might be missed there and probably deserves it's own disscussion.

I mentioned Warhound Titan packs with these weapon configurations:
Hound - 2 Inferno Guns, + Hound - Inferno Gun and Vulcan Megabolter
Hound - 2 Plasma Blastguns, + Hound - Plasma Blastgu and Turbo Laser
Hound - 2 Plasma Blastguns, + Hound - 2 Turbo Lasers

Vaaish replied:


This came out of the blue and I’m surprised. The surcharge rules were originally written specifically in such a way to allow configurations like the above not to be surcharged, they have been that way for years without complaint and I’ve seen others mention using Warhound Packs that way too. I plan to glue most (possibly all) of my Warhounds weapons on when I put them together in the coming weeks (modelling reasons with wanting to model cables taking precedent over flexibility with magnets), and I would prefer to get this settled as it affects what I glue them together with.

I can see arguments either way but I think the stronger case is for leaving the surcharge rule as is and I’m not aware of playtest reports finding it overpowered. Warhounds are meant to be fielded in pairs by the background, yet this is the lesser used option in Epic due to activation factors and other disadvantages, should this change be made that makes the pairs a worse option? I find it very hard to fit in the WH pairs (which I prefer to singles) I want into a 3k list with enough activations already.

Do 3 Inferno Guns and a VMB seem too good at 500 points or need a bump to 525? Sure a 9 BP point barrage is good, but you’d have to get within 30cm of the enemy to do so and often have to double to do so rather than sustaining like other artillery barrages. I’m taking them more because I’m painting them as Legio Ignatum and flame weapons fit their theme rather than because they’re that competitive (a pair of 2 x VMB+PBG would probably be better most of the time). The Hound with 2 x PBG + Hound with 2 x TLD combo does seem slightly more competitive than 2 x Hound with PBG and TLD , but it’s already expensive at 550 and I’m not convinced it’s worth 600 points.

The purpose was to prevent titans from taking optimized loadouts because way back it was determined that this was OP. I'd have to dig out the threads to be certain as to the specifics though but I'm fairly sure it was originally just on the warhounds and then more recently moved to the reavers and warlords.

The reason for my comment was that I can't remember someone purposely loading out a warhound pack with three of the same type weapon and tacking on an extra to prevent the surcharge which was what your list appeared to do without the benefit of your explanation. For example, every other titan formation consists of a single titan. With the surcharge in place, you can't field a single warhound with two inferno guns without incurring the penalty. However, since the rule currently says "formation" you can avoid the penalty and take a warhound with two of the same weapons so long as the second warhound has something different. Why should you be allowed this for free in the warhound pack when it's not allowed under any other circumstances? I believe this came up when the rule moved to all titan formations from the warhounds but there was never any resolution for it and I honestly didn't think of it again until I saw your list.

_________________
-Vaaish

I'm pretty sure the word "Formation" was added into the sentence intentionally with the specific aim of allowing this type of setup.

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

was twin weapons actually OP or just boring?

Given the choice most people would choose two matching - after all the titan needs to be good at it's job, and things like matching ranges and targets are pretty key.

_________________
My shifting projects

You see I've been playing it with +25pts per titan. I hadn't realised it was per formation?
I've only been running one warhound with twin inferno in support of my knights to help with infantry in woods. It seems to work so far?

_________________
http://wanderingmonsters.blogspot.com.au
'You should check this bloke's blog out, it's the bomb!' - HM Queen Elizabeth II (really)

Took a while to get back to this but always meant to as it's important to me.


As, though being composed of two titans, an epic Warhound formation still has to fire at a single target. Ideally you would have all four the same weapon but the surcharge encourages you to have 3 and 1 then it is working. A Warlord Titan also has four weapons and can have 3 of one weapon and 1 of another with no surcharge – this is effectively somewhat similar cicumstances?


Absolutely, the wording of 'formation' is clear and it is was definitely intentional, not a mistake.

The fact that it's been this way for years but people generally aren't using it should tell you that it isn't overpowered and should be left as is.

The background is very clear that Warhounds come in pairs to protect each other yet due to the activation system and how low activation numbers a TL will be lone Warhounds more useful and commonly taken that pairs. Pairs have disadvantages like the other breaking if one dies. Please leave it as is and get it tested a LOT before even considering changing it. It's a small boost if you missed the option, but 3 of one Warhound weapon isn't that significant (hell Warlords can have 3 of one battle titan weapon with no surcharge) and the costs are fine as is.

Ok we can leave it as is then. I'd rather us spend time on things like the skitarii list, the catahpractii list proposal and the tweaks to the GB you brought up than this.

_________________
-Vaaish

The surcharge was extended to battle titans because the turbolaser monofit is broken.

Other solutions were proposed - 35pts for turbolasers (which was tested and fixed the issue, but was very unpopular) and adopting the configuration limits from the background setting (which was tested and fixed the turbolaser issue and several others besides, but was unpopular with people who glued their titans together 20 years ago).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Excellent



It's not just such people. I haven't glued my titans together yet (and I'm using truescale modern titans) and I would hate to have such configuration limits forced. The 40k configurations are just what they came up with at the time and such things change; if/when they release other weapons based on the old ones these will be added. FW used to sell a Reaver with 3 apocalypse missile launchers and I plan to run that combination sometimes, uncaring of it not being allowed by FW's current 40k Reaver rules.

I like having the 25 point surcharge that encourages more variety in weapon fits. Titans seen in the Imperial Armour books mostly have all different weapons.

Ok, it was those people plus Glyn ;-p

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

not just plus glynn, i personally think that the restrictions proposed were an abomination (not to mention, invalidating several of layouts of the models released and most absurdly, that making the TLD an arm only weapon invalidated the default warlord setup, and making it a carapace only weapon invalidated the default reaver setup)

the surcharge thing does some weird things though, especially when looking at the "three TLD reaver" situation

as it currently stands, a 3 TLD reaver costs 675 points

a 2TLD+LB reaver also costs 675 points which is literally the same as the 3TLD reaver, except its got 2 extra shots, so it's actually a 3.5TLD reaver

meanwhile, a 2LB+X reaver (where X is one of the free weapons) is also 675 points, and is also literally the same as the 3TLD reaver, except in this case, it gets an entire free weapon in the mix (be it a VMB for infantry clearing, or PBG for added tank killing, or an inferno gun or laser burner for close support, neither of which fit in the role of the titan, but do allow for it to fit into the fetishised "multi task titan" image)

and it gets weirder with warlords

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

I don't disagree that the modern configuration rules invalidates a Reaver configuration (that's been "illegal" in the background setting for ten years).

...and as you'll recall, I bowed to the desires of the community, and didn't fix the Turbolaser problem properly, instead only added the surcharge "patch". ;-)


Yup, it's a crappy patch with its own set of issues, I've always agreed.

There are better ways to address the problem. The community rejected those better options soundly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

oh, i remember you bowing to the communities desires, though maybe not quite the way you do :P

I'm just saying that there were good reasons to leave it in place beyond "i glued my titans together back when i could put fists on their heads" not to mention that if we cannot change the range of a TLD because it is present in default and published lists, the fix should not be "make every officially published imperial list and the most commonly assembled reaver model invalid"

but yes, i think the real lesson is, what the hell is it with laser blasters? they are a better version of a default weapon, which is something also carried through by the PBG, but why doesnt the Inferno Gun, or particularly, the VMB have a similar option?

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

Or anyone who has bought a FW Reaver armed with 3 apocalypse missile launchers? On sale till relatively recently and which isn't allowed by current 40k Reaver rules. The current titan rules were just something they threw together rather than being absolute. The weapons will likely change and be expanded in a few years when they bring the Warlord out.

Heck even the default epic configuration twin TLD, Missile Launcher Reaver isn't allowed in 40k. Nothing is going to change on this score anyway, it was clear when it was discussed in the past that following the current 40k restrictions wasn't popular for epic.


Strongly disagree, I think the weapon surcharge is a very good and appropriate idea and it encourages variation of weapons as per the background.

I see zero problem with a triple TLD Reaver costing the same as a 2 LB + other free weapon Reaver. Fixing the optimisation of 3 of one weapon by charging extra is appropriate and the important thing, even if it makes that then an un-optimum choice.

The 2 LB + other free is correctly costed and can just be taken instead. 2 LB + smaller carapace weapon looks better and is more likely to fit the current 40k rules if you care about that sort of thing.

By current background TLD are scout titan weapons, or small, carapce only weapons on Reavers or Warlords.

The LB is the more powerful version that is used on the arm weapons of a battle titan. It's appropriate for it to be better.

The VMB sort of does have a better battle titan equivalent - the Gatling Blaster.