You're selectively quoting me there and leaving out the points I made for why the change was a good idea for other lists too. To re-cap Warlord Titans a). aren't taken much and b). don't perform well when they are taken. When reviewing lists we're meant to boost underused and underperforming units so that they see a bit more play and giving the Gatling Blaster 6 shots would help a bit with that.

Lets give this discussion some more concrete numbers. I did a bit of analysis of how often the Warlord Titan is used at Epic-UK tournaments and how well it does. I have no preference to Epic-UK over Net-EA and would refer to numbers for our games if feasible, but it's simple and easy to use their data as they list all the lists people have ever used at their tournaments and how well they did on single webpages and we never were that organised.*

At Epic-UK tournaments Warlords were only taken in 18 out of 172 SM army lists (9.5%) and 6 out of 108 IG army lists used (5.5%). Not very much at all, for what backgroundwise should be the most common sort of titan seen in battle (the numbers for Warhounds used in games would be way higher). It's not just a cost / activation count reduction thing either as Warlock Titans are seen in 26% of Epic-UK Biel-tan lists or (and lists with them have a considerably higher win rate than the Biel-tan average but that's a discussion for elsewhere).

I did more detailed analysis of Warlords with SM then and lists containing Warlords performed considerably worse than the SM average: with 20% wins, 44% losses and 36% draws, compared to the overall average for SM games of 35% wins, 40% losses and 25% draws. Their Warlord stats are identical to ours, though I should mention they kept the original 850 rather than dropping to 825. Given the extent of the rarity and poor performance a further boost to improve the Warlord would seem appropriate for better internal balance and +2 GB shots would be a good option.

* It's still possible for someone to make a similar resource for Net-EA games, though it'd be time-consuming and tedious initially to put together. If some dedicated soul ever had a spare day or few they could go through every single battle report in the battle report section of the forum and make a a single document of each army listing each army list used and whether it won lost or drew, to what type of opposing army list and a spreadsheet could be made from that and put online. There could then be quantifiable data for ACs or anyone else to pull up for how well particular armies were performing and how the usage of certain units effected game victory. It wouldn't be the be all and end all, but it be a helpful resource for balancing lists. I'd said I was going to go through and do this for all the Eldar battle reports if I'd have become the Eldar AC but the ERC went with PFE instead so it didn't happen.


Hopefully Rug and Dobbsy will be persuaded to make the change too, but for the moment and if not then the name change side-steps the problem and is a good way to go Please ignore the expected howls of protest from some quarters at this approach. I would recommend calling it Gatling Blaster (Mars Pattern) though as people looking for it in the list would find it easier where they would expect.

Yeah sorry I was making it brief, but my point still stands even with your back up of points for change.

Like I said to Vaaish, I'm on the fence with this really.

Look, I can make the change in the Marine list if people really want it and are ok with it without a price change, but I don't really want to have lengthy arguments about how points should change due increased firepower etc. based on the AMTL need to increase the shots to make it usable in that list.

Judging by how rarely it's taken and the significant reduction in game wins the Warlord should be able to get +2 shots while still being fine to stay at 825.

How about we put it out there as a potential change and ask playtesters to trial Warlords like this (with any list) and report back how it goes? We don't have to make any definite changes at this point but can give it a try and see.

I am all for the principle of unifying the stats for each weapon. Without derailing the thread (as the above discussion is already threatening to do) just how would we go about doing this in a structured manner that does not wreck the various lists that contain the anomalies? I am also conscious of the lengthy debates that arose when I raised the power creep thread. Though highly desirable, is thi practical?

I'm also for the principle of unifying the stats for weapons etc (and to allow specific armies to have army specific ones, like the Blood Angel Rhino, when its suitable/necessary)
it would be nice to have a "master list" for all weapons and units and then have all other lists following that. So Codex marines would be the master for the rhino and AMTL would be the master for the Titans...
Not sure we need to write this down as it is obvious almost all the time. Perhaps we could make a new category called "Core list" or something that is above Approved and put one list from every race/faction there...? (Codex marines, Biel-Tan etc)

Also in the new Tournament pack the Warhound has the new critical without it being play tested by the individual AC:s so why not give the AC:s an "order" to implement the new weapon stats and then let them decide if the points should be affected...?

^hey wait a minute - you sound suspiciously reasonable

To throw more fuel on the fire, thunderhawks have always had differing stats for their TLD than titans did. I expect, much like the Battle Cannon/Baneblade Battle Cannon issue I pointed out, this really feels like a case of bad record keeping and not different stats for the same weapons. I think most of these issues are handled with name tweaks and those that can't are probably mistakes (either in copy or in function) and should be corrected.



Example: Heavy flamers, irrespective of list, should always be IC weapons. Anywhere missing that should be updated by fiat and is a conceptual mistake.

Medusa tanks and medusa platforms are different weapons and should be renamed to medusa assault gun and medusa siege gun and be done with it as i see that as a mistake of record keeping.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

I'm greatly in favor of consistent weapons stats across the board. I think one of the issues we have at the moment is the huge range of sub lists, a number of which seem, unfortunately, unlikely to make it out of dev.

A master weapons list would be a good idea, hell the ERC could even have a "master weapon smith" or similar position who would vet and be responsible for weapon stats across the races/lists.

I think two lists would be needed, one for ground units and another for aircraft (which might need to consider mounting issues).


Ref Hvy Plasma Guns;
30cm AP5/AT5 always seemed a neat progression from plasma guns at 15cm AP5/AT5.

Ref Gatling Blaster:
I have to agree with GlynG, the limited use of Warlords in either SM or IG lists suggests 2 extra shots is unlikely to break the balance in either list.

Only one list is needed. Just remember that the range of any Flak, AA, or aircraft mounted weapon that is not FxF is reduced by 15cm (to a minimum of 15cm of course).

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

I totally agree that any airborne versions of weapons will be 'nerfed', probably considerably so. Unfortunately it may not be a simple case of a formulaic "15 cm" deduction, which is itself likely to be a source of some contention. See my comments here for a fuller explanation

I agree to the same stats for the same weapons in different lists.

I like to field Minervans and AMTL.

So I like the option to have my Minervans Reavers Disrupt Barrage and my Minvervan Warlord a 6 shot GB. Those things are a minor issue IMHO. They are Titan allies... Shouldn't the Titans sent to support IG have the same weapons and ammunitions like in the AMTL? Also I like to see the global spread of the Warhound Crit like it is in AMTL. For the Demolisher I like the 5+/5+ without Slow Firing. Maybe change it to 4+/6+, doesn't matter much.

"Master Weapons Smith" i like that No don't look at me. You will regret that

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

Do we have a final verdict on this? Nobody seemed opposed which is why I'm guessing it won't quiet almost a year back. Should the ACs be making the change to titan weapons? Specifically Gatling blaster?

I'm confused by all those questions.

Final verdict on what?
Why are titan weapons changing? Specifically the Gatling Blaster?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Hi Dave.

I mean final verdict on this issue. I.e the Gatling blaster for warlord Titans has 4 shots in some lists and 6 shots in others. So should it be consistently 6 to match the AMTL lists.


Same goes for others where the same weapons have different stats.