[NetEpic ML] Re: R: R: chaos titan

From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:15:22 +1100

At 09:49 AM 12/21/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Kevin,

Actually, its Kelvin.

>I played SM/TL for long time and I knew that the "old" banelord as appared
>in the white dwarf had these weapons configuration (also the gargants had
>with titan legion a fixed configuration), but when I read the netepic chaos
>list I saw that it was present only with the hull cost, as the other titan,
>and I thought that you changed the past fixed configuration for a more
>flexible one (a good decision I thought for game balance); infact reading
>the list the titans with fixed weaponery are specified, so one can easy
>immagine that the banelord belong to the other gender, also reading this
>list I see that the same think happen with the lord of battle, also in this
>case only the hull is shown so one can think that it also can be assembled.
>I hope that the first think to do in the future should be to correct the
>bugs in the lists because without this someone can play an army uncorrectly.

In TL, the Lord of Battles' weapons appeared as part of the main weapons
list for Titans. This effectively meant that you could put Lord of Battles
weapons on Chaos Titans. Now the Lord of Battle Gatling Cannon is better
then the standard Titan one. Our local Chaos player worked this out. He
convered a Chaos Khorne Titan to mount two L.O.B. gatling cannons, a Fire
Con tower and a Warp Missile. Nasty Titan it was. We fixed that kind of
bug by making Titans pay for their weapons fit. Now we have this bug of
non-fixed vs fixed weapon Titans in our rules. It should be fixed too.

>Really I don't see how this configuration can give a real advantage to field
>it, with a move rate of 15 cm. in a three turn game it can do nothing, else
>give xx victory points to my opponent! The real problem, emphasized in the
>past posting was that warlord class titan are too expensive, specially when
>for 200 pts less you can buy a reaver titan. Immagine that, in my game that
>belong to a campaign with four players, I fought a battle with two banelord
>with this configuration (wrong): plasma cannon, fire control center and
>energy whip, total cost 750 pts. x 2 = 1500 pts.; now with the same cost I
>can buy three reavers with the same configuration. Do you really think that
>the two "wrong" banelords are better?! The first one exploded during the
>first turn and the last spent the rest of the game hiding.....I faced 3
>tempest and three prism cannons costing 650 pts!! I coulnd't fire back
>because they are making pop up and I was restricted to advance/charge order!

Firstly, you cannot arm Reavers with Plasma Cannons I believe. The only
Plasma weapon they can carry is the Plasma Blastgun.

And secondly yes, the problem with Banelords is the fact that they cannot
First Fire. Warlord are better then Reavers, but only just. They can take
more punishment if the Reactor holds out (better shields and saves in other
locations) and carry more weapons. But you are right. The three Reavers
would have been better then the two Banelords you had.

>As chaos is a second turn army I really don't see this an advantage because
>usually my opponents take an edge in victory points in the first turn and I
>really don't belive that a warlord/banelord class can survive for three turn
>with his achilles heel's in the reactor hoping to have a demonic engine

I've played with them and had them turn into rampaging monsters. I've also
played with them and had them go splat before the end of the First Fire
phase. This is why I have been campaigning for a change to the
survivability of Titans. Warlords are too squishy. I DON'T want them to
turn into GW uber-models, I just want them to have the reputation for being
massive land battleships like they should.

> The miniature is very nice but only for collection pourpose!

Nah. I use it all the time. I just don't use it as a Banelord. Its
merely a cool-looking Khorne Warlord Titan to me.


         "Of course I'm paranoid!
       Everyone's trying to kill me."
Received on Tue Dec 21 1999 - 22:15:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:49 UTC