|
I vote, as expected, No.
the current CLP cost/benefit analysis may be off, it may be too good, and encourage a too static playstyle.
but it provides three effects
1, it doubles range
2, it provides +1 to hit via the need to sustain (a factor which is particularly important for barrage weapons, who without special rules cannot otherwise recieve to hit value tweaking to balance their effects like every other weapon type)
and 3, it provides freedom from Line Of Sight issues
In my experience, the first two points are incredibly valuable, easily more than the third, depending on how you play LOS and terrain in your area, maybe two or three times more valuable than the LOS restrictions.
so, if nothing, else, the proposal should reduce the effectiveness of all these areas, not reduce the effectiveness of one of these areas while completely eliminating another.
I believe that a responsible path to testing would be to perform an incremental reduction in all capabilities, and with testing, continue to adjust, upwards or downwards if needed, not this drastic butchering of capabilities
My proposal remains that we should reduce LOS capabilities (via the warhound LOS one, or something similar) and reduce the range benefit (my suggestion would be "increases range by 30cm" which impacts Quake Cannons, the apparent prime offender, much more than that of the generally considered underpowered AML and rarely taken Inferno Guns) while allowing for movement (thus decreasing the dependance on a static playstyle.)
Coupled with an outside rule to penalise any attempts to win via VP through static play, this would solve the problem, instead of overcompensating against a single symptom of that problem and not treating the main issue.
But since the AC is not willing to entertain any sort of range adjustment in pursuit of this vendetta, the vote goes to No
_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~
|
