| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| AMTL 3.17 http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18647 |
Page 1 of 16 |
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:29 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | AMTL 3.17 | ||
War Gryphonnes Titan Legion army list, v3.17. Changes for 3.17: Turbolaser Destructor goes from 25 to 35 pts. Warhound Weapons special rule deleted, general weapons rule modified. New army list structure adopted in order to allow a few more activations into the list
|
|||
| Author: | Flogus [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
The rules about weapons choice is elegant, even if it 'forces' to take pairs of Turbolasers. I saw minor bugs with the grey and white lines in the Adeptus Mechanicus PDF list (Artillery/Praetorians, Flak/Light Transportation and Heavy Transportaion/Praetorians). |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
I don't see how splitting off Warhounds and reducing the number of support formations to one per core formation can increase the number of activations. In general I have no problems with things costing something besides 25-point increments, but having only one thing in a list that costs 35 points could be a problem. Also, I'm not sure I like the new Titan Weapons rule. I'll need to take it for a test drive. 
|
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
Quote: I don't see how splitting off Warhounds and reducing the number of support formations to one per core formation can increase the number of activations. Because now you can effectively get 3 support activations for each core formation, instead of 2 support per core as before... and AMTL cores are expensive... |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
Evil and Chaos wrote: Quote: I don't see how splitting off Warhounds and reducing the number of support formations to one per core formation can increase the number of activations. Because now you can effectively get 3 support activations for each core formation, instead of 2 support per core as before... and AMTL cores are expensive... Ok, that makes sense, assuming you take Warhounds, which is a pretty safe assumption. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
Indeed, Warhounds were still winning out over other Support choices, so splitting them off might make for some more variance in lists. |
|
| Author: | Vaaish [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
Initial thoughts: TLD does solve the no brainer problem but it might move it in the opposite direction or just make it worthwhile to take more? Will need to play with it. I love the new structure at first glance, but might it cause too much emphasis on the warhounds? Just putting together a quick list basing things on two reavers as core I ended up having to take 2 warhound and a single (additional note, taking the single gave me enough points to take CML on both reavers and a legate as well as enough point free to add tlds to the warhounds) to fill out points after taking sentinels for scouting. THis seems to allow some rather significant warhound spam which I thought was a problem ages ago (4 singles or 6 in packs seems a rather large amount of warhounds). Might it work better to reverse this and have 1 scout formation per core and 2 support per core? I'm still a little concerned about the whole BTS thing but the changes to the list structure might help reduce the effect with more activations available to contest objectives. Skitarii: I like the reduction in units. Artillery is an interesting option with only manticores and bombards. I'd be tempted to say that they could even drop to 3 rather than 6 to make outfitting the minorus as artillery a more attractive option and promoting a more exotic list. I'm guessing you made them 6 strong because of of the slow firing aspect and fragility of a 3 strong formation? Wasn't the stormsword going to be dropped because it was a field conversion rather than an admech sanctioned unit? Russes: I like the options for the executioners and vanquishers as it seems very flavorful, but is the standard russ necessary? It's roll is filled by the vanquishers and the 75 point difference might tip folks toward taking the standard over the vanquisher given the firepower the executioners can pump out for the same price. Furthermore, I think that pulling the vanilla russ will give the macharius a better standing since it performs close to the same function minus the lascannons. Was there any further thoughts about changing the the allies percentage to let the Skitarii list take more titan while limiting the air component? Overall I really like how things are headed! EDIT: there seems to be a mistake on the summary sheet that gives the russ executioner 2x plasma cannons as well as the plasma destructor. |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
Oh, I didn't realize there were changes to the Skitarii list as well. I thought it was an update for AMTL only. Thanks for pointing that out, Vaaish. Perhaps it should be numbered v1.13? Thanks for adding back the Hydra upgrade. I like having the added flexibility. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
Dwarf Supreme wrote: Oh, I didn't realize there were changes to the Skitarii list as well. I thought it was an update for AMTL only. Thanks for pointing that out, Vaaish. Perhaps it should be numbered v1.13? Thanks for adding back the Hydra upgrade. I like having the added flexibility. Yes, forgot to update the version number, sorry. |
|
| Author: | Onyx [ Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
Well we've got 2 players using Titan legions in our local campaign (which starts on Sunday). We'll update to the newer list and hopefully be able to give some feedback as we go. Cheers. |
|
| Author: | studderingdave [ Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
thanks for the update, i look forward to fielding them with the changes. |
|
| Author: | GlynG [ Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
Vaaish wrote: Wasn't the stormsword going to be dropped because it was a field conversion rather than an admech sanctioned unit? I'm very in favour of this (was meaning to suggest it a while back plus some other ideas I don't believe I ever got around to posting). Stormswords are nearly all field conversions with maybe a few Adepts putting new ones together on the sly, but most Ad-Mech hate the idea of Stormswords and their higher echelons would likely be particularly conservative and puritan so I don't think it's appropriate to allow them as a unit in Ad-Mech armies. For my own Martian Ad-Mech army I'm going to go one step further and not allow myself Stormblades either, but these should be definitely be in the AM list as Ryza and many other Forge Worlds make them. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
I'd be fine with dropping the Stormsword, although some radical Forgeworlds are known to make new-build ones (Lucius make them for the Death Korps, for example). |
|
| Author: | studderingdave [ Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
as a person who runs three stormswords in nearly all my AM lists i dont want to see them go. |
|
| Author: | Angel_of_Caliban [ Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AMTL 3.17 |
studderingdave wrote: as a person who runs three stormswords in nearly all my AM lists i dont want to see them go. LOL |
|
| Page 1 of 16 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
