Doomkitten wrote:
jimmyzimms wrote:
JS and DK for instance we're not around long ago when silly things like triple quake cannons and overloaded plasma cannon titans were stalking the battlefield [shudder at the beardiness]. If someone shows up with a triple AML I won't even care, 3 quake cannon reaver's going to have a talking to.
I was, but I suppose Space Marine/Titan Legions doesn't count for this discussion.
You know what was meant. No you were not part of the development years ago-Not helping
Doomkitten wrote:
But even then, such triple weapons are curtailed by making them arm/carapace only mountings (which by nature become no more than one or two per chassis), or limiting to a 0-2 option.
Aren't we both saying the same thing here? I'm just pointing out there's some problematic weapons from both a fluff perspective and list tailoring perspective that we should be be cognizant with. 9/10 the weapons are fine but there's a few foul combos (Shadowlord's got the math posted) that probably should be curtailed and as you point out, are well handled in those simple restrictions.
Doomkitten wrote:
That said, E:A is a game of maneuver and the Titan Legion list lacks precisely that - it has virtually no capacity to maneuver positively. Any competent commander will place objectives properly, then outpace and outflank titans. As we can't really make all Imperial titans faster, a small reduction in chassis costs (25-50 for a Reaver, at least 50 for a Warlord), considering their place as the necessary core of the army (as opposed to a place in support of an already well balanced list), is probably the most likely thing that could be done to make them a positive, competitive and fun force to bring to battle.
Which is exactly why you're putting lipstick on a pig. A AMTL list, not matter WHAT WE DO, is by it's very nature spectacularly not well suited to the GT scenario and EA's maneuver / activation over all philosophy (I was one of the few that strongly advocated for a VP tweak for the army but that didn't happen). It's never going to have many intricate and detailed tactical approaches intrinsic in the list that are found in others (aka it's very mono-faceted and 99% of the time your basic strategy will be the same as Mard appropriately points out). However it shouldn't be hamstrung either when someone take her out for some fun (also sentinel spam was well dealt with by our illustrious AC so cheers there). I'm totally with you that the list is overly restrictive though and should be lightened up.
Junkstar wrote:
triple quake equates to 4+ 5+ under templates - hardly a show stopper.
Ummm also MW but yeah nice as you do realize there's more than just the shooting in this game, right? What happened was that people would castle up AMTL and park arty titans on the Blitz and cause even worse less maneuver-centric even more boring games back then. Vaaish has had the not enviable job of balancing all that.
Junkstar wrote:
True not all weapons are created equal but you would expect them to be, be it ea uk or net ea
That's asinine. That's why things cost variable points. Fair enough on the EUK bit. Personally I don't really understand why we've not adopted their list instead (just on weight of games played) but that's neither here nor there.
Junkstar wrote:
you are limited by points build anyway doubt you would have 2 decent titans
Actually it spectacularly allowed gamey builds that disenfranchised the entire marine faction when taking an all-comers list. Again, the wider picture here which Vaaish has done a great job of walking a fine line.
Junkstar wrote:
as to time playing 25+ years thanks but if you are inferring that on date joined linked with posts
Wow dude you're so cool. Can we kick it and play twister?
Dude you were not playing EA 25 years ago and YES I can absolutely correlate your post history with your engagement in list development. Do you have to take such an adversarial tone and demeanor with everyone, even when they're supporting your positions, albeit for different reasons? Don't be an ass. Kisses.
Junkstar wrote:
The issue with chassis reduction cost is will it have to be reflected throughout other armies who get TL support?
No. Cost is a list factor/consideration. Weapons stats need to be uniform or they need a name adjustment. A great example is the big cost savings on White Scars terminator detachments over Codex as they've got compulsory land raiders.
Junkstar wrote:
removal of the single wep surcharge would see more varied builds, sure some will do cheese lists but thats a reflection on the player not the army
Except it didn't. One of the primary responsibilities of a NetEA AC is exactly to construct lists that stop that abuse.
junkstar wrote:
dptdexys wrote:
Quote:
fine what is the fair matchup then? I used Shadowsword as they are TK D3 - ie negates shields
TK does not negate shields.
does when its a on a Shadowsword
DAFUQ????
I really cannot understand why you're debating that units can cost different amounts in different lists based on their theme and internal balance as I've already demonstrably shown it so in the Whitescars example.