Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Questoris Mechanicus (Developmental)
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=33209
Page 9 of 10

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.55 (Developmental)

While I've got a lot of opinions about how AMTL could be made more fun to play I don't think the best place to discuss it is in the QM thread.

Speaking of which, I've updated QM to v1.55 along the lines discussed above.

Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.55 (Developmental)

Ha. very true. Sorry to hijack the thread :)

Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.55 (Developmental)

One last question.... Is shield Piercer needed as a rule? Typically we've used "ignore shields" in the weapon notes. Would that work for what you're intending?

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.55 (Developmental)

It would, but I actually prefer to have a clearly defined rule and then reference it (sort of a function in programming). It also gives the chance of using it in other lists (sort of like the Lance rule is now pretty much a general rule).

Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.55 (Developmental)

What's the point of making a rule for something that's already covered though? Doesn't that just add complexity for the sake of complexity?

It's a bit like how we currently treat weapons that ignore cover or gain first strike by adding that to the weapon notes. We don't (at least to my knowledge) have a SR that explains Ignore Cover or First Strike that then gets attached to lists.

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.55 (Developmental)

I'd argue that it's the other way round, it is better to call a rule something than to write snippets of text everywhere. But if you prefer that you can do it that way.

Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.55 (Developmental)

NM my point is invalid. We do actually have SR in a global sense under the specialist rules. I just never think about them as Special Rules since they are in the main rulebook. From a list reference standpoint, I'd still just call the rule "ignore shields" so it's easier to digest. Also, remove references to specific weapons from the rule so it can apply to any weapon. I'd recommend doing this for Unstable too.

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.55 (Developmental)

That might be better, I agree.

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.56 (Developmental)

Did some minor tweaks to the way the special rules are written, which means that the list is now v1.56

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.56 (Developmental)

New bat-rep against Tau posted: viewtopic.php?f=84&t=33736&p=630596#p630596

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.57 (Developmental)

Updated the list to 1.57 after the last game. Biggest change is that Armiger Knights are 25pts more expensive.

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.57 (Developmental)

Some nice rumors nicked from the A-T FB page:

Quote:
When I asked if the Porphyrion was going to be done in plastic or resin, the response was along the lines of "so far all of the current 'full scale' knights that have been released in miniature for AT have been done in plastic". I'd interpret that as a plastic Porphyrion coming :-) [But that could just be me hearing what I want to hear!!]

Strongly implied though that the Mechanicum knight variants are not on the cards at the moment (but a real desire to do them in the future)

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.57 (Developmental)

The A-T models for Cerastus Knights looks really big. I'm thinking the current stats will be OK, but just maybe they should be slightly tougher?

Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.57 (Developmental)

I wouldn't base stats on physical size since there's a lot of variety in model collections. I think the current stats are fine.

Author:  Armiger84 [ Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Questoris Mechanicus v1.57 (Developmental)

Yeah, regarding size & stats, I’d observe that -

A) Epic is an abstraction, and
B) DC scores are a factor of both mass and durability.

A low-slung, internally-braced DC3 tank might be smaller than a towering DC3 chicken walker with exposed joints, but it can average out reasonably.

GW decided to make some Knights taller than others while giving them basically the same hit points in 40k. If they decided to accentuate that size discrepancy further in AT18...meh.

Plus, I agree with Vaaish - you’re likely to get people using this list while playing a mix of old GW metals, various forumware and fanware models, and the new AT18 minis. You don’t want to unintentionally exclude players based on their model collection. ;)

Page 9 of 10 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/