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

Split Fire (Titans)
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=33667
Page 5 of 5

Author:  Abetillo [ Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

Im liking the ideas and arguments here.

Vaaish wrote:
Quote:
I think things could get odd when you have a Warlord that's basically useless at 1DC while the Baneblade next to it doesn't care. But the only way to know for sure might be playtesting.


I think you're going to have some level of awkwardness regardless. It's awkward that that warhounds, ordinatus, and smaller WE are magically immune from degradation if you limit it to 6/4 for crippling and it's a bit weird that a warlord is practically useless at 1 dc when a shadowsword isn't. It's not so bad with the standard warlord loadout. At 1 dc, it would still get a single TLD which is still a decent number of shots compared to a normal unit.


Yeah, but it is the same awkwardness as now on how a Warlord with 1DC is all powerful, so as said not so much of a problem.

I was thinking in that regard of some mechanic that where if they regain all the shields back means that they can repair some of the degradation, but i cannot find a way to make it simple, and would be an extra complication on the rule. Maybe one PP back if they are at full shields? Would not affect a intact Titan, is easy to track, but could be critical for a very badly damaged one, like a BTS, allowing them to be less frustrating to use.

Author:  Ginger [ Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

I suggested working on a ‘bottom’ up basis for IG, Eldar (and Tau?), so initial damage does not degrade the firepower of a titan, which only happens when the DC drops to the value of all weapons. And as it gets down to the last DC, the titan still has one weapon working, justifying the appropriate FF / CC values.

Author:  Abetillo [ Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

Ginger wrote:
I suggested working on a ‘bottom’ up basis for IG, Eldar (and Tau?), so initial damage does not degrade the firepower of a titan, which only happens when the DC drops to the value of all weapons. And as it gets down to the last DC, the titan still has one weapon working, justifying the appropriate FF / CC values.


So if i understood it well is to lower the requirements for assault and weapons so it takes more damage to begin the degradation and so a very crippled Titan can do something. It seems way better for Eldar and Tau (and maybe Nids) but i would not recomend for the Imperium/Orks, as they are too big and tough and the reward to punch at them should happen soon.

Using Vaalsh PP's could be done by making the PP give two dices for assault and be half the DC in number, so the weapons begin to deteriorate at half DC but even at lower DC the Titan still has enough power to do something wortwhile.

Using a Warlock Titan as an example would be:
-Has 3 PP maximum.
-Current PPs are no bigger than actual DC.
-Each weapon system (not including auxiliary) needs 1 PP.
-Each PP gives two dices for assault.

For small WEs to avoid the pains of going with halfs and as they die quickly could be done as it is so they get crippled at the very beginning so at 1DC still have a wepon on, but again i think that remember and manage several to lots of small WEs will be a pain. Also, keeping track of the PPs and their effects on 6000 points of only DC6+ Titans already takes a fair bit, as even keep track of which has each weapons takes already, from my experience.

Author:  Ginger [ Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

Irrespective of the way split for is achieved, this will inevitably require some form of book-keeping.
I have use magnets to build some of my titans to allow bits to be shot away, recording lost shields and then lost DC.

I think it may be possible to adapt this to work here to minimise written notes, though I agree that doing this in large games could be tiresome.

Author:  Thinking Stone [ Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Split Fire (Titans)

I see simple bookkeeping as a major benefit of Vaaish’s PP system: one already has to keep track of DC, and DC simply becomes important for Assault attacks (which I must admit, has always seemed intuitive to me) and main titan weapons. It’s also an advantage of Mrdiealot’s Crippling Damage (if implemented using a DC threshold).

The idea of a minimum of one main weapon remaining fireable could be a useful one, though I think I’d be leaning against it (I think it’s one of those things that would come down to what titans feel like in games). It might make those small WEs/Superheavies with titan guns work without a new class (I still reckon a difference between a ‘titan’ WE class and a ‘superheavy’ WE class is not a bad idea, though). Abetillo’s suggestion is another way to unify ‘titans’ and ‘superheavies’, but it can quickly become complex!

For me, I think the Firefight value is easily justified by some assumed short-range auxiliary weapons (so no main titan weapon is needed), and Vaaish’s PP allows any number of non-titan weapons to fire up until zero DC.

PS: @Mrdiealot Thanks for the invitation! If I get some time, I shall have a look!

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

Played a game with Questoris Mechanicus with both the Spit Fire and Crippling damage rules against Norto. Took a Warlord, which in QM is slightly cheaper than usual due to the Crippling Damage rule.

Yet again, the Warlord didn't even get attacked, even when my opponent had 3 Shadowswords. It was able to use the Split Fire ability once, shooting at two formations of Gorgons, breaking one and severely damaging the other. I think the Split Fire rule worked pretty well, but in the game I played it made it feel a lot stronger than otherwise, even when it was only able to do it a single time.

Afterwards we discussed why attacking a Warlord / Gargant etc. is almost always a really risky choice:

One big problem is that it can rapidly re-gain all its void-shields. So even strippling them off might mean nothing if you can't follow up with several formations. Another problem is that there's not enough time to engage it, and since Epic is a game of objectives it's almost always better to ignore it and hit at something else instead.

One possible conclusion from this is that the Crippling Damage rule makes too little difference in most match-ups to matter, and in the match-ups where it does matter it's not really needed since those lists are capable of killing it anyway.

So what then? One way would be to take a look at the Void Shield special rule. This could theoretically be changed since it's not part of the Core Rules, but is actually an army specific rule. One suggestion would be to remove the ability to re-charge the void shield with the marshall, and only give the single shield that comes at the end of turn. I think this would be interesting to test.

Another suggestion would be to make it more appealing to attack a Warlord or Emperor Titan. One suggestion would be to expand the "God Machines" rule in AMTL and make it more nasty, perhaps giving a D6 BMs to all friendly formations on the table or something. Another could be to make an 8DC+ Titan BTS count as two objectives instead of one, which means that all effort invested in killing it could actually be worth it.

Author:  Abetillo [ Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

I think that the problem there was simply that there was only one Titan. In those situations its always better to go for the softer parts and ignore/interfere the big guy, no matter what crippling it has, much worse on a human Titan where as you said, they repair the damage fast.

Please continue finding flaws or exploits on the split fire for us.

Author:  Mrdiealot [ Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

Abetillo wrote:
I think that the problem there was simply that there was only one Titan.


No, I think this is a much more general problem than that. All lists will have things that are softer than the DC8+ WE BTS, including all WE lists. In a game of objectives, this means that it will almost always be a better choice to attack the softer parts of the army, while feeding the big WE crap and contesting its objectives.

I still think that making it more attractive to attack the big titans is the way to go, but at this point I'm not so sure that the Crippling Damage rule is the way to get there.

Author:  studderingdave [ Sun May 19, 2019 3:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

I played a game of epic today!

first actual game in a very long time. but it got the gears moving and another local interested in playing. we played minervan vs. salamanders, so it has no general bearing on the split fire discussion, but we are printing/painting titans for playtest. i have an OGBM already, what is the current split fire/degrading damage ideas look like?

Author:  Vaaish [ Sun May 19, 2019 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

No changes or further discussion.

Author:  studderingdave [ Sun May 19, 2019 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

then perhaps what was the last version of the presented rules for testing?

Author:  Vaaish [ Sun May 19, 2019 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Split Fire (Titans)

No specific options made it far enough for general testing. There's probably a few in the thread if you want to try something, but there's no plans at this point to implement split fire or degradation

Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/