Abetillo wrote:
The maximum toughness is OK as it a characteristic of them, but that Titans are all or nothing in dealing with them i think is a bigger problem here. In that way both your ideas and mine work for fixing that in some amount. I agree that losing weapons add a layer of complexity but for Titan lists is Ok, as long as DC 4 or less are left out, and customizing Titans are half of this lists are about, meaning that the weapons used in each unit are all the time on the mind of both players.
Apart from the book-keeping aspect (speaking as someone who has trouble remembering whether or not my supreme commander has been used) it would also differ a lot between lists. I have trouble coming up with a simple rule that would work across several list.
Quote:
And about if there is impact on DC2 WEs, there is, as they would be easier to break again compared with a wounded DC2 with no BMS, lose all the advantages on assaults for having more DCs (stands into contact, formation size for resolution modifiers, ...), and that it would need a FAQ to explain that they won´t stop being WE even after going down to 1DC like AV.
The reason there's no impact on 2DC WE is that the rule I have in mind requires the unit to lose *more* than half of their remaining DC. For a 2DC unit to lose more than half, well, then it's already destroyed.
Quote:
Critical on a 5+ sounds interesting while it not deals with my issue but with yours, and probably a good addition for Eldar and Orks, but i foresee it will be frustrating for Imperial Titans which could explode on the first hit
I agree, Criticals probably differs too much between lists and units to be really useful. An alternative would be to make the Crit worse: +1 Damage on top of the existing result for example.
Quote:
The problem of this is that it would need to be changed on all the chaos list, make a new army rule or create a new unit with similar name which would not be desirable.
Yeah, re-writing crits isn't really realistic.
Quote:
To summarize, try one or two of the best ideas and see what happens, but i think that the idea about putting down the max DCs to half when they are at half is simple
It is simple, but would cause all sorts of strange effects. In particular, it would mean that fewer units could engage the WE in Close Combat, it would be easier to "lock in" units that are in a transport WE, and fewer units would be able to gain cover from the WE. It would also be problematic for units that can Regenerate, like certain Tyranid lists. It would also require a cut-off point somewhere (like 3 or 4DC) that I personally feel is a bit arbitrary. There are probably other weird effects that I haven't thought of, so I would rather not "shrink" them outright.
I have a game coming up tomorrow with TTL, and I'll probably try this version of Crippling Damage in it:
"War Engines that suffers
more than 1/2 of its starting Damage Capacity counts as having a Damage Capacity of 1/2 (rounded up) for the following purposes: Determining the number of blast markers it can have before it becomes broken, and for determining how many Close Combat and/or Fire Fight dice it gets.
In addition, critical hits on the WE cause an addtional +1 damage on top of their usual effects.
This rule takes effect after the activation that caused it has been resolved.
E.g. a War Engine with a starting Damage Capacity of 8 that suffers 5 damage counts as having a Damage Capacity of 4 for the purposes of determining Blast Markers, as well as Fire Fight and Close Combat dice. If it were to suffer another 3 damage it would not suffer any additional negative effects."