| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Epic-compatible version of AT http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7972 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
I was wondering about other people's thoughts on making an EA-compatible version of AT. Potentially needed rules: Detailed construction rules Expanded fire arc rules Detailed movement rules Detailed damage system Reactor and/or Activation rules Assorted "advanced" rules - merging void shields, et. al. General thoughts: I think the EA system for dealing with WEs is decent and if the rules are to be compatable we have to stick with them as a base. I think detailed construction rules are really a no-brainer. You simply have to have them in a titan-focused game. I think that the fire arcs presented in the core book are probably fine but adding some would be very easy. Same for detailed damage. It's a must-have. With detailed damage rules, titans will degrade as they take damage whereas under the EA rules they retain full abilities until dead. To keep point values roughly the same, it seems that balance could theoretically be achieved by making titans tougher to destroy outright. In other words, even though they lose capability sooner they can keep going longer. The problem is that in general large WEs might be nearly impossible to destroy in a normal GT-style Epic game. You could incorporate activation and reactor rules. One way of looking at it is that right now a basic EA unit effectively gets 3 "partial" actions that it can divide up among movment and fire. The first firing action is at -1 and gets the basic support ability for the formation. Each additional "firing" action adds +1 to hit. Each movement action gets a normal movement. Regrouping and initiating an assault count as 2 partial actions. So you have: Double - 2 moves, 1 firing action Advance - 1 move, 2 firing Sustain - 3 firing March - 3 move Engage - 1 move, assault (2 partial actions) Marshall - regroup (2 partials), 1 move or fire at -1 Hold doesn't quite work because you get 2 partial actions for Regrouping or Firing (normal to-hit) but only 1 partial action if you take the single move. Nonetheless, I think the rough concept could be useful. So... you could use the reactor-point method as long as you got the total count/expense correct for various sub-actions. You could just make BMs a penalty on the reactor rolls. The net effect would be similar to EA initiative. Also, as you scaled up to larger titans (needing more reactor points due to more weapon systems) they would retain more flexibility when suppressed. Hmm... that might be the counter to the degrading performance - loss of maneuverability or weapon systems due to damage is counteracted by the overall flexibility continuing to maximize the capabilities that remain. There are some other reactor-activation things to consider as well - plasma weapons, overloading shields, how does a low reactor/activation roll correspond to a failed activation in EA with respect to retaining initiative. I'm not sure about maneuver rules. EA titans have considerably more maneuverability than previous editions and I have to admit that I like it. We could put some restrictions on it but they would have to have a lot of options. The trick in all of this is to make an "average" titan performance remain just about the same as it currently is in EA. When you start talking about how to make a Warlord titan spread its points out over movement and fire and the other possible fiddly bits it starts to get sticky. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
And, obviously, all this would have to work with big WEs for non-Imperials. |
|
| Author: | Reaver [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
A while back I had a quick go at more detailed rules for Titans in E:A. Find them here: http://tinyurl.com/y2ktkw http://tinyurl.com/y4rrrz They are quite simple, and some of the damage effects are a bit too extreme, but they work quite well. I know E+C's been trying bits of them out. No Plasma Reactor points, though. It'd be nice to work them in somehow. While I have a healthy interest (okay, obsession!) with Titans and Titan games, I still have the problem that every time I try and add more Titan rules to E:A, it seems to change the focus of the game totally, and for the worse. That's why I started mucking about with AT again. Might be easier to add infantry and tanks to AT than to add detailed Titans to E:A! That said, I'm willing to boost Titan interest any way I can, and if E:A is the way to go, then count me in... Regards, Reaver |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
I'm always in favor of more detailed Titan rules. I really like where you're going so far, Neal. One thing I don't necessarily agree with is a to hit penalty for each activation after the first. One thing Moscovian (or was it Suvarov) suggested at the Albany tourney was to allow titans to split fire, but only the first weapon that fires can place the blast marker a target receives for coming under fire. I'm looking forward to see what you come up with. 
|
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
My group have been playing with a very slightly modified version*** of Reaver's damage tables, combined with the modular weapons set that I coordinated here on Tactical Command. The consensus from everyone who's tested them seems to be: - They prefer the more detailed Titan rules that the two documents combined result in. - They would like damage tables for other race's titans too! The advantage of this way of having detailed titans is that it integrates almost seamlessly into Epic:A (The only modifications of core rules are to the Titans themselves), the disadvantage being that some of the more detailed rules (Such as reactor plasma points) aren't in it. A minor note of interest is that Reaver's modified E:A Titan rules allow Titans to split fire, as a way of compensating for their tendency to degredate in power over the course of a game. A minor nudge downwards in points costs wouldn't be entirely implausible I suppose, but Titans (So far) feel generally balanced with this system (At least they're not so underpowered that the Titan-fielding army has always lost). We havn't kept strict records of how they've done however. *** Modified the speed/turns ratio to give 1 turn for every 10cm of movement, and changed the critical hit table results that refer to -1 turn to -5cm movement instead (Thus the result ends up affecting both turns and movement in one hit, more elegant). Probably a few other minor things too. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
I monkeyed around with some action/reactor points at lunch. I think I have a system concept that could work. It's a little bit more efficient for Warlords than Reavers, but a Reaver that goes with an assault weapon gains considerably over a Warlord that does so. === *Movement - 2 points per move *Basic Fire control - 1 point, allows all weapons to fire at -1 and allows support of assaults *Increased fire control - 1 point allows 2 weapons to fire at +1, slow-firing weapons would be 1 point for 1 system (in other words 1 point bumps 2 weapons from Double to Advance or from Advance to Sustain with respect to to-hit numbers) *Engage - 2 points *Regroup - 1 point for 2d3 - take the highest, 2 points for 2d6 - take the highest *Regenerate - as Regroup, but repairs shields Costs for formations are paid for the formation as a whole. All titans in a formation must pay for the same movement. ====== Running some comparisons of "action" costs: Warhound: Double - 5 points (4 move, 1 fire) Advance - 4 points (2 move, 1 basic fire, 1 advance fire) March - 6 Engage - 4 Regroup and Regenerate - 3 (1 move, 1 for BM removal, 1 for Shield repair) Paired Warhounds: Double - 10 points (8 move, 2 fire) Advance - 8 points (4 move, 4 fire) March - 12 Move, Regroup and Repair - 8 (4 move, 2 for 2d6 BMs, 2 for 2d6 repair) Move, basic fire, repair/regroup - 6 (2 move, 2 fire, 1 for 2d3 BM, 1 for 2d3 Repair) As you can see, a pair of Warhounds gains a bit of tactical flexibility. Battle Titans: Reavers: Double - 5 (4 move, 1 basic fire) Advance - 5 (2 move, 1 basic fire, 2 normal fire because there are 3 weapon systems) Sustain - 5 (0 move, 5 fire) Engage - 4 (2 move, 2 Engage) March - 6 [possible problem here] Reaver w/ 1 assault weapon: Double - 5 (4 move, 1 basic fire) Advance - 4 (2 move, 1 basic fire, 1 for 2 weapon systems) Sustain - 3 (0 move, 1 basic, 2 for 2 systems to Sustain) Engage - 4 (2 move, 2 engage) March - 6 Warlord: Same costs as basic Reaver, but a Warlord with only 1 assault weapon gains nothing as far as acitvation. A Warlord with 2 assault weapons performs as the Reaver with 1. ===== Obviously, the assumption would be averaging 5 points per titan. I would assume -1 point for having BMs, which would translate into 2 weapon systems firing at sub-optimal values. A titan would expect to be able to perform Engage actions even though suppressed because of the lower points required to Engage, which I think is good on a number of conceptual points. As weapon systems were damaged and didn't need to be activated, you might also end up with slightly better activation-point situations, so light damage could to a certain extent be mitigated. On the other hand, activation penalties like for reactor damage would reduce choices. On the downside, it would also allow an unsupressed titan to engage and also regroup/repair, potentially making an assault titan a total monster - but maybe that's the price for letting a titan close on you without suppressing it...  Also a bad thing, is that it also means that a titan that holes up and repairs could be a monster. At 5 points it could fire at basic fire and both repair and regroup at the 2d6 level, or you could expect a battle titan to fire at Advance fire levels and have 2 points to repair/regroup, basically a +1 to hit over the current Marshall action, though less flexible as to now BM/Shield repair is allocated. Battle titans obviously have a hard time marching. The net effect is that titans might be encouraged to be more static. === BMs - I was thinking -1 to activation/reactor points for having BMs, -1 for retaining. There wouldn't be an activation roll per se, so they couldn't fail outright and wouldn't ever gain BMs for a bad roll. OTOH, they would definitely lose some ability when suppressed whereas they don't necessarily do so now. The other trick is finding a combination of randomness and stability with respect to generating points. Just as a ballpark with the above points you could look at something like 2d3+1. SC rerolls would allow you to reroll (both dice). An unsupressed Warlord titan that rolled minimum points would still be better off than a Hold action, having the choice of moving and shooting at -1 or shooting normally, which is good because normally an unsupressed titan has no chance to fail activation unless retaining. Another option would be 2d3/take the highest +3. That would average 5.4, giving most titans more ability than they do now and keeping the unmobdified minimum at 4 instead of 3, but limiting the topside. The extra benefits could offset degradation due to damage but might be too much. === Quite a brain dump there, so take it easy on me... 
|
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
Looking good, Neal. It will be interesting to see actual playtest results. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
The net effect is that titans might be encouraged to be more static. This could be a problem as I see it. Allowing the Titans to break away from the 'fixed' orders system of E:A is a very significant change to the game's basic architecture and I'd be extremely cautious in wanting to put one back in. While weapons & damage tables can be fairly easy to balance, power point systems can lead to a titan that either does practically nothing for a turn due to lack of power, or a titan that suddenly becomes a god of war and annihilates a huge swathe around it. Maybe I've been spoiled by the reliability of E:A's orders system, but I'm not entirely in favour of game systems that have such a large impact upon the game, yet at the same time are resolved with only a couple of dice (I have similar reservations about Epic:A's Engagement resolution phase too, as it is so decisive yet often very random, if the scores are close). Maybe I'm spoiled somewhat by Warhammer Fantasy's game mechanics too, which is a system in which careful manuevering, good tactics & the proper use of the correct units can often almost eliminate 'luck' from the process. Unlike Warhammer 40k for example, which is a game that is often almost entirely based on luck, with far less room for tactics or planning (beyond a normally obvious level). I know, I know, we're in an arena where our battles are all resolved by luck to a great extent, but I prefer my luck to be a little more reliable when it comes down to it.  After all, an Imperial Titan in Epic:Armageddon has a 1+ Inititive... if that's not a good indicator of how much you can likely rely on it in a game I'm not sure what is. so take it easy on me... There, I did my worst (And at least to some extent played Devil's advocate), now justify the need for power points in Epic:Armageddon to me. They (apparently, I didn't play in 3rd edition) didn't work too well in Epic:40k... can they work better in Epic:Armageddon? |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
What about a fixed number of Reaktor/Plasma-Points to spent instead of rolling dice? |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
E&C: It's just spitballing at this point. I agree completely with your assessment about luck. I don't really have a good justification for a reactor/plasma activation system except that without it all you have is an elaborate army list - detailed points, critical hit results, and a special rule or two. I have no problem with that but it leaves me wondering what would make it a titan game. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
(BlackLegion @ Nov. 20 2006,22:59) QUOTE What about a fixed number of Reaktor/Plasma-Points to spent instead of rolling dice? I'd prefer a system such as this if one was to be implemented... fixed power points, which could still be degraded via critical hits etc. The drastic randomness of the dice-based power point system & the ability to break away from the 'standard' E:A order types just feels 'broken' to me. Balancing Titans would be next-to impossible. I don't really have a good justification for a reactor/plasma activation system except that without it all you have is an elaborate army list - detailed points, critical hit results, and a special rule or two. I have no problem with that but it leaves me wondering what would make it a titan game. I think my gut instinct is simply that in the interests of making an Epic:Armageddon-compatible version of AT that people will actually play (Ie: There will be a significant number of players who use the rules regularly as part of their Epic experience), the standard orders system of E:A should be adhered to (With some modifications to the titan's turning abilities etc). So my vision for an E:A-compatible version of Epic would be one that was as seamless as possible with the 'core' rules, both in the interests of balance, and in the name of user-friendliness. |
|
| Author: | Hojyn [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 21 2006,16:01) QUOTE So my vision for an E:A-compatible version of Epic would be one that was as seamless as possible with the 'core' rules, both in the interests of balance, and in the name of user-friendliness. I totally agree on this. The way I see it, one simple way of balancing Titans with regards to durability/degrading performance without resorting to points modifications would be to simply let each weapon system place auto-BM when fired at different formations. Titans would then be more powerful at the start of the game but their overall performance would degrade as weapons systems are disabled. I also think we should keep EA's activation system: a Plasma Points-based activation system is nice in a Titans vs. Titans game, but it could get messy in a full EA game. To sum it up: * Things to keep from AT - Detailed construction rules - Expanded fire arc rules - Each weapon system may fire at a different target - Detailed damage system - Assorted "advanced" rules (not all of them, though, mainly Merging and Overloading Void Shields) * Things to keep from EA - Auto-BM on formations being fired at - Activation system - Weapons stats - What else did I forget? This way, Titans would activate just like other units, would be more powerful (at the start of the battle anyway) but less durable, and could be (I think) played on their own in a Titan vs. Titan game. Also, this system could be easily applied to Titans from all races (no "Plasma Points" problem). |
|
| Author: | Hojyn [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
Well, here's a concrete example. 1. Activations Keep the EA system. 2. Actions March, Engage, Overwatch and Hold stay the same. >>> Sustained Fire The formation may not move (not even to turn in place), but can shoot with a +1 modifier. War Engines may elect to fire at more than one formation (up to a maximum of 1 formation per weapon system), but do no get the +1 modifier. Alternatively, War Engines shooting at other War Engines may forfeit the +1 modifier to lay a weapon on a hit location. You may not choose this action if the formation has any units that are out of formation. >>> Advance The formation may make one move and then shoot. War Engines may elect to fire at more than one formation (up to a maximum of 1 formation per weapon system), but get a -1 modifier to hit. >>> Double The formation may make two moves and then shoot with a -1 modifier. War Engines may elect to fire at more than one formation (up to a maximum of 1 formation per weapon system), but get a further -1 modifier to hit (-2 total). >>> Marshall The formation may either shoot with a -1 modifier and then regroup, or make one move and then regroup. War Engines may elect to fire at more than one formation (up to a maximum of 1 formation per weapon system), but get a further -1 modifier to hit (-2 total). Note that War Engines performing a Hold action do not get to shoot at multiple formation to represent their somewhat confused state. 3. Damage Titans no longer have DC, Critical Hit Effect and Armour value. This is replaced by a modified version of the AT system. >>> Example: Warlord Titan Type, Speed, CC, FF, Weapons, number of Void Shields and Notes stay the same. FRONT (Roll/Location/Armour) 1 / Legs / 4+ RA 2 / Plasma Reactor / 4+ RA 3 / Head / 4+ RA 4-5 / Arm Weapon / 5+ RA 6 / Carapace Weapon / 5+ RA SIDE (Roll/Location/Armour) 1 / Legs / 5+ RA 2 / VSGs / 4+ RA 3 / Head / 4+ RA 4-5 / Arm Weapon / 5+ RA 6 / Carapace Weapon / 5+ RA REAR (Roll/Location/Armour) 1 / Legs / 5+ RA 2 / VSGs / 4+ RA 3 / Plasma Reactor / 5+ RA 4-5 / Arm Weapon / 5+ RA 6 / Carapace Weapon / 5+ RA Keep AT "boxes" system. For each unsaved hit on a location, the corresponding box is hit. 1st hit > armour cracked 2nd hit > superficial damage 3rd hit > major damage 4th hit > catastrophic damage For damage effects, refer to the AT damage table to get a rough idea (details would have to be adjusted to correspond to the EA system, of course). Note that TK weapons with multiple hit dice hit the same location, so that one hit from, say, a Volcano Cannon could potentially destroy a "cracked" location. 4. Miscellaneous Line of Fire, Merging Void Shields, Overloading Void Shields, etc. could all be integrated to this system with minimal change, as well as construction rules for Titans. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
Just out of curiosity, why is there so much interest in splitting fire from titans? |
|
| Author: | Hojyn [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Epic-compatible version of AT |
(nealhunt @ Nov. 22 2006,14:26) QUOTE Just out of curiosity, why is there so much interest in splitting fire from titans? Well, I can't speak for others but: - Highly subjective view: it feels right to have these towering monsters firing at whoever they want, however they want. They have a good overview of the battlefield, a secure platform from which to destroy stuff and lots and lots of scanners and whatnot. They're Titans, they should be able to split fire!  - (Trying to be more) objective view: a) Most of the time one or two weapons systems will be "wasted" when you shoot at a formation (example: Volcano cannon firing at Ork Horde) and b) it's very hard to make up a Titan's cost by destroying/breaking its equivalent in points and splitting fire might help to do just that. Note: point a) might be rendered invalid by detailed construction rules. I you can choose your Titan's weapons configuration, you can make AT specialist, Titan hunters, CC monsters, etc. I love Titans (hey, who doesn't? ), but currently I feel their best merit lies in their resilience and the fact that they make the Break Their Spirit objective harder for your opponent. They are far from being useless, but they just feel a bit underpowered and I believe allowing them to split fire would solve that problem.
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|