Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

My Proposal for Titan Weapons

 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Coming up with points cost is the hardes thing to do :D I will see what i can do. :)

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Sooo now woth points costs:

http://s10.quicksharing.com/v/se84vie4/ ... s.pdf.html

The first number ist f?r Warhounds, the second for Reavers and the third for Warlords. If there is a "-" then this weapon is not available for this Titan.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
Got a few questions for you:

1. There're several weapons which are TK(D2). Why make them D2? Why not D3 or just TK(2)? 1/2 the time they're no better then TK(1) at D2, even against titans. Seems like it'd be better to just make it TK(2).

2. Turbolaser Destructors vs Gatling Blasters. Under your rules a TLD is substantially worse then a Gatling Blaster, as it only gets 2x 5+/3+ compared to 4x 4+/4+. Which is worse average hits, even agianst their preferential tank targets, have the same range, and basically the same cost (The Gatling Blaster is 5 points more on a Reaver, same on a Warlord).

3. Plasma Cannons vs Plasma Destructors. With their current stast the Plasma Destructor seems significantly worse then the Plasma Cannon, having only 4x MW 2+ TK(D2) as opposed to 6x MW 3+ TK(1), and preventing the titan from moving next turn AND preventing you from being able to move next turn. I'm not entirely sure what to do with this, to be honest.

4. Disrupt on the Quake Cannon does essentially nothing, since it's TK. The only time this will ever make a difference is if you are attacking someone with an Invulnerable Save and they manage to make the save you'll still put a blast marker on them. Just doesn't seem to be particularly all that useful. Might I suggest for it "MW 4+, Blast Marker, Any Unit under the center of the blast marker takes a single TK(D3) hit". That seems like it fits with the old style of the Quake Cannon and the basic idea you're going for.

5. Vortex Missile. As it stands the Vortex Missile doesn't use a template, but has "Template remains in play". Is it supposed to have a special rule to make it place a blast template down?

6. Vulcan Megabolter: It's worth noting that a basic Vulcan Megabolter in the AMTL list has been downgraded to 5x AP 3+/AT 5+, as at 6x it was found to be too lethal in general.

Wow... That came out as a much longer list then I expected. Anyway, just a few questions/comments.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Disrupt on the Quake Cannon does essentially nothing, since it's TK


Would matter when taking down shields.





I might be interested in adopting some of these into the modular list if they're closer to the original AT weapons than the AMTL-derived versions that are currently in there.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
Actually it doesn't matter when taking down shields. One of the questions in the FAQ is about that. Hits which would not normally place blast markers still don't if hit by Disrupt weapons. Shields, Grots or whatever other means you have to ignore blast markers will still ignore them even if hit by Disrupt weapons.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
1. The Weapon inquestion seems to be to powerful for TK1 and not powerful enough for TK2. Thus TKD2.

2.  I see the GatlingBlaster as some kind of an all-rounder compared to the TLD and the VMB. As AV seems to be generally tougher than Infantry a better AT-value is worth more than a better AP-value. Thus same points. But yes i messed something up. GB and TLD should cost the same.

3. You mean: not shooting any other weapon THIS turn and not move NEXt turn? :) The TK-values are mixed up. PlasmaCannon should have TK1 und PlasmaDestructor TK(D2).

4. I don't want to use a Template for the QuakeCannon. in SM2nd/TL it seems to fire a massive SABOT-like round. So it looks like the ballistic equivalent to the VolcanoCannon (which is energy based). And it seems i remembered Disrupt false...Change it to  "place +1 Blastmarker on target formation if the QC hits"

5. Yes the template rules can be found in Evil&Chaos original Modular Weapons list. Essentially it uses the Barrage-Template which could remain in play and is able to scatter around before dissapiering.

6. True, but my VMB has a decreased range. And i can always increase the points cost if it seems to cheap.





_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189

(BlackLegion @ Feb. 09 2007,21:33)
QUOTE
2.  I see the GatlingBlaster as some kind of an all-rounder compared to the TLD and the VMB. As AV seems to be generally tougher than Infantry a better AT-value is worth more than a better AP-value. Thus same points. But yes i messed something up. GB and TLD should cost the same.

3. You mean: not shooting any other weapon THIS turn and not move NEXt turn? :) The TK-values are mixed up. PlasmaCannon should have TK1 und PlasmaDestructor TK(D2).

4. I don't want to use a Template for the QuakeCannon. in SM2nd/TL it seems to fire a massive SABOT-like round. So it looks like the ballistic equivalent to the VolcanoCannon (which is energy based). And it seems i remembered Disrupt false...Change it to  "place +1 Blastmarker on target formation if the QC hits"

2. My problem here isn't the hit-numbers, it's that the TLD gets only 2 shots, while the Gatling Blaster gets 4. I can't rationalize why I would choose to field TLDs when I can get equal or better results against anything (basically) I point the titan at with the Gatling Blasters. You'd have to be Doubling and firing into Cover against AT targets in order to make the two weapons even equal of eachother in firepower, but their price is the same, and the Gatling Blaster is dramatically better against infantry.

3. Sorry, probably should have worded this better. At present, a Plasma Cannon is 6x MW 3+ TK(1), Slow Firing, May Not Fire Other Weapons. A Plasma Destructor is 4x MW 2+ TK(D2), Slow Firing, May Not Fire Other Weapons, May Not Move Next Turn. The Plasma Destructor is also 40 points more expensive then the Plasma Cannon. I cannot, reasonably, see any reason to field the Plasma Destructor, as a result. A Plasma Cannon gives better results against non-war engines, and against war engines averages only 1 DC less damage, in addition to allowing you to remain mobile. Picture a Warlord with 2x Plasma Cannons and a Devotional Bell, you could put out 6x MW 3+ TK(1) each turn, since both are Slow Firing you couldn't fire the other one anyway if you wanted to fire next turn. I'm not seeing the Plasma Destructor as good enough. Maybe if it went to 6x MW 3+ TK(D3), Slow Firing, May Not Fire Other Weapons, May Not Move Next Turn I could reasonably see fielding one as that would make it very good at killing war engines.

4. So why is the Quake Cannon only TK(1) while the Volcano Cannon is TK(D3) but still the same price? An extra blast marker is good, against non-war engines it's better then TK(D3), but is it really good enough to account for double or triple damage against a war engine? Maybe it is, I dunno, I don't deal with enough enemies who have problems dumping Blast Markers to really tell for sure.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
2. I see. I will think aboput it. Anyone other thoughts about the TLD?

3. As i thaid: The PlasmCannon should have 4xMW2+,TK(1) and the PlasmaDestructor 6xMW3+,TK(D2) I will think about making the PlasmaDestructor TK(D3) if more people think the same.

4. Destroying a WE can be as importand as breaking it. And i have seen Titans all useless for the remainder of the battle after they are broken. But perhabs i  will lower the price of the QuakeCannon.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
I was also wondering: How much would you expect a basic chasis for a titan to cost under these rules? And are there any restrictions on what kinds of weapons you're allowed to put on the titans? Could I, for instance, field one with 2 Volcano Cannons and 2 Quake Cannons if I wanted to?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Look in this thread:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....;t=7640

Form Evil&Chaos Modular Weapons Armylist i made my points proposals. The cost of the chassis is included there too. Basically Warhound-Chassis costs 130pts, Reaver-Chassis 390pts and Warlord-Chassis 525pts

Restrictions of which weapon you canuse on a titan i would see the following:
No more than 2 weapons of the same type on a titan (so no 3 QuakeCannons but 2 are possible).
Missiles (the ones with Range: Unlimited) can be only carapace mounted.
CC-Weapons (Power-Ram, -Fist, -Saw, -Claw, Chain-Fist, -Saw, LaserBurner and Wrecker) can be only arm mounted.
CarapaceMultiLasers dont use a weapons slot but are carapace mounted.
Off course only one Head option can be taken :)

If there is a points cost for the weapon then the titan can use it. Is there a "-" then the titan can't use this weapon.





_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 08 2007,15:55)
QUOTE
To give such a choice requires either modular costs, or configuration costs, so as to be balanced with an army that isn't the 'nerfed' AMTL 2.0.

Too bad modular costs are also unbalanced...

_________________
www.tneva.net


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 09 2007,11:33)
QUOTE
That's fine, but I've never really been interested in the AMTL army list... I'm interested in re-incorporating different configurations of Titans back into Epic, as was the original intention before SG was downsized.

Original intent was to go with PATTERNS! Already the AMTL list breaks from original intent...Modular costs would be even further away from original intent.

_________________
www.tneva.net


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(tneva82 @ Feb. 13 2007,14:26)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 09 2007,11:33)
QUOTE
That's fine, but I've never really been interested in the AMTL army list... I'm interested in re-incorporating different configurations of Titans back into Epic, as was the original intention before SG was downsized.

Original intent was to go with PATTERNS! Already the AMTL list breaks from original intent...Modular costs would be even further away from original intent.

Firstly, you mean configurations.


Secondly, there were two 'original intents'.


One of those was to create a system which would allow players to build any configuration of titan they liked (Ie: Modular costs) for friendly games.

The other was to make a set of fixed-configuration rules for tournament play.


Don't believe that Jervis intended both?

Go read the FAQ that's in the Epic rulebook itself...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My Proposal for Titan Weapons
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(tneva82 @ Feb. 13 2007,14:24)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 08 2007,15:55)
QUOTE
To give such a choice requires either modular costs, or configuration costs, so as to be balanced with an army that isn't the 'nerfed' AMTL 2.0.

Too bad modular costs are also unbalanced...

Firstly, they're already more balanced than taking AMTL titans with other armies (IE: an indirect Warlord with 3x Missile Launchers costs 850 points with AMTL 2.0, but is more expensive with Modular costs, because it's obviously worth more than 850 points to non-AMTL armies...).


And secondly, they'd be more balanced if more people had been interested in the list (And posted feedback etc). As it is Modular costs are stalled because we voted (by a very narrow margin) to go with fixed configurations as a way of re-incorporating titans into imperial armies... and then noone developed any fixed configurations.





_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net