I think rules to fix a list that change rules for the whole game are going to have a lot of trouble gaining traction.

Any list that largely or solely consists of large fearless war engines (or even just war engines) is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to fully balance against the other regular lists, simply due to the way the rules for the game as a whole work. It may simply be that we'll do the best job that we can and leave it up to tournament organisers (and the problem does seem to be couched in terms of using this list at a tournament) to decide on whether or not to allow this list.

I'd say this is because pretty much every method for shifting an enemy formation does not apply to a titan.

They have all the normal WE advantages in assault. Void shields negate hits and make it harder to break, either with FF or with special effects like Disrupt. Fearless means no hackdowns. Slow speed means there is no reason to retreat if broken (the enemy will just move a fast formation into 30cm range anyway) so Withdrawal moves can be used to advance freely. TRA means there's no save mod for crossfire, so the bonus BMs are harder to get. Scout screens can be defeated by buddying up (one titan sweeps, the other moves into the gap) and once in position, any scout ZoC pressure means any assault against the scouts draws support fire from the titan.

Hence, objective camping.

I agree with Vaaish in that I don't think that "Locus of Control" is going to fix that. The BTS/Blitz Guard only needs to take the one objective so that won't change at all. The forward 'double grab' titan often has support anyway, right? It seems to be that a pair of Reavers in mutual support for the "double grab" would still work just fine.

But sometimes are necessary, I doubt the plethora of Eldar special rules would be embraced if they were invented now and they work. I don't think The suggestion shouldn't be rejected out of hand just because people don't like change. Also I can't see how its better to say balance is impossible without even trying a solution.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Forcing 2 titans to hold the forward objectives will mean there is 600 points more tied up contesting those objectives therefore 600 points less or 2-3 activations less to protect the blitz titan and the other objectives.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

don't put words into my mouth Steve. I didn't say that it was not worth trying a solution or that it was not worth trying a solution that changes a key rules mechanic, only that; a) finding a solution is inherently difficult because of the make up of the list and if it was not possible, we may have to accept it as such and b) I'm not saying that this rule would not find traction because people don't like change, but because it changes a basic rules mechanic and therefore isn't restricted in effect to just this list.

I don't know why people keep referring to Eldar's "plethora" of special rules. They don't have any more than Chaos for example and the Eldar list is widely considered to be balanced. I don't think that that's an especially useful comparison in this case.

I agree, this is my thinking too.

Digging through the archives I've actually found that TRC proposed a similar objectives based approach in the past too.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I really don't see this as a problem. If my calculations are correct you could probably squeeze a warlord and two reavers with a CML on the warlord, a warhound pack, two sentinel dets, and some thunderbolts in 3k. With that you've got a decent blitz holder and two reavers to deal with the forward objectives. That gives you a sentinel screen for the blitz and a fast warhound pack to hit the other side of the board. How does this rule change make things better than if only one reaver was needed to claim the two objectives?

_________________
-Vaaish

Not to be rude, but you might want to reread that sentence.

Doubling the number of titans required should do a whole lot, shouldn't it?

I got the impression that tag-teams weren't all that uncommon, especially if the enemy tried to screen movement for the titans. If that's wrong, okay.

I know full well what I wrote and if you take into account my entire post this should make more sense than if you clip a line.

On paper it does a whole lot by effectively doubling the point requirement for the same effect and in a vacuum that should be enough. However, my point is that despite needing a second titan, it doesn't make any appreciable difference in the performance of the list since you still retain more than enough capability to hold the two objectives and contest one or two others on the opposing side for a draw.

Even if you don't hold both of your own objectives you can still prevent your opponent from gaining enough points to prevent a draw simply by planting a titan on an objective on each side and using the rest of your force to harass or screen while holding your blitz with a warlord.

_________________
-Vaaish

The major problem with it, to me (in addition to the fact that teams may already have been not-uncommon) is that it doesn't make much (in-universe) sense - why are Titans in the AMTL vulnerable to being outmaneuvered while Titans working with unaffiliated forces aren't? And Baneblades aren't?

The inconsistency bugs me more than anything.

To me, there would seem to be three facets to the problem:

-Titans are hard to move off objectives
-AMTL tends to win draws
-Objectives can be placed to really take advantage of the first two points

Maybe some kind of restriction on where the AMTL can place objectives? The aforementioned BFG Necron method? Some rule that lets infantry capture objectives when a Titan's sitting there unsupported? Add more objectives to the board?

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

why noty just take lost DC into account for victory points.

Titans are sacred machines, and the damage of several may not be worth the rout of the enemy, from the mechanicus's point of view.

People'll be complaining that that's inconsistent... why do Titans in AMTL armies count DC for VP's when they don't in other armies?


How would you do it, something like:


I can see that that would incentivise AMTL players to win their games on victory conditions, not by playing for a winning draw.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Glad someone saw some worth in the idea

The only addition to the VP rules in the above E&C is the points per DC. Broken with minor damage already gives away 50%, Broken with <50% DC is equal to 100%. I'm not sure just adding points per DC would be enough, perhaps something more harsh for broken Titans? As fleeing from an inferior enemy would be deeply embarrassing for a princeps.

Broken with minor damage =75% VPs?

I know that.


Perhaps.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter