Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Legio Destructor 1.01

 Post subject: Re: Legio Destructor 1.01
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:50 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Some players downunder even refuse to pay the multi-weapons surcharge, which fixes the imbalance with Battle Titan weapons but unbalances mono-fit single Warhounds quite noticably.

In all tournaments/campaigns that I have rune using the War Gryphonnes (2 of each) the tax/surcharge has been played as in the current list. The desire to ignore the tax is LONG out of date and has no bearing on this discussion.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legio Destructor 1.01
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:55 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
My current proposal (Count all winning draws as flat draws) would incentivise the AMTL player to play for a win on the standard 5 Objectives,
I also agree with AoC that if such a proposal were to make the War Gryphonnes list more appealing to a wider audience, it should really be "the list" for any supplement featuring a Titan Legion.

If you want a Supplement to primarily (rather than secondarily) feature the War Gryphonnes list, I encourage you to spend a year of evenings writing one.

Pity you haven't noted that I agree with you about the VP win = draw.
It is a solution to the problem and will motivate the Titan Legion player to play for a win.
Hopefully, the rule could be written in such a way that could make it themed?

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legio Destructor 1.01
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
as a suggestion, the reason i never take support missiles is not because of the CLP option making them obselete. its because its expensive for a 1 shot weapon, and i dislike 1-shot weapons in general. if it was Slow Firing then i'd probably take it from time to time

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legio Destructor 1.01
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Onyx wrote:
In all tournaments/campaigns that I have rune using the War Gryphonnes (2 of each) the tax/surcharge has been played as in the current list. The desire to ignore the tax is LONG out of date and has no bearing on this discussion.

Noone informed me that their statments along the lines of "I will never, ever, pay the weapons tax and I'm ignoring it" were withdrawn.

Quote:
Pity you haven't noted that I agree with you about the VP win = draw.

I did note that. I've also noted several other reasons why the LD list is in my opinion superior to the WG list in terms of balance and playstyle.

And once again, if you want a Supplement where the War Gryphonnes feature primarily, please feel free to write one.

Quote:
It is a solution to the problem and will motivate the Titan Legion player to play for a win.
Hopefully, the rule could be written in such a way that could make it themed?

Sure, the background text for the rule will talk about Titan Legions not being forces that could ever be happy with an attritional win, perhaps?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legio Destructor 1.01
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Sure, the background text for the rule will talk about Titan Legions not being forces that could ever be happy with an attritional win, perhaps?


The AMTL embodies the very concept of concentration of force - I figure that if the enemy managed to fight the AMTL to a standstill anywhere this would be a big operational loss for the Imperium, as it is likely their spearhead and will leave them open to counterattacks.

Kinda like when/if the russians managed to stave off the tanks on the schwerpunkt during WWII, it was bad news for the germans.


Last edited by Ulrik on Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legio Destructor 1.01
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:27 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Onyx wrote:
In all tournaments/campaigns that I have rune using the War Gryphonnes (2 of each) the tax/surcharge has been played as in the current list. The desire to ignore the tax is LONG out of date and has no bearing on this discussion.

Noone informed me that their statments along the lines of "I will never, ever, pay the weapons tax and I'm ignoring it" were withdrawn.
We'll make sure to notify you of all our gaming desicions in future... :D

Quote:
Quote:
Pity you haven't noted that I agree with you about the VP win = draw.

I did note that. I've also noted several other reasons why the LD list is in my opinion superior to the WG list in terms of balance and playstyle.

And once again, if you want a Supplement where the War Gryphonnes feature primarily, please feel free to write one.
I appreciate the edited response there. As I read it, my tone is fine and I do not mean to offend you. I'm only trying to point out that others around the world are using the War Gryphonnes list and the sky is not falling on our heads. Indeed, they have not won any of our campaigns or tournaments (although they have done well in both formats).
It is kind of you to allow us to see your Legio Destructor list before you publish it in your supplement.

Quote:
Quote:
It is a solution to the problem and will motivate the Titan Legion player to play for a win.
Hopefully, the rule could be written in such a way that could make it themed?

Sure, the background text for the rule will talk about Titan Legions not being forces that could ever be happy with an attritional win, perhaps?
Sounds good. Titans should play to win and anything less should be a loss.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legio Destructor 1.01
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
We'll make sure to notify you of all our gaming desicions in future... :D

When you go from "I'm never going to use that rule" to "we use the rule all the time" and don't tell anyone, it doesn't help the playtesting process all that much.


Quote:
It is kind of you to allow us to see your Legio Destructor list before you publish it in your supplement.

You are free to playtest it or ignore it at your leisure. What's not helpful is having every thread about it full of comments about the Epic: Mechanicus Supplement.

Please take any further talk about the Epic: Mechanicus Supplement off to a more appropriate thread.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legio Destructor 1.01
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:26 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
as a suggestion, the reason i never take support missiles is not because of the CLP option making them obselete. its because its expensive for a 1 shot weapon, and i dislike 1-shot weapons in general. if it was Slow Firing then i'd probably take it from time to time

I share your aversion to such an expensive one shot weapon. I would prefer cheaper weapons that do more consistent albeit lower damage more often.

Cheers

James


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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