Cheers for your thoughts Clauswitz, your comments are well-put.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I've had a look at the various weapons and possible different price bands. Essentially by looking at the hard stats (to hit ratios, number of shots etc) and using multiplication modifiers (to account for range, special abilities etc) I've come up with a weapons ranking that looks near identical to what you have.

The only differences were the following weapons look overpriced, Melta Cannon (Tricky to quantify as the volcano cannon looks much better), single Missile Launcher (Pairs are spot on). Also the following weapons look underpriced, CCW, paired Inferno Cannons.

From the 3.15 list I would up the CCW to 25pts and extend the 25pt surcharge to any Free and 25pt weapons taken in pairs (2 pairs would be +50pts, though no three way surcharge).

I don't see any solution to a full Titan list not having a wall of fearless, shielded WE's.

So, if a mostly-balanced weapon costing scheme can be settled on, the next question becomes: should there be a target number of activations that a War Griffons list ought to have at 2700pts?

Based on experience, less than 4 activations has no real chance of winning a game, as it is practically impossible to contest/hold the needed objectives. My gut says that with 6 activations a very good player has a shot (5 activations can do it with alot of luck, but not otherwise). More than 7 activations puts you in the same class as IG and orks, so we know that's doable, too.

So, do you think an army with 6-7 fearless WE activations can win games as much as the average standard army?

Yes I think somewhere near 6-7 activations is what should be aimed for.

Not all of which need be fearless War Engines ; My God Machines never leave their cathedral-hangers without a pair of Thunderbolts in support.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Just to outline the TL tactics that TRC and I have been using against one another.

First place your T&H objectives 30cm apart as near to the middle as possible.

Place your Warlord BTS at your blitz.

Move everything else in a pack towards your objectives.

If your opponent wants BTS then they need to take on your Warlord at your blitz (with a CCW it near suicide for CC troops and shields make FF not so easy either).

If your opponent wants Blitz then they also have to take on your Warlord.

If your opponent wants DTF or TSNP they need to stop the rest of your army from crossing 45cm of the board.

So the TL gives up T&H, but can't loose 1-0 on turn 3.  By turn 4 attrition is usually heavily in favour of the TL and they can easily win on VPs.

Clauswitz, do you believe that a Special Rule to the effect of 'Killing any Battle Titan achieves the 'Break Their Spirit' goal' would mitigate the success of your playstyle, forcing a more cautious approach towards the centreline with your 'herd' of Reavers and Warhounds?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Clausewitz, how much can the opposing player mitigate things by choosing corner-to-corner (assuming they have the option) and placing their own objectives as far apart as possible?

Also, a fast army usually has the option to contest at least one objective at the last minute, more if the objectives are just the minimum spacing. I do realize that this may result in a draw most times (where the TL will win on VPs) but it is a tactic that comes to my mind.

(changing the subject again, back to weapon costs)

This is more of a presentation suggestion rather than a suggestion for better weapon values (so don't think that this necessarily has anything to do with the suggestions I made in my own thread, though it would probably work there too).

What if you replaced the weapon cost chart currently in the list with one that looks like the attached image?

POINT VALUES ARE FOR JUST FILLERS, NOT ACTUAL SUGGESTIONS.

The idea being that you wouldn't have to have a stated rule for taking multiple of the same weapon, and you could have varying multiple-weapon penalties for weapons that aren't actually worth an additonal 25pt for a pair. It also makes the weapon costs more clear for players.

Then I will endeavour to make sure that the AMTL list is slightly underpowered.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

It is possible...

But at the same time it could cripple the TL army against some armies (loose initiative versus IG and you could loose BTS before you get to move).

Clausewitz, how much can the opposing player mitigate things by choosing corner-to-corner (assuming they have the option) and placing their own objectives as far apart as possible?

Also, a fast army usually has the option to contest at least one objective at the last minute, more if the objectives are just the minimum spacing. I do realize that this may result in a draw most times (where the TL will win on VPs) but it is a tactic that comes to my mind.

I'm just quoting this reply here to make sure it's seen more widely.

Well I decided to apply these costings to the 3 Reavers I used recently.



I think semajnollissor’s idea plus the first warhound support taken must be a pack, plus an increase in CML to 50pts (with AP/AT attack added) would go along way to limit AMTL activations (3x cheapest Reavers @ 605pts each plus Warhound pack, plus 2 single Warhound = 6 activations with AA, Legate, Princeps, Icons etc to be added).

I spose you could go so far as to increase the 15pt weapons to 20pts each and the 30pt weapons to 40pts each?

I’m not in favour of hard limits on the weapons loadout.
I’d far rather be able to select the weapons I want and pay an appropriate cost for them. I think that it looks better if every weapon has a cost and that may reduce the need for a multiple same weapon surcharge.

Cheers,
Steve.

_________________
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.

Rug makes some good points, several of which combine to cause my hesitancy to move dramatically (ala Clauswitz's proposal) on this issue.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Completely agree there.

Maybe should go all radical like the Necrons in BFG? They were good but had very tough victory conditions?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

This same tactic can be used and is used by many other armies,