it also wouldn't hurt for the Eldar Titan Clan to have it too, although that list has enough problems with power that winning draws probably isn't at the top of the list of things to fix

Onyx - although I can see the merit in a points per DC system I think that in a list with so many options and upgrades, not only would it be fiddly to work out (it strains my brain enough to do the normal system) but it would also be hard for an opponent to figure out the most valuable target to hit if a draw looked likely. That's why a simple system (broken or 1/2DC = 1/2 points etc) has a lot of appeal.

Who doesn't have a mobile phone (with an in-built calculator function) to hand these days?


Shoot at the big stuff. They're worth more points.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

What E&C said.
Really. Total cost of titan divided by starting DC = really easy to work out solution.

It's not rocket surgery

_________________
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.

Ok, here's a random idea I had while thinking through the concept of titans only being able to hold a single objective. Looking over the various titans ti seems that outside of warhounds, most of the titans are fairly slow and have all their weapons facing forward. My thought would be that instead of saying a titan can only control one objective, what about limiting the objectives battle titans can control to 15cm within the forward arc or fixed forward arc. It might make it harder for titans to get that perfect position or be easier to circumvent since you would have to choose between turning and firing at a target or sitting still to keep both objectives in the arc.

I don't know it would do anything to prevent titans from forcing a draw (pretty sure you can do that no matter), but it might make it a bit harder for titans to just plonk down in the middle and deny area.

On a different note, I've been thinking about Onyx's suggestion and wouldn't it be easier to do something like any broken titan gives up 50% VP in the event of a draw?

_________________
-Vaaish

That would certainly be another way to limit things on an objective-capturing basis.


Could-do, but since Titans have Initiative 1+, they tend to rally.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And would ultimately lead to confusion as we try to work out exactly where a Firing arc is in comparison to the centre of an objective.

It would be better to have a sytem that is not open to interpretation but is basically, black and white.

Why would a Shadowsword be able to control an objective in its rear arc but a Titan couldn't? That just isn't a good look.

*Edit - it's not really my idea at all. It was madd0ct0r that first suggested it (I believe).

_________________
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.

Game balance - thats why a massive heavily armoured thunderhawk gunship with 4 heavy bolters+ a battlecannon can't immediately hold an objective while a single grot can

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

\Unfortunately, that does not deal with the grey area of firing arc coverage and objective centers.

Best to keep things simple and non contentious.

_________________
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.

Both of those are completely black+white - the central point of an objective+fire arcs

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

the same amount of confusion as when determining exactly where a firing arc is in comparison to a model that's targeted? Seriously though, you can argue that practically anything is open to interpretation. It's the whole basis for rules lawyering.


No different than why a titan gives up partial VP while a shadowsword doesn't under the VP system. At least a SS could be counted as more maneuverable.

_________________
-Vaaish

Funny thing about objectives, in the standard tournament scenario you're actually allowed to nominate pretty much anything as an objective, even a piece of scatter terrain like a large building!

Regardless, there'd still be a black & white way to measure whether or not a building (Which might not have a central point) was contested which you could cover in about 5 seconds in your 5 minute warm up.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Unless you mark your titan bases to show firing arcs (I can't recall ever seeing that) there will always be a certain amount of interpration of coverage.

I'm not going to try and convince anyone of that though. It is obviously an issue as far as I'm concerned and any eventual solution should steer clear of being contentious.

_________________
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.

you give me far too much credit. I couldn't even order 4 pizzas at the last games day I was at, though that might be because I was starving.


Shoot at the big stuff. They're worth more points. [/quote]

my point was more that, in the event that you have multiple Reavers or Warlords, but with different load outs, the no. of points per DC can vary quite a bit and unless there's some little card in front of the titan saying "110pts per DC", it's going to be hard for a non-AMTL player to easily figure out in his/her head. For example: base warlord, 725pts 91pts per DC; assault warlord w/ corvus, lasburner, gatling, TCCW + sacred icon, 825pts 103pts per DC; expensive Warlord, 2x Quake, Plas destructor, support missile, legate + Sacred Icon, 1050pts 131pts per DC - points costs taken from AMTL 3.18 as I couldn't find 3.19. These are obviously random examples and in no way represent what real AMTL players would take, in case that is used as a counterpoint. Now, there's no way I'm going to remember that a gatling blaster is 25pts, but a Quake Cannon is 75pts and a corvus is free, I just don't have that kind of didactic memory. Yet you can see that taking 2 DC off the Kohls "not on sale" titan is is going to get you 80pts more than the same off el cheapo Walmart titan, even though they superficially look the same.

Admittedly, once you get down to worrying about that kind of detail it probably won't make much difference, but if I laid the smack down on one Warlord only to find out I would have got 80pts more if I'd targeted the one next to it and that made the difference between win and lose, I'd be pretty pissed.

Point at two Titans.
Ask opponent which is the more expensive one.
Shoot the more expensive one.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

then point at another titan
ask opponent which has the higher points per DC
then point at another titan
ask opponent which has the higher points per DC
then point at another titan
ask opponent which has the higher points per DC
then try and remember which of those has the highest points per DC and shoot that one

I'm not trying to be pedantic, merely point out that a simple 1/2DC/ broken = Xpts is going to be easier to use and more transparent than having to keep track of which titans are worth more per DC.