While I agree that PD titans might not win the game, I still believe it is an issue.

1: Is it fun to play against? Sort of the Necron situation, really. Hide everything, kill some sentinels and grab objectives turn 3. It forces your opponent to a very different play style.

2: Is that firepower necessary or abusive? If Russ companies doubled every turn and annihilated super-heavies and titans left and right, I am sure we would have a completely different discussion. Sure, titans are supposed to be powerful, but 12 MW?

By the way, my main concern is the las burner. It turns your reaver to an engagement beast. Played them with Tyranids and just quit trying to assault. As GlynG points out, double las burners and one PD makes for an extremely nasty combination, since the PD is so powerful.

/Fredmans

That really isn't anything new with the PD. It's pretty standard from what I can see that folks try to hide from the big titans and pick off the small formations. Of course, is it really a BAD thing if folks have to play differently against AMTL than the do Marines? Following that, isn't that already the case when folks fight different armies?



Well... when Russ companies cost nearly 1k points we can talk For the sake of argument here, if you double and a savvy opponent puts things in cover you're looking at hitting on a 4+ so around 6 hits and maybe three failed against most superheavies. So you can safely kill one superheavy every other turn. Not exactly an ideal use of 750 points.

I really think Titans need the firepower to be relevant. Yes it's different than most epic lists, but most epic lists are composed of massed fearless war engines. See, most lists can hit a single formation with 800 points of units, but they have the benefit of shaping the amount of firepower to match the target while Titans are all in or nothing at all.

_________________
-Vaaish

Sorry. Did not mean to come off as overly negative. I agree with you on most points.

AMTL is beatable.
Yes, different armies should play differently, and do cause changes to how you approach the game. It makes for a better game.
Titans should have access to good ranged weaponry.

I do not agree that most armies are composed of massed fearless war engines, and I do not think army lists should be construed from that point of reference. I suspect that is a typo.

My concerns are:

There is a difference between trying to hide, and having to hide. The difference is entirely manifested in the enjoyment of the game, not the issue of winning or losing.

If we agree that titan lists should be the most powerful when it comes to shooting, the strategy is hiding. That is what the support missile and Glyn's PD/lasburner lists were about. If the Titan lists can negate the counter, an all-comers' lists is screwed. If I march up with multiple Reavers armed with lasburners and PD, you will have to try and deal with them and thereby expose yourself, or lose the objective game.

It is a thin line between challenging and frustrating, and frustrating builds should be kept to a minimum. I applaude the current work to find such builds, try them and if need be, bring them back in line with other builds.

Keep up the good work,
Fredmans

In terms of the laser burner I tend to agree. Doubling up on them is particularly troublesome. It goes against my personal philosophy of how titans should be kitted, namely platforms of walking, ranged death. But that's just my opinion on it and people are welcome to theirs.

Perhaps the PD is simply a victim (well maybe not that much of a victim ) of such possible synergies?

Sorry about that, I meant to say most armies AREN'T composed of Fearless WE. I always seem to miss the most important letters when typing.

_________________
-Vaaish

New battle report

AMTL vs Iron Warriors



viewtopic.php?f=84&t=28474

Looking at batreps IMO PD is largely a terrain issue, with whatever weapon reavers+Warlord rarely get to sustain or even fire on a single move when not playing TLOS.

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

Nice report Matt! Good to see you testing it out in practice, I hope game evidence/feedback encourages Vaaish to reconsider.

I've tweaked my own list build idea a bit and unless anything changes to fix the PD sooner I'm planning on running the below list sometime soon:
3 x Reaver with 2 x Las Burner and a Plasma Destructor
1 x Reaver with 2 x Plasma Destructor and CC weapon, plus Carapace Multi Lasers (BTS)
Forge Knights
It's low on activations (5), but each Plasma Destructor titan has a reasonable chance of wiping out a smaller enemy formation on the first turn so evening up the numbers up a bit. The list has no weak formations for the enemy to take out and is a nightmare in shooting and close combat. It looks overpowered and not that fun to play against to me, but with Vaaish disregarding the balance problems that are patently obvious to others of us it looks like it it's going to take battlefield reports of the obviously overpowered elements (while apologising to our poor opponents) to get things changed.

This reminds me of back when Vaaish removed slow and steady from the Ark Mechanicus and insisted a spacecraft with 2 x TK(D3) pinpoints plus a 5MW barrage was fine for 150 points (!). I remember in my first game using it I did 6 damage to 3 individual IG superheavies, killing 1 and leaving 2 broken, significantly helping my game by taking out my titans main threats. The Ark should ideally be toned down (loose a pinpoint or make it a choice between using pinpoints or barrage in a particular game, like the eldar spacecrafts do) or costed at least 250 points, but at least we've slowly dragged Vaaish to adjust the cost up to 200, so it's still a fair bit overpowered, but not as ludicrously so as it was. While we're on the subject, what're your opinions on the Ark Matt?

I'm starting to come around to the idea that maybe the PD requires some adjusting. But even if that's the case, the proposed change puts it in direct competition with the plasma cannon. Is 1 extra shot worth 50 points? (...and 15cm range)



Technically speaking, Steel Legion has 0-1 limitation on FORMATIONS that can have them. It actually has 2 of the missiles. The DKoK Deathstrike Silo can fire up to 2 missiles in a game as well. Perhaps total number of deathstrikes need adjusting, but precedence shows that just 1 deathstrike is not the norm. But neither is it in every other formation. Perhaps limit it from 0-2 missiles per army? Or 0-1, multiple shots, and slow firing like in DKoK. Fluff wise its not a ubiquitous weapon either. The High Lords of Terra certainly aren't passing it around like candy.

Great point about the deathstrikes in other lists! Really interested to hear peoples opinion on that. Why is it ok for some armoes to include 2 missiles but the AMTL should only have acces to 1?

As i wrote in the thread of the report. Since E:a is about objectives, how come thats not mentioned at all in the conclussion? The only focus is about how many stands die in each PD salvo. Thats pretty worthless info if we don't get to know how it affected the IW:s objective grabbing...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

2 issues for me for the PD
-playing TLOS
-being able to get activation parity through sentinels.

FWIW EpicUK had to up gun the titans as the lack of the 2 factors above meant whenever a titan did get to shoot it needed to be able to take a formation out.

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

Well, Steve, Here's the kicker. What will swapping in the crusaders do for the status of the list?

_________________
-Vaaish

A 3.24 list for testing will not affect the status of 3.23.1 and will allow you to test different options.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Sorry Tim, what I meant was when 3.24 is submitted for approved will the Crusader swap be one of those little changes that doesn't require an additional round of however many playtests to retain approved status and the ERC says ok cool. Or will it require another 18 tests and full re-submission toe get approved?

_________________
-Vaaish

It would be good to see some games but I don't feel that we would ask for a full set of games. This should just be a minor balance change downgrading the list.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion