Blarg: After reviewing it, I think there are some very good things about the system and some not-so-good things.
Weapon grades: Generally, quite good. I like the idea of weapon categories as a middle road between a full point-based system and the tactical/support system in the current list. It gives more variety and (theoretical) precision to balancing weapon loads without becoming overly fiddly.
I think you could probably do with breaking down secondary/light/med/heavy/superheavy as 5 categories on 2-point grades, instead of 8 broken down to 1-point grades. I seriously doubt, with all the potential combinations in the list, you will be able to accurately gauge all the main weapons to fine 6/7/8/9/10 distinctions. Even if the weapon points were perfectly comparable, a titan with +/- 1 points one way or the other is only going to be +/- 1-2% of the total cost of the titan.
Variant Titan configurations: I like these as well. Obviously, some fine-tuning will be in order, but the ability to trade out overall levels of firepower, shielding, and speed should be fun.
It is, however, a bit complex. I would worry about an opponent who needed to check the enemy army list at a tourney.
I'd really like to see these kinds of pattern options in an ATIII game that is Epic-compatible rather than in an AMTL list for EA. You could set up a more complex titan building list that took into account other special gear as well. That would allow you to break out per-shield costs, move upgrade/downgrade costs and other special abilities/gear to get an even more customized approach.
Weapons: I think the weapons need the most work. They are obviously heavily influenced by SM2. I'm sympathetic to that idea and it's fine up to a point, but there are some things we're just not going to be able to retrograde. If you seriously want to take a shot at getting this version working and into widespread acceptance, you're going to have to adjust to the more recent definitions of the weapons.
Without doing a detailed number crunch, it looks like the detailed breakdown of weapons you have (grades 6-10) is based on your weapon effectiveness formula. As noted above, I don't think such fine gradations are going to hold up. The divisions can be simplified.
Finally, I think some of the individual weapons can be simplified. A titan can already take multiple weapons of different types. Multiple roles complicates matters significantly. There's little practical difference in having Inferno guns picking between flamer and standard templates, for instance. Same goes for assault weapons with X of one kind of attack plus Y of another.
Army List: As with the titan weapon list, I think you have too much of the SM2, 40K-variety-in-epic-scale approach. There's no reason any list should need 7 kinds of Leman Russ, 5 kinds of SHTs, 8 kinds of infantry (counting the TG bikes), plus the other assorted kinds of support vehicles to work and be flavorful. Titans are supposed to be the highlight, not multiple fine distinctions of support troops. It really distracts from the list. Similarly, I think a basic TL list should have stripped down options for knights.
Lastly, and something which you will probably be startled at as potentially adding complexity, I think it might be feasible to do a point cost for secondary weapons with a stripped down version of your system. You have CMLs as 50 points or as something that can be added in conjunction with lighter main weapons. Couldn't you make most of the secondary weapon systems have the same option? A few, like perhaps the Command head, could remain point-only upgrades, but the others might be workable as point/configuation options.
====
Again, because there is a fair amount of criticism above, I want to stress that overall I like your conceptual work. I think a simpler version of your weapon-grade system would be perfect for an EA list or a more integrated configuration system would be perfect for an ATIII list, or both.
_________________ Neal
|