Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

AMTL spitballing.
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18131		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  AMTL spitballing.
The list works okay as-is, but all those weapon selection rules are clunky.

One possible solution that has been raised is along the lines of :

"Any Titan Formation must have at least two different weapon systems"

That would cover most of the issues the current rules are addressing, and take up about an eigth of the text.

Thoughts?



=====

It has also been repeatedly mooted that "God Machines" could be changed so that instead of handing BTS to the opponent (GT Scenario specific rule) instead the destruction of any Battle Titan drops a BM on every Titan formation in LOS of the destroyed Titan.

Again, thoughts?
Author:  captPiett [ Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
As long as we're just spitballing, I don't think the fluff* justifies even a BM on every titan formation if a battle titan goes down. The crews seem to at most think "huh, engine Ancientus Kickus Assus just went down. That's too bad," or "revenge time!" If anything, it should remove one BM. Considering this from a unit cost/activation count perspective, the number of activations in an AMTL army is so limited already, it doesn't seem wise to unduly hinder the 4-5 remaining formations with a BM. So my stance is that no God Machines rule is needed.

* The usual caveats about fluff here apply. I'm basing this on my reading of Titanicus, Mechanicum, and Storm of Iron. I haven't read the 40k codeces, but I can't imagine that they'd be too helpful, as titans seem a outside the purview of 40k scale-wise.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Quote:
my stance is that no God Machines rule is needed.

God Machines is more there to stop certain styles of play in-game rather than as a pure "fluffy" rule.
Author:  Vaaish [ Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Well, you know my thoughts on this :)

New titan weapon rule: What is this stopping exactly? Single warhounds with two of the same weapons? it doesn't seem to have much effect on the battle titans since I believe most of their better configurations already use more than one weapon type.

God machines: While I think what you posted is a step in the right direction, I think that it needs one further bump. With your wording there really isn't much reason to take a warlord as BTS over a Reaver and has little effect on the army for the most part. I think the BM generation should be expanded to non titan formations in LOS of the destroyed titan as well. To make warlords a bit more desirable as BTS and to grant some benefit to the destruction of the BTS titan I think that it should generate two bm on any formations in line of site.

I've been testing a version of the God machines rule that didn't limit the BM generation to LOS units only and with one BM generated per titan destroyed and two for the BTS, it didn't seem overpowered. In fact it made me want to take warhounds packs over the single because they were harder to break and take a warlord as BTS since it required much more effort to remove.

For completeness, here's the rule I've been working with:
the loss of any titan generates one blast marker on all AMTL formations;
if the Titan counts as the Break Their Spirit goal two blast markers are
generated on all formations instead of one
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
From a fluff stand point only non-Titans should get the Blastmarker.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Evil and Chaos wrote:
"Any Titan Formation must have at least two different weapon systems"Again, thoughts?

I'd say this is definitely worth a try.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Evil and Chaos wrote:
"Any Titan Formation must have at least two different weapon systems"


In general I don't like any rules that limit how I can arm my Titans, but I hardly ever arm a Titan with only one weapon. So, I guess I'm not against it.
Author:  Kris.Sherriff [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Have been thinking about the weapon rules and have to say that I am a fan of being able to take a single roll Warhound and am looking at getting hold of the FW Reaver with 3 Apoc Launchers, which with the change I would not be able to field.

What about adding in "twin linked" style weapons to the available weapons list and saying that they take up 2 hard points. E.G.

Twin inferno gun 25 points 30cm range 5BP Ignores Cover (Takes up two hard points)
Twin Plasma Blastgun 25 Points 45cm Range 2x MW2+ or 4x MW2+ Slow firing (Must not have fired in previous turn) (Takes up two hard points)
Armageddon Launcher 75 Points 60cm Range 10BP (Takes up three hard points)

I am sure you get the idea, keeps the feel of the weapons fits and removes a bit of extra rules (OK it adds text somewhere else but most people use a reference sheet for the weapons anyway if just to show their opponents)

Thoughts?

Kris
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Quote:
Thoughts?

Feels like we'd be taking the bloat out of the Special Rules section and putting it into the weapons section.

What about adding the "Warhound Surcharge" rule back, but universally?

So a Triple Missile Reaver would still be allowed, you'd just have to pay a 25pt surcharge for having a mono-fit Reaver (Or Warlord, or Warhound)...
Author:  Grimgork [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
I do like Kris idea because it then is no special rule but just more weapons that may be selected. Feels smother to me.
Author:  Vaaish [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Quote:
What about adding the "Warhound Surcharge" rule back, but universally?

I wasn't aware this was ever dropped. Again, is it even needed to apply beyond warhounds? I don't think I've seen many lists contain the battle titans with only one weapon system each, and even those that do I don't recall as being problematic. I think that the weapons systems are fine as they are, and in a list that currently has very few special rules I don't see it as being near bloated.

My two beefs with the list are the free weapons surcharge making the TLD something of a no brainer and the current incarnation of the God Machines rule. I'm not overly happy about the CML at 50 points, but I've not found it overly problematic.
Author:  zombocom [ Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Evil and Chaos wrote:
"Any Titan Formation must have at least two different weapon systems"Again, thoughts?


This seems a much more elegant rule than the warhound tax, and will encourage warhound pairs.
Author:  clausewitz [ Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Quote:
This seems a much more elegant rule than the warhound tax, and will encourage warhound pairs.


Zombo, can you explain why this would encourage warhound pairs?
Author:  Spectrar Ghost [ Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
I'm guessing because you could take two monofit Warhounds in a single formation?
Author:  clausewitz [ Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: AMTL spitballing.
Ah, because its each titan "formation" that must have two different weapon systems.

So a warhound pack could have one warhound with 2x VMB and one with 1x VMB & 1x something else.

Does create the slightly odd or counter-intuitive situation where a warhound weapons fit is legal in a pair and not for a single.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/