Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

Playtest Changes

 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:39 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4191
Location: Greenville, SC
Eh, not really. The difference between the cruiser and battleship was a 5bp bombardment template. It's also a really expensive investment with each tetrarch being 450 and probably around 1k total for the drop. In all likelihood folks will bring it in t2 anyway to get an idea of deployment and strategy before committing and there didn't seem much point in adding a rule to limit it with the cruiser offering mostly the same firepower.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
is the CLP change meant to be 1 weapon, or 1 weapon type?
because giving indirect fire to any type of titan weapon is cool (lobbing plasma over hills is neat. I would seriously consider adding CLPs to other titan builds if i can shoot my VMB around corners) and will add versatility to the builds and thus variety to the field. it also helps the CLP which is otherwise a fairly mediocre choice
but just saying "we hate triplequake warlords so now it only gets to shoot one gun now" can go eat a whole bag of ****

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:20 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4191
Location: Greenville, SC
Sorry, it would still just apply to BP weapons. Applying this to other things just gets too complicated. Honestly the CLP has a habit making a list that is fairly static lean even further that way. I'd like to see the list move away from that.

It is curious to me that the CLP gets called a poor choice or a mediocre one but it shows up a lot and there is a lot of resistance to changes. If a poor choice like the CLP is taken as often as it seems, perhaps we should look at the rest of the AMTL list.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
the CML isnt a poor choice so much as it's only useful in a very finite number of builds (being pure BP titans) and since they're generally limited to a single role, the CLP is included frequently, but not in large numbers.

I personally almost never take none, but never take more than a single arty-tan, because while I always need something solid to be my blitz guard anyway, so it may as well be raining hellfire upon the enemy. Meanwhile, everything else in the list is pushing forward to deliver their hellfire with a more personal touch, taking other objectives.

personally, I think that the CLP as it currently functions is a boring choice. It's quite useful in certain builds (especially with the "all of the same" surcharge preventing a quadquake warlord) but in doing so you're giving up weapons, and forcing the titan into a specific role, a role that it seems some people dont like.

Personally, I think that the CLP should be considered moving off the weapon slots and becoming an upgrade, that way it costs as much to take as before (or more infact) and people are more likely to take a different weapon, which might encourage them to actually use their titan in an alternate role.

I also think that allowing for indirect fire nonBP weapons would be neat. I'd certainly be interested in trying out a CLP+twin VMB reaver (even moreso if it didnt require i lose my third weapon)

another thought would be to change it so that an upgrade would allow the current basic CLP functions, and a weapon slot CLP (more expensive choice) would allow the ability to fire indirect without a sustain. (perhaps also with the ability to fire nonBP weapons indirect too)
this would allow the titan to advance and still function as artillery, which would help with the static style of the list, and would help with the current "loss of a weapon" situation

Currently, losing a weapon means that i have lost a sizable investment of points if i do not use the CLP in every round of shooting. If i move, I've lost effectiveness both in my loss of the +1 bonus, but also in reduction in potential firepower. So it only happens in truly dire circumstances. If that weapon was still in place, I'd consider passing on the sustain advantage to advance and direct-fire my weapons. likewise, if i could move into an advantageous position and still shoot indirectly, I'd be more willing to shift my arty titan off the baseline.

and if i could try an arty titan with more direct-fire routes, I'd certainly be considering treating them as mobile fire platforms

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:16 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3323
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
Istillwould like to hear a good answer to e Q why arty-titans are so bad? I'm a AMTL player (my main army) and i don't dislike static playing or see re need for a more mobile playstyle (we have warhounds for mobility).

Is this proposed changes of the list supported by the AMTL-playing community or is it your view of how the list should be played?

It seems that me and StM don't agree with you on the neccesity to nerf arty-titans and we are the ones posting the most battlereports with the AMTL lists in the recent 12 months...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:19 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3323
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
Vaaish wrote:
Quote:
No, the Tetrarch price isn't changing. Due to the added transport capacity and removal of slow and steady, the Ark Mechanicus might need to cost more than just 150 points.


Oh ok, misunderstood. Sorry for that.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:15 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4191
Location: Greenville, SC
Quote:
Istillwould like to hear a good answer to e Q why arty-titans are so bad? I'm a AMTL player (my main army) and i don't dislike static playing or see re need for a more mobile playstyle (we have warhounds for mobility).

Is this proposed changes of the list supported by the AMTL-playing community or is it your view of how the list should be played?

It seems that me and StM don't agree with you on the neccesity to nerf arty-titans and we are the ones posting the most battlereports with the AMTL lists in the recent 12 months...


The issue is less the performance of the CLP and more how the list should play to better conform to fluff. Nearly all of the fluff I read has the titans striding through the battlefield shredding lesser units as they break through enemy lines. I don't see a lot talking about titans standing around like fixed artillery.

That play style has come about because titans are a bit slow and few in number and don't really have the teeth to decisively crack a formation most of the time. It works, but it just doesn't fit. I even like the CLP and I've used Arty titans myself and argued against changing it. In my group the titan list doesn't see much use because it's boring and predictable to play against: nobody wants to spend two hours skirting around a couple big units sitting still after turn 1. Strictly speaking, there has been very little change to the list in the past three or four years. Typically new players come in, play AMTL a few times and then move on to other lists after the "cool lots of big stompy robots" effect wears off. Regardless of current list balance, that is a problem and it's my job to address these things even if it means making an unpopular change. Some might not like it, but it is rare that everyone agrees on these things.

The first step to making titans more interesting is to reduce the reliance on expensive arty titans. There has to be a trade off for putting 1/3 of your points in a corner and denying both blitz and BTS. Right now there is none since an arty titan is able to easily project firepower anywhere on the board.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:39 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Mooskirchen, Austria
For AMTL I like the solutions beside the CLP Change. This I will reject. Clearly it is nice to stride around with titans, but one have to guard the Blitz as there are so much things around with Air Assault and teleport. Also this would be my Legat choice. It will hanging back and give C & C for the other principes, leaning also arty support. Have also Mulitlasers for AA. So it functions as a HQ and it guards the most precious target: the logistics.. I don't see the point to change this. And most of the time there is only one Arty-Titan on field. Other roles are to be fullfilled.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:09 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4191
Location: Greenville, SC
Quote:
For AMTL I like the solutions beside the CLP Change. This I will reject. Clearly it is nice to stride around with titans, but one have to guard the Blitz as there are so much things around with Air Assault and teleport. Also this would be my Legat choice. It will hanging back and give C & C for the other principes, leaning also arty support. Have also Mulitlasers for AA. So it functions as a HQ and it guards the most precious target: the logistics.. I don't see the point to change this. And most of the time there is only one Arty-Titan on field. Other roles are to be fullfilled.


One arty titan is nearly 1/3 of a typical army point value. Saying there is "only" one is a rather meaningless statement when you have that many points tied up. It's like saying someone takes "only" one Emperor titan.

What you posted is the exact thing AMTL needs to be rid of. AMTL must advance past plonking an arty BTS titan on the blitz. Remove arty or reduce arty and it becomes far less attractive to leave the BTS hanging around the blitz because you can't afford to lose the firepower by keeping a titan out of the fight. Titans need to be out front killing or breaking enemy formations not standing around the back 40 lobbing shells.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:39 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Mooskirchen, Austria
Well, I see your point. Next time I will try it out without an arty-titan. Let's see how it works.

Beside this: I thank you Sir for bringing AdMech along!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:18 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 200
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
the CML isnt a poor choice so much as it's only useful in a very finite number of builds (being pure BP titans) and since they're generally limited to a single role, the CLP is included frequently, but not in large numbers.

...

another thought would be to change it so that an upgrade would allow the current basic CLP functions, and a weapon slot CLP (more expensive choice) would allow the ability to fire indirect without a sustain. (perhaps also with the ability to fire nonBP weapons indirect too)
this would allow the titan to advance and still function as artillery, which would help with the static style of the list, and would help with the current "loss of a weapon" situation

...

and if i could try an arty titan with more direct-fire routes, I'd certainly be considering treating them as mobile fire platforms


I like this suggestion actually, specifically: (1) increase the cost of the CLP, (2) it allows a titan (not Ordinatus) to indirect fire BP weapons* while on orders other than sustain.

No +1, and it makes arty titans mobile, while occupying a weapon slot. This would increase the cost overall of the arty combo by a little while also increasing the mobility, at the cost of some damage. Thoughts?

_________________
My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

My Battlefleet Gothic Project Log: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5318.0


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:39 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4191
Location: Greenville, SC
Quote:
I like this suggestion actually, specifically: (1) increase the cost of the CLP, (2) it allows a titan (not Ordinatus) to indirect fire BP weapons* while on orders other than sustain.

No +1, and it makes arty titans mobile, while occupying a weapon slot. This would increase the cost overall of the arty combo by a little while also increasing the mobility, at the cost of some damage. Thoughts?


I think it misses the point that I'm trying to reduce the AMTL list reliance on artillery and shift the play style to a more mobile one. It won't make people move the titans any more than they already do because of three things:

First, Indirect fire doubles the range of the weapons and a 180cm quake arty titan has little need to move, especially since it sits on blitz and projects firepower almost anywhere on the board.

Second, You've now made it easier for the titan to fire. Not that they usually fail activations to begin with, but now they can still dump arty anywhere on the board even if they fail.

Last, shifting this to an upgrade now opens the door for quad quake arty titans which is the opposite direction I want this to go.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:22 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 200
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Vaaish wrote:
First, Indirect fire doubles the range of the weapons and a 180cm quake arty titan has little need to move, especially since it sits on blitz and projects firepower almost anywhere on the board.

Second, You've now made it easier for the titan to fire. Not that they usually fail activations to begin with, but now they can still dump arty anywhere on the board even if they fail.

Last, shifting this to an upgrade now opens the door for quad quake arty titans which is the opposite direction I want this to go.


Bah, I omitted the part in my head where I meant to leave it as a hard point, not open things up to quad barrage guns. Sorry.


Also, we're talking about 60 & 90cm weapons basically (ok, inferno guns too but...): they can already reach anywhere, subject to LoS. The difference this way is that I could take a warlord with dual quakes a pad and an additional weapon and keep it mobile while supporting other titans with barrages on a dense terrain board. Knowing I could go with mobile artillery that way would make quake/pad/X weapon loads attractive for 1-2 Reavers instead of running an arty Blitz camper.

Also, serious mobility in the form of a double move would presumably apply the -1 modifier, so there would be a trade-off there too at least.

I can see how you'd react negatively to indirect barrages as part of a Marshall, but it still has the -1 modifier, so a strength 3 or 6 barrage isn't going to generate that many hits beyond its obligatory blast marker, especially against infantry in cover.


Also, I'm talking about making the landing pad 25-50 points. At that point it becomes a utility decision; is taking indirect fire on this titan worth downgrading firepower on another and/or dropping a scout sentinel formation?

_________________
My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

My Battlefleet Gothic Project Log: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5318.0


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:16 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4191
Location: Greenville, SC
Quote:
Bah, I omitted the part in my head where I meant to leave it as a hard point, not open things up to quad barrage guns. Sorry.


details, details! :)

Quote:
Also, we're talking about 60 & 90cm weapons basically (ok, inferno guns too but...): they can already reach anywhere, subject to LoS. The difference this way is that I could take a warlord with dual quakes a pad and an additional weapon and keep it mobile while supporting other titans with barrages on a dense terrain board. Knowing I could go with mobile artillery that way would make quake/pad/X weapon loads attractive for 1-2 Reavers instead of running an arty Blitz camper.


That last little bit, subject to LoS is huge though. There are hills, forests, buildings and other WE that all block it and gives an opponent means to avoid being hit or limit the range they are engaged by the weapon.

I don't deny that it does open the POSSIBILITY of titans with quake and keep it mobile, but I don't think that is actually a use case when taking a titan equipped with this load out: Nothing prevents you from moving an arty titan as it is. Stopping a 15cm model with 90cm range to sustain doesn't exactly break up your battle lines either.

Range + Ignore LOS = no point in moving. This is especially true if you can deny two victory points with one unit.

If other would like to weigh in on whether they would keep a titan like that mobile, I'd be interested in hearing. I'd wager that with how these titans are usually deployed, a change like this won't change that.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Playtest Changes
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:30 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4191
Location: Greenville, SC
Additional note: Apocalypse Missile Launcher. I've given it disrupt. Reaver titans are armed with Rocket Launchers in the Epic Compendium and Epic rule book. AMTL doesn't give their titans access to this weapon. Instead they have the Apoc Missile Launcher.

I'm going to go with the difference is the type of missiles the pods are armed with (Apocalypse Missiles vs Rockets) so the change won't affect Reavers outside of AMTL.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net