| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
| Quote (Wailing_Doom @ 16 Feb. 2006 (18:02)) | The main issue with them is that they maintain full effect until they are destroyed, which goes against the fluff and stories you read about.
As a titan is damaged weapons go off line, power relays are blown and crew are killed, but the game does not reflect this.
The only real way of demonstrating this is to rework the basic War engine rules. This would then state that a war machine will be Suppressed by a number of blast markers equal to remaing damage, meaning that a badly damaged machine will suffer under heavy fire.
This could even be limited to :
1. If blast markers are equal to or greater than remaining damage half of the Titans weapons are suppressed, owners choice.
2. If blast markers are equal or greater than starting damage titan is broken.
This would help alleviate the seeming never dwindling firepower whilst still retaining the subborn God Machine aura. |
While I agree the AMTL list needs something to make it more fair in GT games, I don't think your idea can really be implemented (even though it makes perfect sense, and actually goes a long way to solving the problem). The main objection to doing something like this is that we'd end up with [virtually] identical units in different army lists using different rules.
If you are proposing a change to the core rules for how WE's work, that is fine, but this isn't were you need to discuss it (at least not the only place). However, if you are just suggesting that this type of rule applies to WE's in the AMTL alone, then the idea is a non-starter.
I think the ultimate goal for the AMTL is to figure out a way for the AMTL to be fair in the GT scenario under the core rules. This means that you can fool with some of the GT victory conditions, impose certain restriction in the list, etc., but I'm not sure JJ will go for something that has one army play by a different game mechanism that the rest.
As for your experience in your game, I think it is understandable that you got a skewed result, even factoring out the power of the AMTL list. First, the point cost put it outside of the GT scenario (2000-5000 pts), so if you were playing using the GT victory conditions, you probably didn't have enough objectives on the table to diffuse the focus of your forces (at 7000 pts, I would think you'd need 6 objectives per side, with 2 being blitz objectives. Not to mention a table bigger than 6'x4').
Second, 1 big army != 1 small army + 1 small army. Certainly some armies could compliment each other, but if these two armies both followed the restrictions set for various formation types in their lists, then they probably were at a disadvantage to the big army (i.e. left over points in the aerospace allotment probably didn't get transferred over to the allied force, etc.).
Finally, all of the armies you played with are playtest lists, and the cultist list is the only one of the three to be near finished. Plus, the tyranid list just got a major overhaul, so there are somethings that haven't been reintroduced back yet.
Have you looked at the other suggestions related to this topic in the "AMTL/OGBM in GT" thread in this forum? What do you think of those suggestion?
|
|
