In E40k we called this a LandRaider Company
And fluff supported that.
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Focus of this list? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5311 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
From the Army of Vaul-Thread: What is the focus of this Adeptus Mechanicus Titan Legion Armylist? Is there any consistend focus among the playtesters/armychampion? |
|
| Author: | oreso [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
you're asking a kinda abstract silly question. If you want to see the focus, look at the list, and there it is. Look at any of the main lists, they are likewise full of variety and options which some might consider a lack of focus. 'Lack of focus' is only a problem when the options can be combined to make unfluffy armies. But as with all epic armies, this is pretty hard since players have to take the "core" choices. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
'Lack of focus' is only a problem when the options can be combined to make unfluffy armies. | |
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
I have thought about a different army-layout. Something of a reversed IG-armylist. For this you have the Titan-Battlegroups (1 Warlord, 1 Reaver, 2 Warhounds)as Core-choices (no at least 50% titans). Auxilia (=support) would be lone Warhounds and Ordinatus (up to 3 Auxilia per Battlegroup). 25% of the points could be spend on IG-style formations (=Skitarii or regular IG) and 25%of thepoints could be spend on aircraft and spaceships (same as IG). Upgrades are only available for Battlegroups. How is this? |
|
| Author: | oreso [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
to be fair, only just possible. on that point though I agree that the ordinatus should be a support choice. is that your only problem? |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
The problem i see is that the Auxilia choices in the v2 list have a lot of (upgrade)options. Why take titans? Take so much titans,that you fill the 50% and bunch up some auxilia with upgrades and what have not. Looks more than a titan-supported Skitarii-list to me... |
|
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:48 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? | ||
How about a GT-level ?"Titan Legions" army that only has a single titan? ?Is that unfluffy? ?Because it is possible with the current list. | |||
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
In E40k we called this a LandRaider Company And fluff supported that.
|
|
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
Maybe the fluff supported it in SM/TL, but it certainly did not by the time of E40k. The standard codex structure of a SM chapter was laid out in the WH40k 2nd Ed SM codex, which predated E40k by several years. Just because the game lets you do something doesn't mean it's fluffy. Likewise, just because the game prevents you from doing something doesn't mean it isn't fluffy. The real question is (and has been for sometime) whether or not this list [AMTL] is supposed to be a generic, catch-all list like the lists in the main rulebook, or if it is supposed to be a more focused list. I think the generic list structure is more popular, because it will result in having official rules for more units more quickly. That, and there's no guarantee that additional list will ever see the light of day. I suggest that if you want the TL list to be more constrained, then you should whip up a new list for it, and at the same time whip up a list for a Tech Guard army and a list for a Knightworld army. Then people wouldn't get bent out of shape when you suggest that some of their favorite units should be dropped from the list. [rant] That being said, can't we just get rid of mole mortars altogether. We can say the weapon design specs got eaten with the Squats, and then use that to justify the Trygon's tunneling ability. I hate mole mortars, they look wonky and the whole idea behind them is silly. [/rant] |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
Tech guard and knights are half done - however little is possible according to jervis as the main titan bit has to be settled first apparently. |
|
| Author: | Hojyn [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:48 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? | ||
Do you mean there are lists for these armies? If so, I'd very much like to know where I can find them. ?  Oh, and to stay on topic: I'm with BlackLegion and Nealhunt on this one. I'd rather have a Titan Legion list more focused on Titans and less on other units. |
|||
| Author: | oreso [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
I'm with the list on this one. Stripping away options for support units that a TL would probably have does not magically make a list more focused. Changing how the list is arranged may well do though (ordinatus as support). This is even if a knight and tech guard list are completed. Such lists would still be sufficiently different. semaj, i hate the mole mortar too. I campaigned for its destruction on the old AMTL board but no one heeded my cries. 
|
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
My objections are well-documented with respect to the overall flavor and focus of the list. I'll not nag Dysartes by restating them ad infinitum. |
|
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? |
Hey Neal, I've given some thought as to your worry that a person could run a tourney list and use only one titan. It seems to me that if a person wanted to play a tech guard army (one that contained an ordinatus), it wouldn't be unreasonable for a player to use the AMTL list and simply take a warlord + an ordinatus + 4 auxilia infantry/Russ formations. I mean, I can't speak for the motivation of someone else trying to do run just one titan, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over the justification for the list I give. I would also point out that if only 1 titan is taken, then the army is limited to 6 activations (unless aerospace units don't count against the selection criteria - I've always been confused by that). It seems to me the driving factor on force selection in an AMTL list (and any list like it) will always be achieving a competitive number of activations. Based on that, I would guess most AMTL lists will have at least 2 titans (probably only one - if any - battle titan, thought) and will rarely have more than 3. [rant] I do think the field gun formation doesn't really fit the style of the list. If the guns were some super-guns, like the squats had, or like the ork soopa/Zzap guns, then I could understand. However, since they are just dinky little things, I don't see how they go with this army. They don't seem to fill a role that isn't filled be something else already. Wouldn't make more sense for the AMTL to have vehicle mounted indirect-fire weapons instead? [/rant] |
|
| Author: | Blarg D Impaler [ Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:52 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Focus of this list? | ||
Hey, it's the "SP support guns -vs- Field Guns" argument again. ?OK, let me dust off my talking points... The main reason why the AMTL would want to have Field Guns is because they are a cheap and easy way to field heavier weapons for AMTL infantry in defensive and siege situations. ?(Garrisons) ?The AMTL currently have very little to be forward deployed in garrisons, I think due to the AMTL = titans = assault = no defense oriented AMTL myopia that is present with a lot of people. ?Field Guns also play into the cyborg/mechanisation ghoulishness that the AMTL exhibits by being manned by Servitors. ?While I would like to see the Field Gun formations kept, I would also like to see the stats for them to be like they are in the Collectors Section at the back of the main E:A rulebook, where they all had the same speed as foot infantry and they all had roughly the same firepower. ?The reasons for the stat changes that were wrought for the Siegemasters don't apply to the AMTL IMHO, especially if you make all 4 of the different Field Guns available. ?Before you go "We can't change the stats!" (again) we can create stats for "AMTL Field Guns" or whatever new name you want to give to them. Self propelled weapons carriers, like the Griffon mortar, would be rather useful for offensive oriented operations where speed is a concern. ?But they are more expensive to operate (not reflected in the game), cannot go into some terrain that infantry can, and lend the AMTL an air of being different than the IG. Now, careful when you talk about vehicle mounted indirect-fire weapons, because now you're getting into SP artillery territory. Field Artillery like the Basilisk and the Manticore have been kept away from the AMTL for no good reason and I think that Dysartes is determined to maintain that gaping hole in the AMTL logic. |
|||
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|