Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback |
|
dysartes
|
Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback  Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:30 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm
Posts: 908
|
|
Let's hear your feedback on AMTL 2.0 here, even if it comes from a playtest-free background.
_________________ The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby!
Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress
Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Blarg D Impaler
|
Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
|
|
Between the release of AMTLv1.1 and the release of AMTLv2.0, I think we've managed to nail a number of areas which people weren't happy with. To my mind, these include:
> Structure of the list, with regards to Legio and Auxilia formations
> Cost of titans
> Weapon selection system
> Knight selection
> The majority of the Titan weapons
|
My biggest complaint about the structure of the list is that Knights should be allies to an AMTL force. Yes, they would be present, but not in large numbers since they are there courtesy of a Knight World and not organic to the AMTL command structure.
I wholeheartedly agree with the cost increases for the titans.
The 50% Tactical weapon selection system is OK. I'd push for completely Open Weapon Selection as I discussed back on the old forums, but I know that would get no traction among others and nobody seems to be willing to balance weapons for that to work.
I'm not sure what you mean about "Knight selection." I am glad to see the Paladin minimum requirement gone, that was an unnecessary pain in the rump.
The titan weapons are still only half correct in my opinion. Some of them are too powerful (Vulcan Mega Bolter, Chainfist, Plasma Destructor, Barrage Missile Launcher, and the Volcano Cannon), some are not powerful enough (all of the other titan CC weapons), and some just don't follow what they were in previous editions of Epic.
Yes, you've nailed down the above topics, but not everyone is happy with what you have done. I appreciate that you have taken on the mantle of AMTL Army champion, but I don't like what you have done to the AMTL. I'm not making this post in hopes that you'll change stuff, I know better and know that you are going to do as you please. I'm posting this to remind you and others that not everything is milk and honey here in AMTL Land.
> The Knights
> The Ordinatii
> Single Shot Missiles
> Character Units in general (inc. Baron) - cost & abilities
> Getting the Imperator and Warmonger to work
|
The Knight Shield seems OK. Call me crazy, but I actually liked a void shield better.
The Ordinatus do seem to need work. Good luck.
Single Shot Missiles - Change the name of the Vortex missile back to what it really is: a Deathstrike Missile. If you are going to use the vaunted and feared name of "Vortex Missile" in Epic it had better be close to what it was originally: an area effect weapon that was good at destroying titans. The Barrage Missile Launcher should be what was printed on p.165 of the E:A rulebook, those stats are close in power compared to the Gatling Blaster while you tacking Disrupt on to the current bastardized stats make it too powerful.
Where are your ideas for the Emperor class titans?
|
Agamemnon-2.0
|
Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:20 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:04 pm
Posts: 3
|
|
I agree that the current vortex missile seems a little too "surgical" to describe a device that, in fluff, opens rifts in space. I understand a name change might be too superfluous, so I remain ambivalent on the issue. On the matter of names, the Warhound "light ____" weapons are a bit inelegant but do get the point across.
Fluffwise, an AMTL army with only one titan in it is slightly on thin ice, but I see no reason why such fringe cases could not exist, provided the overall design is not inherently degenerate.
Speaking of titans, I wrote up a close-combat Warlord with two chainfists and two laser cutters, and that thing scares the willies out of me. I realize it's not an effective design, but it's freaky. I'm a bit iffy on separating powerfist and chainfist in such a definite level, because it doesn't mirror what was did in 40k (where a chainfist is merely a powerfist that's better at penetrating vehicle armor). I do like the concept of the CC weapons is designed not to overlap into the design space of another, though I'm concerned over the underpoweredness Blarg is talking about.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:59 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Dysartes,
Good progress here. I like the way the list is shaping up. Now, on to the coments you are really after:
I'm not sure on the wording of the knight shield still. Using the word lance seems to specifically address a rule in another codex instead of making the rule more generic to encompass your desired affect without making a reference to a rule that the player may not have access to easily because he doesnt' have the Swordwind codex at hand. I don't know - just seems like some word smithing is still required on this ability. The goal makes sense to me though.
I like the paladin changes. Each unit now 'seems' usable without investing an increadible amount of points in the units you don't even want. It will be interesting to see how this works out in playtest.
Flame Template,
Point 1: doesn't seem to say which part of the template must touch the "end of the gun barrel"
Point 1: "end of the barrel" should be relabled as "muzzle end" to be more accurate and less wordy.
point 2: seems to say the opponent may always reposition the template the way its worded.
point 2: nothing is described to inform a player what happens if two or more templates overlap on the same unit (2 hits or treat multiple templates from the same formation as one big template - like barrages?)
I like the Skitari Tribute and Electro-Priest changes all across the board.
Preatorian combat Servitor changes make me want a list based upon them now. The stats are now closer in line with the fluff. I like these changes.
Mole mortar now seems worth trying, still don't know if I like it, but for the points and abilities, might be worth trying now.
Fearless on ordinatus is much needed IMHO - Thank you!
Maurader's underwing rockets are 5+ while the precident and thunderbolt's underwings are 4+ - typo? I actually like the Maurader destroyer a lot. compared to marine WE fliers and Eldar WE fliers, I don't think this is all that bad at all. That's in theory though. Need to playtest this one out as well to be sure of course  Question though: would the adeptus mechnaicus crew really 'eject' from one of their sacred war engines, or would they go down with their bird i.e. extention of themselves - doing everything they can in a fanatical attempt to salvage some part of their beloved beast? 
OK, tis all.
List looks really good and looking forward to working it into playtest D!! Well done on V2!!
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Blarg D Impaler
|
Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:24 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 25 Oct. 2005 (14:41)) | | I continue to have grave concerns that this list will ever be balanced for a tournament environment. ?I can't imagine that most normal "in the box" (to use Jaldon's phrase) tournament armies will stand a chance against a WE-heavy force. ?It's a good list for fun games and for campaigns and such, but I just can't see it working in open tourneys. |
Your concerns are rightly justified, IMO. As I have said before, the weapons make the Imperial Titan, and the way the weapons list is now makes the AMTL overly formidable. Take a look at these weapon combinations:
Against the Space Marines: Vulcan Mega Bolters and Chain Fists should take care of the CC and FF infantry heavy marines. A lone Volcano Cannon and/or missile launcher with Carapace Landing Pad should be enough to take care of the occassional Whirlwind platoon or THawk.
Against the Steel Legion Imperial Guard: Plasma Destructors and Volcano Cannons to handle the tanks, Vulcan Mega Bolters to handle the infantry and others. Throw in the occassional Chain Fist for Ogryns and any IG stupid enough to get too close.
Against the Orks: Same as the IG, but heavier on the Vulcan Mega Bolters since you have more infantry and Power Fields to contend with. Keep some of the Plasma Destructors and Volcano Cannons to handle the Fortresses and Gargants.
_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:32 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
I think CW has a point here.
I know some lists just break AMTL bad.
I know some lists can be built to really break AMTL. Eldar are going to be a huge pain for AMTL. The list doesn't deal with skimmers so good. Sure, ordinatus can have the indirect fire and there's OW, but I think you'll find that Eldar can decapacitate the ordinatus pretty quick. H-t-h is definitely the way to take down many titans, and Eldar have that trick covered when things get tight. Also - if anyone can bring enough macro weapons and titan killer shots against the AMTL, it's got to be the Eldar.
So, I think the AMTL will also have its strengths against other lists as not every list is going to be designed to deal with an army of titans.
On the other hand, AMTL as designed is not necessarily a formidable army of titans. Its really more titans than you expect to see in other lists of the same point value, but not over the top. If the AMTL player does go over the top, then they are going to have limited activations and may find themselves bent over badly.
I don't necessarily disagree with NH concerns, but I don't know that I agree with his hypothesis yet either. Presently, I think there may be a balance to be found for AMTL. Time will tell. I definitely think the list is closer now than ever and applaud D in his changes.
I think people will learn to be weary of AMTL in tournaments and will have answers. Scenerios and/or objective placements will play hell on AMTL as they can't cover all of them. Their speed and number of activations limit their overall game potential.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Blarg D Impaler
|
Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:55 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
|
| Quote (clausewitz @ 27 Oct. 2005 (10:53)) | Blarg, the whole point of Jaldon's "in the box" concept is that before playing the game you DO NOT KNOW what your opponent will be fielding, including his selection of race. ?So the AMTL CANNOT, under those circumstances, tailor their weapon fits to those that best match a particular army.
I do agree that the AMTL does have an advantage where fore-knowledge of the opponents forces is available. ?But in that case your opponent should have the same advantage (so if you are facing IG there will be about a dozen shadowswords waiting for you!)
Nealhunt's concerns are centred around the fact that some tournament style armies would struggle against an AMTL force with lots of 4+ RA WE units. ?Though this might be less worrying now that the titan costs have go up a bit? (If I have mis-represented your opinions Neal I apologise) |
My apologies for not being fully informed about Jaldon's theorems about Epic: Armageddon tournament play. Thank you for the info regarding his thoughts on the matter, though feel free to simply type what you have to say, BECAUSE I HAVE NO NEED FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS, OR YELLING, ON EASILY UNDERSTOOD CONCEPTS.
Please also keep in mind that, as I have stated previously and I'm sure you've seen me say, I'm not a tournament player. I play Epic as if the game were part of a campaign or situation where the AMTL will at least have an idea who they are going to fight. Tournament play, while which is what the army lists are geared towards, are unrealistic circumstances under what an army would fight. I'm sorry I haven't adapted my mindset to tournament play.
I think you may have missed that I was rather selective in the weapons that I mentioned in my inappropriate examples. Part of the reason why I wrote my examples as I did was because I wanted to draw out that there were several weapons that I felt were too powerful, and that those few weapons were sufficient to cover all of the AMTL's needs. One of the biggest problem weapons, in my opinion, is the Vulcan Mega Bolter which is mentioned several times. Any army, IG included as you mentioned, will have an advantage if they know who they are fighting, but the AMTL would have an extra advantage since some of their weapons are better than the others IMO. Once players figure out what weapons are "good" and which ones are "bad" they will naturally gravitate to using the "good" weapons only.
While a lot of armies are going to have problems deling with 4+ RA WE heavy armies, that armor advantage that the AMTL enjoys is tempered by the high cost and few activations that the AMTL will have. If you really want to focus on armies that have a lot of 4+ RA WE units (a mistake in my opinion, you need to look at the whole picture) cast your gaze upon the Steel Legion IG with their unrestricted numbers of SH tanks with Leman Russ Companies bulking the force.
_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
