Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 7
  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Variable titan configuration
tchristney
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:05 am
Posts: 352
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
How broken can an army list be by allowing customized titan weapon fits? We are talking about maybe 200-300 points out of 5000 point armies.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Not broken, but it does allow removal of certain kind of disadvantages (eg. better TK weaponry for marines).


Yep. That's how all armylists work.

If you want to fill an important capability gap in your army list, generally you purchase a premium-price unit to fill that gap. As you say, Marines (for example) already have some access to TK weapons in Epic: Armageddon.

I've seen people take Warlord Titans festooned with expensive weaponry that come close to 1000 points, and I've seen 1000 point Warlords lose terribly... You take a very expensive Titan, you better use it well because you've lost significant points elsewhere in your list.

And like I mentioned before, we're only trying to return the flavour and variety to Titans. That variety was, for many of us, the aspect which made Titans so interesting in the first place. A Titan can be the personalised centrepiece to an army, sporting interesting weapons fits that challenge you in new ways each time you play against one.

Or it can be a cardboard-flavoured robot.


From what I gather it was only production limits, not game balance, that stopped multi-weapon Titans from returning in the Epic: Armageddon book.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CAL001
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 1927
Location: Australia
From what I gather it was only production limits, not game balance, that stopped multi-weapon Titans from returning in the Epic: Armageddon book.


Now that is my thoughts exactly. Limitation in buget are defining what is in the rule book. You could still use the old weaponry on Reavers, no change to that model. And if I remember correctly, they did cast a second set of Warkord weapons for the milk float Warlord. They had the current warlord, with its weapons and where not willing to spend more money on releasing weapon packs.

On a brighter not I have downloaded your list and made an army builder from it and I will give it a go over the next couple of weeks. As initial feedback my Titan battlegroup cost exactly the same using your list as it did from the EA rulebook. So at a glance it appears balanced.

Cheers
CAL

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Aye, generally a balanced Titan Legions army will cost a very similar ammount under the modular weapons list.

The main difference is that each titan is now balanced for its own cost, so that when you use them with another Imperial-aligned army they are pointed appropriately, while an ancillary benefit is that your uber-expensive config BTS goal will become more obvious.

The second difference is that the AMTL's rather awkward Tactical/Support/CC limits have been removed, replaced for the most part with appropriate points costs, with only a few weapons (Like the heavy missiles) restricted to carapace or arm mounts only, just as they used to be.

That's about it. Same list, better system.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:45 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 13 2006,20:56)
QUOTE
Modular costs is the only way to balance Titans for use with armies other than the AMTL.

I don't agree.  Either approach can work.  In fact, if you look at the history of the 6mm 40K games the most common approaches are that modular costs have been present in games that focused on the titans while games that focused more on the other ground forces used a straight-exchange system.

I think the major selling point for a straight exchange is simplicity and that's why it's used in games that don't focus strictly on the titans.

The second difference is that the AMTL's rather awkward Tactical/Support/CC limits have been removed...

That's about it. Same list, better system.


Don't make the mistake of thinking that the common/support weapon distinction is about balance.  Its intent is to ensure the background material is relevant to the game play.  You can argue it's not elegant but it achieves its goal.  A point-based system ignores that goal.  Points are points are points and people will min-max with whatever they think is best regardless of background.

To that extent, the system defines the list.  You can't claim it's the "same list" any more than you can claim allowing an IG list allowing all support formations is the same list as the rulebook.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I don't agree.  Either approach can work.  In fact, if you look at the history of the 6mm 40K games the most common approaches are that modular costs have been present in games that focused on the titans while games that focused more on the other ground forces used a straight-exchange system.


As far as I'm aware, only Epic40k & Epic Armageddon had one-size fits-all systems, and they're pretty much regarded as the worst examples to pick when you're talking about how well titans work.

I think the major selling point for a straight exchange is simplicity and that's why it's used in games that don't focus strictly on the titans.

Yes it is simple, it's also completely bland (All weapons have near-parity of power) and results in undercosted cheap-synergy titans.

Unless you want to go the mind-boggling route of costing individual weapon types on Titans differently for each army... which Epic Armageddon hasn't even done for the stock config Warlord Titan!

A points system is self-balancing in a way that cookie-cutter titans are not. All previous (And contemporary (NetEpic)) incarnations of Epic that have given any thought to using modular Titans have gone down the costs route for the simple reason that it's the best way to do it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the common/support weapon distinction is about balance.  Its intent is to ensure the background material is relevant to the game play.

The in-game effect is rather obviously balance, you can't have four plasma destructors, but you can have four plama cannons, etc. This may well reflect the background to some extent, but titans with all 'support' or 'close combat' always existed in the background in the past, this is a new restriction as of Epic: Armageddon's rules, it doesn't reflect the background.

You can argue it's not elegant but it achieves its goal.  A point-based system ignores that goal.  Points are points are points and people will min-max with whatever they think is best regardless of background.

People will attempt to max out on powerful weapons and find their titan is too expensive and inflexible for them to win. I've seen it happen several times.

To that extent, the system defines the list.  You can't claim it's the "same list" any more than you can claim allowing an IG list allowing all support formations is the same list as the rulebook.

It is the same principle, just in better focus.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11147
Location: Canton, CT, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 14 2006,16:19)
QUOTE
I don't agree. ?Either approach can work. ?In fact, if you look at the history of the 6mm 40K games the most common approaches are that modular costs have been present in games that focused on the titans while games that focused more on the other ground forces used a straight-exchange system.


As far as I'm aware, only Epic40k & Epic Armageddon had one-size fits-all systems

In SM2 also, there was only one cost for each titan, regardless of the weapon load. That's one of the things I didn't like in the transition from AT to SM2 and one of the things I do like about NetEpic.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:49 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
E&C, your entire position is based on this premise:

Fixed price designers will fail to identify synergistic combos.
Variable price designers will succeed.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
tchristney
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:05 am
Posts: 352
Location: Victoria BC, Canada

(nealhunt @ Sep. 14 2006,14:49)
QUOTE
E&C, your entire position is based on this premise:

Fixed price designers will fail to identify synergistic combos.
Variable price designers will succeed.

That isn't the impression that I get from what he is saying. I don't think that the quality of the weapon combinations is a factor at all. Simply that there is little to no flavour to titans when they all have the same weapon load out. So the basic position is that players should be able to choose the weapons on their titans. From that position the question is how to make it fair and balanced.

If you consider the set of all possible weapons combinations, the only way to ensure that any particular combination randomly selected from the set is balanced (points wise) is to have each weapon priced according to its capabilities. The only other options available are to restrict the set of combinations or to assume that all combinations are equally balanced. I think we all agree that the latter option is totally unacceptable.

I think that variable weapon pricing is the preferable option, mainly because I have 4 beetle back chaos titans, only one of which is a banelord. Also because I have three Lords of Battles, none of which matches the load out in the LatD list. All of these war engines look different and I would like them to feel different on the battlefield.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
primarch
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Back when we tackled this issue in netepic was that one price for all weapons configuration was unbalanced (the way GW designed it), since some weapons were obviously much better than others and a titan laden with them would be way to good for the cost as a titan laden with low yield weapon would be bad for the cost.

As others pointed out we went back to AT and their premise that the empty hull would cost the same for a given chassis and different cost for weapons.

This is where it of course gets tricky. One must point out before costing weapons which ones are "too good" within the framework of the given games design. This is a relatively easy process since most gamers already know which are the most popular weapons. After this you can do two things: leave as is or downgrade the weapons power. Lots of time we opted to leave as is and price accordingly. In cases were the weapon was "unpopular" you'd ask for opinions on why that is and upgrade the weapon accordingly.

As too price, which is of course very subjective, you could contruct a points formula taking into consideration the attributes of weapons under the system you are using. This is what christney did for netepic at the beginning. Not that its necessary to do such a forumla, but it makes it easier to cost some weapons uniformally once you have place a value on the different variables in the equation for weapon cost.

Also, you must consider what the cost for a fully armed titan will be and if that cost fits with the overall cost of units in the game as per its design and if that cost makes titans a relatively costly unit in regards to how common you want them to be in your given mechanics.

A lot of backwards engineering, tweaking and changes will ocurr as you test the given values. It would be naive to think that any stratch built points system will give optimal results from the getgo. Playtest is th ultimate judge if the system works.

To the argument that titans provide more value to certain armies that lack certain things (the classic case being pure marine armies using titans with heavier weapons) there is simple mechanic to keep weapon cost uniform to all armies but factoring in the added advantage such units bring to certain armies.

That solution is using cost multipliers.

For example a certain titan with "x" weapon configuration may cost, say 800 points for an IG army (standard cost), but be worth 125% of total cost for marines (25% more than for IG) would be 1000 points. You could further vary this by stating that titans with no AT weapons in Epic would be standard cost for marines and those with any AT weapon cost 125% of total. Thus imposing the proper higher cost for those attributes space marines lack.

You could do this for any weapons and all armies.

Just some thoughts.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Legion 4
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
The AT1 Titan variable weapons system/rules worked for us. Most of our Titans were constructed this way ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CAL001
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 1927
Location: Australia
E&C have you thought of Polling this one to see what the popular concensus is? Add a link and post on SG to get a bigger feel for what people want. It is a good debate about the future of titans within the game, however some people may not post their opinion. It would be good to capture their thoughts through a vote.

Cheers
CAL
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:22 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
tchristney:  The balancing process is the same either way - determine point cost for optimal use.  If that task is successful, it's balanced.  Period.

Both methods can and do fail.  E&C's consistent objection is that fixed price doesn't take into account various synergies (I could probably cut and past half a dozen statements to that effect).  That assumes that the above task has already failed.  Conversely, assuming that variable pricing does take those combos into account assumes that the variable-price designers have succeeded.

Neither assumption is valid.  It takes no more than a couple clicks over to a 40K board to find thousands of pages of text of people discussing how to manipulate the synergies in a variable-price system.  Clearly they can and do fail.  Likewise, I can point to many items in the EA rules with identical point costs that clearly succeeded in achieving balance starting from identical point costs and adjusting the abilities of the units involved (like the Ork Kult of Speed).  Clearly fixed price can and does succeed.

In other words this balance issue doesn't exist.  It's nothing more than a smokescreen for the real difference - design philosophy.  It's "my philosophy is balanced" which is nonsensical because the philosophy isn't the game.


If you want to make the case that a particular design philosophy makes the core task easier or more difficult, that's a valid argument.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Variable titan configuration
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(primarch @ Sep. 15 2006,02:21)
QUOTE
A lot of backwards engineering, tweaking and changes will ocurr as you test the given values. It would be naive to think that any stratch built points system will give optimal results from the getgo. Playtest is th ultimate judge if the system works.

When I began the modular points costings, the first thing I did was use NetEpic's costs as a template, then transferred them across based on the ratio-differential between identically armed E:A 'stock' configuration titans.

The following couple of months saw the weapons costs & stats nudged this way and that based on theory & debate on first Epicomms and then Tactical Command... and we're now on to the playtesting stage.



To the argument that titans provide more value to certain armies that lack certain things (the classic case being pure marine armies using titans with heavier weapons) there is simple mechanic to keep weapon cost uniform to all armies but factoring in the added advantage such units bring to certain armies.


The simple fact that all Imperial armies currently pay the same ammount for the same titan configurations makes me lean towards at least playtesting the points-costs as-is before we start on applying extra points penalties for certain armies... no other iteration of Epic has gone down this route and I'd like to avoid it if possible as it brings an extra layer of (hopefully unneded) complexity, as literally every Imperial army would need to be considered.

The current one-cost-fits-all system certainly allows cheap force-multipliers... it remains to be seen if the same is possible with the modular costs. Current playtesting within my group of gamers (10 players in this month's campaign!) seems to indicate balance, or at least more balance, but other's feedback is most highly wanted.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 7
  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 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