(Reaver @ Sep. 16 2006,16:20)
QUOTE
Certainly a few different options would be welcome; after all, even dreadnoughts get a choice of weapons configuration.
I do understand about the Titans lacking flavour, and I agree, but I feel the way the game works ( the tournament game at least ) would suffer if Titans take a more central role. And with customisable weapons, we would see more Titans fielded. I'd start taking a Reaver every game at least.
As for a stand alone AT game, it really needs infantry and tanks to set it apart from Battletech etc. but then it's just a developed version of epic, and I think getting SG recognition for that kind of change to the core system would be all but impossible. They might endorse a stand alone game though, but then what do you do about tanks etc? My brain hurts!
With all this said, however, points costs for Titan weapons is still the only way I see of having more choices in the game and maintaining balance, and I applaud your efforts, E+C.
Regards,
Reaver
I don't think infantry and tanks set E:A apart from Classic BattleTech... CBT has infantry and tanks too! ?IMHO, the differences come not through the background fluff, but in the rules themselves. ?For example, instead of manuvering your Titans for the extra +1 defensive DRM, you place them to claim objectives and gain a LOS and range on the formation you want to target. ?As long as you retain those rules that give E:A its feel, a Titan's-only game will still be distinct.
More on topic, I think that adding some additional variation in Titan weapons in the tournament lists is a good idea. ?I emphasize that it's the tourney lists we're trying to modify, as the non-tourney scenario section already suggests alternative weapon configurations. ?The difficulty, therefore, lies in finding ways of adding variation in ways that maintain balance. ?A variable weapons cost system can be made to work, but it has to be carefully examined to prevent abuse. ?Specifying a few variations of each chassis, but not allowing variation outside of these variants, makes it easier to prevent abuse; you can even give each variant a different cost (perhaps calculated from the variable weapons system!) to help maintain balance. ?Remember, it is just as bad to define a variant that no one takes because some other choice is "obviously" superior. ?Giving the "obviously" superior variant a greater cost restores balance by giving players a reason to choose the "obviously" inferior choice.
