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

[BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
plm2212
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:35 pm
Posts: 653
Location: Houston, TX USA
Great report, any report with that many titans will always rock.

Laters
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(plm2212 @ Mar. 27 2007,01:50)
QUOTE
Great report, any report with that many titans will always rock.

Thanks!

I'm hoping to fit an AMTL vs OGBM game in in the next week or so... *THUNDER*

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
redsimon
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 424
Location: Germany

(Ilushia @ Mar. 25 2007,22:27)
QUOTE
Personally I'd favor a minimum of arm-mounts filled. No speed increase, though. The lower point cost seems like it should be enough benefit without encouraging people to mount stuff like a Laser Burner+Melta-Cannon on a Warlord for extreme assaultyness along with +5cm movement AND lower cost.

This will probably not be included in the AMTL-list anyway. So the "Titan Weapons Costs" rules remain optional.

_________________
"Your limbs are mighty. Let them smite the foes of our Emperor."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Aye but since I collated the Weapons Costs rules, any suggestions here are going straight to the horse's ears...


The Weapons Costs rules aren't really meant for AMTL-only battles, their primary purpose was in making Titans with other weapons configurations balanced for use in other Imperial armies... which is something the ruleset is really quite balanced at doing (Though the one-gun method hasn't really been tested).

Certainly the Weapons Costs rules are more balanced than simply importing one-cost Titans from the AMTL list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 27 2007,13:52)
QUOTE
(Though the one-gun method hasn't really been tested).

Certainly the Weapons Costs rules are more balanced than simply importing one-cost Titans from the AMTL list.

Though "One Gun"ing means a non-AMTL list can squeeze a lot of Titans into their 1/3 points limitation.

Two Lasburner Reavers would easily fit in 3000 points... and would be a nasty addition to any of the Imperial armies.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
As I mentioned, I think the one-gun concept may have been added too hastily.

Perhaps there should be a nominal fee for each empty slot, or alternatively just go back to 'all slots must be filled'

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 28 2007,16:02)
QUOTE
As I mentioned, I think the one-gun concept may have been added too hastily.

Perhaps there should be a nominal fee for each empty slot, or alternatively just go back to 'all slots must be filled'

I think it should be "arm slots must be filled" as I can't see any Legate allowing one-armed Titans onto the field.

The Carapace could mount banners and all kinds of other stuff and wouldn't be "required" to have weapons, with no point penalty or anything... though why a Warlord *wouldn't* take a Devotional Bell is beyond me, just the +5cm movement is worth 50 points... to say nothing of invulnerable save and inspiring!  Should the Bell be a 0-1 choice?

I also think the Lasburner is undercosted at 50 points... that thing is vicious, both in direct assaults and support.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
In this list the bell is undercosted - remember in the amtl list a warlord with bell costs 800 points and can only have two weapons, not 4. What would such a warlord cost here?

And yes I think I'm the only person who regularily used it during testing, loving as i do an assault warlord.

In practice int he AMTL list it is only one warlord doing it because of cost, activations and so on.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
When the Devotional Bell was initially being discussed for the AMTL the intent was to follow fluff and have it mandated that the Devotional Bell had to be accompanied by the Custodial Head. ?The Custodial Head, IIRC, was to give the Warlord the Supreme Commander ability and some MW FF attacks to represent Psykers in the head.

The initial "problem" regarding the Devotional Bell was how to give it enough bonuses to make it worthwhile replacing two weapon slots. ?Hence the reason why the Warlord gets +5cm when it carries the Devotional Bell, otherwise it would bestow a huge pile of bonuses that some people found intolerable.

Admittedly I know very little about the Titans Weapons Points scheme that surrounds this thread (because I haven't paid attention because I think it is a bad idea) but the "One Gun" minimum should have been an obvious no-no.

The Weapons Costs rules aren't really meant for AMTL-only battles, their primary purpose was in making Titans with other weapons configurations balanced for use in other Imperial armies...


If your rules are meant to allow "balanced" costing of Imperial titans in non-AMTL armies then why did you include weapons that would only be mounted on AMTL army titans, like the Devotional Bell? ?The AMTL would be loathe to take the Custodial Titan with its Devotional Bell out for just any old battle, and they certainly would not loan it out to the IG or Space Marines to support them.

which is something the ruleset is really quite balanced at doing (Though the one-gun method hasn't really been tested).

Ha ha ha ha! ?Wow! ?That's good... ?"You know, the air around here is really quite safe to breathe, except for that chlorine gas cloud we haven't checked out yet."

Certainly the Weapons Costs rules are more balanced than simply importing one-cost Titans from the AMTL list.

Really? ?So, tell me, do the weapons in your list have a "IG Army List Cost" and a "Space Marine Army List Cost"? ?After all, the big stink about Modular Weapons Imperial Titans in the IG and SM lists was that you could tailor your weapons to compliment the army list. ?(Which is what you are supposed to do reagrdless of army list.) ?If your rules don't account for what army the titan is supporting you really haven't made the titans more balanced than "one cost titans" you have just simply made it so that min-maxers can get cheaper FF-monster titans.




_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
I?m definitely for "All slots must be filled up" No Titan commander will leave a weapon at home because it?s giving an advantage in assaults or FF? No fluff, simply abusage of a list.

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
Actually there is fluff behind this. Back in the days of Adeptus Titanicus, there were Titans which didn't fill all their weapon slots in order to increase mobility. Though they only left the Carapace weapons behind, typically. This allowed even heavy Titans like the Warlords to move more quickly around the battlefield. There were also up-gunned Warlords, IIRC, which mounted 6 weapons instead of 4, doubel mounting the Carapace slots, which slowed the titan considerably but produced huge quantities of firepower.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Not quite - you could have up to 8 weapons I believe as each weapon area had 4 hardpoints and a very heavy weapon took 3.

Note also in those days titans used lascannon, macro cannon, heavy bolters etc.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Irondeath
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:36 pm
Posts: 653
I simply don?t see why halfarmed Titans would retain their excellent FF values.

While toe-mounted Heavy Bolters and knee-joint lasers or whatever close defence systems are carried by imperial Titans sure account for some of the FF-power, I imagine that the main source for FF is arm and carapace weapons blasting away at point-blank range.

A Warlord with a single weapon and FF3+ is quite a stretch, and IMO a blatant exploit with speed increases.

_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

If your rules are meant to allow "balanced" costing of Imperial titans in non-AMTL armies then why did you include weapons that would only be mounted on AMTL army titans, like the Devotional Bell?


Because that's only your personal opinion of where a devotional bell would appear?

The AMTL would be loathe to take the Custodial Titan with its Devotional Bell out for just any old battle, and they certainly would not loan it out to the IG or Space Marines to support them.

In the older editions, you could take a Devotional Bell-equipped Titan with any army, no?



Ha ha ha ha!  Wow!  That's good...  "You know, the air around here is really quite safe to breathe, except for that chlorine gas cloud we haven't checked out yet."

There's no need to be rude.

The one-gun rules went in because it was allowed in the older Titan rules, after which development pretty much petered out (Check when the list was last updated in my .sig).

Are the rules perfectly balanced? No.

Is any game perfectly balanced? Not really, no, there's only ever the illusion of balance.

Are these rules more balanced than just importing the one-cost AMTL titans? Seemingly.

Does Jervis write in the FAQ in the rulebook that he'd like to see some house rules for constructing your own Titan Configurations for use with Imperial armies?

Yes he does.


Really?  So, tell me, do the weapons in your list have a "IG Army List Cost" and a "Space Marine Army List Cost"?  After all, the big stink about Modular Weapons Imperial Titans in the IG and SM lists was that you could tailor your weapons to compliment the army list.  (Which is what you are supposed to do reagrdless of army list.)  If your rules don't account for what army the titan is supporting you really haven't made the titans more balanced than "one cost titans" you have just simply made it so that min-maxers can get cheaper FF-monster titans.

This has been discussed many times, and in the end we basically came down the the rough consensus that it's just as balanced a system as the current E:A system (Where all Titan configurations cost the same, regardless of which of the many Imperial armies they're attached to -- except White Scars obviously, lol).

You're always going to find that certain configurations are more effective for certain armies... all you can do is prevent cheap synergies with particular armies and carry on as before.

The important thing here is that with modular costs we could bring back some of the flavour to the titans... ie: instead of the mighty (And memorable) Vortex Missile being just another flavourless 2+ TK(D6) attack, we brought back the Vortex effect that happens after you fire the missile, something that's obviously too powerful for the one-cost Titans, but which is simple to implement for modular cost Titans.

So yeah, we had a vote on  how best to incorporate Titans into Imperial armies and 'fixed configurations each with a unique cost' won in the end, so development stopped here, and then quite obviously noone could be bothered to work up some fixed configuration rules. (Note that Jervis inteded that both sets of rules should exist, fixed configurations for use in Tournaments, and modular rules for use everywhere else).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: [BatRep] "One Gun" Theory - Battle 2
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 29 2007,13:11)
QUOTE
The one-gun rules went in because it was allowed in the older Titan rules, after which development pretty much petered out (Check when the list was last updated in my .sig).

Are you no longer updating/developing the "Weapons by Cost" list E&C?  Have you abandoned the project?

If that's the case, I guess my group won't test it anymore... our Titan player is going to be sad.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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