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

Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
Yes, include it now 44%  44%  [ 12 ]
No, leave it for the future 56%  56%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 27

Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
For those not familiar with this it is an old idea. In essence its two points. MW partially breaks a convention with fire being split into AP/AT/AA. Instead it becomes MW/AA(MW). The second is design flexibility, future weapons (or list reviews) can nuance weapons so they reflect their role.

MW still exists, but now it goes into the special abilities bit.

The result is something like

An excellent anti tank gun using super special rounds could be 75cm, AT4+, MW

Whereas a magical demon powered tesla coil could be
15cm, AP6+/AT4+/AA5+, MW

Whether or not changes are implemented on individual weapons that already exist is secondary.

To be honest as we are going for a result and they are balanced all the weapons would simple get, say, AP5+/AT5+, MW (as for multi melta).

But for contentious recent changes (I'm thinking demolisher gun) the flexibility could start to be used.

Note one consequence is that the MW/barrage new rule becomes an exception, rather than an almost clarification as it currently is.

_________________
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  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

I've already included an AT4+ (TK) weapon in the armoured regiment list anyway.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

(The_Real_Chris @ Nov. 01 2007,12:02)
QUOTE
MW still exists, but now it goes into the special abilities bit.

The result is something like

An excellent anti tank gun using super special rounds could be 75cm, AT4+, MW

Whereas a magical demon powered tesla coil could be
15cm, AP6+/AT4+/AA5+, MW

I like that idea. However, that's a change that should probably wait.




_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I should add the impetus behind this is seeing all the debate around the demolisher and wondering if the change could be a bit less brutal would people be happier.

Hell even if all the AP/AT values stay the same for every weapon past and future so what, its an odd rule to negate a system used by most firing and 'simplifying it' doesn't seem to add much.

Making it an ability like lance and the rest seems more streamlined.

It is ultimately, at least at first, purely cosmetic as nothing would likely change in this round of debate (hopefully, enough new variables to be going on with). I just like to have that flexibility in the future.

_________________
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  
 
Dave
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:15 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9524
Location: Worcester, MA
I was always curious as to why Macro Weapons weren't made a regular special rule for weapons.

Listing a Weapon as "AP4+/AT4+ Macro-weapon" would allow for more flexibility in my mind. If you wanted to go even more fine grained a convention like "AP4+/AT4+ Macro-weapon(AP)" would get you an only AP Macro-weapon, with AT remaining regular.

Given that convention, I wouldn't think Macro-Weapon barrages would be much of an exception.  For instance, "1BP Indirect Fire, Macro-Weapon(AT)" would get you a 1BP indirect fire weapon with MW attacks on AVs and regular attacks of INF.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:28 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I like the idea but I don't want to do it right now.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I can see why. :)


But I'm keeping my AT4+ TK weapon. :D

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
TheLimey
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 182
Location: Miami, Florida
I really like this idea. The flexibility it gives is amazing.

_________________
The problem with knowing what we want is we just might get it.

Robert Fripp - DGM

Check out the blog at Chaos in Miami
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 01 2007,23:30)
QUOTE
But I'm keeping my AT4+ TK weapon. :D

That's the other option. Simply do it in future and wait for the rules to catch up.

_________________
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  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
In the case of the Leman Russ Destroyer's gun, it's okay because there's a very obvious intent behind it and it doesn't exist in any other list.

For retrofitting into existing lists... that'd be a big project.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
I like this idea, myself. I've always felt they should be set up this way. Adds lots of advantages, most notably the fact that it lets people using MWs decide if they want to fire at tanks or infantry potentially (Well, maybe, depends on how the special rule ends up working), which I think makes perfect sense. Why should a Plasma Blastgun be any less able to 'choose' its targets then, say, a Battle Cannon? Plus it allows as has been pointed out for weapons which only work on one type or the other type or have varying effectiveness on either.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I really like this idea :)

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Opinion seems to be evenly split between 'yes, do it now' and 'yes, but not yet'.

Are there any 'real' nos?




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 02 2007,00:45)
QUOTE
Are there any 'real' nos?

If only that had been included in the poll...  :D

_________________
"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: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I guess I'm just not happy without a proper fight debate. :D




_________________
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 1 of 3
  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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