| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
|
|
Chris,
Overall a fairly balanced account of the different systems. ?I think you listed more "cons" for my system than were fair, but then again I am a little biased also. ?Here is my commentary:
1) Set weapon patterns
The default position and one that reflects Epic A to data. As a starting point would have each of the SG and Forgeworld configs, then two or three added to round them out.
This is definately the safest route to go, nobody can argue with that. ?The only thing I can add, aside from heaping more disgust at the boring aspects of this option, is the con that this option does a dis-service to the dedicated titan collector and player.
If you are a serious titan collector and player then you have already gone to lengths to collect old bits, figured out what combination of weapons you like, and painted up your titan just as you like it. ?You may have even gone so far as to kit-bash other GW bits into parts for your titans. ?I applaud you.
I have always seen myself as someone on these boards who has advocated for the older players and the non-tournament players. ?I think of the dedicated titan collector and player as a member of these groups and should be considered.
While set weapon groupings may be the easiest and safest to balance, I think your efforts for a better tournament list are going to drive away the titan players who don't care about the tournaments. ?They are going to want titan lists and rules that are balanced enough for a good time and flexible for their needs. ?Set weapon groupings take away their flexibility.
2) A points based system
Pros
In theory the best way of getting balance, especially with two different battle titan hulls.
Cons
In practice impossible to account for all the variables involved, and hard to balance.
Other comments
I would say that this approach would be impossible to balance because of the trend to point units in this game at 25 point increments, something I support. ?This approach would almost definately result in weapons, and consequently units, that are above or below a 25 point increment. ?This will lead to min-maxing in an effort to minimize unused points. If you try to eliminate this by pointing weapons at a 25 point increment then I think you will create unbalanced weapons.
3) the existing system
Pros
Increases general power level of titans beyond their points to make up for lack of activations etc.
Allows pretty much any existing model to be used as 'weak' weapon load outs are compensated for by others.
Tested lots so hopefully one of fastest to finish.
One of the pros of this system is that it was the comprimise that everyone could, grudgingly, agree upon. ?(Not much of a "pro," huh?) ?I look at the current system as something that I could live with because most of the weapons stats are ones that I had helped generate or supported in general. ?Most of the weapons are balanced to each other (there are several exceptions) with the "Tactical, Support, and Assault" weapons classifications being a thin veneer of limitation to placate the people who were hysterically scared about allowing people to pick whatever they wanted. ?When you look at the current system a lot of what you are looking at is from what I used to advocate for titans.
Cons
Increases general power level of titans beyond their points affecting support options when considering army balance (skewing things in favour of titans).
Encourages min maxing. As support weapons are more powerful encourages you to have as many as possible.
Other comments
The limitations are rather arbitrary and don't make much sense. ?Many of the weapons within a classification are not balanced with each other in my opinion.
4) Blargs system
Pros
Massive variety
Attempts to achieve a set points value per titan allowing the supporting units to balance the army.
Is more mathematically based than subjectively based - The Weapon Grades (1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16) are based upon a mathematical system that I have developed and been working on for years. ?It pretty much multiplies the range (in 15cm range brackets), number of shots, and the AP&AT to-hit percentages, taken as a decimal averaged together. ?From there a series of assumptions and logical proofs are used to create modifiers that will change the end results. ?While I won't say that any two weapons that I have posted within the same Grade are definately balanced with each other, I will stand by them as ready for playtesting.
Is less subjectively based than mathematically based - One of the things I have noticed with playtest reports and commentary by different people on the various forums is that we do not all play this game the same way. ?We all have different table set-ups, different table sizes, different terrain densities, different miniatures available for use, different levels of experience in prior versions of Epic, opponents of different capabilities, and different personal backgrounds. ?I have done my best in taking subjectivity out of the design process, and where it is present I have tried to make it a numerical modifier and apply across all of the applicable weapons.
It has already been playtested some by proxy - While I have been very public about this system in regards to titan weapons, I have also quietly been applying it to the weapons of infantry and vehicles. ?The results have been surprisingly reassuring in that units that were universally considered to be equal to each other have come up as equals in the use of my system.
It supports as much of the old and new as possible, with an eye to internal consistency - Under this heading I'd like to list a lot of "sub goals" that I tried to meet
1) de-proliferate the "Scout Weapons" out so that the same weapon bit would have the same stats regardless of the titan it was mounted on.
2) Make it possible for any titan to fulfill any support role that a vehicle currently does: APC (Corvus Assault Heads and Pods), artillery (Rocket Launchers, Quake Cannons, Carapace Landing Pads, etc.), Air Defense (Hydra Turrets, Carapace Multi-lasers), and CC/FF support.
3) Be as flexible as possible - not only is this a personal desire, but a nod to the concept in WH40K that the galaxy is a huge place and that there are more Space Marine chapters, Imperial Guard regiments, and Forge Worlds than what are published in the books, so feel free to make up your own. ?Yes, different Forge Worlds will have certain concentrations of technology and available equipment, I don't want people to play only a particular Forge World, I want them to play whatever Forge World they want to play. ?Kind of like how the Codex Space Marine Army list allows players to play whatever Space Marine chapter army list they want to play.
4) Follow the book as much as possible while it makes sense - In previous endeavours I have tried to make the weapons fit a certain weapon grade. ?Now I am trying to make the system fit the weapon grade of the weapon. ?Most of the weapons that have stats on p.165 of the rulebook are the same as or very close to what I have in my weapon list.
Cons
Army relies on supporting units to make up for Titan deficiencies potentially taking focus away from Titans.
Not entirely true. ?Theoretically I think my weapon list, and any supporting infantry bought as well, could go without any supporting vehicles. ?The problems with such a list are lack of activations, vulnerable to being swamped, and trouble spending all of the points available due to the high points costs of many of the war engines involved. ?I stand by my list of what vehicles can be taken as support, I just think that a tweek needs to be made to force players to take more titans.
Encourages min maxing if 'perfect' balance is not achieved
Yes, you are going to have some min/maxing to make certain weapon combinations fit, but you are going to have that with any system that allows you to pick your weapons. ?The design intent was that players would be able to field whatever weapons they want, within the confines of the system, and if they have some points left over they can use the Grade 1, Grade 2, and to a lesser extent Grade 6 weapons to use up any remaining capacity.
Needs to be tested from scratch
To an extent, yes. ?But, I think that a lot of the work I have done ahead of time will eliminate a lot of the playtesting people think there is going to be needed. ?I guess we will just have to see.
Some existing models are less powerful than ones built for the system
Changes book units (Reaver, Shadowsword, Warlord, Warhound) which would have to be re-pointed.
I will admit that some of the titans already presented will need to be either redesigned, have a minor change noted, or repointed. ?The worst off will be the Reavers because they typically have weapons on them that are also on the Warhounds, and if we are going to maintain WYSIWYG the book-Reavers either need to made into a variant, have something added to the stats that would not be represented by a miniature bit, or worst case ignored. ?Since the Forge World Reavers, the ones least open to conversion most likely, will have different appearing weapons new weapons could be made for them.
The "WARLORD CLASS BATTLE TITAN Mars pattern, Standard Weapon Configuration" on p.102 will have to have the Turbo-laser Destructor stats changed and the Volcano Cannon changed from Forward Arc to Fixed Forward Arc.
The REAVER CLASS BATTLE TITAN Mars pattern, Standard Weapon Configuration on p.103 will need to have something done for it. ?The weapon bits that are to be the Turbo-laser Destructors are the same ones that the older Warhound would use for the Twin Laser Destroyer, creating a WYSIWYG problem. ?The Rocket Launcher is the same bit that the older Warhound would use for the Rocket Launcher, again creating a WYSIWYG problem. ?Therefore this titan is shown as using only 18 of the available 24 weapon slots. ?Either some weapons need to be added, or something more drastic needs to be done.
The WARHOUND CLASS SCOUT TITAN Mars pattern, Standard Weapon Configuration on p.103 would need to have the Vulcan Mega-bolter stats updated.
The Shadowsword would not need to be changed! ?If anything, it and its Volcano Cannon caused me some of the most grief. ?You see, by my system the Volcano Cannon is a monster weapon, already a "Grade 5" weapon without even taking into account the TK(D3) damage. ?The only way to make it a manageable weapon without changing the stats (like I'm going to change the stats of the Shadowsword?!?!) would be to copy the Shadowsword and require that the Volcano Cannon be a fixed forward arc weapon, just like on the tank. ?I figured I would have an easier time convincing people that the VC on the Warlord would need to become fixed forward arc before I could change the VC on the Shadowsword.
Almost a con but I suspect true individual titan balance is impossible to get as there are to many variables when the supporting units and similar are taken into account.
I think the biggest complaints I have seen so far have centered around the potential death-machines that can be created by certain combinations of weapons. ?A couple of years ago it was the masses of Volcano Cannons, now it is the Vulcan Mega-bolters. ?I've seen them before, I'm seeing them again. ?And I'll say the same thing now as I did then: If you create a one-mission titan, like an all mega and giga-bolter titan, you will have a large war engine very vulnerable to attack by its polar opposite. ?If you create an all X-bolter titan you will soon see it destroyed by massed long range MW and TK weapons fire. ?If you create an all Volcano Cannon titan you will soon see it swamped by fast moving CC & FF oriented forces. ?The minute you say "Look at what this titan can do!!!" you are also saying "Please target and destroy this titan before it can hurt you." ?
But what about situations where you have a one-mission titan that goes against a force made up of its intended prey, like an X-bolter titan going against an infantry heavy force, and the enemy doesn't have the needed polar opposite weapons? ?To that, I say: "Congratulations!" ?You did exactly what you were supposed to do and get away with it.
You see, the subtle difference between the current weapon rules, which The Real Chris is advocating, and my system is that Chris would like to increase the potency of the Imperial titans by giving them stronger weapons. ?I want to increase the potency of the Imperial titans by playing to their historical strength and following GW prior thinking: I want to make them super flexible.
_________________
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...
|
|
)
But, the theory should work).