With all due respect, tactics used by a player are purely subjective and thus are not valid logical arguments in game design. How one chooses to deal with enemy titans is not a cut and dried affair, thus not something that should be considered in a rules issue. Furthermore, tactics are dependent upon the opponent and conditions on the battlefield allowing you to implement them or not implement them. Case in point, I could easily station reavers on the flanks and keep them out of engagements where you can muster firepower to destroy them in one turn, instead forcing you to overcommit forces to chase them down while I use them to harry your flanks.

Further, by your own reasoning a case could be made that even allowing regeneration of any void shields isn't appropriate, because it doesn't really matter, all one needs to do is focus enough firepower to overwhelm the shields, at which point "if I really want to take out a <blank> in one turn and I got the right weapons within range, it is not really a problem"

I wouldn't hesitate to agree completely there. Speed, saves, layout of hits, hard points, all have some bearing. Truer words have not been spoken.


Now here I disagree.
I sat down and compared the Reaver and the Warlord closely. It's a faster hull by 5 cm. But more importantly let's look at your point about reavers being less tough than warlords. By this we have to go to the issue of armor saves.
Why armor saves? Because the damage tables are otherwise identical. Two legs, one head, reactors, etc, all the same. There's no such thing as "structural" points so reavers and Warlords are no different in terms of capacity to take damage, so damage comes only in what the rolls give it from the damage tables. If the tables are identical (which they are) then all we have left is the save values on the individual boxes.
So we need to compare spaces and save values
Reaver Warlord
Head 1+ 1+ wash
weapon 2+ 2+ wash
Reactor 3+ 4+ 1+2+3+ slight edge to warlord
carapace n/a 1+ edge to the reaver
legs 2+ all 2+ 1+ and 3+ wash due to overall 2+

Overall, they're nearly identical in toughness, only the reaver is less likely to get hit in the reactor (note reaver front hit location diagram (where most hits come in) does NOT allow the reactor to be hit) and has better overall leg hits. Weapons are identical saves, only with the warlord having an additional hardpoint.

Then compare boxes.
Front for reaver:11 with no reactor hit possible
Front for Warlord :12 with reactor hit with a save 1+

Side for reaver. 10
Side for warlord 10 Identical config of boxes, just differing titles.

Rear for reaver: 11
Rear for warlord 12 (2 being 1+ save carapace hits.)

Looks pretty even actually with a slight advantage going to the warlord.



I'd say "no". Void shields are MEANT to be a double edged sword. Simply upping points does not correct the issue in terms of game rules fairness, consistency of rules, or logic in terms of systems being knocked out.



I state that it is primarily due to it being an potential game breaker in longer games, and an unfair advantage if the unit is used in it's light titan harrying role or for the warhound's scout role. As it stands here's a statement describing the current situation: Reavers and warhounds cannot (unless the titan itself is destroyed) ever be damaged to the point that their void shield generators ever stop working.

Think about that statement carefully. They can NEVER, no matter how much they're shot, EVER lose their void shield generators.

If that statement makes actual logical sense and sounds like good game balance to you, then I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree.

But if you, like I, find this statement to reflect a fundamental flaw in game design and in game logic and fairness, then the point is clear, that this needs to be changed.

Now... all that said, I believe I'd found the root of where the problem came from , and the solution for resolving this issue.

I went back to AT: Codex Titanicus and guess what I found?

There were TWO classes of reavers.
The reaver goth, and the reaver hun

The Reaver Hun had two arm weapons, but the carapace mount was given over to a decorative spire.
The Reaver Goth had two arm weapons, and the carapace mount was a hardpoint able to mount a third weapon.

Thus. the tables in 142 WERE intended to cover both classes of reavers.

The Hun, with no weapon on top, would instead allow carapace hits (Hits to the upper weapons boxes would be directed to the Carapace hit table.

And it was assumed if you used the Goth, then all hits to the top weapon were either weapon or Carapace hits. And when the weapon on the Goth was destroyed that subsequent hits would be applied against the carapace.

And here's the thing, if you look at the titan pictured in the card in 142, the version shown is, you guessed it, the Hun. A reaver with only 2 weapons and an exposed carapace.

The reason why there's all this confusion is because they either forgot to publish a separate sheet for the Hun (with the topmost row of hit boxes relabled Carapace), or they simply assumed people would use their bloody common sense and figure out that if you were fielding a Reaver Goth, that you'd know to use the carapace table when appropriate.

Why didn't this get caught? Probably simply because noone caught it, or they thought it was obvious, because at that time EVERYONE knew that there were two classes of reavers (I'd forgotten that there were two classes until I pulled out a reaver with the spiky decoration on top and then I went "AH HA! I knew there was something I'd forgotten" Thats when it came back to me.

Thus, In SM2 and by extension Netepic. People attempting to target a Reaver's carapace would simply have to target the topmost rows of weapons boxes or scatter to them. If they hit, they would declare if the hit was to be against the weapon or the carapace. If a carapace hit, they would be unable to damage the weapon but would be able to hit the carapace, force a save and then a critical hit if the save failed against the carapace table for the reaver as given.

This would require no extensive rework of the rules, simply a small footnote be added to the Reaver and warhound, and the addition of the same carapace table as in WD 142 (which is the same as the current one for the warlord carapace).

Footnote would read.

Any hits directed against the Reaver that attack the uppermost weapon boxes (carapace hardpoint) may be targeted at the weapon system or the carapace itself. Hits against either have the same 2+ save value. Critical hits for weapons systems are resolved on the standard weapon critical hit table and carapace hits are resolved on the carapace critical hit table. Hits which are aimed and land on target are the discretion of the attacker, hits that have scattered to these locations are at the discretion of the defender unless the weapon system at that location is already destroyed at which point the hit is directed against the carapace. No other weapon boxes other than the topmost row may be used to target the carapace.

Similarly for warhounds, weapon hits can be resolved against the carapace to the same effect.

Maybe it didn't get caught (for about 13 years mind) because it had no appreciable impact on games and therefore is not broken.

I hear you keep saying this, but where I offer evidence showing it is broken and that they originally intended the titan to have exactly the critical hits that I pointed out it should have, you simply say "maybe it's not broken" without offering any evidence.

Are you trying to say that it makes logical sense that there's a system on the reaver that is completely invulnerable to damage? Even though clearly the intent was that it had no such invulnerability? Come on, stop being ridiculous.

Offer up some proof first that it's somehow fair for one class of titans to risk losing its primary defense and for another to not, then we'll talk.

Well the simplest solution the way I see it is to set up a poll to see werther people percieve the Reaver's missing void shield generator hit location as a problem that affects game balance.

_________________
Sofa General

Nobody expects the Inquisition!!!
http://theepiclounge.wordpress.com/

Well a poll is okay, but I was actually thinking about this a bit and I came to a conclusion, that you're right about crunching numbers on this.

If these critical hits are a rule breaker then the best way to know is to crunch some serious numbers on the issue.

Thus I'm thinking of writing a multi pass simulator and putting the code up for free review that would be used to model the probabilities and results of hits on these titans to determine what we're looking at.

I'd be happy to write a c# app to do the modeling, and post the code for review so others can verify that it's not unfairly weighted to force a result.

I figure do 500, 1000, 10000 and 50000 iteration passes each for 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 round "games" where a reaver and a warlord are each subjected to hits from front, flank and rear and that results for killing hits and damage is tallied.

The warlord would act as a base case.

Thus to see if void shields matter (for mortality) the warlord needs to exist in two forms with each subjected to the same hits, one version with void shield generator hits available... and one without void shield hits so that the unit's longevity can be compared.

If the removal of void shield hits adversely or positively affect mortality of the unit, it should be expressed as a trend line that varies in comparison to the baseline result with the void shield crits available.

Then the reaver could be likewise compared, with and without void shield hits.
If it expresses a similar trend line difference, then that'll express the truth of the matter. If the trend line shows that mortality is unaffected, then there's no issue. If it does, then there is.

Only thing is, I need to construct a model for combat simulation that everyone would agree is fair and representative.

Specifically, how many weapons should be fired at each titan in a given virtual round, and how much should their save value be affected for armor saves? Should it be a static value, or a varying value?

Then, how should location targeting be carried out? Should I divide each model into regions and randomly assign hits in the region? Should all hits be purely random? Or should hits be assigned a weight for probability's sake? and if so, where should hits be weighted? How many hits should be directed to what target?

If we want numbers crunched this seems the best place to start... using the computers that we've got to run probability simulations of large numbers of battles to see how it unfolds.

Before you spend a lot of time on a simulation, I would like to revisit your Reaver/Warlord comparison as I'm afraid I don't get it. As far as I can see, Carapace hits causing loss of void shields on Warlords are going to be rare and due to scattering shots aimed at the rear reactor rather than a regular event the opponent will be looking to achieve.
From the side and rear of a Reaver there are already tempting Reactor locations offering a good chance of an outright kill that would always be preferred to a Carapace location.

In terms of my logic:
From the front, its a wash, no Carapace on either. The lack of a reactor on a Reaver has always been a benefit, but that's not the point you are trying to make.

From the side, I could target the Carapace on a Warlord - but as its a 1+ save I'm much more likely to go for the Head! Why? Well, better chance of a kill with the same armour and as void shields are already down, possibly preventing future orders is in my opinion more debilitating than preventing it getting some Void Shields back. In summary, its pretty unlikely to ever get a Carapace hit here, even if it is a theoretical option.
The Reaver of course has a big tempting 3+ save Reactor on the side - which makes it much more vulnerable than a Warlord side on - why target anything else?? No point adding a Carapace location to the Reaver side profile as I'm going to ignore it.

From the rear, again I could target the Carapace on a Warlord but I'm always going to go for the Reactor - less armour, bigger bang! Might get an accidental Carapace hit but again would never specifically target here.
Since the Reaver has a 4+ save reactor from the rear, again, I'm going to ignore any Carapace location you put on there.

What would a change achieve in practical game terms? Modify some hit locations to the Reaver that no-one is going to aim at?

PS the Eldar Phantom comparison is not particularly fair as holofields can't be knocked down by shooting like Void shields - having a hit location to achieve this is more important in this case.

Woohoo. Exactly my point! Double thumbs up.

I agree that not being able to destroy the VSG is *slightly* unfluffy, but not so much that anyone cares, apart from Ifurita .

However, if the numbers are crunched (just do the statistical analysis, a simulation is OTT) I'm pretty sure you'll find any advantage to be marginal at best.

As kingy points out, a fair assessment must include the opportunity cost of targeting the void shields (such as aiming for the reactor instead).

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Actually there are reactor hits for the reaver, there simply is no hits that allow you to take down the VSG.



i disagree. My real world job is as a Code Test Engineer. Meaning that I test computer code and do work on high pass statistical failure models. And my experience is that the best way to analyze something is through high iteration simulation models. What looks to be an insignificant issue to a casual glance can turn out to have impact way out of proportion to what people think.



As measured against the fact that the reactor is a lower to the ground as a target, and thus is far more likely to have LOS to it blocked. That's the thing, as we all should know by now, frequently the lower portion of titans are going to be blocked from LOS, and most titan weapons are LOS dependant.

I apologize for the brevity of this post, I had typed up a huge chunk of text that went over each of your points and questions. Saddly I hit the X button in firefox because it locked up and lost the whole thing.

Sufficed to say, I WILL get back and cover each item for you, I promise.

But in the meantime I want to touch on the reaver for a moment and show the reaver hun (the reason why there is a carapace table in 142)

I'm sure that when you see this picture you will likely have an "Oh my god I remember that titan" You likely all have it in your collection like I do.
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3019/2010041519570701.jpg (so as nto to fill the screen)

Notice how it has no top weapon.

This model of the Reaver was precisely why there was a carapace critical hit on the SM2 reaver data sheet.

The idea being that all the top Weapon boxes in the top, side, and rear box diagrams would be marked Carapace instead of Weapon and have a 2+ save. And thus the front WOULD have a carapace hit location

All top mount weapon boxes on the reaver were also intended to be Carapace boxes.

doh! i meant the shield generator of course

i'll be interested to see the results of your simulation but I think it'll be difficult to draw meaningful conclusions

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Ifurita, there are 3 different arguments here that we should not conflate.

1. Are the current rules appropriately fluffy?
2. Do the current rules reflect the original designers intentions?
3. Do the current rules give a significant advantage to Reaver survivability, compared with a Reaver that has a hit location for carapace?

Question 3 is statistical in nature. The answers to 1 & 2 have no bearing on it.

So are you are arguing for a rule change because of 1,2,3 or all of the above?

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

My experience has shown that the Reavers are already much easier to kill than Warlords due to the exposure of the weak reactor armour to the side. With fewer Void shields and a more fragile hit location template they are much easier to kill than a Warlord.

I really don't see that adding a Carapace location that will potentially allow someone to take out the Void Shield Generators to be something that will bring the Reaver "in line" with the Warlord. I don't see that having the ability to take out the VSG on a Reaver would put it "on par" with Warlords. Warhounds don't have them either. Should we add them?

I don't see anything as broken here. I don't think it needs fixin'.

A simple change would be to say that the carapace is hit instead if the Reaver's carapace weapon has been blown off already.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

That sounds usefull