I didn't mean to imply you didn't, sorry if I've caused offense. I haven't attended a tournament yet so actually calculating VPs after a draw is a fairly new concept for me.

I would certainly prefer something like this to the original idea.
At least this recognises the damage done by a player if it gets to VP conditions and doesn't really change core game rules.
An interesting option indeed.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Why not making it more general like:

100% dc take objectives as normal within range
>50% dc can only count one objective in range for scoring purposes
<50% dc cant count any objectives.

Then you never even get to the tie portion and instead it causes AMTL opponents to play for the damage, while AMTL has to play more cover and defense then just sitting in blitz. This is also a balance between the originally proposed rule and where the conversation is going. The problem with the DC being the factor after the tie is it still will have people playing for the tie, you have to utilize the DC rule before it gets to the tie to change up the issue.


Fluff it out as something like,

Death Throes-The agony the adeptus mechanicus feel as their godmachine dies around them causes them to focus on a single point of contention to fight through the pain.

That is more complicated than the original proposal.
I get the idea of the proposal but it's not really playable.
KISS is our friend (Keep It Simple Silly).

No other formation in Epic Armageddon is restricted like this.
Technically a single stand of Guardsmen could capture 2 objectives if positioned correctly. Why would a titan not be able to do this?
If Titans are playing for draws (not a world-wide occurance), then the VP per Damage Capacity taken idea, does go some way to addressing that issue.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Yes, that maybe is a good solution.

This is my feeling too.

I would like to something with one (objectives) or the other (VP's) factor, not both at the same time, if practical.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I prefer the DC based VP system. There's precident in other lists for working VPs differently, e.g. the necron phased out units.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Sounds good and do not change my play style (looking for a victory and not a draw).

The commitment of multiple Titans represents a particularly important battlefield or mission. If the Titans are held off that objective, any damage or destruction suffered must be weighed against the opportunity costs of committing them in their first place. If many Titans are damaged, the necessary rededications and repairs to them may bear a larger cost strategically.

Or, basically, damaging a lot of Titans and preventing them from achieving victory can be a victory in itself.

I still think a flat bonus might be easier to predict the effects of, but this can definitely work.

Perhaps broken Titans give 50% (or 25%) to the enemy automatically? So a broken Warlord with 2DC gone would give 25%+ another 50% (or 25%) for being broken.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Personally, I'd prefer to see an army rule rather than something specifically targeted at the GT goals, if that's possible.

As far as a GT rule, extra VP for destruction is an okay concept, but per-DC is a bit complicated. DC for each titan x cost/DC for each titan, repeated over the entire army? Even if that's only 3-4 titans, it's a nuisance. VPs are bad enough to count up as it is. Keep the bonus points dependent on the same stuff you normally have to check and keep the calculations to a minimum. One possibility would be instead of "per DC" just increase the points scored at the normal thresholds.

God Machines - *background text about how kewl the AM thinks titans are*
Titans reduced to less than 50% DC count as destroyed for VPs. (i.e. full points regardless of broken)
AND/OR
Titans which are destroyed count an extra 50% towards VPs.

You could word it as a generic scenario condition, rather than specifically for the GT. It would still be conditional based on the individual scenario, but it would have broader application for any "count up the destroyed points" victory conditions.

Wouldn't the problem that E&C is bringing up with the AMTL list also potentially spring up with a regular Steel Legion list that is titan heavy as well? It seems like this could potentially occur in any list that has more than one titan and a largish formation (ex. artillery formation) sitting on its own blitz. I wish I could come up with a better system, but so far I'm drawing a blank.

I will get in a game against an AMTL list, however. If anyone else wants to join me, maybe we can provide some extra data points.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I think the simple <1/2DC or broken = 50% points cost, broken and <1/2DC = 100% points cost would be a good solution. It would force the AMTL player to either be more cautious in the 3rd/ 4th turn, especially with easily broken or damaged Warhounds, or to support each titan better. Both of which would make sense to a Princeps taking a pounding.

As others have noted above, it can be easily explained by the tactical value of an intact Titan battlegroup.

It could, but the difference being that if it went to a draw on points, the Steel Legion is likely to have far more broken or 1/2 strength formations than AMTL. The comparison between an artillery co. and a Warlord on the blitz isn't a close one either - the artillery co. can be broken or wiped out by a small teleporting force (Swooping Hawks, Elysian guardsmen, let alone Terminators) whereas a fearless Warlord with a titan CCW isn't.

Steel Legion can't hold the backfield in the same manner as an AMTL army. Nor do they have the same kind of resistance to taking damage than an all-Titan army has (They will give up VP's easier) so they don't win ties as easily.

As an aside, IMO Arty Co's are pretty poor choices regardless and are easily swept aside by most half-committed opponents. I don't think I've seen an Arty Co. finish a game involving experienced players that didn't end with it broken or destroyed.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter