I thought about doing something like that, but it seems like folks are resistant to splitting the contest vs claim concepts.


My overall issue is, Im not a fan of the whole vp by status, that harkens back to the really annoying days of counting victories in 40k, and reintroduces people going for just breaking the unit and then moving onto another, effectively halving the usefulness of the units for vp purposes. I think it would be better to stay on the other side and reduce objective capturing abilities.

For that matter, why not just modify the rule that objectives cant be placed within 30cm distance of each other? Make the distance greater then the control range of a titan, a spread out group of troop stands can cover a lot more range and still be viable for that concept.


I mean this is the same reason in 5th edition 40k only troops can capture objectives, I realize it doesnt work for AMTL as we could only ever get a draw through contesting, but its why they changed it away from vehicles being able to do it, as they are so big they cover alot of ground easily. In 40k the 12" distance between objectives keeps all but the largest vehicles out of the running for holding two points anyways (if they could capture objectives).

an idea just off the top of my head, a princeps is meant to be all high and mighty bla bla bla so why not make them succeptable to being goaded/challenged by the enemy making them make tactically foolish decisions to satisfy their wounded pride perhaps?
it would work like this:
special order - a formation with a unit within 30cm of a titan may attempt to goad it in an effort to lure it into a more favourable position for them. they make an action test at -1 (jeering at a titan takes balls of steel) and if they pass the titan must make an action test of its own. if it fails it must make a single move driectly towrds the unit that taunted it and make an engage action if possible. resovle the assault as normal.

the idea is still embryonic but it would allow a daring player to take advantage of the zealous nature of a princeps and lure them away from objectives. albeit at great risk.
what do you think???

I think you'd be faced with AMTL armies that took a lot of FF boosting weapons. :-p

It's a bit too conditional, I think, and since Titans have initiative 1+ they rarely fail their action tests anyway. I'd prefer something simpler.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

How about a point increase across the board. That is as simple as it gets.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

The goal is to force AMTL players to aim for a victory through goals not to make the army incompetitive through a decrease in activation (that's what a points increase will do).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I was half kidding about the point increase, but there were no 0.5 smiley faces. Although it begs the question that if the army has an unfair competitive advantage why wouldn't a point increase help? Not to the point of busting the army, but a small nudge. Just sayin'...

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

It's only an unfair advantage in draws. That's an odd situation that isn't greatly helped by putting in a points increase.

In fact, what you'd likely end up with is a list that was too expensive to win games, and then lost its draws too.

I'm normally anti-special rules, but AMTL needs one.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well, decide: do you want to make it so they lose draws more consistently or so that it's harder for them to force a draw?

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

Make it harder to win draws and the tactic is no longer viable.

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

The VP point changes seem simple enough:

Broken OR 1/2 starting DC or less -> half points
Broken AND 1/2 starting DC or less -> full points
Completely destroyed -> full points

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

It really needs to reflect each point of damage a Titan has taken to be effective.
A Warlord which has taken 3 points of damage and wasn't broken would not make any difference in a Victory Point Draw.

It must not be dependant on whether the Titan is Broken or not.
It is not complicated to divide the total cost of the Titan by it's starting DC. Each point of DC taken by the Titan during the game is worth that amount.

This truely reflects the damge taken by the Titan during the game.

Titans can't always be repaired easily like a tank or an infantryman. After the battle, a damaged Titan may have to be shipped off to the nearest Forgeworld for repairs making it unavailable for battle for a reasonably lengthy period. Damage taken by the Titan should count when working out Victory Points.

_________________
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.

A big +1 here re Onyx's statement.

Mind you - i'm wondering if this rule can be across other multi DC units, like Gargants, Eldar Titans etc...

Tee

hmm, ok, also a +1 from me to Onyx' post.

Since I'm also sub-champion for the Ork Gargant Bigmob list, I could see that list picking up the same special rule, for the same reasons.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter