Going back to the original Warhound weapon options seems like the fairest option.

While stumbling round the 40k Lexicanum I came across these little bits of info:

"A Reaver Battle Titan can mount a Volcano Cannon only on its two arm mounts,[3] while a Warlord Battle Titan can equip Volcano Cannons on each of its arm or carapace hard-points."

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Volcano_cannon#fn_3

"The Quake Cannon is commonly found on Warlord Battle Titans. The Imperator class titan can also carry one or more Quake Cannon on its carapace hard-points.
Warhound and Reaver Battle Titans are not fitted with these weapons."

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Quake_Cannon#.UchwoNi8DTo

Amusingly under the Reaver section it describes a variant which uses Quake Cannons

And there seems to be quite strict mounting arrangements for weapons for Reavers and Warlords.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Reaver_Battle_Titan#.UchyG9i8DTo

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Warlord_Battle_Titan#.Uchxpti8DTo

Reading the gumf it seems that the heavy weapons should be mounted on the arms whereas the lighter ones have to be carapace mounted, which thinking about it now makes more sense than what I originally thought.

Will try and give both D6 and D3 versions a go at some point and see how each plays.

Matt

Hi!

I had already placed a no over charge restriction on the blastgun, its supposed to be a short ranged, quick burst weapon that uses less plasma than the bigger weapons, so we're in agreement.

With plasma generation, what it comes down to whether we want "enough" to do a certain amount of minimal things or do we want "uncertainty" where we are never guaranteed to know before hand how much we can count on.

I'm a fan of "uncertainty" in game mechanics. Mainly because I like to feel I don't have complete control of certain outcome. That's why my original numbers had a low end that could leave a titan bereft of options due to low plasma output.

Of course if we want to have things "worth the points", then a certain level of consistency is expected. Therefore how about this:

Also, we have kept it all using the d6 (or halving it to d3), how about using other commonly used polyhedral dice?

Warhound 1d3+2 (3-5 spread)
Reaver 1d3+3 (4-6 spread)
Warlord 1d6+3 (4-9 spread)
Imperator 1d6+6 (7-12 spread)

They all get a minimum of 3 for basic functions, with larger types getting more for the bigger plasma weapons.

Using polyhedral dice gives you perhaps a more distinct spread

warhound 1d3+2 (3-5 spread)
reaver 1d4+2 (3-6 spread)
warlord 1d6+3 (4-9 spread)
imperator 1d8+4 (5-12 spread)

Also we could add that due to the strain of close combat, titans pinned in combat do not generate a net plasma surplus, thus the plasma amount in the reactor for use it whatever amount was there before close combat is initiated. Thus we don't get overloading titans stuck in close combat.

I agree on praetorian cost increases. I have used them enough to know that they are AT LEAST as good as titans if not better with the older rules and while the alternate rules will make titans much more powerful, I feel praetorians need a bump up in price. Your price recommendations sound good to me.

Thoughts?

Primarch

Hi!

I like how you think Mattman!

I too frequently use the old fluff to try to balance things. I know we wanted a "liberal" interpretation of what weapons went where so people could build whatever they wished, but perhaps we sacrificed some balance in the process. Since these are alternate rules anyway, I think we should address weapon points as well.

On the other hand, I think the warhound is where the most egregious abuses occurred. So limiting them to the previously mentioned weapons goes a long way to solving most issues, since there wasn't much problems between the reaver and warlord beyond the warlords unfavorable hit location template.

Perhaps instead of the current table saying where a weapon can me mounted a different table BASED ON THE TITANS HARD POINTS is the way to go and say what can be put there. This was similar to the original AT's way of equipping titans and naming them based on weapon load out of hard points.

Good stuff guys, I think we are quickly bashing out something very workable here.

Primarch

I prefer the d3, d6 version, less different dices to bring

I think we could manage something for the orks too. Something like steam points, unless you want ork players to complain that they can't move and fire in first fire...

About the "I'm a fan of "uncertainty" in game mechanics", I think we already a lot of uncertainty in the game with all the dices to roll My last game: a reaver with 2 TLD + 1 Volcano: a total of 21 dices rolled in 3 turns (hit on a 3+): 1 unique successful hit during the whole game. I think it's important that the costly units should be reliable. NetEpic has become a game of activations, when you play a titan legion and can not rely on your biggest units, it's very frustrating. I've started experiencing titanic legions in my last 3 games (and 1 against before), very hard for the titan player, with ~50% less activations than his opponent.

Hi!

I knew you would like the d6/d3 version.

I agree with the reliability factor, particularly in high cost units. So the higher bottom point for plasma generation as revised should guarantee all titans get to move, shoot and repair shields even in a "bad luck" plasma roll.

A titan legion army should be terrible to behold under these alternate rules, given the ability to move far and shoot. No more baselines of high range, heavy punch to out range and shoot titans. I suspect Squats and Eldar are in for bad days versus titans now....

As for orks, I consider them the MOST resilient of titans. Not having a plasma reactor may deny them of void shields, but it also protects them from its vulnerabilities. The gargant is the only titan I have seen receive a full on vortex blast and STILL survive. I have seen gargant be veritable smouldering wrecks of fire and STILL NOT BLOW UP!

Our discussions of "worth the points" or "praetorians better then titans" always pertains to imperial titans, that before these alternate rules had issues. Gargants have never entered that conversation. Gargants have always been tough! I'm leery of giving them what we have discussed for Imperial Titans because I think that would make them way too good for value.

Also, I think they should stick to orders because they are not controlled by mind impulse units like their more advanced foes. In simple terms, let Ork players moan....

Primarch

I know everything comes from the original game, but we should look to adopt the new ideas and how the background has evolved since then.

I think just some tweaks of the table are needed. Just some sort of Yes/No for each weapon against the various locations for each of the titans.

Points values for weapons have been brought up before (as well as for other units ) so we all know there is some tweaking to be done.

And just to clarify for these new rules for plasma weapons, using a counter fires the weapon with the specified number of attack dice on the weapon profile or you just get one attack dice for each counter spent?

Matt

I could have sworn that originally Warhounds had access to Multi-Launchers also.

I'm all for removing the reactor from a Warlord's front hit template. It would remove the main reason for my d10 critical hit tables.

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

From the Solegends site it does see to imply that Warhounds could take Multilaunchers as they are listed on the product page from the catalogue.

http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2121epicwarhoundtitans-00.htm

Matt

I own Warhounds from the 1st/2nd edition era that came in the blister pack with one or more Multi-Launchers. I seem to recall that was why I bought that pack.

The Titan Legions: Codex Titanicus (2nd Edt) lists for the Warhound Scout Titan: (page 25)
Permitted Weapons: Inferno Gun, Plasma Blastgun, Multiple Rocket Launcher, Turbo Laser Destructor and Vulcan Mega-Bolter.

I don't have my 1st Edition books handy otherwise I'd check.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Is it sad to say that this thread is filling me with excitement? I was away today only to return and see a lot of great ideas and that the new rules are quickly forming. It's a thrill to be involved in providing feedback for rules changes which hopefully will be adopted by a number of players across the globe.

Anyway...

I finally acquired a couple of Revenant Titans a few weeks ago and could not believe both how cheap and potentially deadly they were, delighted to see the points cost jacked up. Likewise for the Praetorians, I really couldn't understand why - when they have as many shields and as good weapons as a Titan - they were so cheap to buy by comparison.

For what it's worth, as an old roleplayer, I was rather fond of your polyhedral idea Primarch but I reckon we're in the minority. Epic has always been about rolling traditional 6-sided dice, so such a change may be a bridge too far for the purists.

I'm dead against Reavers getting Volcano Cannon though, I can't even explain why not when they already have access to Quake Cannon. It just feels wrong.

Delighted about the other changes though, keep up the good work gentlemen!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Hi!

One attack die for each plasma (in case of basic charge) one attack die for two plasma if over charge. Given the release of restrictions and the availability of plasma in larger titan (not to mention no longer being bound to an order counter) giving the old weapon stat line for one plasma counter would be over powered.

Keep in mind that a warlords could potentially EXCEED the original stat line depending on plasma use if it had maximum plasma, therefore a set attack die per plasma still packs a large punch.

I like your yes/no suggestion for a table and weapons. It would make a very easy/readable table.

Primarch

Hi!

In that case we will add the multi-rocket launcher.

Primarch

Hi!

Given that it seems I am entering another phase of "epic activity" its a good time to be excited.

For those whom came much later after the revision, keep in mind that the actually "work" in testing and discussing the changes of net epic 5.0/net epic gold are quite old. There was just a lot of time between the official end of the revision to net epic gold's final release (a delay measured in YEARS).

This means that there may be a change of opinion/philosophy since the revision on multiple issues. I have kept and will keep my promise to leave the "core" of net epic gold unchanged. It may be hard to believe but there are many out there to whom these topics are not really an issue and don't seek much change.

However it doesn't mean we can't do alternate rules (to be used by those like us whom want a little more fine tuning), since they can be ignored by those whom see no issue.

So far we haven't only been putting together some alternate titan rules, but tweaked some praetorian points cost and corrected the cost of revenants. Heck maybe we'll feel frisky and fix some of those points costs for those bike/skimmer companies (eldar wind host, squat bike squadrons).

Bissler, as a GM whose run games for over 30 years I have always thought epic could use some polyhedral dice in its mechanics, but after almost 17 years running net epic I can tell you DEFINITIVELY, we are in the minority.

Also Bissler you aren't going to win on the volcano cannon and reavers. It basically epic canon that they can use them. Plus I got several reavers armed that way and I'm not going to change them!

With me soon putting up an experience system for titans, its looking like we'll have enough material for a little "options book". So trot out all your pet peeves now......

Primarch

Even with a change to the Warlord hit template, I'd love to see my alternate critical hit tables in an options book.

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

Intriguing, what do they look like?



The work done on the gold set is awesome and has fixed many of the issues from SM2/TL, but like you say, it was many years a go when the revisions finished. Now there seems to be a influx of fresh blood and new eyes, we can have a look at things again and we might throw up some interesting ideas and queries.

Matt