That's not a bad idea, but it might have unintended consequences for weapons with penetrating.

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

I've already given it some thought, and you're right about having to group together rolls of 2 and 3, as well as 11 and 12 since rolling a 2 or 12 is only 1 in 36. Likewise, a 5-6 result would probably become a 7, since the odds are 6 in 36 to roll a 7.

I'll get started next week on it. This weekend I'm going to down to Pennsylvania to get in some E:A at PEAT III.

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

Hi!

After 6 consecutive days I have finally unpacked and organized the primarch load and will be taking pics of what painted stuff I had (plus all the unpacking pics).

Now with that out of the way back to some rules smithing.

Titan Weapons Table

Warhound

Weapon

I completely forgot that the 2nd TL:CT book had the permitted weapons listed on the hit templates for the titans , how did I miss those.



Yeah, forgot about the penetrating weapons.
Looking at the tables, even with just a D6 I think there is the option to expand things as a lot of the tables only have 3 or 4 results. For example on the weapon tables, as well as the 4 listed you could ass results like Weapon Jam: When you would next fire or use this this weapon it does not fire or can not be used or Pivot Malfunction: For the rest of the game you may only select targets for this weapon that are in the front 30 deg fire arc (like the deathstrike cannon).
One thing we have to be careful of is adding even more layers of complexity to the game and playing with the critical tables would also affect the survivability of titans.

Matt

Well this is my version of the weapon table, it doesn't vary much, just changed the Warhound options and restricted the Reaver to only carrying Volcano and Quake Cannons on the arms.
I guess the trouble we have is finding the balance of freedom that people have enjoyed over the years (and built their titans using those rules) and what the fluff says we should be doing.

Matt

Hi!

Sweet table Mattman, I so gonna use it!

Thanks!

Primarch

From memory (and yes it is failing !) I thought the plasma destructor originally couldn't be used on the arm of a warlord. It was restricted to the carapace only.

Hi!

That was my belief as well, Lylekelm, but I have seen pictures of titans with them on the arms. Of course that doesn't mean it was "legal".

I read the scans I have made from my original books and interestingly in the first AT rule book the only weapon restriction for hard point restrictions are close combat weapon which are arm only. All other weapons have NO restrictions. Advanced rules section page 35 AT rulebook.

Now reading the Codex Titanicus book, it becomes VERY confusing. They had grades for heavy weapons, very heavy weapons and a letter designation for weapon types in hard points. Then, confusing this further, they did not do the rules by titan type like we do now (warhound, reaver, warlord), but by configuration. Which means that a warlord nemesis configuration could mount ANY type of weapon in any hard point (so you could legally put plasma destructors on the arms or carapace), but a warlord deathbringer configuration could not.

So the answer would be both "yes" and "no" depending on the configuration.

I think I like our way better.

Edit: I also noted that the names are different. A plasma cannon now was a plasma gun then and the plasma destructor now was the plasma cannon then!! How's that for confusion!

Primarch

Not sure what "Codex Titanicus" you were looking at, but the one I have - from the Titan Legions boxed set for 2nd edition (Copyright 1994) - has nothing about "configurations" at all. There are a few restrictions on where things can be mounted, but it's done weapon by weapon in their descriptions. (In my book, the Plasma Destructor has no stated limitation on locations, aside from being limited to Warlord Titans.)

The configurations thing should only apply to the Warlord Titan models that came out near the end of 2nd / at the beginning of 3rd edition. I suppose that 3rd edition may have imposed such limits on the older models as well, but since NetEpic is based on 2nd, it seems (to me anyway) that these limitations should not apply here. Possibly as an optional rule, but not as standard.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

The original Codex Titanicus was a supplement released for Adeptus Titanicus.

Hi!

Lylekelm is correct. The books mentioned are 1st edition epic, or known as Adeptus Titanicus. The original codex titanicus was a supplement for AT. The second edition titan legion books took their names after the original 1st edition names.

Covers shown here....





Primarch

Oh, heh, sorry, I didn't realize you were still talking about 1st edition. My bad. I had forgotten about that book. I probably have one, somewhere, but have not looked at it in a long time.

So an arm placement for the Plasma Destructor was legal in both 1st (in some configurations) and 2nd edition. Personally, I never put one there, but that was more for aesthetic reasons, as it would be pointing up rather than forward. Oddly, that weapon didn't have a second connector pin, so it seemed to be intended for use just on the Carapace slots. So it's legal, but not practical. Typical GW.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Originally in the second addition it was restricted to the carapace only, hence the 1 pin on the plastic weapon . The rule was in an obscure place either on the warlord template or a weapons table somewhere.
Damned if I can find it.
Having said that I have no problem with it being used on the warlord arm.

Apologies, but just wanted to rewind the conversation back to plasma generation. The original system - which offered a fair amount of uncertainty - Primarch had suggested was:

Imperator: 1d6+6; minimum per turn is 7, average 9-10
Warlord: 1d6+3; minimum 4, average 5-6
Reaver: 1d6+2; minimum 3, average 4-5
Warhound: 1d6+1 minimum 2, average 3-4


The amended version - which offered very little uncertainty - was:


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


I was wondering if I could suggest an alternative which makes more use of D3's? Note that I've tweaked this to retain the upper limits of Primarch's original version.


Warhound 2d3+1 (3-7 spread)
Reaver 2d3+2 (4-8 spread)
Warlord 2d3+3 (5-9 spread)
Imperator 2d3+6 (8-12 spread)


I was also wanting to clarify another point about plasma expenditure:

"Any number or non plasma, non special missile weapons may be fired with the use of one plasma counter. Titans armed solely of such weapons are very reactor friendly, but are less devastating than those armed with plasma weapons."

Is this in addition to the 1 plasma expended to fire in advance phase or 2 to first fire?

_________________
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!

I have lots of d3's actually, so a d3 table looks good.

The answer to your last question is IN ADDITION too. So you need to pay the plasma cost for fire control (first fire or advance) and EXTRA plasma to fire weapons (more for plasma weapons).

Thus a titan on first fire with non plasma weapons needs 2 plasma for first fire and one more plasma to fire non plasma weapons for a total of THREE. If it wanted to move it would need to spend more.

Primarch