Something that's been brought up from time to time is that titans don't degrade as they are damaged unlike other formations in Epic. I've been giving it some thought and just wanted to throw this, based loosely on the how netepic has plasma generation rules, out for everyone:

Titan Power Reserves:
1. A titan's power reserve equals the starting DC of the titan (Warhound has three, Reaver has six, and Warlord has 8 and an Emperor has 12).

2. the reserve refills at the start of each turn.

3. Each BM reduces the available reserve by one.

4. Scout titan weapons use one reserve point each to fire.

5. Battle Titan weapons use two points each to fire.

6. Imperator class weapons require three points each to fire.

Examples:
A warhound with two bm could only fire one weapon that turn.
A warlord with four battle titan weapons and one bm could only fire three weapons that turn.
A reaver with two scout weapons and one battle titan weapon could take two BM and still fire all weapons.

Practical example:
Artillery reaver with two quake cannons and a CLP takes a BM for coming under fire. It can only fire one quake cannon indirectly (quake 1 and CLP = two battle titan weapons) or fire both quake cannons as direct fire (two quake cannons = two battle titan weapons).

Extension:
make the reserve amount equal the remaining DC and drop BM count from affecting the titan. This would provide degradation over time as a titan with low DC wouldn't be able to fire any weapons.

_________________
-Vaaish

Interesting idea. Would make for a fun optional rule just to switch things up. I'd base it on remaining DC than BMs myself. Probably need a bonus then to titans to make up for the progression of great to crap. I do understand that BM are an abstraction of coming under fire, things breaking etc but in the case of titans I feel this is more the whole Godzilla/Cloverfield bit of getting peppered by fire doing superficial damage.

I'd also bring movement into this as well equation as well. For instance Move and Double use some reactor power up so less killy titan. In example, battle titans take 2 points to advance and Double takes 3. Scout class titans can advance for free (or may be -1 power).

I vote Titan Shock as a new rule and steal the EW tank shock rule to compliment the balancing act they have to do now

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Really like the principle of finding a way to allow battle damage reduce the power of WE and Titans in some way. However, it is curious that JJ and the original design team did not do something like this in the first place. For example, why do none of the critical hits for WE and Titans include a reduction of firepower?

Doubt I'd use it but sounds like a good idea for a house rule.

Yeah, I thought DC might be fun, but with VS I think some armies wouldn't see much in the way of results. The rational behind BM causing the drain was that it takes more power to keep the shields up even if the weight of fire coming in isn't enough to knock them down and that loss of power translates into fewer weapons.

DC route is more permanent which is a nice concept though. You could end up with a weaponless titan charging enemies for assaults or retreating to claim/contest objectives.



I don't think I'd bring movement into this, AMTL is already slow enough without adding more restrictions to hamper their movement capabilities.




it's an interesting questions. Since I think both Space Marine and Titanicus had far more in depth titan operation and damage. Looking back at the E:40k armies book, there were quite a few things that could happen to a titan from disabling weapons to stunning the vehicle preventing it from doing anything. If I had to wager titan operations were seen as a low priority aspect of EA and the general simplification of critical effect in EA erased what was left of the complexities with titans.

_________________
-Vaaish

The main problem this discussion brings up is the level of detail that the players wish to go into, which I agree is probably why this was abstracted out in the first place. Whatever mechanism is used requires recording in some way and ultimately slows down the game.

Given that WE and titans are all of different constructions and more especially different weapon loadouts, I think I would favour different critical hit tables for each, rather than a blanket set of rules on DC and BMs. This is mainly because many of the effects are not analogue in nature and may not interact with other functions; if a tank throws a track it stops, but this does not prevent it from firing at full effect.

I seem to recollect a long discussion about this on the SG boards around 10 years ago, and more recently an extended titan critical hit table (E&C ?).

Critical hit for the Supa Stompa does include a reduction in firepower incidentally.


Yup, we developed a rather nifty damage table that entirely replaced DC for Titans, even spun it off into its own stand-alone Adeptus Titanicus type game.

See the attached file for the game system - pages 37 & 38 cover the Titan Damage Tables and their Damage Effects. Page 39 has printable reference sheets. They are quite compatible with Epic.

Random aside: The "Demolisher" rule was added by some chap named Gav Thorpe, who helped a little with the rules for us. ;-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Blast markers/ Damage Capacity remaining affecting the war engine is a very interesting and would address a lot of issues people have with War Engines, but is a major change and all affected War Engines would most likely need points values changing which would also indicate a lot of playtesting needed. This would also I feel need applying to all war engines (maybe over a minimum DC level, say 3) and not just Imperial titans.

And this is where the 'slippery slope' starts . . .

Obviously WE are different from titans, but even WE have their differences - Air transports are different from ground vehicles, which are different from knights etc. and some are DC4 that are 'bigger' than scout titans. The weaponry and speeds also differ significantly etc. These differences and the lack of a direct dependency between many of them are the reason for having separate "significant damage" tables for each unit rather than a blanket accumulated damage mechanism.

So I suggest the existing "critical hit" rule might be replaced by dicing for each hit to establish the effect along the lines of "1-3 no effect, 4 - minor effect, 5 - major effect, 6 destroyed", and then referring to the effects table and possibly dicing again as appropriate for larger WE and titans. These tables would look like those suggested by E&C, but would obviously differ for each unit.

The current rules would still be in force for breaking when BM = DC and destruction when the maximum DC is reached, but this 'significant damage' approach would allow for more explicit reduction of the WE capabilities with accumulated damage.

And Mike, I am not so sure that the costings would need to be changed too much, certainly not for the more standard WE, because these are balanced as much by utility and inclusion against other formations in an army. Titan costings might be possibly be reduced slightly as their utility value would diminish with accumulated damage, though again I am not sure this would be very significant and suggest this could be left alone as well.

Interesting discussion

If I was told my titan was now expected to have it's firepower significantly degrade from blastmarkers or damage inflicted (both of which are common occurances), I would certainly expect to see a reduction in points or an increase in base performance to compensate.

On a seperate note, I fail to see why 6 DC in the shape of a block (such as a capitol Imperialis) should somehow be exempt while 6 DC in the shape of a smaller block but with legs (a Reaver) wouldn't be. I believe anything below 4DC is too small to really be worth applying something like this to so no, I wouldn't expect ThunderHawks or Knights to be affected by this.

Well, firstly I am suggesting that *all* WE would have an effects table, so the Capitol Imperialis could suffer its own unique set of effects, different from a Reaver etc.
Secondly, I am suggesting that most hits would have little or no effect and even the impact of major effects would depend upon circumstances; for example being immobilised but still being able to shoot . . .

As for smaller WE I think there could still be effects tables. So a Transport could have its engines badly damaged and be unable to disengage at the end of the turn, or has it's targeting system knocked out and therefore unable to shoot etc. Here we can let the imagination flow to some extent

And costings need to be considered in the context of the army as a whole. If I knock 100 points off a formation this means I can now buy more other stuff. A lot of formations are very carefully priced to ensure that they cannot be 'abused'. If anything Titans are already undercosted; consider the extensive discussion over WarHounds.

OK, you're discussing something completely different to the OP then.

And it's very disingenuous to lump in WarHounds, which a lot of people would consider undercosted, with other titans like Reavers or Warlords, which they certainly wouldn't. Adding in performance degradation linked to blast markers or damage received would only make the larger titans even worse.

True. So what can we do that doesn't require a lot of extra steps and still allows us to give armies some effect on titans throughout the game rather than just if they manage to kill it either through DC reduction or critical effect.

A quick change would be to add a line to the Reaver and Warlord critical effect that halves the firepower until the reactor is repaired. Following that, more in depth critical tables would be a good option but definitely a change to the game.

Another option is basing the effect on BM or remaining DC. I believe there was a version floating around a year or two back that toyed with the idea of DC reducing firepower. It never gained traction though.




Sorry, but you have to assume that only the AMTL list will be affected. Think MC Hammer and "You can't touch this" when it comes to extending changes outside of a single list. It's partly what prevents more radical changes to the Titan list since such changes affect any imperial list with titan allies.



Well if we assume for a moment the concept I posted up top goes into effect, a standard pattern Reaver needs 4 points to fire all of the weapons. That lets it accumulate two BM before it starts degrading. Same for a standard Warlord. The fact remains, even if you can't shoot at all you still have an exceptionally difficult to kill Fearless objective claiming and contesting machine sitting there.

_________________
-Vaaish

Ha,I have always been disingenuous LoL. On WarHounds, I have long held the view that players should only be able to buy them in 'packs' of two for 500, but that as they say, is a different story.

Back on topic, Well, I am not sure why this is restricted to the AMTL - after all we are only 'spitballing' here. If both players in a game agree the sky is polka-dot pink, who are we to spoil their fun . . .

As L4 is fond of saying, have fun and DWWFY.