J:
If you read what I said, I don't think the changes would have significant impact on the battle reports already submitted, not that it couldn't have significant impact.

Frankly, you get extremely caustic whenever changes are brought up either to this list or even entirely new lists like the Cataphractii list and you've had well over a year to submit reports to help the AMTL 3.2 obtain approved status and I can't seem to find more than one report from you so please don't patronize me by saying you would have helped out but only if the CLP hadn't been updated: You've had plenty of time.

_________________
-Vaaish

If given the option to maintain the status quo, the community always votes that way. It makes polls like keep X or change to Y rather useless and it's why they put AC's in charge of the list rather than community vote. You might not like the change to the CLP or agree with it, but it is necessary to push AMTL away from a static list. Trust me, I've seen this point argued multiple times and I'm tired of seeing arguments and fear mongering about changes.

I believe we've all worked together fairly well on the Cataphractii list lately but sometimes I have to make a call and in this case, limiting the CLP to 1 bp weapon gaining indirect fire is the call I'm making. The change to the CLP stands.

_________________
-Vaaish

Yes, quite patronizing of me to put forward my feelings on your ramroding an unpopular self-asserted drastic change to a list that has been close to acceptance for some time now. I am suitably chastened, and the fact that every AMTL player who has posted a battle report for 3.20 I can find has commented against the change, well, surely Mother Knows Best, and you must make unpopular decisions because the populace doesnt know any better.

and to think that I would do all this with the temerity of only submitting a single battle report in the 5 months since you called for them (I should mention, that due to a number of circumstances this represents the only full game of Epic I have had opportunity to play over that time, and made specific effort to do so for the AMTL's benefit. I had hoped to rectify this in the nearish future)
If that makes me patronising, then so be it.

How many battle reports have you published in the last year?

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Fear mongering??! Really?!

3 of us, all active players of the list, gives our thoughts on a subject. It's the opposite of what you think and we disagree with you. And you call it fear mongering...

Way to come off like a fine specimen of a male genitalia my good sir!

If you wanna run this list development Stalin style th n go ahead. I´m really, really interested in getting the AMTL approved ASAP, so i wil ldo the neccesary 6 reports for it. But then you can handle the rest on your own since you clearly have no interest in working with the AM-list players. Might also wanna work on your humility a little bit.

And like Jtg said: How many reports have you provided in 2013? How can you know things need change if tou haven't played the lists that much?
I've played about 10 battles since august with the AMTL and AM Skitari...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

I don't know how you get fear mongering out of that, but my statement is the truth when it comes to votes of this nature over the years I've been a part of this forum. I get that you are unhappy with limits to the CLP, that's fine but it's not just your opinions I'm weighing. The CLP has been a thorny subject since E&C was the ADMech AC.




I'm very happy you're able to play as much as you have no everyone has that much free time available. I typically get in about one game a month but most of that is geared toward the Skitarii list at this point and you can find several of the mini-reports on the changes I was testing in the Skitarii threads.

_________________
-Vaaish

Well, my next games with AMTL will have a Report here. Hope to get one this friday. And then we will hope to see this list approved. I'll take version "3.21" for that.

So you're basing all your new playtets changes on exactly what Vaaish? If you only have time to play one battle a month (without making reports or thoose battles) how can come to all this conclusions about needing to change the playstyle of The AMTL list.

People are always saying on theese boards that if you have an idea for change, playtest the hell out of it. The report the data to the rest of the community.

But in this case it seems like the opposite is happening. You have ideas without testing them in games and implemebt them and expect us to do the testing for you (while not listening to us).

But enough about this from me. Lets make sure we get the AMTL list approved before any new untested ideas gets shoehorned into the list without the actual list players having a say in it.

I'll provide my 6 reports within 45 days. After that I'll go help out playtesting the SM list closest to being approved.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Some are based on community feedback like the addition of the Avenger Fighters or tweaks to the Gatling blaster and Apocalypse Missile Launcher, others are based on my own test and still other are ideas I've tried out and want the community to try out before implementing them. That's why they are called PLAYTEST changes.

For example, the AMTL list has changed very little in the past 4 years so, while I haven't focused playing on it lately, the years I spent playing the crap out of the list (AMTL is still the army I've used the most of the six I own) are valid snapshots of the state of the list. So, to answer your question, I can read reports and compare them to my own experience and track how the AMTL plays. I can weigh that against past discussions and current ones to see what needs to happen.

The CLP is a weird case. It's fine it you look only at performance on the table. The problem comes in because the CLP starts a chain reaction that pushes the list toward a static play stlye. It does this because Quake Cannons are very attractive due to the range and MW ability when you combine them with indirect fire. Taking two or three cannons makes for an expensive titan which usually ends up as the BTS. Most folks like to protect the BTS so they keep it out of the way and what better place for that than denying the Blitz objective too. Just read through the battle reports thread, I think the only one in there that didn't use an arty titan took an imperator instead! and 90% of them had the arty titan sitting on the blitz the whole game.

_________________
-Vaaish

And i don't see the problem with that at all. If people want to play the list in a static style then let them. Instead of taking away tacticsl options from them maybe you should create incentetives (don't know how that is spelled...) for them to play other ways.

In Sweden we have a saying that you can either use a carrot or a whip to get the horse going. I'm a carrot kind of guy and think thats the way to do tjis if you think it's such a bad thing (static tactics). What that carrot should be I'm not sure. Extra attacks for engagement moves only? I have no good idea yet...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

I believe we've tried lots of incentives over the years, but the ability to lock down two victory conditions and contributing full firepower anywhere on the table is just too attractive. Using 1/3 of your points to lock down two objectives and contributing little or nothing to the rest of the battle is less so. Consider it an incentive not to use arty titans

To explain further, even if you increase the firepower of every weapon except the quake, the arty titan still has no down side that would cause it to be less attractive. There has to be some nerf outside of price increase to make that happen. For example, even making the CLP 50 points does nothing. Basically it costs you a CML or a tweak in a weapon here or there. The titan it's on is already BTS so no worries there either. That's shifts in areas we don't want shifted to accommodate the CLP. We've seen this with Warhound singles in Marine lists before.

_________________
-Vaaish

I'll try to disagree once again.

The artillery Titan is there because it is the only means for the AMTL to project force to remote corners of the table. Warhounds are fragile, and looks really odd if taken in numbers, Sentinels even more so. Aircraft can chase stragglers, but outside ground AA cover are easy prey for enemy airpower.

All other armies have some means of threatening a presence in remote corners of the battlefield, through deep strike, air assault, plentiful artillery, tunnellers or just plain soldiers in fast vehicles. The only option of those available to the AMTL is artillery.

AMTL have plenty of strong shooting, but it is all LoS, and at least where I play, it's fairly easy to hide from big guns on slow-moving platforms.

With no means of effectively threatening out-of-LoS formations, it becomes trivial to deny BTS, TSNP and HTL against AMTL, at least if the table has reasonable terrain density.

Frankly, with the proposed change to the CLP, I'll just have to swap out one macrocannon for a CCW and accept that the Blitz Guard barrage is that much less effective. It is still necessary.

Or just use 2 Quake cannons and 2 CLP. That would still amount to 6BP MW since all Barrage weapons of a formation should be fired together...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

I'll offer my solution here (from the "future of" thread), along with a little more explanation.

The first problem lies in the Quake cannon's effectiveness relative to the apocalypse missile launcher. MW is a huge force multiplier for a barrage against heavily armored infantry and vehicles. If you're going to build an arty titan, you're going with quakes over AMLs due to the low number of activations and significant portion of your force that titan represents.

Vaaish dislikes the immobile artillery platform for its ability to effectively hold an objective (possibly even holing/representing 2-3 objectives) and force the opponent to try to shift them from it. I get that, but I feel like the AMTL should have an artillery option all the same.

The problem with the landing pad is its universal Indirect Fire option. You could balance that by taking indirect fire off of the landing pad and putting it on one specific weapon. I'd propose the AML for that, and leave the quake and inferno guns on direct-fire. This lessens the effectiveness of the artillery titan and brings the quake cannon back into alignment with its old description.

So what about the CLP? I'd put a different buff on the landing pad: either Disrupt or Ignore Cover. I would either limit the buff to one weapon system per turn or put a price tag on the pad (probably just one weapon per turn but I could see the argument for having it affect fire against one target formation per turn).

This could reflect the recon flyer/uplink providing better firing solutions for the titan, rendering fire either more impactful (Disrupt), or more deadly accurate (Ignore Cover). Being able to put one of those buffs on a quake cannon or plasma destructor, or even a barrage missile would still make the CLP a force-multiplying upgrade or weapon replacement.

Paired with indirect fire only on the AML, the AML gains value (but need not always be fired indirectly), and the other barrage weapons have different uses that still benefit from a load out employing a CLP. It would also make CLP + Barrage missile a handy one-shot combination that would still benefit other arm weapons on a warlord after the missile is fired.

_________________
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/armiger84/?hl=en

My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

/me goes digging through files...

Ok, well here's the fluff and rules past for the CLP.

WD compendium, New Warlord Titan Weapons and Equipment. In there it functioned at a kind of small version of a Corvus pod with the ability to take Land Speeders instead

Space Marine Battles: The carapace landing pad is used in conjunction with a recon Land Speeder. The Land Speeder maintains a direct communications link with its parent Titan via a secure-link and scouts for targets, directing the Titan's barrages from a safe distance.

A Titan carrying a carapace landing pad receives a free Land Speeder stand which counts as a command unit for the purposes of orders, movement, etc.. When using barrage weapons the Titan may make the attack using the recon Land Speeder's line of sight, enabling the Titan to fire at targets which it can't see but which are visible to the fleet Land Speeder. Barrages fired indirectly in this way will NOT scatter and always land on target, just as if they had been fired directly.


I believe I've put forward the idea that the indirect fire is linked to the speeder but it was never well received. Basically the speeder is the weak link, if you can hunt that down then you can prevent the CLP from allowing the titan to fire indirectly. Basically, if we want to follow how it's been used in the past, we need to do something along these lines. The first conflicts with the Corvus and the second helps considerably but the speeder will likely get toasted by any aircraft or other ranged capable weapon in the first turn. It also makes things messy with determining if the speeder is a separate formation and if not, how to deal with coherency.

_________________
-Vaaish

I think Armiger84:s idea is very interesting!

The land speeder thingy sounds complicated and weird. Why not keep it simple and abstract?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam