MagnusIlluminus wrote:
I will try to keep an open mind about the Titan Weapons until I see what you have, but I don't think that is possible. What you are saying is that you are making it so that a Vulcan Mega-Bolter has the same effective cost as a Volcano Cannon or a Barrage Missile Launcher. I just cannot see that happening.
The "power requirements" for weapons have nothing to do with their costs. Well, almost nothing. Just the Imperator main weapons and the Self-Powered Plasma weapons worry about that. The cost of a weapon is based on how good it is, which is the same for all other models.
Next you will be telling us that the cost of a Volkite Cannon will be the same as for a stand of Bolters. Just not possible.
---------------------
Can you specify exactly what is changing in the base rules and assumptions? You really cannot change much and still be able to call it the same as NetEpic Gold.
How can the conversion work be done and the stats not be created? In my mind, if the conversion work is done, then the stats are done. If not, then not. I am really not following you there.
Hi!
My approach "equates" effectiveness and how much of a power drain weapon "x" puts on the reactor. Similar weapons will drain a similar amount. If you look at the point costs of titan weapons as they exist in gold, there are lots of weapons that cost 50 points, 75, 100, etc. Instead of cost I could just say those weapons consume the same amount of energy, thus making them "equivalent" choices. Even though the stats may be different. Even when you look at weapons values under the newer formula is a volcano cannon at 161 really all that different from self powered plasma cannon at 174? Or a trident at 46 versus a melta cannon at 52? The system I am building assumes such narrow differences to be moot and such weapons are lumped together under what I well call "power rating".
A player will simply assemble the weapons he wishes to fit on the titan adding their power ratings together and comparing it to the titans overall "reactor rating". If the two values match then the titan functions within the stats the base line titan has. If it goes over that reactor limit then something must be sacrificed to make up for the extra power taken by weapons (lower movement, less shields, etc). If its lower than the reactor rating, then the surplus power can be added to more speed (move), shields, etc). All these parameters are explained with clear lines as to limits in either direction. All cost stays within the confines of then titan hull as based on its standard stats and reactor rating (which determines how and which weapons it can fit).
The systems seems to recreate 1st edition titan building very closely, without the unnecessary burden of points calculation.
Also note that this system is for "engines" (titans and such) only. Weapons for lesser units remain with the same stat line and associated cost that is part of the models total cost.
The "conversions" I am referring to are the mathematical formula guidelines for converting 30k stats (from the heresy black and red books) to numbers in the context of a d10 system for epic. In other words I now know what Armor 12 in 28mm 30k means in 6mm epic 30k for this rule set. Based on these conversion guideline "formulas" I can now generate stat lines with a good degree of "fidelity" that the 28mm and 6mm versions of units will be "equivalent" as I generate them.
Finally, its not net epic gold. As I mentioned elsewhere I used the word "supplement" for lack of a better word. Besides the d10 use, order definitions have changed (gone back to 1st edition definitions), special ability definitions (PD for example) are being changed or expanded. Rules mechanics of close combat (now armor saves apply like in 1st edition) and shooting (short and long range bands, again like 1st edition) are all being added/modified.
What is kept? The basic turn sequence, stat lines, combat resolution (application of modifiers, etc), army cards and army construction. Its the same basic "skeleton" but with key modifications in key areas. Enough to produce a "distinct" experience from standard gold. That is what those interested in this project seem to want. Something based on gold, but enough changes to make it "its own thing". I am grateful that there seems to be much enthusiasm for it given the requests for the draft of the work in progress.
Given how many specific details will change, a different cost formualtion is needed. A simpler one, preferably with rounded numbers, since my feedback from those inquiring about the draft and project seem to be strongly in that direction.
Primarch