I should think there are more important lists to work on, than one intended to replace the only (theoreyically) approved AM list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

In case you missed the Roadmap thread, there are indeed more important lists to work on and they are being worked on. However, what's the point of a forum if not to discuss things and how can you have progress if you limit yourself to looking at a problem from a single point of view? If people are interested in engaging in a discussion about a different way of making AMTL, why should you care?

Just to recap for you: we need more groups posting AMTL battle reports to get the current list approved. We also need more playtesting outside my own group on a few units for Skitarii, and lastly we need to test out the experimental Cataphractii list. A lot of this is community involvement and none of it is affected by the discussion here.

_________________
-Vaaish

Ok, that's fine, but do you have any thoughts of how to focus Titans more on moving and shooting and less on sitting an shooting? In other words, how do we make a list that is fun to play against and doesn't rely on artillery blitz guard titans or running just past the center line and standing still the rest of the game?

_________________
-Vaaish

Take out the arty titans, or massively reduce them like EUK did. Suddenly stuff's gotta move.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It's been my experience that the lower activation count forces people to be creative with objective placement and more static in how the list is played. Not letting titans capture most objectives removes part of the reason for people to play blitz guard titans or try to capture two objectives with a single titan. The hope is that it pushes the player to use titans to hunt enemy formations.



I feel this will only go so far and does nothing to make titans FEEL powerful. I don't know how many times I've unloaded on a formation to make two kills with a battle titan or had my opponent throw everything he had against a warlord and come out with nothing to show. That just doesn't feel like a fun game and I've been told many times by friends they don't want to play against AMTL because it's boring. This sounds a bit awkward, but titans are everything Epic is not right now.

_________________
-Vaaish

Doing that with the update I was supposed to post last night. CLP gets limited to providing indirect fire to a single BP weapon.

_________________
-Vaaish

Maybe removing the -1 to hit for doubling in lieu/as well as a general firepower increase? Incentivise keeping them moving.

Thats a pretty interesting suggestion MikeT!

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Just to add something on the indirect barrage issue, I would be in favour of dropping the fire control centre option completely, and just giving the Apoc launcher indirect fire instead of disrupt or extra barrage points.

Boosts the apoc launcher, flexibilizes standard reavers, does not change firepower output, removes the quake options, which are just not congruent with the fluff, as the quake cannon is essentially a direct fire weapon, as well as the outright silly indirect fire flamethrower.

Concerning weapon firepower, I would like to point out that arm weapons and carapace weapons on GW titans have a different firepower ability, with arm weapons being significantly stronger.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

You know, while I rarely, if ever, find myself agreeing with LordotMilk, this isn't such a bad idea. Quake cannons as direct-fire 3BP MW monster cannon and AMLs as 3 BP indirect fire weapons would (slightly) reduce the indirect fire range, and "weaken" it insofar as you'd lose the MW aspect of the quakes, although you'd likely see 9 BP more often than 6 BP that way.

I can, of course, immediately see the backlash to this idea, stemming from (A) completely ditching a miniature component, (B) possibly forcing people to dis- and re-assemble some miniatures to maintain an artillery titan if they wanted to field one (but giving the triple AML Forgeworld Reaver newfound value!), (C) not "solving" the "artillery titan problem" at all, (D) possibly forcing a change in many other tournament lists unless we artificially distinguish "rocket launchers" from "AMLs" as already seems to be in the planning... But it neatly solves the Inferno Gun and Quake Cannon cheapness/OPness when combined with a landing pad, and makes the Apocalypse Missile Launcher useful all in one fell swoop.

As a totally off-the-wall idea, keep the carapace landing pad in addition to making that change (and keep it as a hardpoint), but change the rules so that instead, it grants Disrupt (or maybe Ignore Cover?) to one titan weapon of the player's choice per turn (or maybe go hardcore and increase the cost of the CLP and make it all weapons fire) due to the precision targeting offered by the scout aircraft/data uplink, etc. Would totally change the utility of the platform, and would make quake cannon and a CLP scary for a whole new reason (3 BP MW + Ignore Cover?).

Imma go back to my finance homework now. I'm clearly getting loopy.

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

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

Oh, nice ideas for de CLP. Especially this with Disrupt. But I like to give it the long-standing option to gain indirect fire for all BP weapons. But not for free. Take it to 25 or 50 points, then we'll see how it works.

My friend Dean is ONLY interested in playing against my Titans once they have reached Approved status. He has zero interest in playing against a Developmental list.

So speaking purely personally, I would quite like Vaaish to focus his attention on getting ONE AMTL list approved before getting distracted by what we could do with a brand new list. But that is just me....

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

Matbe your friend Dean could help out and play 6 games with you, make sure reports get done on them all and in that way fill one of the slots for the 6 needed games?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

He is used to ONLY playing official GW rules, e.g. for W40K and LOTR SBG, often previously in GW store.

He has ZERO interest in playtesting. He will only play against Approved lists, not Developmental lists. So I have NO chance in getting a game with my Titans until this list gets Approved.

So I would rather Vaaish concentrated on initial list, instead of going off on a direction that many of the more active playtesters do not want to go. The AC can't manage by committee- he is appointed to give direction after all. I just wish he would listen to the 3-4 more active playtesters who have a reasonably consistent different view of the direction to take- i.e. small changes for the final push to get Approved rather than last minute changes to fix problems perceived by a small number of people.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list