Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=11005		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Steve54 [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
Personally I'm really glad to see somebody take this on after it has basically been dormant for a year.

My initial thoughts-
development plans - sensible titans are what the list is about get them right first. I have reservations about including Ordinatus though I would prefer them as the focal point of a tech guard list with the TL being a more aggressive spearhead type army

titan battlegroup - traditionally the trouble with TL is the lack of activations is there any use in allowing 3 of your activations at once?

garrisonned warhounds - I like this idea with the caveat that the number of single warhounds is limited - maybe 1 per battle titan. With the present list you could garrison a lot of warhounds
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
with support formations of infantry, armored vehicles, super heavy tanks, Knight Paladins ... and the occasional large war engine referred to as "Ordinatus."

I would like to see every single one of these (Except perhaps Knights) stripped out of any potential AMTL list.

Either it's the 'Adeptus Mechanicus Titan Legion' army list, or it's the 'Adeptus Mechanicus' army list. Calling it former and providing the latter is just one of the mistakes that were made with the previous experimental army list, I believe.

I'm interested by your mention of Psy-Titans.


EDIT:

Do you intend that the Titans in your list be compatable for use with other Imperial armies?
Author:  Steve54 [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL

(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 15 2007,15:56)
QUOTE
Do you intend that the Titans in your list be compatable for use with other Imperial armies?

Personally I think the titans should be balanced for the TL list anything more is unnecessary and pretty impossible

If you want to use different titan loads with IG or SM thats fine but as a group rule it shouldn't be an official priority for the TL list
Author:  BlackLegion [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
"Ordinati" (in " because Blarg seems to group the Capitol Imperialis, Hellbore and the actual Ordinatus so), Knights, Flyers and Infantry should be come from the 25% points contigent for allies. The same the Space Marines and ImperialGuard buy their Titans and Flyers.
Author:  semajnollissor [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
I think that the superheavy vehicles might be a convenient thing to drop. Leave the SH tanks, Hellbore and CI's to the Tech guard list. I'd guess that point constraints will drive most people to leave those out of their lists anyway (assuming a typical 3000 with a min of 1500 points in titans).

I guess Ordinatii ought to stay in for emotional reasons, though it would be easier for playtesting to leave it to the TG list too (and let the titan list have a more focused theme).
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
Support formations based only on battle titans = double plus good.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL

(nealhunt @ Nov. 15 2007,19:47)
QUOTE
Support formations based only on battle titans = double plus good.

Yes!

Give I Victory Gin NealHunt?

I want drink!


:D
Author:  Dave [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
I'm with Hena on the Alpha Strike, the commander special rule is enough I would think.  One of the really great things about EA is the alternating activations. I think it recreates the chaos or battle much better than 40ks I Go U Go. Bye grouping 3 activations into 1 you're moving backwards towards 40k I think.

I think the Warhound garrison would be appropriate for this list.

Finally, I'm also with E&C here (minus the knights though).  Titans are another of the great things about EA.  I think EA is scaled appropriately to allow for Titan customization and I think we need a dedicated Titan list that would allow any its Titans to be taken by any Imperial Army.
Author:  Chroma [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL

(Dave @ Nov. 15 2007,20:13)
QUOTE
I'm with Hena on the Alpha Strike, the commander special rule is enough I would think. ?One of the really great things about EA is the alternating activations. I think it recreates the chaos or battle much better than 40ks I Go U Go. Bye grouping 3 activations into 1 you're moving backwards towards 40k I think.

This is the same effect as the Tau Commander special rule that allows three formations to make any order that involved "shooting", but it must be at the same enemy formation.
Author:  semajnollissor [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
I'm not sure why anyone would want to activate 3 titans at once. Sure, you might put some serious hurt on up to three enemy formations (assuming a shooting action against an opponent smart enough to spread out and avoid barrages), but then you'd just get out-flanked and out-activated and lose the game.

I don't think the scale of the game is broad enough for simultaneous activations to be useful.

In a 3000 point list, activating two-thirds of your army (minimum) in one activation seems a bit silly. I mean, Ork players can do that too, but do they ever? I didn't think so, at least in a competitive situation.
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
Battlegroups:  If the intent is to gang up on a single formation (like Commander or Tau Commander) then I'm okay with it.  If they are supposed to be able to simultaneously activate and do whatever they want, then I believe that's not going to work.  Being able to activate 3000 points of units in one activation basically tanks the alternating activation concept.  I don't think the rule mechanics can accommodate that.

Warhound Scouts:  I think this depends on how the access to them is structured in the army list.  A fast, shielded, DC3 WE makes for a rather nasty garrison.  Too much access to that might pose a problem, e.g. a couple of arty titans and a horde of garrisoned Warhounds.

===

E&C:  I'm glad someone got it.  I'm working on a paper on A Clockwork Orange and it seems like almost every article on it compares it to 1984.  Ingsoc and Newspeak have been on my mind recently, in addition to the ACO stuff.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
E&C:  I'm glad someone got it. I'm working on a paper on A Clockwork Orange and it seems like almost every article on it compares it to 1984.  Ingsoc and Newspeak have been on my mind recently, in addition to the ACO stuff.

S'one of my favourites... The torture/pavlovian/thought control elements corrolate especially well with A Clockwork Orange I guess.

'The Handmaid's Tale' shows the failure of such a system, which is why it's also one of my favourites. :)


Interesting fact: Apparently some misprinted editions of 1984 exist where the typsetter corrected '2+2=5' to '2+2=4' on the last page thinking it was a typo, thus putting a slightly different spin on the end of the novel. :D
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
I think by making it required that the AMTL player has to spend at least 50% of his points on battle titans should be sufficient to make titans the emphasis of the army list.  Yes, you are correct in that the AMTL 2.0 list is too scattered, but taking away any and all secondary support like infantry and armored vehicles is taking too literal of an approach.  I think that an all titan & knight army will be too vulnerable to assymetrical opposing forces.  (Think of the Battle of Pelennor Fields in the third LOTR movie where the giant elephants get taken down by the mass of cavalry.)  I seriously doubt that the AM would allow their beloved titans to go into the field without being supported by bullet and bomb catchers... er, I mean infantry and armor.

Making infantry & tanks part of the 33% allies section is a very good suggestion I think, effectively enforcing the Titanic focus of the list.

"I'll burn that bridge when I get to it."  :devil:

Yes, I think that the weapons list would allow that, but I don't think everyone else here is ready for that kind of thing.  I would like to see the idea of modular weapons playtested with IG and SM armies to see how big of a deal it is.  At the very least I would like to see a variety of "weapon templates" devised so that IG and SM players have some variety to choose from.

I earnestly would like to see this happen; The lack of different Titan configurations is E:A's single biggest failing.
Author:  Otterman [ Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Blarg's AMTL - Vision of the AMTL
Geek out! I have an Easton Press edition of 1984.

Now, let's have that Victory Gin, and strangle a prole.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/