Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Adeptus Mechanicus

• Board index
• Search
• Register

Top

dysartes

Post subject: Sotec ATTL 2.0 response Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:14 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908

1.1.2 Suggest you drop this and just use BP3 with ignore cover, use flame template note as per blast template but small end must touch titan. Reason: Simplicity. Despite the currently clunky wording, the flame template rules are generally the same (or very similar) to the barrage rules. Certain elements need clearing up, as does the procedure as a whole, hence the 5 stage process. To be honest, given that the template is in the rulebook, the procedure for using it should have been in the core rules as well. 1.2 list Many things to say here. a) I personally heavily dislike the idea of Ordinatus in the list. Save them for an article like the Harlequins or for a Skitarii only list. b) At the very least Ordinatus should be an Auxillia Formation, not a Legio formation. c) All else looks OK.

THe decision to make the Ordinatus part of the AMTL list was one which was taken very early in the design process, and is one that I am, to date, happy with. The decision to keep the Ordinatus as a Legio choice was one taken in a poll on the old forum, and seems to be generally liked. As it stands, further decisions on the position of the Ordinatii within the AMTL army list will depend on the playtest results.

2.0 Titan basics.
I think I understand this. Because the titans have no points discount they have virtually unlimited access to the arms and armoury. To be straight I think there are some pretty obvious choices and to resist the urge to mount up on plasma weaponry is going to be hard. One of those cases where I have to assume a loooong discussion went into the debate about how much to charge points-wise (or not as the case is). I need to see some games before I pass judgement here.

Going by you saying that you think you understand this, does this mean you think the wording could do with being made clearer or more explicit than it currently is?

As a general rule, plasma-based weaponry has good alpha-strike potential, but means your Titan isn't doing much for the rest of the time. I know I've tended to prefer to use non-plasma weapons most of the time, or only included 1 per Titan.

2.2 titan weapons
b) Light rocket launcher is a little nutty. Two warhounds can launch a 12 BP strike. Suggest reduction to BP2.

The Light Multiple Rocket Launcher is one of the weapons on my to-look-at list, with a view to making it somewhere between the Valkyrie rocket pod and the battle titan Multiple Rocket Launcher. Your recommendation is one that would help with that, and it'll definately go in amongst the ideas to be tried. Only thing we'd need to check would be internal balance vs the other Scout weapons.

Assault weapons
a) suggest change "Power Fist" to "Imperial Tian Power Fist" and change from EA(+3) to EA(+2) and change damage from TK(D3) to TK(D3+1). Both to differentiate from Eldar power fists and make it worthwhile to work at getting a warlord into combat...

A name change to "Titan Power Fist" makes sense, as it would mean the weapon would obey the rule of all weapons with the same name do the same thing. As it stands, I'm not yet sure we need to change the stats, either from a balance or a flavour point of view. The Imperial Power Fist is differentiated from the Eldar Power Fist, if only by dint of the fact that it doesn't have secondary guns built into it.

Support Weapons
a) I would prefer to see the plasma destructor act as a BFG, slow rate of fire but hurts when it hits. Was thinking of 90cm, 1xMW3+ TK(D6+1), slow fire. Only of use verses WE but very fun (rather than being an obvious choice against the plasma cannon. Suggest a limit of 0-1 plasma weapon per titan.

The Plasma Destructor does need something to pull it back into line with the other Support Weapons. I'm not, however, convinced that this is the way to do it - tweaking range or to-hit values should manage it instead.

b) Drop vortex "no LOS required". Should require landing pad to get that. Also prevents "over the shoulder" firing at air assaults and the like. A single titan with 2 of these on overwatch would be OTT.

Single-shot missiles (ie, the Vortex Missile and Barrage Missile Launcher) are in my list o' stuff to do - they need something to make them worth 1/3 or 1/4 of your Titan's firepower over the course of a game. In the case of the Vortex, I don't think I've heard any reports of anyone taking it, which might indicate that it is actually under-powered, rather than over-powered.

2.3 titan upgrades.
a) Legate; good. Suggest no MW on defense turret, replace with EA(+3) instead. (MW is larger than Gatling blaster class!)


A MW FF attack is SM Librarian standard (using Smite), Multi-melta level, or any small-scale melta-weapon. Would it feel better if the turret was explicitly stated as being an ancient melta weapon? Anyway, EA(+3) is probably as good or better than one MW FF attack, but doesn't feel as cool

c) Carapace multi-lasers; OK but would prefer to see Reaver limited to only one multi-laser emplacement...

Any particular reason for the limitation?

d) suggest sacred icon item be 25 points not 50. Encourage players to add these.

You may have a point on this one. Inspiring may well be worth 25pts as opposed to 50.

Anyone disagree?

e) What is a Custodian titan? It would be nice to know. Would suggest same as sacred item but +75 points (free if replacing 2 carapace weapons, otherwise 75 points). Change note from the "loadout" wording to "counts as two tactical weapons".

A Custodian Titan is the name for a Titan carrying a Devotional Bell - if we were going old school, they'd also be the proud possessor of a Custodian Head.

With regards to selection, the way the Dev bell works really precludes anything on the Carapace, hence it being a replacement for the Carapace weapons on a Warlord.


f) Suggest replace "carapace landing pad" with "Fire control tower (FCT)". There are many problems inherent with having a model freely zipping around that as left the coherency of it's host formation. It is unclear how this works. Does just having the landing pad constitute gaining the ability? Do you need a speeder miniature? A landing pad could be "counted as" a FCT but I think that a FCT might be easier for people to model, understand etc.

The carapace landing pad is meant to have the recon craft (I like to think it be a Land Speeder) abstracted away, so it doesn't actually play any part in the game itself. And, TBF, a CLP should be fairly asy to model - either plasticard or an upside-down slttaless slotta base should do for a basis (though I need to test this theoru). Admittedly, mine'll be a bit more fancy, with the Speeder in mid-takeoff, but that's 'cos I feel like being special

2.4 skitarii and equipment
a) Tribune; A tribune is a unit, right? Delete the annoying and confusing fluff about it joining another unit as a character.

Good point. I'll change it for v3.

b) Electro-Preist. Sorry. This just needs to be deleted. It has no basis in 40K mechanus fluff whatsoever that I can recall or find. Replace with "Tech-Preist support staff". Drop fearless.

As has been pointed out, the Electro-Priest has been around since Codex: Imperialis, in the 2nd Ed 40k boxed set. The concept was also revisted in the Explorator Warbands article for Inquisitor.

For those interested in theTitan Tech-Priest idea, I'll have a think.

d) Praetorians. Good. Would upgrade CC to 4+.

The Praetorians just had a fairly substantial upgrade (doubling their CC power and boosting their saves), so I want to see how they perform with those upgrades before deciding they need another boost.

f) Thudd gun is excellent. The special rule is simple and the way I wished all artillary functioned.

Agreed - I just wish I could take the credit

2.5 Knights
a) Shock Lance. Check your physics. In order to arc energy as the shock lance fluff states it does you need a LOT of energy (lightning range) and a short distance between node and anode. Change all shock lances to be Assault weapons.

Given the nature of the 40k universe and its level of realistic physics when it comes to weaponry, the shock lance being a FF weapon is the least of our worries.

b) Baron is only worth 150 points in my opinion. Would up Cannon to be 4x shots.

I'd be dubious about lowering the cost to 150pts, but then I prefer to be cautious when it comes to points costs. Have yet to gether any playtest data on the Baron, which is where the real test of it shall be.

d) Knight Errent and Knight Lancer; Change armour to 5+. Knight save takes care of rest. That or up points by 25%. These sound and feel like lighter frames (you don't get a warhorse when you sign up with the cavalry, you just get a horse.)

This is one I've had suggested to me by my regular opponent, and hope to test in future games. It may well have merit - if this change were performed, would you alter the cost, though?

e) Paladin. OK. Would up cannon to be 2x shots and speed by 5cm.

Hmm - again, not currently convinced either boost is vital atm, but either would be useful. Again, cost changes?

f) Crucader and Castellan. BIG problem here. There is no reason whatsoever not to amalgamate these two into one profile. Change the secondary weapon into "Secondary armaments" 45cm 2xAP5+/AT5+

Ideally, I'd like to keep them seperate - however, there has never been much distinction between them background-wise, so an amalgamated profile may make sense. This idea will require furhter discussion, along with further examination of the other Knights.

2.6 Ordinatus.
Also please drop the squat references. We want the studio to take us seriously and the squats were an unfortunate evolutionary dead end for the game. The sooner they die completely the sooner the Deniurg might be revealed...

I took the Squat references directly from the article where the Ordinatus first showed up. I also ran them by Jervis before including them in the list, so I think we're OK.

2.7 shared imperial vehicles.
I would like to see baneblades, shadowswords, and maybe even stormblades make an appearance here.
Perhaps Have the Cataphract cohort consist of 6 Leman russes with an upgrade to add a SHT.

This isn't uber-Steel Legion - SHT will not be making an appearance in the AMTL.

Skitarii list, on theother hand.....

2.8 imperial navy
Marauder Destroyer; Front TL heavy bolter should have AP4+ added to it.

That's a model-related issues - its ina ?dorsal mount, and can't get the angle to shoot at ground targets.