Tactical Command | View topic - Variable titan configuration

Page 5 of 7

[ 95 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Variable titan configuration

-AL

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:53 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:02 am
Posts: 109

I really like the idea of just a few different weapon groups for each Titan type.

I find the standard WL best used against AT targets, but with the flexabiliy to go after WE and infantry in a pinch.

Other interesting variants could have other varieing focuses, like a WL with 2 Quake Cannons and 2 Gatling Blasters which is equally effective at targetting AP or AT targets.

A WL with 2 Mega Bolters, an Inferno, and a Gatling Blaster would be well suited to taking on hoard armies.

And for dealing with other WE and Titans: a WL with 2 Melta Cannons, a Power Fist, and a Volcanno Cannon.

_________________
Note to self: add clever signature

Top

Honda

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:15 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

@E&C

The problem with removing 'everything larger than a warhound' from the table is that then, to me at least, it's no longer Epic... it's semi-Epic or something.

You misunderstood my comments. I wasn't proposing that everything over a Warhound be taken off the table. I said, that my "preference" for games. I would not want to impose my preferences on the overall game system.

To me, Epic is about mighty armies clashing dramatically on the tabletop, while depending on personal preference, one or two massive war machines slug it out overhead.

Take out the Titans, and it's no longer fully Epic, it's a game that happens to be a lot like Epic... and currently Titans are pretty damn thin on the ground anyway!

Understood. You have a particular vision for the game. Where that coincides with the intent of the game, you benefit. Sometimes that doesn't happen straight across the board. As also mentioned earlier, JJ had a particular vision and intent for EA, whcih is what has been realized and what we play today. Changing that vision (e.g. to your vision) would change the game. Not that what you are proposing is a bad thing, only that it changes the focus, which then becomes a game that I am not as interested in.

So neither of our "visions" are wrong, they are what they.

As to Jervis' opinion that he thinks the game system is the best he's ever done, I'd have to agree, Epic's system is easy to learn, hard to master, and has the fringe benefit of having some of my favourite miniatures across the GW/FW range.

Again, I think there was a misunderstanding. Epic40K is what Jervis felt was his best designed system. This was due to the introduction of Command & Control and the de-emphasis of "weapons".

So again, I think the work you are doing is a good thing, but it should be used to support scenario and non-tournament games.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:17 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

If the purpose of this direction is solely to introduce variable weapon loads to IG/SM forces, then I'd say some of the arguments fall apart.

Titans that are sent on those roles have to be relatively self-supporting (in the eyes of the AMTL) and they wouldn't risk any sort of specialty load in such a situation. For example, they have CC titans because they know that they have titans behind them with Turbolasers and Gatling Blasters and Volcano Cannons to "cover them." They wouldn't just send a CC titan off with a good faith belief that those lowly IG guys could properly support it. Same reasoning applies to rare gear.

I would support some limited weapon choices, in a system similar to Gargants and Eldar titans but a full-on, choose-whatever-you-want system is not appropriate.

_________________
Neal

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:01 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

What's this?!? Somebody is complainig that there is not enough variety in titan weapons? How could this be? All right, never mind me and my sarcasm, I just find it interesting to see old arguments crop up again.

In my opinion, yes, you can field a wide variety of weapons that are balanced to each other without the need of a points system. You just have to be open to doing it and be willing to experiment.

There is also concern that having an open weapon selection system for titans, whether they are all equal to each other or unequal with a points system, will unbalance the Space Marines and the Imperial Guard because the titans will be able to compensate for the army's weakness (like TK weapons for the Space Marines). This shouldn't be a concern, this should be expected!

If you are the Legion Master of a titan legion and you are about to send titans out to battle, you are going to run down a mental checklist of options which will eventually lead you to "How should I arm my titans for the most part? If you know that you are going to support Space Marines, you know that they are heavy on the speed and CC and light on the long range TK weapons. So, do you further accentuate a strength that doesn't need help, or do you compensate for a known weakness and compliment the army you are supporting?

The Realization

One option to compensate for the perceived increase in combat ability by complimenting an army is to increase the cost of a titan assigned to a Space Marine or IG army. Since that would take buy-in from the other army champions and list changes, that probably will not make a viable option.

The other option would be to limit the weapons taken by said titan - either some quick and simple rules or a list of allowed weapons. Back to the Space Marine army, you can say that only half of the weapons may have the MW and/or TK ability.

<<<--->>>

Below is a list of what weapons I believe Imperial Titans should be allowed to have and what their stats&rules should be. Some of you old timers from the SG Forums should recognize this list... Enjoy!

My proposed weapons:
Banner / Icon ? N/A ? Makes Titan Inspirational for +50 points
Barrage Missile ? 195cm - 3D6BP - Single Shot
Battle Claw - Base - Assault Weapon - +4A, MW, TK(D3)
Bombard Siege Mortar - 60cm - 2BP - Ignore Cover, Indirect regardless of orders
Carapace Landing Pad: Allows Titan to split fire between two target formations
Carapace Multi Laser ? 30cm - AP5+/AT6+/AA5+ - added to titan for 25 points a piece, limit 2
Chain Fist - Base - Assault Weapon - +5 CC Attacks, MW
Chaos Silver Tower - 60cm - MW3+ - MW
-and- 45cm - 2x AP4+/AT4+
Chaos Tendril Whip ? Base - Assault Weapon - +2D6 Attacks, First Strike
Chaos Tower of Skulls ? 60cm - 4x AP5+/AT5+ - Fire 360
Command Head ? N/A ? Makes titan a Commander for +50 points
Corvus Assault Head - N/A - Transport (8), -1 to Activiation Roll
Corvus Assault Pod - N/A - Transport(8), Extra FF Attacks(+4)
Custodial Head - N/A - Supreme Commander for +100 points, must be with Devotional Bell
Deathstrike Cannon ? 180cm - 3BP - 1/2 titan speed, MW
Devotional Bell ? N/A - Warlord only, requires 2 carapace weapon locations, makes titan: Inspiring (x2), Invulnerable Save, Leader (in addition to Custodial Head), +5cm to movement
Earthshaker Cannon (Heavy) ? 120cm - AP2+/AT2+ -or- 1BP Indirect - Indirect
Fire Control Center: Re-roll missed to hit dice from Tactical and Support weapons once per turn
Gatling Blaster ? 60cm - 4x AP4+/AT4+
Harpoon Missile - Unlimited - MW4+, Single Shot, War Engines that take any damage join your side
Hydra Turret ? 45cm - 2xAP4+/AT5+/AA5+ - May fire 360, carapace only, +2 FF Attacks
Inferno Gun (alternative #1) - 30cm - 6BP - Ignore Cover
Inferno Gun (alternative #2) - 30cm - 4BP - Ignore Cover, Disrupt
Laser Blaster ? 60cm - 4x AP3+/AT5+
Laser Burner ? Base - Assault Weapon - +10 CC Attacks
Manticore Launcher - 150cm - 2BP - Disrupt, Indirect
Melta Cannon ? 30cm - 2x MW3+ - MW, TK(D6)
Melta Cannon (Alternative) ? 30cm - MW2+ - MW, TK(D6) -and- Extra FF Attacks(+2), MW
Plasma Blastgun - 45cm - 2x MW3+ (Note: Not Slow Firing)
Plasma Cannon ? 60cm - 4xMW4+ - Slow Firing
Plasma Destructor ? 105cm - 4xMW2+ - No other fire, slow firing
Power Fist ? Base - Assault Weapon - +2 CC Attacks ?and- +2 MW CC Attacks w/ TK(D6)
Power Ram - Base - Assault Weapon - MW, Walkers knocked over (destroyed) if damaged
Power Ram (Alternative)- Base - Assault Weapon - +2 MW CC Attacks w/ TK(3D6)
Power Saw ? Base - Assault Weapon - MW, +6 CC Attacks, TK(1), -1 to hit penalty
Quake Cannon - 120cm - 2BP - MW
Quake Cannon - 120cm - MW4+ - MW (Maybe call this Macro Cannon?)
If proposed rules revision is enacted that make MW barrage weapons use AP to hit then: Quake Cannon - 120cm - 3BP - MW, Slow Fire
Rocket Launcher (Alternative #1) ? 120cm - 2x 2BP - 2 Separate Attacks
Rocket Launcher (Alternative #2) ? 90cm - 3BP - Indirect
If proposed rules revision is enacted that make MW barrage weapons use AP to hit then: Rocket Launcher - 60cm - 3BP - MW
Rubble Claws - Allow titans a 2nd re-roll for Dangerous Terrian checks for +25(?) points
Trident ? 30cm - MW2+ - TK(1), Ignores Shields, always scores critical hit
Turbo-Laser Destructor ? 90cm - 2x AP4+/AT2+
Volcano Cannon - 90cm - MW2+ - TK(D3), No other fire on Advance or Double orders
Vortex Missile - Unlimited - MW2+ - Single Shot, TK(D6), No LOF required
Vulcan Mega Bolter ? 30cm - 4x AP3+/AT5+ -AND- (15cm) - Small Arms - +6 FF Attacks
Warp Missile - Unlimited - MW2+ - Single Shot, TK(D3), Ignores shields, No LOF required
Wrecker (Proposed) ? Base - Assault Weapon - +3 CC Attacks, TK(D3), First Strike

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Legion 4

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:41 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA

Good Work BDI ... I think most of those are keeping with the "Flavor" of Old School Titans (been Epicing since '90) ... But many will see that as Too Much detail ? So unless someone is going to play in a Tourny ... DWWFY ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:20 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

Understood. You have a particular vision for the game. Where that coincides with the intent of the game, you benefit. Sometimes that doesn't happen straight across the board. As also mentioned earlier, JJ had a particular vision and intent for EA, whcih is what has been realized and what we play today. Changing that vision (e.g. to your vision) would change the game. Not that what you are proposing is a bad thing, only that it changes the focus, which then becomes a game that I am not as interested in.

Except that JJ's vision clearly originally included modular titans until the money ran out and they had to be scrapped.

It's lack of money and inertia, not vision, that left us with cookie-cutter titans.

There is also concern that having an open weapon selection system for titans, whether they are all equal to each other or unequal with a points system, will unbalance the Space Marines and the Imperial Guard because the titans will be able to compensate for the army's weakness (like TK weapons for the Space Marines). This shouldn't be a concern, this should be expected!

Overpowering the army list with a underpriced purchase should be expected?

With that situation, no matter how many limits you apply, we'd simply end up with the same problem we have now when using the AMTL 2.0 Titans; no variety in Titans fielded, because there are only one or two synergetic combinations available, thus 80% of Titan weapons get left at home.

The only answer that will make 'bad' choices a worthy option for armies that do not have strong synergetic relationships with that weapon is to reduce the cost of the Titan, ie: use points costs for weapons.

DWWFY
It'd be nicer if we could get some consensus however.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:10 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 19 2006,13:20)

QUOTE

There is also concern that having an open weapon selection system for titans, whether they are all equal to each other or unequal with a points ?system, will unbalance the Space Marines and the Imperial Guard because the titans will be able to compensate for the army's weakness (like TK weapons for the Space Marines). ?This shouldn't be a concern, this should be expected! ?

Overpowering the army list with a underpriced purchase should be expected?

With that situation, no matter how many limits you apply, we'd simply end up with the same problem we have now when using the AMTL 2.0 Titans; no variety in Titans fielded, because there are only one or two synergetic combinations available, thus 80% of Titan weapons get left at home.

The only answer that will make 'bad' choices a worthy option for armies that do not have strong synergetic relationships with that weapon is to reduce the cost of the Titan, ie: use points costs for weapons.

OK, let's assume that by having the SM player buy a Warlord titan that has TK weapons that would be synergistic to the Space Marine army makes the Warlord underpriced.

By how much? Is it so much that it is unbalancing?

What happens if the SM player, knowing what army he is going to face, decides not to arm it with TK weapons but with primarily other weapons (Gatling Blasters).

Is the titan still overpriced? Is it underpriced? By how much?

If you make the titan weapons all equal to each other (something I contend they are not now in the AMTL 2.0 rules) then you will go a long way towards mitigating any of the unbalancing effects of synergistic weapons.

I also dare say that some of the costs of Imperial titans is tied up in the flexibility of the weapons selection. Not only are the Imperial titans costed to be flexible, but the synergistic effects of weapon selection is already expected. Take the Imperial Guard and the volume of equipment that is available to them. If the IG player constructs his force in a certain way (all infantry and Leman Russ) he can recreate the same synergistic effects of titan weapon selection in the same way that the more constrained SM players can with the titans they take. Are you going to penalize the IG players who don't take Shadowswords yet do take Warlords armed with all Volcano Cannons?

My opinion, here is what needs to be done:

1) Forget costing out different weapons with different costs. All of the weapons should be made equal to each other, which they are not now, and allowed to be taken without restraint, within reason.

2) Assume that the IG and/or SM player is going to arm the titan with the array of weapons he is going to feel gives him the most bang for the points cost.

3) Figure out if the synergistic effects of titan weapon selection overwhelms the 33% points restriction on titan and aircraft purchases. If so, slap a points tax on the titan. If not, then drop the subject, because you are consternating over a minutae subject.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Legion 4

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:51 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA

As I said, on the Titan Poll thread, since SM1/AT1, we have always used the rule that any Imperial Army, (IG and SM) or any army with Titans, can spend 25% of it TBL (now 33% on Titans and CAS) on Titans ... (plus we still use the excellent Off Board Support Rules from SM1 for Spacecraft Support ! ) It's in the fluff, from the Heresy on. It seems crazy to me that, a force can't deploy Titan(s) to support the Ground Forces ... As in SM1/AT1, a heavier armed Titan costs more. So that 33% could go for 1 Hvy Warlord or a Reaver & CAS or 2 Warhounds and CAS, etc. ... But in many games we never even used Titans ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:15 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

2) Assume that the IG and/or SM player is going to arm the titan with the array of weapons he is going to feel gives him the most bang for the points cost.

And you end up with one or two really good combinations for each army and we're back to the same situation we have now; everyone taking the same titan. Different pricing prevents this... there's a reason all the games that put a little more thought into Titans went down this route.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Honda

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:45 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

However the unintended consequences of the route you are proposing was:

1. A product that struggled commercially as well as with the gaming community in general (i.e. ATI, ATII, SMv1). I'm not including E40K in this because it had it's own set of production problems fully identified by JJ. I am assuming that this is less of an issue at this time because of the general nature of Epic at this time.

2. Produced lethargic turn sequences that overwhelmed the game mechanics, thus producing games that weren't that fun because a decisive result could not be obtained in a reasonable amount of time

3. Turned the game emphasis from a more comprehensive study of military interactions between units to a near worship of specific weapon systems.

I don't wish to take away from your overall efforts, but in all those other systems who traveled down the "other" path, in spite of the game designers best efforts, there were still weapons combinations that produced better results than others and in the end all the added complexity and choices still collapsed down to a few options. However, now instead of a simpler game mechanic that supported ease of play, additional baggage is added that does not produce real value and in fact takes away from overall game play (per #2).

At the end of the day, what you are proposing to do to the Titans is remove "generalship" and replace it with gamesmanship. This is one of the issues with 40K and why more advance 40K players gravitate to Epic.

So again, continue to develop this work to it's logical conclusion, but it should not end up as part of the core rules nor for tournament play.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:14 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

1. A product that struggled commercially as well as with the gaming community in general (i.e. ATI, ATII, SMv1). I'm not including E40K in this because it had it's own set of production problems fully identified by JJ. I am assuming that this is less of an issue at this time because of the general nature of Epic at this time.

2. Produced lethargic turn sequences that overwhelmed the game mechanics, thus producing games that weren't that fun because a decisive result could not be obtained in a reasonable amount of time

3. Turned the game emphasis from a more comprehensive study of military interactions between units to a near worship of specific weapon systems.

I guess it's lucky that I'm just proposing bringing back different weapons fits inline with every other version of Epic then, rather than trying to turn Epic into some sort of advanced bookkeeping exercise.

This bears closer analysis:

A product that struggled commercially as well as with the gaming community in general (i.e. ATI, ATII, SMv1).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time of its first cancellation Epic was the third-strongest selling GW system.

Certainly today's sales can't begin to compare.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:41 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

What Blarg and Honda said.

_________________
Neal

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:50 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 20 2006,05:15)

QUOTE

2) Assume that the IG and/or SM player is going to arm the titan with the array of weapons he is going to feel gives him the most bang for the points cost.

Not necessarily. Let's go with an Imperial Guard army that decides to take either a Reaver or a Warlord, undecided as to which, though.

If the Imperial Guard player did not know what kind of army he was facing (unrealistic as it may be, but the default assumption is tournament play) then he can structure his army in several different ways:

1) The Bland Balanced Force: Take a well balanced force of infantry, armor, and super heavy tank, supplemented by a Reaver or Warlord armed with an array of weapons: Volcano Cannon and/or Plasma Cannon, Gatling Blaster, Vulcan Mega Bolter and/or Chain Fist.

2) The Titan Fire Support Force: The IG player goes heavy on infantry and armored vehicles, with no super heavy tanks or Deathstrike missile launchers, complemented with a Warlord armed with a variety of Volcano Cannon (TK support), Quake Cannon (BP MW support), Deathstrike Missile (TK knockout support), and Plasma Cannon/Destructor (MW support).

3) The Titan Tactical Support Force: The IG player goes heavy on infantry and super heavy tanks with no Leman Russ tanks taken. A Reaver with all Gatling Blasters and Turbo-laser Destructors is used instead of the Leman Russ Company.

4) The Titan Storm Force: The IG player goes as desired on infantry and armored vehicles and heavy on super heavy vehicles and artillery. A Reaver or Warlord is taken armed with a Chain Fist and/or Power Fist, Plasma Cannon, and Vulcan Mega Bolter so it can assault and take objectives.

That is four different weapon combinations for titans taken for an IG force where the player does not know what enemy he is going to face. Imagine the potential increased diversity in weapons if the IG player were to know what army (and/or player) he was going to face? He could further tailor his weapons pick if he knew he was going to face an Ork horde instead of an Eldar craftworld, or if he knew he was going to face a player who prefered a "wall of flesh" infantry heavy army instead of an "armored fist" AV heavy army.

You see, the idea "that the IG and/or SM player is going to arm the titan with the array of weapons he is going to feel gives him the most bang for the points cost" is based upon the assumption that the player is going to be dynamic and vary his army force, and titan weapons, with the desire to present a different tactical feel, and the desire to match the titan weapons to his force and what he is going up against. If the player is some dullard who doesn't like to evolve his tactics, doesn't like to keep other players off balance with different forces, or like to tailor what he does to what he is facing then, yeah, you will see one or two preferred weapon combos emerge. But even then, I dare say that will vary from player to player. Your idea of what a good weapon combo is could be different than what I think.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:15 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

Blarg: you appear very set upon your view of what 'balanced' means. I think we'll just have to disagree on this point.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:19 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 20 2006,11:15)

QUOTE

Blarg: you appear very set upon your view of what 'balanced' means. I think we'll just have to disagree on this point.

No, I'm not set upon what my view of balanced means. I will argue forcefully what my point of view is, but if I am proved wrong I will happily change my opinion. Trust me, I'd love for you to come up with a good argument to counter my opinions, because walking away from the discussion doesn't resolve anything.

We have barely even touched upon what "balanced" means yet. You seem to favor a points for weapons scheme while I favor a scheme of balancing all of the weapons and paying for a titan, regardless of weapons.

The way I am reading it you seem to argue that weapons will always be imbalanced and that we need to assign point values to different weapons, on different titans, when assigned to different armies. My contention is that you are trying to too finely define realtive values and points values in a game that, on the whole and when dynamic forces are brought into the discussion, render such concerns either too difficult to tackle or moot in the larger picture.

I think we both agree on one central issue: the various imperial titan weapons are not equal to each other. What we disagree on is not what "balanced" means but how do we go about rectifying the situation. You seem to concentrate on the weapon's value based upon the situation while I am not very concerned because it will all balance out in the end. Meanwhile, I am more worried about the weapons having the same value to each other, something you'd like to fix by simply assigning points values and that's it.

We haven't even discussed whether weapons should be balanced to each other, nor have we hit upon whether a points system is a good idea. I would like to see your reply to my previous post regarding the different Imperial Guard armies and the corresponding titans that would be taken with them. While I think I have brought up a good counter to your argument via these IG examples, I am concerned that making such a case in regards to the Space Marines would be rather weak.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 5 of 7

[ 95 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Variable titan configuration

Who is online