I can see why.
But I'm keeping my AT4+ TK weapon.
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=10878 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
For those not familiar with this it is an old idea. In essence its two points. MW partially breaks a convention with fire being split into AP/AT/AA. Instead it becomes MW/AA(MW). The second is design flexibility, future weapons (or list reviews) can nuance weapons so they reflect their role. MW still exists, but now it goes into the special abilities bit. The result is something like An excellent anti tank gun using super special rounds could be 75cm, AT4+, MW Whereas a magical demon powered tesla coil could be 15cm, AP6+/AT4+/AA5+, MW Whether or not changes are implemented on individual weapons that already exist is secondary. To be honest as we are going for a result and they are balanced all the weapons would simple get, say, AP5+/AT5+, MW (as for multi melta). But for contentious recent changes (I'm thinking demolisher gun) the flexibility could start to be used. Note one consequence is that the MW/barrage new rule becomes an exception, rather than an almost clarification as it currently is. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
Yep! I've already included an AT4+ (TK) weapon in the armoured regiment list anyway. |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
(The_Real_Chris @ Nov. 01 2007,12:02) QUOTE MW still exists, but now it goes into the special abilities bit. The result is something like An excellent anti tank gun using super special rounds could be 75cm, AT4+, MW Whereas a magical demon powered tesla coil could be 15cm, AP6+/AT4+/AA5+, MW I like that idea. However, that's a change that should probably wait. |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
I should add the impetus behind this is seeing all the debate around the demolisher and wondering if the change could be a bit less brutal would people be happier. Hell even if all the AP/AT values stay the same for every weapon past and future so what, its an odd rule to negate a system used by most firing and 'simplifying it' doesn't seem to add much. Making it an ability like lance and the rest seems more streamlined. It is ultimately, at least at first, purely cosmetic as nothing would likely change in this round of debate (hopefully, enough new variables to be going on with). I just like to have that flexibility in the future. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
I was always curious as to why Macro Weapons weren't made a regular special rule for weapons. Listing a Weapon as "AP4+/AT4+ Macro-weapon" would allow for more flexibility in my mind. If you wanted to go even more fine grained a convention like "AP4+/AT4+ Macro-weapon(AP)" would get you an only AP Macro-weapon, with AT remaining regular. Given that convention, I wouldn't think Macro-Weapon barrages would be much of an exception. For instance, "1BP Indirect Fire, Macro-Weapon(AT)" would get you a 1BP indirect fire weapon with MW attacks on AVs and regular attacks of INF. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
I like the idea but I don't want to do it right now. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
I can see why. But I'm keeping my AT4+ TK weapon.
|
|
| Author: | TheLimey [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
I really like this idea. The flexibility it gives is amazing. |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 01 2007,23:30) QUOTE But I'm keeping my AT4+ TK weapon. That's the other option. Simply do it in future and wait for the rules to catch up. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
In the case of the Leman Russ Destroyer's gun, it's okay because there's a very obvious intent behind it and it doesn't exist in any other list. For retrofitting into existing lists... that'd be a big project. |
|
| Author: | Ilushia [ Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
I like this idea, myself. I've always felt they should be set up this way. Adds lots of advantages, most notably the fact that it lets people using MWs decide if they want to fire at tanks or infantry potentially (Well, maybe, depends on how the special rule ends up working), which I think makes perfect sense. Why should a Plasma Blastgun be any less able to 'choose' its targets then, say, a Battle Cannon? Plus it allows as has been pointed out for weapons which only work on one type or the other type or have varying effectiveness on either. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
I really like this idea
|
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
Opinion seems to be evenly split between 'yes, do it now' and 'yes, but not yet'. Are there any 'real' nos? |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 02 2007,00:45) QUOTE Are there any 'real' nos? If only that had been included in the poll...
|
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA |
I guess I'm just not happy without a proper |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|