(CyberShadow @ Nov. 27 2007,02:12)
QUOTE If the option of buying the titan and weapons configuration seperately, giving huge variety of configuration, I wonder whether a multiplier would work. For example, a Warhound gives a 5x, a Reaver 10x and a Warlord 20x. Then, add the cost of the weapons and factor in the titan multiplier value. This would allow the representation of the different values of the weapons on a chasis.
No idea. PLus certain wepaons (likethe Volcanoe Cannon) are similar on both.
Complicating such a system is the way Epic works. Big expensive single unit formations have a mystical break point beyond which they are underpriced to make up for the activation disadvantage they bring.
So the basic hulls would have to be recosted as it were. Then you get into all the problems of simply trying to get as many cheap titans as possible for activation reasons and use them as big tough objective claimers/assaulters.
An alternative is to have a standard configuration for titans. The weapons can then be 'upgraded', in the same way that IG formations can add a four Fire Support units, a Warlord can upgrade its Powerfist (or, either arm mount weapons) to a Gattling Cannon (for example). This should allow the variety that people want, but not infinite variety (since only some upgrades are allowed), should allow different points values, and also help to get things balanced in reasonable time.
Again no idea. Yes it could work but lets look at the OGBM list.
They of course have this system. They also have the option of cheaper core warengines, 'grot riggers' and grotnaughts to boost up the core warmachines.
The more powerful weapons then can cost more as they are adding more value.
In the AMTL list you get none of those bonuses, instead you get to add some more powerful weapons on some titans.
You could change it to the OGBM system, but then how do you give them the required advantages? If you give a discount so a book reaver costs less than 650 prior to the upgrade and more afterwards you have simply created the same system as now, but with the option to field titans for less points which would either need a load of testing as it brings in all the problems experienced before or would be such a small discount to be irrelevant.
As has been pointed out there isn't much difference between the tactical and support weapons, and you can argue the assault weapons are of equal value - they are in with the support weapons because of the fluff, nothing else (well, that and Micheal got fed up of suffering the 'battle titan charge' every game).
There is now even less I've gone back over all the old titan posts and spreadsheets and comments and everything else and altered the plasma destructor and quake cannon  (the two awkward support weapons, also changed inferno gun and made VMB 5x as 6x really was too good on aggregate hits).
(Ilushia @ Nov. 28 2007,08:47)
QUOTE I'd recommend attaching the weapon-swapping effect to Vet. Princepts to represent that younger, less experienced, princepts would generally field 'stock' titans, but as they grow older they'll find weapon load outs and styles of combat they like and get their titan modified to fit those styles. This also gives Vet. Princepts a use in the list other then the very occasional regeneration of an extra voidshield or allowing rally from 2-3 blast markers to 0.
If you experienced over powering problems with the current system easy enough to say must have one of these chaps to have 2 or more support weapons.
Is there though currently? Tis a good small downpowering if needed though.
(wargame_insomniac @ Nov. 28 2007,06:01)
QUOTE If we do go for free weapon selection then I would like to see the number of weapon classes fall in between Chroma's suggested 3 weapon groups and Blarg's proposed 8 weapon groups. I like the flavour of Blarg's list but even at a second look am still overwhelmed by the complexity of it.
Any reason there should be 4-7 weapons groups?
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
