| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
(Ginger @ Apr. 12 2008,02:42)
QUOTE I would recommend the "three support slot" approach, but it will need restrictions to avoid the obvious min-max of 2x Reavers (1300) and 6x WH (1650) for a total of 2950 with something given a boost to be the BTS. Here perhaps two constraints would work
A - a limit of one support type per battle titan (tidies up this section of the list)
B - a limit of two WH per titan (so either 2x singles or a pair) forces the choice of other formation types I prefer your proposal A.
Its a mechanic we know works (IG Upgrades), and it would actually promote diversity, rather than homogeny.
Consider proposal A on my list for 3.10.
Putting the spaceships back into the allies section, which might be renamed *Space and aircraft* like other lists would tidy it up and conforms with other general standards, and makes it obvious that you only get one spaceship per list.
I'm still undecided as to where the IN assets should go, support or allies.
I am uneasy about the Emperator titans, attractive as they are, and would recommend keeping them in, but as a "Fluffy" option at the bottom of the list. This is because they have been notoriously difficult to balance and play with, and there have been several unsuccessfull attempts at including them (see Blarg the Impaler's work)
I've seen Blarg's work, but I think he has had a tendancy to make things a little too complex.
In the aim of simplicity, I've simply reduced the DC of the Emperor from 18 to 12, and scrapped most of the short range guns (By changing them into a Firefight bonus).
I'm also nervous about including Emperor Titans in the core of the list, but if we don't try, we'll never know.
Weapon choices
Ok, I admit I know nothing about the 40K universe or weapon stats etc. I am coming from a purely game orientated point of view, starting with the principle that the existing points elsewhere are pretty good, so the fully armed titans should cost the same, eg WarLord should come in at 850 points, the Reaver at 650, and the WarHound at 275.
I agree that the existing Standard Configuration Titans are balanced at 850, 650 & 275.
However, some of the configurations you can build with this list are qualitatively inferior (For example a 4x Vulcan Mega Bolter Warlord).
Since it is undoubtedly inferior to the Standard Warlord, I believe it should simply cost a bit less than 850 points.
I would propose a maximum of four weapon grades:- +0 points, +25 points, +50 points and +75 points.
Broadly that's what we currently have, plus the Carapace Landing Pad which I believe is worth a bit more (A 9BP Titan sitting on the blitz is worth at least 850pts!).
Your notes on pricing have been noted, and I haven't ruled them out.
I really like the idea of different titan chassis with different stats, as championed by Neal, Tiny Tim and BL.
I think I've just fallen for Soren's solution to this.
One last thought here that occured to me, is there a constraint that the player must use up all the weapon slots on each titan? Would it be permissible for someone to field a Warlord with only two weapons for example?? Under my costings this might be 775 points, turning it into a high speed assault machine - possibly not a bad option, but one with potential weaknesses.
We found in our earliest experiments with transfering the pricing from Netepic that allowing unarmed titans was simply broken (Although at the time a basic Warlord hull cost 525pts!).
As to dropping one weapon to increase your speed or shields, I think this falls under Soren's proposal.
|
|
) slaughters the troops you send forward. Without all the battle titans on the offense its relatively easy to deal with the thrust, even kill a reaver or two, especially if you are playing corner to corner (you have range problems with 'just' 120) or have split the objectives side/centre/side).
