| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
|
Hi E&C,
I'll send you this in a PM and as TL AC you can decide whether or not to post it.  If you don't think its a good idea then at least you won't have to fight off any disaffected posters that happen to disagree etc etc.
That's okay, although you can't please everyone all the time, if there are lots of disaffected posters, it'll be because I'm not doing my job right. I believe that the Tactical Command community needs stewards and shepherds for its army Champions, not tyrants.
I will start by quoting your entire message, then break parts of it down for debate.
Hi E&C,
I'll send you this in a PM and as TL AC you can decide whether or not to post it.  If you don't think its a good idea then at least you won't have to fight off any disaffected posters that happen to disagree etc etc.
Small but of background, this idea came after TRC and I were discussing the games we'd played (I will get round to posting my batrep but I've played 4 Vassal games this week and time has been short).  I don't really like the current trend for "bargain basement" Reavers being the basis for the "best" TL army (by that I mean taking all free weapons for 575 point Reavers) and then as many Warhounds as you can with one other activation (sentinals or tbolts depending on whether you have 100 or 150 points left over).  So I was trying to come up with alternate restrictions on titans and support and so on, and each time TRC would think for a while and then come back with his "broken" combos.  Until (after many attempts) I thought up one that TRC couldn't immediately come up with a way of "breaking".
Also we both thought that for the TL to be a "nice" army to play against it might be better if it wasn't ALL void shielded war engines. For some armies that is just a demoralising prospect, knowing that most of your fire will bounce off shields, and that the return fire will be withering.  The conclusion being that TL shouldn't be able to field ALL titans (I know this might be a bit contravertial).
So the ideas was this...
Titan Legion Rethink.
Max 2/3 Titans
Battle Titans Formations
Emperor 1250
Warlord 800
Reaver 650
Scout Titan Formations
Warhound Pack 500
Warhound 275
1 Scout Titan Foramtion Per Battle Titan
1 Support Formation Per Titan (So a warhound pack counts as 2 titans)
Support Changes
Change restriction on Skitarii to 0-1 per Battle Titan.
Weapon Changes
Weapon costs down by 25 points (minimum of 0) for battle titans.
25 points extra for third (or more) of the same weapon for Battle Titans. (Add to Warhound Tax rule)
(We thought the Corvus Pod was somewhat under powered with the poitns changes and skitarii availability change, TRC suggested +FF attacks, I didn't want to overlap las burner, so I thought Corvus could add 1 extra skitarii support unit beyond usual allocation)
Titan Upgrade Changes
(Supreme Commander) Legate - Warlord only. (Perhaps Emperor too, just not Reaver, another incentive for the Warlord)
The changes to hull costs and weapon costs result in most combinations coming out as the same cost, but removing the bargain basement options, so the titans will actually take a closer mix of weapons to the template Reaver and Warlord.  The 800/650 costs also slightly give a points edge to the Warlord, making them more worthwhile.
The Battle Titan/Scout Titan limiting along with the 2/3 limit means you have various combinations of titans possible at 3k (beyond 3k it matters less as all restrictions tend to, baring 0-1) but they all have advantages and disadvantages.
Here are the possible combos and how many support they'd get at 3k
Warlord, Reaver, Warhound, Warhound, 4 Support
Warlord, Reaver, Warhound Pack, 4 Support
2x Warlord, Warhound, 3 Support
3x Reaver, 3 Support
2x Reaver, 2x Warhound, 4 Support
2x Reaver, Warhound Pack, 4 Support
Emperor, Reaver, 2 Support
Emperor, Warhound Pack, 3 Support
Emperor, Warhound, 2 Support
Note that this also means the opponent faces 50% titan activations and 50% non-titan activations (taking away the wall-of-void-shields effect).  It also has the side-effect of allowing the Emperor at 3k while making it a just-for-fun option as its not really competative (but at higher points games it should be fine).  At 3k it means the TL is limited to 6-8 activations, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Ok, I'll leave it there.  Please let me know if you have any questions (as I know that might not all be clear).
Clausewitz (Doug)
Small but of background, this idea came after TRC and I were discussing the games we'd played (I will get round to posting my batrep but I've played 4 Vassal games this week and time has been short).  I don't really like the current trend for "bargain basement" Reavers being the basis for the "best" TL army (by that I mean taking all free weapons for 575 point Reavers) and then as many Warhounds as you can with one other activation (sentinals or tbolts depending on whether you have 100 or 150 points left over).  So I was trying to come up with alternate restrictions on titans and support and so on, and each time TRC would think for a while and then come back with his "broken" combos.  Until (after many attempts) I thought up one that TRC couldn't immediately come up with a way of "breaking"
Okay, listening...
Also we both thought that for the TL to be a "nice" army to play against it might be better if it wasn't ALL void shielded war engines. For some armies that is just a demoralising prospect, knowing that most of your fire will bounce off shields, and that the return fire will be withering.  The conclusion being that TL shouldn't be able to field ALL titans (I know this might be a bit contravertial).
It certainly is...
So the ideas was this...
Titan Legion Rethink.
Max 2/3 Titans
Battle Titans Formations
Emperor 1250
Warlord 800
Reaver 650
Scout Titan Formations
Warhound Pack 500
Warhound 275
Okay, so you've raised prices on Titan hulls in order to lessen activations, reading on...
1 Scout Titan Foramtion Per Battle Titan
1 Support Formation Per Titan (So a warhound pack counts as 2 titans)
Interesting idea, can't say as I'm heinously against it...
Support Changes
Change restriction on Skitarii to 0-1 per Battle Titan.
Again, can't say as I'm heinously against this...
Weapon Changes
Weapon costs down by 25 points (minimum of 0) for battle titans.
25 points extra for third (or more) of the same weapon for Battle Titans. (Add to Warhound Tax rule)
Okay this is the big one, and it causes a problem, namely that you will never again see Vulcan Megabolters, Plasma Blastguns or Inferno Guns on the Battle Titans, as they are patently inferior to the weapons that currently cost 25pts (which this proposal would reduce to 0pts).
Whilst this solution may achieve more external balance, it does so at a great cost in internal balance, and at a 'representational' cost too.
I have a counter-proposal to discuss later, one that (like this option that you propose) has been raised before.
(We thought the Corvus Pod was somewhat under powered with the poitns changes and skitarii availability change, TRC suggested +FF attacks, I didn't want to overlap las burner, so I thought Corvus could add 1 extra skitarii support unit beyond usual allocation)
*nods*
Titan Upgrade Changes
(Supreme Commander) Legate - Warlord only. (Perhaps Emperor too, just not Reaver, another incentive for the Warlord)
Supreme Commanders often ride around in Reavers. Imperial Armour VI has an example of one.
The changes to hull costs and weapon costs result in most combinations coming out as the same cost, but removing the bargain basement options, so the titans will actually take a closer mix of weapons to the template Reaver and Warlord.
I agree, but that will come at the cost of losing three of the Warhound class weapons from the battle titans entirely.
This is against the background, as Reavers are supposed to carry at least one Warhound class weapon, and Warlords are supposed to carry two, unless they go for more specialist carapace weapons like Support Missiles.
The 800/650 costs also slightly give a points edge to the Warlord, making them more worthwhile.
The Warlord would be 825 under your proposal, I believe?
=================
Overall, yes the core of your proposal (dropping all weapons by 25pts and raising hull costs, which I think TRC has proposed in the past too) would probably externally balance the list, but it would come at a cost as I've mentioned.
Okay, so here's my counter proposal, which I've also mentioned in the past:
- Weapons become restricted to 'arm only' or 'carapace only', as they are in the background.
- An exception is made so that Turbolaser Destructors can be carried on the arm slots of Reaver Titans, allowing the 'standard configuration' Reaver from the rulebook to be taken.
Weapon slots in the background are as follows:
=CARAPACE WEAPONS=
Plasma Blastgun
Inferno Gun
Vulcan Megabolter
Turbolaser Destructor
Support Missile
Lasburner
Carapace Landing Pad
Apocalypse Missile Launcher
=ARM WEAPONS=
Turbolaser Destructor (Reaver only)
Corvus Assault Pod
Close Combat Weapon
Laser Blaster
Gatling Blaster
Plasma Cannon (Reaver only)
Plasma Destructor (Warlord only)
Melta Cannon
Volcano Cannon
Quake Cannon (Warlord only)
Those are the 'canon' weapon restrictions from the background and warhammer 40,000 as approved by the GW studio 3 years ago, which I have been hesistant to introduce as it asks some people to swap weapons around on Titans they have already built.
Introducing these limits would raise the price of the 'bargain basement' configurations considerably, unless you elected to carry a pair of CCW's (which may go up to 25pts anyway) or a pair of Corvus Assault Pods, on the arm slots.
Thus, by raising the average price of the Titans it lowers the ammount of Titans you can take in the same manner as your proposal, as well as not making any weapon systems entirely unattractive.
At the same time it makes the list more representative of the background, as 'non canon' weapon configurations (like Warlords with 4x Turbolaser Destructors) are removed.
Warlords get an effective cost/ratio attractiveness boost from this change as unlike Reavers they have two carapace slots, as they can take two 'free' weapons on the carapace.
So that's my own proposal, if cheap Reavers are causing such a problem.
===================================================
Thoughts gentlemen, both on Clausewitz's proposal, and my own thoughts?
|
|
). I'll get back on that score.
