These are "work in progress" lists, so changes will occur when problems pop up; it's not really predictable, but E&C is good at keeping them to a minimum.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

good changes. nothing particularly irks me. im still enjoying the grypphone admech list as my main force, though my bigmob is getting more play recently.

E&C, your signature still says AMTL 3.14, or are you keeping it for AMTL Ã

I shall fix that, although I do like pi :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm not wild about the God Machines rule for two reasons.
1. It tends to give TK heavy armies a fairly easy BTS goal.
2. It tends to promote cheap numerous battle titans rather than encouraging a player to build more expensive titans. If you can lose BTS simply by losing any battle titan, then you might as well keep per unit costs down and build as many as you can. After all, losing the cheapest one still costs you BTS.

[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't favor 1/2 starting damage capacity BM's. But it's not a bad idea. Adding BM's to units within LOS when a battle titan goes down would be a better choice than granting automatic BTS, IMO. Perhaps a single BM to every formation within LOS would be a suitable penalty and could certainly make a big difference late in the game.

Please leave BTS as applying to the most expensive unit. This approach is consistent with the game mechanics and keeps special rules to a minimum.

Finally, while I prefer the lightest touch for the "God Machine" rule, even still I don't like special rules like this. They almost always feel gamey to me. I believe it makes the game less approachable to new players.

Hope I've made sense.

_________________
Do I really need a signature!

I'd go the other way, going for 2-3 rock hard titans costing the same amount, potentially 2 equal cost forward warhounds and one support reaver hidden at the back. So the theat to the weakest was minimised and the warlords could rally if needs be.
Something like
725 Reaver, Support missile x2, 'burner
775 Warlord, 'burner, TLD, TLD, VMB
775 Warlord, same as above probably
275 Warhound
275 Warhound
150 Thunderbolts
25 points? Vet princepts I guess.

Obviously this ignores the Emperor titan list, which I don't believe can ever be properly balanced for a GT game (as Doug was showing extensively).

Going the cheap Reaver route is just giving away the BTS, which I can't see working.

So you aren't going with the idea of splitting the skitari off into a separate support allocation not part of the 2 per titan?

(Plus I liked some of the alternate skitari formations I proposed to give more variety to the support without making it seem like there was a ton of choices.)

_________________
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

This is the direction the god machines rule pushed me in as well, although my list was a little different since I was also testing the no warhounds singles change. I just couldn't risk taking reavers because I felt it was almost giving away an objective to my opponent.

I think that with the low activation count, if you want to reign in AMTL, tack on BMs that will force them to marshal or make them break more easily and in turn keep them from holding objectives rather than changing the mechanics of the BTS objective.

_________________
-Vaaish

Something just occurred to me. Does the CML have a 360 degree fire arc when firing AP or AT? Since it is also an AA weapon, it seems to me that it should.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Yes it does.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Back in the old days, they were rear-fire only.  They sat on the back side of the carapace to protect against infantry in dense terrain where they could sneak up or ambush from a direction the titan couldn't shoot.

They could be on the edge of the carapace so they had full 360 against AA but limited tracking for the ground due to obstruction from other parts of the titan.  It would be possible to do something like...

2xAA5+
and
2xAP5/AT6 (or whatever the ground attack ends up being), left side/right side

You'd be able to use them most of the time, but on Sustained Fire or positioning for a Sustain Fire in the following turn you might not get them both.

Not saying I think they should... just that it's workable.

_________________
Neal

Questions...

How's the Reaver Legate working out?  We played a game yesterday and I told my opponent that he couldn't field a Reaver legate, only to find out afterwards that restriction had been lifted.

CLP and Inferno Gunz.  Is this open for consideration?  That's an all-free-weapon Reaver titan with BP6 (2 templates, +1 BM), IC, 60cm range.  Sitting 15cm from the Blitz it can cover the midboard.  With one move, it can cover a huge portion of the board.  It's not quite as effective as an IG arty company, but it's cheaper, activates better, and is obviously vastly more durable.

Perhaps my recent experience with my infantry/LV Feral Ork force being crushed by IC barrages is coloring my views...

_________________
Neal

No complaints at this point.


I believe it's been tested and found to be ok. I can imagine 'nids not liking it mind you!  

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I thought you were now limited to 1 free weapon? So the above reaver would cost 625? Same as an MRL Reaver?

_________________
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

It's for this reason that I asked. I can remember a few games where my Warlords had CMLs to defend against those sneaky, pointed-eared, girly.... I mean, Eldar.   If they didn't have an AA role as they do now, I thought that maybe rear arc only would still apply.

I do like your idea, Neal. I wouldn't have a problem with 360 AA, but only rear arc for ground attacks, especially if the cost was reduced to 25 points.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

I wouldn't mind this either, but I doubt we will see it happen since the point bump was to make CML a more difficult choice to take, though I also don't think the change was that effective since it doesn't take up one of the few support slots available to AMTL forces.

_________________
-Vaaish