Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.2 and v2.3b [Developmental]

 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v1.95
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
post updated

_________________
AC for Dark Angels, Traitor Titan Legions + Alpha Legion, Questoris Mechanicus, Hive Fleet Dagon & Craftworld Lugganath


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v1.96
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Managed to miss composing the QRS properly, and a last minute change to the Void Head (it no longer gives -1 in FF) So, it's v1.96 instead of v1.95.

Have hunted down a bunch of bugs in the army forge file, but there might be others hiding in the mess.

_________________
AC for Dark Angels, Traitor Titan Legions + Alpha Legion, Questoris Mechanicus, Hive Fleet Dagon & Craftworld Lugganath


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
post updated

_________________
AC for Dark Angels, Traitor Titan Legions + Alpha Legion, Questoris Mechanicus, Hive Fleet Dagon & Craftworld Lugganath


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
There's been some discussion (http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/ ... 8&start=15) around a semi-general rule for War Engines that would make War Engine lists slightly more viable in the EA system. The idea is to make the damage scale a bit more evenly to reflect for the steady degradation of systems as the War Engine suffers damage. I think this is needed, as War Engine lists will have a tendency of either drawing or winning in the present system. It would obviously be a special rule primarily for TTL, Gargants, AMTL or the Tyranid Titan list, but perhaps at some point it could be incorporated as a general rule for all / most lists a bit like Void Shields.

The rule below is inspired by how it works in Warmaster:

"Crippling Damage

War Engines that suffers damage that exceeds 1/2 starting Damage Capacity counts as having a new starting Damage Capacity of 1/2 (rounded up). This can only happen once per game. E.g. a War Engine with a starting Damage Capacity of 7 that suffers 4 damage gets a new Damage Capacity of 4. If it were to suffer another 3 damage it will still have a Damage Capacity of 4. "

Alternatively, Crippling Damage could happen more than once to the same War Engine. In this case the rule would read:

"War Engines that suffers damage that exceeds 1/2 starting Damage Capacity counts as having a new starting Damage Capacity of 1/2 (rounded up). This can happen more than once per game. E.g. a War Engine with a starting Damage Capacity of 7 that suffers 4 damage gets a new Damage Capacity of 4. If it were to suffer another 3 damage it would have a Damage Capacity of 2."

While this second version of the rule would be really nasty, perhaps it's too much to keep track of.

There's also the potential to restrict the effect to only certain aspects of lower DC: "This new DC only counts for the purposes of determining the number of blast markers the WE can have before it is broken, for the purposes of determining Outnumber, and determining the number of Close Combat or Fire Fight dice. For all other purposes it counts as having the original number of DC."

But I think this makes the rule too complicated.

A third alternative would be to simply have WE degrade with declining DC the same way that ordinary formations degrade (i.e. a Warlord with 4 remaining DC would count as having a starting DC of 4). While easier, this would have too much of an impact on WE with 2 or 3 DC.

I intend to playtest the first version of this rule when I next get a chance to play TTL. Hopefully it will make taking on War Engines a slightly less binary affair (where you either kill it or you might as well not have tried). I also like that it doesn't impact WE with 2 DC, and gives Warhounds a slight nerf when they're down to 1 DC.

_________________
AC for Dark Angels, Traitor Titan Legions + Alpha Legion, Questoris Mechanicus, Hive Fleet Dagon & Craftworld Lugganath


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
One exception that is probably needed is that of how many units can be in base to base with the WE in close combat. And there are probably plenty of others I haven't thought of. So I'm leaning towards a slightly more complicated version of the rule. Right now the rule I'm going to playtest will read like this:

"Crippling Damage: War Engines that suffers damage that exceeds 1/2 starting Damage Capacity counts as having a Damage Capacity of 1/2 (rounded up) for the purposes of determining the number of blast markers the WE can have before it becomes broken and for determining how many Close Combat and/or Fire Fight dice it gets to roll. For all other purposes it counts as having the normal number of DC.

E.g. a War Engine with a starting Damage Capacity of 7 that suffers 4 damage gets a new Damage Capacity of 4 that applies to blast markers, Fire Fight and Close Combat dice. If it were to suffer another 3 damage it would not suffer any additional negative effects.

_________________
AC for Dark Angels, Traitor Titan Legions + Alpha Legion, Questoris Mechanicus, Hive Fleet Dagon & Craftworld Lugganath


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 196
Location: Galicia
Sounds like an interesting idea, but more to reduce the number of point wins than to make the bigger War Engines more viable would be a more important objective.

I would go with a middle option, close to the abstract of the game that when the WE gets below half its DC its maximum DCs become half. The problem i see is that this just makes the Titans stay broken more time, but doesn´t destroy them faster or impede their use, as all the Titans save Gargants rally most of the time.

Coincidentally i was thinking of this while reading some SM battle reports from the WD, but it was more about the Titan losing weapons from criticals apart from the normal critical effect, seeing how normal it is for Titans to lose weapons in Space Marine, and how they can still work like that.
What i agree more with you is that any WE with DC4 or lower should stay out of the rule, for both not complicate the game as because that smaller War Engines have no problems in Armageddon.

If you find a good one you can alway use it just for this list and it will be OK even if the others doesn't join it at first or latter. If it proves to be a good one other Titan lists will join even if adding general rules to the game will be impossible for it to happen.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
I agree that making the big WE cheaper is important, but I think finding ways of limiting the maximum toughness of the biggest WE is equally important, at least in a Titan list.

You're also correct that this rule wouldn't make big WE easier to kill, only easier to break. One alternative would be to increase the chance of critical hits happening (maybe 5+ instead of 6?) once the WE goes below half. Or perhaps even reduce WE armour by 1... That would certainly make big WE easier to kill, and make them think twice about getting into positions they can't escape.

Knocking out weapon systems is cool, but much too granular for EA I'm afraid. That level of detail involves another layer of book-keeping, and is probably better left to Adeptus Titanicus.

Not sure about <4DC WE getting left out. I rather like the way the rule scales, with no impact on 2DC WE. Also, I personally think lone Warhounds / lone Shadowswords are *way* too common in the game and could do with a slight nerf.

I'm definitely not counting on all lists adopting this rule, but I think the WE lists really need something like this. But if it became more common, perhaps it could make big WE work better in the system, and not the all-or-nothing proposition they tend to be now.

_________________
AC for Dark Angels, Traitor Titan Legions + Alpha Legion, Questoris Mechanicus, Hive Fleet Dagon & Craftworld Lugganath


Last edited by Mrdiealot on Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 196
Location: Galicia
The maximum toughness is OK as it a characteristic of them, but that Titans are all or nothing in dealing with them i think is a bigger problem here. In that way both your ideas and mine work for fixing that in some amount. I agree that losing weapons add a layer of complexity but for Titan lists is Ok, as long as DC 4 or less are left out, and customizing Titans are half of this lists are about, meaning that the weapons used in each unit are all the time on the mind of both players.

DC 4 or less are used a lot yeah, but they are not in the level of needing to be downpowered, in my opinion at least in general. their strength come from single WE formations so just limiting that is enough to deal with it. Instead of working on the singles, putting a pair of Ferals on 25 points less like you did i think it works better. Another reason would be that it would make things harder to track with so many WE, even more as Titan lists are more commonly used on 4000+ points' games than others and TTL has a wider range of smaller WEs.

And about if there is impact on DC2 WEs, there is, as they would be easier to break again compared with a wounded DC2 with no BMS, lose all the advantages on assaults for having more DCs (stands into contact, formation size for resolution modifiers, ...), and that it would need a FAQ to explain that they won´t stop being WE even after going down to 1DC like AV.

Critical on a 5+ sounds interesting while it not deals with my issue but with yours, and probably a good addition for Eldar and Orks, but i foresee it will be frustrating for Imperial Titans which could explode on the first hit, so maybe it would need to make the reactor exploding less common by putting the critical back to 6+ and changing the repair of the reactor to 5+ instead of 4+ for the Banelord as we cannot change the 1 for exploding (Ravager would be OK with critical on 5+ and would give another reason to take the bigger Banelord while downpowering its toughness). The problem of this is that it would need to be changed on all the chaos list, make a new army rule or create a new unit with similar name which would not be desirable.

To summarize, try one or two of the best ideas and see what happens, but i think that the idea about putting down the max DCs to half when they are at half is simple and would, with the criticals, give that look of the Titan working worse more and more with damage like in first or second edition even if it is just from extra BMs from both the criticals extra damage and the dwindling maximum DCs, so maybe both the DC down and reactor repair on 5+ would work best at least from a gameplay side? Both are mechanics that get the Titan down the more damage it gets.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Abetillo wrote:
The maximum toughness is OK as it a characteristic of them, but that Titans are all or nothing in dealing with them i think is a bigger problem here. In that way both your ideas and mine work for fixing that in some amount. I agree that losing weapons add a layer of complexity but for Titan lists is Ok, as long as DC 4 or less are left out, and customizing Titans are half of this lists are about, meaning that the weapons used in each unit are all the time on the mind of both players.


Apart from the book-keeping aspect (speaking as someone who has trouble remembering whether or not my supreme commander has been used) it would also differ a lot between lists. I have trouble coming up with a simple rule that would work across several list.

Quote:
And about if there is impact on DC2 WEs, there is, as they would be easier to break again compared with a wounded DC2 with no BMS, lose all the advantages on assaults for having more DCs (stands into contact, formation size for resolution modifiers, ...), and that it would need a FAQ to explain that they won´t stop being WE even after going down to 1DC like AV.


The reason there's no impact on 2DC WE is that the rule I have in mind requires the unit to lose *more* than half of their remaining DC. For a 2DC unit to lose more than half, well, then it's already destroyed.

Quote:
Critical on a 5+ sounds interesting while it not deals with my issue but with yours, and probably a good addition for Eldar and Orks, but i foresee it will be frustrating for Imperial Titans which could explode on the first hit


I agree, Criticals probably differs too much between lists and units to be really useful. An alternative would be to make the Crit worse: +1 Damage on top of the existing result for example.

Quote:
The problem of this is that it would need to be changed on all the chaos list, make a new army rule or create a new unit with similar name which would not be desirable.


Yeah, re-writing crits isn't really realistic.

Quote:
To summarize, try one or two of the best ideas and see what happens, but i think that the idea about putting down the max DCs to half when they are at half is simple


It is simple, but would cause all sorts of strange effects. In particular, it would mean that fewer units could engage the WE in Close Combat, it would be easier to "lock in" units that are in a transport WE, and fewer units would be able to gain cover from the WE. It would also be problematic for units that can Regenerate, like certain Tyranid lists. It would also require a cut-off point somewhere (like 3 or 4DC) that I personally feel is a bit arbitrary. There are probably other weird effects that I haven't thought of, so I would rather not "shrink" them outright.

I have a game coming up tomorrow with TTL, and I'll probably try this version of Crippling Damage in it:

"War Engines that suffers more than 1/2 of its starting Damage Capacity counts as having a Damage Capacity of 1/2 (rounded up) for the following purposes: Determining the number of blast markers it can have before it becomes broken, and for determining how many Close Combat and/or Fire Fight dice it gets.

In addition, critical hits on the WE cause an addtional +1 damage on top of their usual effects.

This rule takes effect after the activation that caused it has been resolved.

E.g. a War Engine with a starting Damage Capacity of 8 that suffers 5 damage counts as having a Damage Capacity of 4 for the purposes of determining Blast Markers, as well as Fire Fight and Close Combat dice. If it were to suffer another 3 damage it would not suffer any additional negative effects."

_________________
AC for Dark Angels, Traitor Titan Legions + Alpha Legion, Questoris Mechanicus, Hive Fleet Dagon & Craftworld Lugganath


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 196
Location: Galicia
Simply don´t care about other lists. There will never be changes in the rules of the game so just focus on which will work for this list. Even if this list has the crippling and the others not is fine.

I understand wanting to go for the perfect option that will work on all but even if there is i doubt there will ever be an option that convince most of the ACs and subACs. It simply involves too many people and too many points of view. Just try to get support but continue with it even if you don´t get support from other factions' ACs.

DC4 could look arbitrary bu it is not because there is no DC5 WEs as far as i know and there is big gap in power, weapons and cost between DC5+ WEs and the rest.

That option of extra damage sounds good but will cripple the Eldar and Dark Eldar too much while Orks would be happy with it. Probably even a change in points won´t solve it. Prefer the more than half the DCs option you have so far, and the wording looks good too. Both options at the same time i think it is too big of a change.

And yeah, i was talking about the half DCs only working on certain parts, but i forgot to put it here in this post. I answered you on that on the Playtesting thread. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33498&start=15

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
I don't think all lists should have a Crippling Damage rule, Eldar and Dark Eldar in particular shouldn't have it... Probably not Tyranids or Tau either. But I think it would be fitting especially for Imperial & Chaos Titans / Gargants. And if such a rule could make them slightly cheaper (I've already given some pretty drastic point-cuts to them in TTL) then I think Epic as a whole would benefit from it.

Good point about there being no 5DC War Engines. That does indeed motivate a 4DC / 6DC cut-off. Still feels a bit un-intuitive tho, but I'll think about it until tomorrow and we'll see what I end up playtesting.

_________________
AC for Dark Angels, Traitor Titan Legions + Alpha Legion, Questoris Mechanicus, Hive Fleet Dagon & Craftworld Lugganath


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:23 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3233
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
Yes, this rule could be very usefull for the Gargant list.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:07 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6129
Location: Leicester UK
Personally I have no issues having one rule in one list and another in a different one, I see no need to have a crippling damage rule on existing titans/gargants as the points limit for them keeps them from being abused

EUK have different stats for the same weapons in their AMTL list compared to other Imperial lists and the sky hasn't fallen yet

If you're playing a list with 5 units in it, you can afford a little more granularity and book keeping, heck it would help reduce the boredom factor somewhat by giving you something to do ;)

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 196
Location: Galicia
Mordoten, would be happy to test it if you are interested on doing it too. How do you prefer it? With the extra point on criticals? For all of the WE or only normal in Gargants and bigger? Or probably better to leave this talk to the OGBM thread ...

kyussinchains wrote:
EUK have different stats for the same weapons in their AMTL list compared to other Imperial lists and the sky hasn't fallen yet


But first makes sense to keep things tidy and second UK doesn't have a rule like NetEA to keep all the units and weapons with the same stats. It was added one or two years ago to avoid the huge mess there was between lists and i think it was the right move to do.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [Developmental] Traitor Titan Legions (TTL) v2.1
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
Personally I have no issues having one rule in one list and another in a different one, I see no need to have a crippling damage rule on existing titans/gargants as the points limit for them keeps them from being abused


I think the Warlord / Banelord / Great Gargant type formations are very seldom the optimal choice, and are consequently very rare... Which I think is a bit sad given that we're playing a game called Epic. They're not even a popular choice in the AMTL list. Taking them you trade cost, speed and firepower for some more durability. And you have to march and double all the time to get anywhere. A single missed activation means you're not going to get to your objective in time.

So if the biggest WE could get a point-cost-cut I think it would generally be a Good Thing.

The only exception I know of is the EUK Skitarii list where my personal experience is that the Warlord works really well, in a defensive list. Maybe defensive Guard would work too.

But I agree that it is the War Engine lists that are most in need of a rule like this.

Quote:
EUK have different stats for the same weapons in their AMTL list compared to other Imperial lists and the sky hasn't fallen yet


The sky hasn't fallen in, true. But I've always felt it was a bit of a lazy solution and "feels" wrong. It was something I very much decided against when doing TTL (with one exception: The Beam of Pleasure. But then again I renamed it to avoid confusion).

I do like the way the EUK handled weapon upgrades tho. The NetEA version appears to encourage weird cheapo loadouts that no "real" titan would ever take.

Quote:
If you're playing a list with 5 units in it, you can afford a little more granularity and book keeping, heck it would help reduce the boredom factor somewhat by giving you something to do ;)


Epic isn't exactly a speedy game to begin with, and with all the upgrades TTL has I think there's enough to keep track of! And since Adeptus Titanicus is soon out, people who want über-granular Titans has a place to go.

_________________
AC for Dark Angels, Traitor Titan Legions + Alpha Legion, Questoris Mechanicus, Hive Fleet Dagon & Craftworld Lugganath


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net