Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Personally I think the two major issues of Titans are Strength D, and the fact that this enormous model that will take up half your points and dominate the battle, no longer has any damage results when hit.

As Reecius and such have pointed out in their videos, its more interesting for the Titans to grind away at one another rather than being first to hit the other with the D removes it from the board.

So here's what I suggest;

Strength D ---> S10, AP1, Ordnance

Penetrating hits against a Titan roll on the damage table, with a -2 modifier.

Dominating Presence: It's nigh impossible to hide a superheavy, and their large profile and high value nature makes them a common target for ambushes. A player with a Superheavy must start with it on the table, and cannot attempt to Seize the Initiative against a player who does not also have a Superheavy. In addition, if either player does not have a Superheavy, they will receive a +1 to their rolls for First Turn, Deployment Zones, and Seize the Initiative.

The former has pretty much been posted by multiple users already and I'm just acknowledging that this is a welcome change.

The second suggestion will help turn these 900pt behemoths into something more dynamic and interesting on the table. Plus the chance of a Meltagun one shotting it will help to reign them in a little.

The final suggestion is an expansion on the current "+1 to seize" rule. I feel it fits the context of the situation (you cannot really surprise or hide from an opponent with such an enormous war machine) and helps to even the odds

Thoughts?

+1

I'd take it.
EDIT: Even if I got myself a Warhound.

I'd be able to bring a Turbo laser, and not feel like an utter D-bag.

I'm in agreement with the point that D weapons need to be nerfed but I don't think it's reasonable for a Meltagun to one-shot any super-heavy with equal probability. It's not hard to pen the rear armour of most super heavies, and I just think it's unreasonable that a cheap deep striking crisis suit has a not-infentisimal chance to one-shot a Phantom titan.

My proposal for Lords or War is slightly different, with the same kind of overall goal. First, I'd ban all D ranged weapons. I don't think they belong in 40k and I think even at strength 10, a lot of the titan weapons just can't compete with a Turbo-Laser or Laser Blaster. I don't like the fact that a Melta Cannon is almost never a reasonable pick on a Reaver because the weapon balance sucks, and I think that completely banning D weapons promotes variety and encourages a wider range of SHV to be used. I wouldn't completely ban D close combat weapons given the challenge of delivery, but I do think they should be something like S10 Armourbane Fleshbane so that it's less a case of "my Stompa hit a couple of times and completely crushed your Baneblade with mediocre rolls" and more a case of "your weakened Baneblade is easy prey for my Stompa in Close Combat provided I don't completely fluff my rolls". I don't think this ban has a huge adverse effect on variety because there are very few SHV that are forced to take SD, for those that do there are usually alternatives, but I wouldn't be opposed to Close Combat weapon rules for blastless mandatory D weapons.

The other major change I would make is limiting a Lord of War to no more than 40% of your overall points total. This value is designed with 2000 point games in mind and I think is ideal for limiting more ridiculous combinations while allowing plenty of variety in allowable Lords of War. I don't think 25% is a good percentage for Lord of War because it means Tyranids can't take a Lord of War and Sisters of Battle can only take the two Marauder Bomber variants. A figure of 40% seems relatively ideal because it gives a maximum price of 800 points, which I believe allows maximum variety (the number one thing I am seeking to promote with this 'setup') while restricting the most excessive parts of escalation. Notably, the two flying Daemon Lords, the Revenant, the Heirophant, the Reaver, the Phantom and the Manta are disallowed under this. All of these are, in my opinion, so expensive that they centralise any army including them to the point of the game becoming win if you kill it, lose if you don't, which isn't a fun game for the average TAC list to play, or simply provide ridiculous combinations that aren't reasonably engagable without strength D, like a rerollable 2++ on Aetaos'rau'keres with the Grimoire. Notably, this does allow Heirodules, The Brass Scorpion, Warhound Titan, Thunderhawk, Vampire Raider, expnensive Baneblade variants, the two cheaper Daemon Lords and pretty much all the Ork SHVs. I don't think any of these are broken with provision in place to limit strength D and i'd hate to see them cut of out games over an arbitrary number when really they aren't terribly centralising or variety-restricting - most lists can add a little extra anti-tank and maybe some void shields and be adequately equipped to take these on.

thisisnotaseriousaccount wrote:
Wall of Text

Banning D-weapons seriously limits Eldar options as they have no other tank-killing ability from their Titans to counter the other titans. And no access to 'drop Melta' like other armies do. Leave the D, find other ways to balance.

leave the multiple D pieplates per turn in, find other ways to balance

Personally I think there is no way to achieve what your asking there.