NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO PLAY ADEPTUS TITANICUS PART II - Weapon Arcs
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- HO HO HO! Merry Christmas!
So After the last video on this I thought I'd re-visit the subject of the Arc rule in AT, this will be the last time I mention it but thought it needed one more look see.
Big love
Chris
To me the "any part of the base" argument is a nod to titans being able to twist their torsos and as such adjust weapon arcs to a certain level. It simply feels limiting and unreasonable that weapon arcs are fixed in such a way as described in the rules and that a degree or two in rotation stand between full damage and no damage caused by weapons that according to lore can level entire buildings with a near miss.
I also understand that for a moment during the fire, the Titan twists its torso and shoots. After all, there is no torso permanently attached to the legs, only on a bearing ring. ;)
I agree with this interpretation KT 👍
I’m not really sure if my friends and I play both ways to be fair, we keep it quite loose, and more often than not will say ‘just take the shot!’ Because more shooting is fun right!?
Anyway, regardless, thank you for another year of excellent content, and all the very best to you guys for the Christmas period and new year! ❤️❤️
Cheers Simon, glad you've enjoyed it. Happy new year to you too
I have never played with the individual firing arcs of the weapons because that is getting a bit too deep.
Our group has always used that as a hard rule, if you are in the front firing arc you can and will be shot by both weapons. I know a few people that have got their titans posed differently to the standard boring manner so playing the rules with the exact firing arcs from the guns is unreasonable and would put some people at a disadvantage.
When we determine if the guns can see we take an eye measurement from the titans equivalent of an elbow to see from there for any cover purposes.
💯 I didn’t think individual weapon fire arcs was a thing. This game is slow enough as it is
It's like the "100" things in Epic that you discuss and agree before the game. As long as everyone agrees, its all good. Better to talk about these things before, rather than fall out at a crucial part of the game. Anyway, more battle reports please!
Aye aye 🫡😁
If these machines have zero waist and weapon swivel radius, they would have no field of fire a all. Just shooting two straight lines from arm weapons.
Was this the intention? 🤷🏼♂️😅
For me it was pretty clear that the only possible RAW interpretation is that it has be centre of base otherwise the latter half of the paragraph is meaningless.
However, no-one around me plays like this and equally it makes for a more frustrating/fiddly game experience if you do play centre-of-base. You need a good eye or a laser line and good agreement with your opponent.
So while I think the rule truly is centre-of-base, I found that actually implementing this is more trouble than it's worth so actually any-of-base makes for a better gameplay experience.
This is pretty much how I see it. Finding the centre etc just seems like a chore
@@Tabletop_Standard that is a good point. Unless it’s been marked out ahead of time, finding the center of the base is potentially just as subject to arguments as determining arcs when it’s not clear.
I’ve just become aware of this controversy.
As a retired Soldier of 30 years, one of the biggest problems I have with table top war games is a lack of reality. But I understand the more reality you add, equals more crunchy rules, which slow down game play.
I have found that slow game play is less fun than lack of reality.
When I think of Titans I imagine they can rotate at the waist.
The Arc line should be the maximum rotation of the torso. Therefore in your Warhound vs Warlord image at 5:57 the Warhound should be able to rotate its torso, and bring both guns to bear on the Warlord.
I would prefer to put all the Titan on round bases and have a torso rotation arc gauge and a weapon rotation arc gauge.
A compelling argument.
I feel like the paragraph in question was intended for a situation where a titan has multiple adjacent outward firing arcs, which no model has! It doesn't make sense really for either interpretation, and I think any part has to be the right answer.
That’s a paragraph I never even remembered. My group plays it as you do for all the same reasons as you. Game experience trumps all
Totally agree. Yet good rules shouldn't be quite so divisive. The RAW is telling me its the centre bit just doesn't seem right on the table
I get the RAW discussions but Iv found that our group are are grown up enough and all of similar mind to self police ourselves. Tournaments are different I get that but let’s just enjoy our game!
Merry Xmas and new year to you, the guys and family. Love the channel and I’m looking forward to the new year AT and Epic content.
I get the RAW discussions but Iv found that our group are are grown up enough and all of similar mind to self police ourselves. Tournaments are different I get that but let’s just enjoy our game!
Merry Xmas and new year to you, the guys and family. Love the channel and I’m looking forward to the new year AT and Epic content.
I get the RAW discussions but Iv found that our group are are grown up enough and all of similar mind to self police ourselves. Tournaments are different I get that but let’s just enjoy our game!
Merry Xmas and new year to you, the guys and family. Love the channel and I’m looking forward to the new year AT and Epic content.
What happened to the epic 30K battle report? Only managed to get halfway through it before it seemingly has been taken down. Would love to be able to finish it as epic content is hard to come by!
I have made an announcement in the community tan mate. Basically we'd got the Ion rules so badly wrong I pulled it. I always want to make the best representation of a game I can and didn't hit the mark. We'll revisist it in the new year
@@Tabletop_Standard fair enough I missed that post, I look forward to more content in the new year!
I dont care how you rule it; I just want to see more thrills, MORE Spills, and MORE Engine Kills.
😄 Fair enough. We'll sort that out in the new year
Listen, at the end of the day, as long as it’s being played in one way consistently throughout a game, it’s fine. That said, I literally am baffled how anyone can read that paragraph and come up with any other interpretation that is not “center of the base must be within arc”. English is not even my first language and I understood perfectly fine how that is supposed to be played the first time I read it.
Yes, it “feels weird” that the right arm weapon couldn’t shoot the Warmaster in the picture you showed - but that’s because the rules have plenty of abstractions. Like, to me it makes no sense that a 6” Warlord can move over a 5” piece of blocking terrain, but I understand that is just how the rules are written. Same thing for Knights being able to somehow Falcon Punch a Warmaster’s carapace weapon.
Sometime you just have to let it go and accept a certain level of abstraction for the sake of keeping the rules manageable.
I think it's just how our brains work, read one thing but to see it doesn't look right. As for terrain we've been doing scale divided by 3 from day one. It's just just fun to talk about these things between bat reps
@@Tabletop_Standard clearly the discussion is needed as most people seem to play it “wrong” - which again is fine if there is an agreement beforehand that this is how it’s going to be played throughout the game.
Yes divided by 3 makes much more sense.
For me, the "take a look from the perspective of the weapon itself" is only about the line of sight that can be obscured by a terrain etc..
It isnt about and arc depending of the orientation of the weapon but only to différenciation the right and left weapons where the full model is half hidden behind a wall etc.. if the left side of the model is completely hidden behind a walk, obviously, only is right weapon can shoot the target and not is left weapon.
I think that coupling that "perspective of the weapon" with the "center Vs any parts" to target debate is a mistake. And over interpreting something that shouldn't.
Yeah, I was doing LOS so the head and torso of the model itself was obscuring the shot is what I was trying to get across in the pic
@@Tabletop_Standard but it is further skewing the argument unnecessarily. It hasn't ever been a thing that a model blocks it's own LOS. The point of arc in the first place is a clue to a certain level of dynamic movement. Love you guys, but this is a really bad take.
Yes it would appear that it is
@@Tabletop_Standard oh well, it's all engagement isn't it? Hope you've had an awesome CHRIStmas xxx 🙏🥳
@Tom Payne It's been fine thanks I worked the whole of Christmas but it's not been so bad thanks. Dare I make the video on Ion shields only work against "shooting" attacks 😅
The warhound could use both arm weapons with no penalties - the target was in arc, both guns can see it, what’s the problem? The arc the guns can fire in is an abstraction. It’s not “realistic”?!??
The head and torso of the model is in the way of its own shot so can't see across its self from the perspective of the left arm is what I was trying to show
@@Tabletop_Standard it's irrelevant and doesn't add weight to either position. Sorry man but it's a bad and unhelpful argument. The only thing it DOES show is that the rules are an abstraction of a constantly moving highly chaotic battle scene, and using the model so literally can lead to degrading the player experience.arc is arc of models base, then move on having determined it. Cover is per weapon, personally I use mounting point and disregard freindly models, including itself.
You disregard all friendly models for cover?
I think you should look more closely into the movement phase.
The point of the rule is to limit “clipping” and emphasize that titans are facing one another en mass to deliver their gunfire. The way off to the side barely visible sidearm shots aren’t the point of the game.
I like the fact that you made another video to take the piss out of the minority (correct) opinion and interpretation of the rules. Not the 40k, no LOS, if I sees it I shoots it/charge it every which way…
I honestly think you are looking at this rule incorrectly and from a very power gamer perspective wanting to maximize all the thing you can shoot in a phase without having to face/over dedicate gunfire.
But this is the very reason for split fire and the extreme importance of the “I go you go” formula of AT.
I can’t state this enough. Movement phase is the reason for the rule. It forces you to plan movements and honestly stay back and maximize arc coverage. There are just so many reasons for this rule and your narrow, close fire situation is an skewed misleading example and basis of argument.
I would have preferred this not be posted until you had something official or didn’t steep this so much in “I have the popular opinion but I’m not here to discuss it… just that I’m right…” because that’s how it feels.
Because I think you are missing the point of the rule and looking at it far too myopically. So perhaps if you want to beat this horse properly you explore the contrary interpretation (from the movement phase).
Thanks.
Well I am a massive power gamer after all, it's what I'm all about 😏
@@Tabletop_Standard so instead of being snarky and again making a whole second video restating your position with a very narrow example of why the rule “feels bad”.
PLAY the rule and just see how impactful it actually is.
It's not meant to be taken this seriously and it is essentially just about how I feel about the rule. I'll revisit if we we get an FAQ until then I'll leave it as is