@Spectrar Ghost: that makes a lot of sense; I hadn't considered the differing unit types. Looking over the 2012 document I see that combining AC units with other types of units has been studiously avoided.

@Vaaish: that is a good point.

Silly as it might seem, I was thinking the Lysander might provide some AA for the Imperator (as the Hydra batteries on the Warmonger obviously have it covered). I was thinking I would need to put it on Intercept or Combat Air Patrol. As the Lysander has no transport capacity, it cannot land (landing is only provided for under 4.2.5; this is re-enforced in the FAQ, perhaps because the Emperor-class titans are not provided for in core E:A). As such, it would essentially have to enter play on the Warmonger, take off, and make passes until destroyed (likely) or the game ends.

As I don't have the actual Warmonger conversion kit (and thus, no Lysander model; just an Imperator short an arm, some plastic missiles, a couple of 28mm scale lascannon, and 4 FW Hydras to donate their turrets, leaving chassis to build Salamanders on for a Minervan force), I may not bother with the Lysander.

austinitor: the 2x emperor build is significantly underpowered, as will be any list that has only 4ish formations.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

@zombocom: would tweaking the list to allow Emperor-class titans to take the transported demi-century as an upgrade (instead of a support choice), yet counting as separate formations (for purposes of movement, coherency, blast markers, breaking, etc), and in the case of the Warmonger, making the Lysander an upgrade to the Warmonger hull (and an exception to the "no AC in unlike units" design philosophy) and likewise a separate formation from the Warmonger?

In game design, I certainly hold the view that minimizing exceptions and unique rules makes for better game play. That would seem to apply here, and to be an valid address to my suggestion. In this case, though, I would argue that the currently drafted list already presents exceptions and special rules to cover the units in question: it places the demi-century as a "locked" unit only "unlocked" by the election of a Corvus Assault Pod (and/or Emperor-class titan hull with its leg bastions CAP 'counts-as' rule), and likewise lists the Lysander as a "locked" unit "unlocked" by the election of the Warmonger pattern for an Emperor-class hull.

In essence, I mean not to introduce additional new special rules, but to replace the special rules already present in the list for the sake of balancing units described as "not ready for prime-time".

Frankly, a 2 Emperor titan list shouldn't be a viable option in 3k game for a tournament list, as if it is altered to become viable it will change the meta-game significantly, and not in a good way.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

A very quick house rule to make 3k double imperators viable in the GTS scenario would be to allow them to split fire to 2 (or perhaps 3?) targets and/or to engage more than one enemy fm at a single time (provided they can get them all within 15cm etc). Makes them overpowered given their points cost, but would allow them to make a game of it in the GTS.

_________________

This does come up every so often. But the thought you must have is where will the split fire stop. A formation over 1000pts can do it. Over 900pts. What about a Tank Company? One of the original ideas of the game was no split fire and I would like it to stay that way.

Me too, that's why I said house rule and applying only to austinitor's games.

_________________

Yep- no split-fire unless ad-hoc house rules for a casual game.

I struggle to take a Warlord in a 3k AMTL list because of activation issues. I could barely envisage taking a sole Imperator instead of the Warlord (probably at the cost of dropping some smaller formations such as sentinels or T-Bolts)

I think it is cool that we have the option of taking 2 Imperators in a 3k list but that is not an option I would ever consider taking unless with prior arrangement with opponent (i.e. if he wanted to field OGBM list with multiple Mega-Gargants for a fun match up of the big guys).

Realistically any time I played AMTL the bulk of my points would go on Reavers and Warhounds.

Cheers

James

In the 3k point tournament in question, the organizer has opted to bar all AMTL lists, so some of the discussion on that theme is moot.

That said, @zombocom: at what points level should a multiple-Emperor-class list become viable? What would make even a single Emperor-class titan "ready for prime time"? If there is no point where it should be, ought not they be altered to be viable units? If not, what is the goal of an E:A AMTL list? Is it designed for friendly/scenario matches only, so as not to disrupt an infantry/armor focused metagame?

As to a lack of TK/MW weapons on some lists (Astartes, I presume), is it considered bad for the metagame to promote the election of SC to deal with titans?

PS- thanks for fielding all of these queries.

But the goal is to get the AMTL list to be tournament viable. Work has been going on to get the Net EA War Griffons list to Net EA Approved status, which should help many tournaments accept it.

(And also work has been going on to get a more restricted list, Legio Destructor, so that hopefully would be acceptable to EUK and thus usable in even more tournies).

The EA rules are designed to be balanced up to 5K. Most tournament games are 3K. That means most 5K games are probably going to be more fun games between friends. In those type of games a dual Imperator army MIGHT be doable.

I don't see the point in dumbing down the Imperator stats just to make it easier to field in a 3K game. If you want less of your points sunk into one model (and hence get higher activations) then field a Warlord, or even a Reaver. An Imperator should be significantly superior to Warlord stats to offset any disadvantages.

An Imperator SHOULD be a rare sight on the tabletop- after all consider how rare they are in the background fluff. They would be saved from small engagements and only deployed in the most vital battles. Thus whilst you can field one in a 3K game (and I like the fact that it is at least an option), it makes sense that it['s natural home is in the bigger 5K+ games.

Cheers

James

I agree. That's one of the reasons it's unlikely I'll ever use an Imperator in E:A.

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

It's been suggested in the past to move the Emperor titans to the back as part of the collectors section so that they couldn't be taken in a tournament setting...

_________________
-Vaaish

I would prefer to keep them in main list.

Just because they are not an optimal choice for a 3K tournament army (due to the pressures on activation count) does nt mean they should just be banished to the collectors section. That way they are still usable in a game, even if they are most likely to see action in fun games and/or larger games.

People just have to realise that just because you CAN take a dual Imperator army in 3K does nt mean you SHOULD take them.

Cheers

James

I agree with WI. They're not worth removing for tournament play; they are suboptimal choices largely due to activation count. And removing them could potenitally illegitimize them for other play in many areas.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Thanks SG- that is my concern- I know people who would only consider playing with/against Approved lists- so don't want it moved to Collectors Section.