In a 3000pt game, a 850pt war engine is a huge point sink, equivalent to two, may be three, formations which give extra activations - which seems to be a predominate feature of Epic-UK events (a 6 activation army would probably not do very well against a 9/10 one).

So, something that occurred to me the other day while reading the OGBM list... large war engines could have two activations per turn.
Obviously, you'd need to re-adjust their fire power, and perhaps not allow two march orders (or even simpler, cannot take the same order twice).
And, you could not retain with the WE, meaning the opponent gets a go in between.

By doing things this way, an army of three gargants (or any of the WE lists, not just OGBM) becomes viable, because that would be 6 activations - and it requires no changes to the core rules (as far as my reading through goes, there are very few rules side effects).
The mega-gargant/imperator could have three activations for example... though you'd have to limit its weapons (either only fire each once per turn or reduce the number of weapons).

Just a thought... very late in the day of course, but what do people think?

Well, OGBM is known to be quite over-powered.
AMTL is a little too strong currently too, but not as strong as OGBM.
The Eldar Titan clan is stronger than both.

So the dual activate thing isn't really nessesary right now.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This sounds similar to ideas for giving Titans the ability to engage different formations. The next step in the argument is to somehow use different weapons or sections of the Titan, which in turn raises the question of damage to those sections / weapons. Then there are the questions over fire arcs etc, not to mention movement (both of the titan and also the weaponry) and placing the extra BM for coming under fire.

As you may gather, this has been debated before from a number of angles over the years, and ultimately the result has been a significant increase in complexity and often a loss of balance (needing some effort to correct) for little overall gain, so none of these kind of suggestions have been adopted. If you want to pursue the thoughts further for 'friendly' battles, Neal may be able to point you to the relevant threads where these were discussed.

As the the E-UK tournaments, I agree with you that there is a tendency to field armies between 10-13 activations in a 3K battle (usually within a 2.5hr to 3hr timeframe). However, number of people have successfully fielded armies with Great Gargants and Warlocks in them (check the army lists), although those with Warlords tend to do less well. In practice this is due to the very different strategies and tactics required when building and using such an army. In general, if you are out-numbered or out-manoeuvered, you need to re-consider your strategy for placing objectives and also to keep your formations much closer together for mutual support.

My recommendation (for what its worth) is to give it a go; you will certainly make your opponents think hard and it may even work and surprise you as well

I don't see why you need to add that complexity.
My suggestion implies we reduce the weapons on WE, as a simple first iteration, simply half their weapons (a warlord gets half the shots). There's no need to change the current WE shooting or damage rules, nor the need to damage specific weapons. And the two BMs for coming under fire would be there if you imagine replacing the WE with 2 formations anyway. As an added bonus, by simply giving them multiple activations they sit happily within the current rules (no need to consider the implications of splitting fire for example).

You'd be able to do Double+Engage combos, but with my restriction on not being able to retain with the WE, nor take the same action, they are slightly limited.
Also, if you march as the first action you couldn't lend supporting fire (as you'd already marched on that turn).

Also, the negative of losing a WE, and thus 2 activations, is very significant... so that balances their increased benefit. Not to mention the need to make two initiative rolls.

I appreciate this has probably all been discussed before... I might, if I ever find the time, throw together my own version of an OGBM list and play around with it - watch this space.

Feel free to try it out, but realise there's no chance of it happening "officially".

If activation count/deficiency is the problem (and I think it is to a certain degree), then allowing the player with the lesser number of activations a number of passes is a much simpler change.

It is in no regard a problem with any of the Titan-focused lists. All three of them are already over-powered.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm not sure this is a problem.

If you look at the EUK tourney lists, big war engines feature fairly prominently. A good third of Eldar lists have a titan, almost always Warlocks. Probably a bit under a third of Ork lists have a Gargant or Great Gargant (fairly even mix). Marine lists built around a Reaver or Warlord are a small portion of SM lists (maybe 10%), but they're virtually the only alternative to the stock Thawk/Warhound SM tourney lists. Titans in general tend to be a token among the IG simply because they have so many toys, but there are IG players who have decided that Reaver titans are better AT units than Russ companies. Even if you restrict it to just 850 point titans, you'd still end up with about 30% of Eldar, 15% of Ork and maybe 5% of SM lists.

When you get outside the EUK arena, into different metagame environments where people aren't as focused on activation count, and you tend to see a higher ratio. Outside the EUK circuit, Banelords have been popular backfield guards for Black Legion, for example.

Bit tangential, but with Warlords not being taken or doing that well, how do the Chaos Warlords do in the new Epic-UK lists? All four of them are a reduced cost of 800 and with different weapon fits so I wonder if they're consider better/worse or more/less taken?

I quite liked the idea from a while back that a big formation allowed a player to skip an activation once per turn. Though I'd modify it to something like: a formation of 750 or more points may take a special 'look menacing' action during which it does nothing. It is then allowed to activate again a second time later that turn - but with a -1 to activate. That makes it's use a little risky and makes other high cost poor choice units like Leman Russ companies or Artillery Companies to benefit too, not just titans.

It's not that all War Engines are a problem though - Great Gargant and Warlocks are good options as is. It's just Imperial Warlords and Phantom should probably cost 50 points cheaper (or the Phantom should have slightly better weapons). I like the rules E&C came up with for different weapons fits on titans as some of these could be more playable too.

... basically, I wanted to bring an army of a Great Gargant and two gargants - since it looks cool (the only appropriate measure of an army) - and have them stomp all over the place, giving them all two activations seemed a good idea, at a very late hour last night.

Still, thanks for the general musing and comments.

Am hoping to come to Britcon this year, that extra 1000pt should be handy for some stomping, can get my two gargants in then.