I'd say this is quite good, except on turn 2. Break/Nothing/Almost Break/Kill/Kill is a reasonably good record.

Of course, this is a 1325 points unit so you'd expect it to kill more stuff, but I think a lot of these 1325 pts are paid for the resilience of the Imperator, more than its firepower.

I would like for the hellstorm cannon to have a second mode of 8x AP4+/AT4+, so it can lay into enemy tanks and voids/powerfields.

I played it that you couldn't split the fire between different turns.  We weren't to sure ourselves.

However I do think that all plasma weapons should have the PBGs option.

Oddly enough the PBG in the AMTL list doesn't have the split fire option that the main rulebooks warhound does.  So it could be an oversite.

We also brought up a question.  Can the PA split its fire between WE and non WE targets?

Finally turn three wasn't almost break.  All my kills were from the TK weapons 2 wagonz and two forts (just).  All the other shots failed.

And turn 4 was a fully shielded imperator firefighting something along the lines of:
4 wagonz
2 grotz
2 nobs
6 boyz

If I didn't win that then something would be very wrong

_________________
Tyranid air marshal

See the thoughts on the Imperator here

It seems that its main strength is the way it controls a relatively large part of the battlefield merely by its presence, shooting is more a bonus. In effect, by controlling two objectives in the opposing table half, it gains one point while preventing the opponent from getting 3 objectives (BTS, They shall not pass and Defend the flag) so the player is well on the way to a win.

The reduced activations mean that the army will more usually be defensive, trying to preserve activations for late game manoeuvers, so will tend to 'shape' the way the game proceeds. In effect the opposing side can only get a maximum of 2 points, while it is up to the Imperial side to win (or lose) the game.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

As an additional thought, stalking an Imperator with a pair of Eldar Cobras is an intruiging thought - and possibly one of the few formations that could provide a really serious threat to the beast.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

You still need other formations to take down those 8 void shields. I also think that Gary is onto something by taking the Ad Mech cruiser. 2 pin point attacks to ride 'shot gun' on the imperator and kill any TK war engine monsters before they get to fire!

I don't disagree on the cruiser, just idly thinking about all those hit dice and the 1+D(3) kills per hit, which is going to take down any remaining shields pronto, and potentially cause a critical or two . . . . . just idly thinking, that's all.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

As I didn't shoot the monster I've no idea what the critical is. I'd be a bit disappointed if one critical could destroy an Imperator. I'll have to have a look.

I think giving all war engine's the ability to spilt fire is too much of an upgrade. It would allow thunderhawks to attack an infantry/light vehicle formation up close and snipe a armoured vehicle formation in the distance. Even shadow swords may get some use out of their heavy bolters  

I think the idea was to provide this capability above a given point range (perhaps 650+), which would preclude your examples.

Making this "individual WE aof 650+" would also preclude Revenants, which would probably be a good thing, while making it 850+ would obviously include Battleclass titans and above. In this form it may just possibly work, but would need testing.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I'd rather avoid splitting fire entirely, for the reasons given by Jervis.

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

That is my preferred option.

Checking E&C stats, the beast has 12DC and the Cobra(s) if they managed to survive and get to within 30cms would sustain on 4+ with a possible '3' hits and an average of 9 damage per sustain - which certainly has a good chance of causing the beast some distress at the very least.

The critial is the standard Imperial one, so there is a 1/36 chance of blowing the beast up outright and 1/18 chance of causing further damage.

Zombo, while I agree that it would probably be best to avoid this altogether, Morgan Vening's suggestion that allows the player to target two enemy formations without placing the 'shooting' BM on either would seem to be both simple and elegant, and may be worth consideration.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I agree on not allowing splitting fire too.

I think lot are confusing real life ability of firing at different targets with firing at different formations.
To me this ability is already covered with the rules as they are,as an example a Warlord/Warlock or Gargant Titan firing at a Leman Russ Co. is already splitting fire targeting 10 separate tanks.

I see it as a few players who feel they are not getting enough out of big formations or titans(making their points back as it were especially titans) are wanting this change.It does seem to be one of the situations that crops with regularity,usually with newer players feeling that Titans are not getting their points back in games and come up with splitting fire as a way to get value out of their use.

The points value of any formation in this game is not worked out just on it's ability to kill it's own value in opposing units,but also in it's worth in the game overall.We have to take into account the ability to draw fire from enemy formations/holding objectives and Goals/stopping opponents gaining objectives and Goals/limiting the movement of opposing forces for fear of retaliation,plus lots more in game stuff.

Whatever happens with the rules if players want to use split fire just ask permission from opponents and try it out.

I've played in games 3 or 4 years ago (around 6 or 7 games IIRC) were we allowed this from Titans and for me it just spoiled the tactical side of games.We found the better players were getting much more use out of Titans whilst for the not so tactically aware they were still under performing.One usual tactic was to move into engage support range of a formation using only 1 weapon to lay a BM and use the remainder to target another threat.Eldar Titans were really good when using hit and run too,finding they could move to target 2 formations and then move again to lend support on a third formation to be assaulted.

This had the effect of making an even wider gulf between the good players and the not so good players.At the time we thought that if something like this was brought in the costs of Titans would have to rise and this would make it less likely for them to be used apart from by the really good players.

Any opinions on this?

_________________
Neal

In general I would prefer no splitting fire. It seems to play well as a game and I like the basis, "If it aint broke, dont fix it".

I can understand wanting to do split fire for something like the Imperator. And would be happy enough for a rule specific to mega titans to give similar ability to mega-gargants.GBut not to change previously published titans like Warlord.

How about the earlier suggestion of not placing multiple BM's on each unit to limit the effectiveness of mega-titans if free fire splitting is felt to be too much. Something to do with weight of fire being dispersed by being spread over the two targets?

Cheers

James

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

Well, that's nice then.  

If that's the case, perhaps the "Slow Firing" special rule entry should be modified to include this?