The analysis is interesting because it shows the intrinsic problems with the list - the limited numbers of formations. Objective placement is a vital part of the 'tournament' game. I believe that you need a minimum of three formations to control all your own objectives and at least two of your opponents including the blitz. If we assume that these are the three Reavers, they are widely spaced of necessity (and so out of mutual support). Since the majority of other races will have 9-11 formations at 3000 points, this means that approximately half the army can concentrate on destroying one of the battle titans (or at least to break it).

So IMO the 'all-titan' list is likely to be at a disadvantage against most others. As others have said, titans need support from a variety of other troops if they are to operate effectively and as such are just like the battle-tanks of all 'real world' armies

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

how far out is the idea of limiting warhound packs per battle titan? i think it makes sense. i come from the mindset that where there is a warhound, usually a bigger brother is near it.

My analysis 2 posts up assumes that you can have a maximum of 1 Warhound per Battle Titan.

The theoretical maxmimum number of titans in a list now is 8 with 6 activations (3 Reavers, 2 Warhound packs and 1 Warhound).

Limiting the list to 1 Warhound per Battle Titan lowers the maximum number of Titans (to 6, 3 Battle and 3 Warhound) and performs a combination of upgunning the remaining titans and adding support formations that bring the activation count up.

I think it would probably be sufficient.

Another rumination:

What if Warhound Titans were only available in pairs in the AMTL list, and never in singles.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

ill take that.

"What if Warhound Titans were only available in pairs in the AMTL list, and never in singles."

Fine with me too.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I could have sworn that I already made that suggestion.

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

Probably, but I'm raising it for specific debate, since we're now done with the scattergun ideas stage.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm fine with AMTL warhounds only as doubles. Makes sense in that they are usually deployed in pairs and with a full AMTL force I wouldn't see them split up like if they were given as support for allies.

_________________
-Vaaish

Simple but effective. Should cut down on the number of activations that all-titan list can field without any need for complex rules.

A couple of tweaks like this and the list should llok good.

Cheers

James

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

This will also enable the 'warhound tax' to be simplified to say something like:

"Any AMTL formation that has three or more of the same weapon must pay a 25pt 'efficiency surcharge' to compensate for their increased effectiveness"

Thus at a stroke Reavers and Warlords are covered (although mostly not affected), dual-fit warhounds can be used as part of a pair and not incur a surcharge, and more expensive weapons are incentivised.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

As another option, single Warhounds could simply be raised in cost to 300 or 325pts basic.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I can't help but wonder whether disallowing lone Warhounds would squeeze out Warlords and more expensive Reavers, as you'd have to optimise your army more to get a sane number of activations at all.

Just sketching out a few possible builds, and to get more than four formations on the ground at 3,000 points seems to rule out Warlords, or some of the more powerful Reavers. I know that low activations is supposed to be a weakness of the list, but without careful min-maxing, I'm not sure it has any chance at all.

EDIT: I should probably admit that I have three Warhound models, so that may have biased my opinion somewhat. Also I didn't spend that long trying possible combinations, so there may be some viable options that do include things like Warlords or double-quake-cannon Reavers.

I'd prefer a rule like 'total number of Warhounds may not exceed total number of Battle Titans'. Emphasises their support role and takes the edge off some of the really min-maxed builds, but doesn't have much wider impact.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

*nods*

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think it greatly depends on how you want to build your force. With all things outside of the requirement to take two warhounds the same in the list I think you can come up with something:

Warlord: 800
Reaver: 600
Warhound Pack: 500
Warhound Pack: 500
Warhound Pack: 500
Sentinels: 100

or

Reaver 625
Reaver 625
Warhound Pack: 500
Warhound Pack: 500
Warhound Pack: 500
Tbolts: 150
Sentinels: 100

Of course this is fielding a lot of warhounds so I'm not sure if it's solving anything. I'm adding in a fair bit of extra equipment too (50 points per reaver and 75 on the warlord.)For the second list to work, the tbolts and maurauders would needto be moved to the allies section like other lists.

_________________
-Vaaish