OK ive talked to some epic players about this in the past and just at th rockville event. all like the idea but let me put it out to the rest of the epic players.

ok the proposal is any WAR ENGINE with a damage capacity of 4 or more should be able to target up to 2 seperate formations. why you ask because their so darn big for one.they have alot of extra crews to handle it ect.
ok alot of you will say no because it will cause one more blast marker bECAUSE OF THE SECOND formation comming under fire. but lets look at this.any war engine with more than 4 damage capacity (reaver, warlord, manta,tormentor,executor,ect)will cost you what 600 pts on up to over 1k pts. now you only get the one actavation to start with (ouch).but for the same points spent you can get 2 to 4 more formations wich would be 2 to 4 more blast markers. so it dosent tip the bal any differant than making the BIG war engins divide up some of that fire power they have. AFTER ALL THEY SHOULD BE THE MOST FEARED ON THE BATTLEFEILD. OK PEOPLE LET THINK ABOUT THIS AND PLEASE CHIME IN. THANKS RON IN P.A.

TRY AND PLAY IT LIKE THIS AND YOULL SEE ITS NOT AS DEVASTATING AS YOU MAY THINK. IF A WE FIRES AT ONE FORMATION IT GOING TO BE HURTIN YES. BUT NOW IF IT IT HAS TO DIVID UP ITS FIREPOWER FOR SOME REASON IT WONT DUE AS MUCH DAMAGE TO 2 FORMATION THAN IT WOULD TO ONE.  IF YOU HAD SAY  A MANTA FLY IN ON A STRIKE YOU COULD FIRE YOUR 75CM AND 90 CM WEAPON AT A TARGET FAR AWAY WHILE YOU COULD BE SHOOTIN UP THE GROUND UNIT UNDER YOU WITH YOUR SMALLER RANGED GUNS 30CM AND 45 CM. IT MAKES FOR A GOOD GAME TRY IT YOULL SEE. ALOT OF PEOPLE DONT PLAY WITH THE WAR ENGINS BECAUSE THEY HURT YOU ALOT TO TAKE YOU MAY ONLY HAVE 7 ACTIVATIONS WICH HURTS. AND FOR A FINAL POINT THE BIG WAR ENGINES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DEVASTATING.

Please don't use all capitals in your posts, they become unreadable.

The matter of large war engines splitting fire has been discussed many times before and on all occasions shot down.

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

4 damage point war engines are already pretty damned good.  The ability to put blast markers on 2 fms with one war engine is pretty obscenely good TBH.

Larger War Engines (Reavers, Warlords, Gargants, Eldar Titans) do already tend to be pretty devestating, when used against the correct kinds of targets.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yes, because those darn capital letters are so CONFUSING.  
--

Splitting fire can be pretty ugly and if you think about it, you're on a slippery slope where if a 4 DC war engine can split fire, why can't an extra large formation like a 'uge mob?  I mean, they've got 30+ units sometimes and those formations are more than a titan, there is no reason why all those guys can't be splitting fire at least a little, right?

With all that said I think there is a lot to be said for titans having a more dominating role on the battlefield and splitting fire would be one way to do it.  I think some alternate rules for titans to play under would be fun every once in awhile, especially in larger games.  I personally think DC8 and above would be good candidates, but nothing lower.

Ron, my suggestion is we put together some ideas, hammer them out, play them, and maybe we can get Chroma to put them in the Total War supplement with the other alternate ideas.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

With regards to DC4 War Engines and above:

With the ability, in the Tournament scenario, to potentially negate 3 objectives, plus wreak havok with some lucky shooting rolls, I think Titans are good enough as they are.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

maybe as some type of upgrade for the AM list, but i think titans are fine as they are

Perhaps let a DC8 or above War Engine could split fire IF they Sustained Fire AND they do not get the +1 to hit for any of their shots that turn, having split fire instead. It’d still probably make some of the already well regarded war engines e.g. the Great Gargant even better for their points, but might be a compromise. Definitely not DC4 though – would affect too much e.g. the typically taken Steam Gargant formation could fire 6 barrage templates with bonus blast markers for everything hit, rather than just 3 as is the normal max.

1 BM is really not the issue.  Firing at 2 formations is almost equivalent to getting 2 activations - not quite but close.  In the end game, when both sides are short on activations and many formations are close to breaking, it's very powerful.


There are two assumptions here - 1) all big WEs are expensive and 2) all big WEs are by themselves.  Both are incorrect.  There 4+DC war engines that are a LOT less than 600 points and there are war engines mixed with normal units in the same formation.

A formation of Stompas and Supastompas is ~500.  Do you propose to allow the Supastompa to fire at a different formation than the Stompas?  What about a 400 point Lord of Battles with DC6?  Or a 6DC Orkeosaurus with a Warband for under 400?  Or a 6DC Plague Tower with a coven loaded for ~500?  Or for a big formation, 2 Lord of Battles for 800 points?

What about barrage weapons?  Splitting them allows manipulation of the BP table.

Why shouldn't 2 3DC WEs be able to split fire?  They cost in the same range as a single 6DC WE.  All the same justifications apply to them that you used for a single WE.

How many exceptions and rule twists will it really take to explain all of the permutations this proposal would allow?


It is very different.  A big WE is hard to break and cannot be suppressed.  That means its one activation is very durable compared to the alternative cheap formations.  You're getting almost the equivalent of 2 failsafe activations.  That's a huge advantage.


They are some of the most feared units on the battlefield.  That's why they cost so much.

Let's be honest about the motivation behind this suggestion.  In only a small minority of cases is there actually "overkill" in terms of destroying units when one of the big WEs fires.  The real motivation is the frustration of "if only I could break another formation, I could win the game" and this rule is proposed precisely because it is a large boost in that respect.


You are approaching this like it's never been thought about, let alone tried.  It has been examined and tested.  It is a major change to the mechanics.  It would require extensive rule writing and interpretation, as well as requiring reevaluation of all the point costs.

_________________
Neal

There's already a response in the rule book on this (yes it was brought up even before the rule book was finalised and printed)on page 174 in the FAQ and designer notes section.

There's nothing stopping you from adding this in as a house rule to your games if opponents agree,as stated in the rule book "it's your game".

I just love being taken out of context.  

This part of the paragraph:
"I think some alternate rules for titans to play under would be fun every once in awhile, especially in larger games."
...was qualifying my position.  In other words, I agree with you, but there is no reason why every game of Epic has to be played with a 3000 point list under the Grand Tournament scenario with the RAW.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.