Okay this is the result of looking at the list, discussing at length with friend (who is setting up a wargames factory here in Bangladesh) and playing 2/3's of a game. Small crying girl interrupting the proceedings. I should add the order was more like look at list, play game, discuss while holding Saisha.
The game. Marines verse AMTL. Titans were a warlord, a Reaver, 4 Warhound, infantry. Marines were air insertion and teleport. Game ended mid way turn 3 with the marines heading for a narrow win for several reasons. 1, this was the first game of Epic A for Neil since he left the UK mid Epic development so several rules had changed etc, and 2, my marines were just crushing the supporting troops in assaults and very successfully ignoring the titans with the air units ready to land and take unguarded objectives. So we pretty much decided it shouldn't count for anything until Neil is back in the swing of things.
AMTL thoughts on version 2.
First, inherent balance. The OGBM and AMTL lists can be balanced for tournament play.
If you can't deal with them you have a problem with your tournament army as this is not the only WE heavy force you could face.
For instance the Imperial guard could field a WE heavy force. How would you deal with a supreme commander (mechanized, with a few upgrades), 9 Baneblades (upgraded proposed stats), 3 Shadowswords, 6 hydra and perhaps some sentinels/3 more hydra. Or a warlord plus hydra and 4 SHT companies?
Other armies can do the same. I don't think a balanced IG, Ork or Eldar list that has been designed to face all comers will have that much difficulty beyond a normal battle. Yes marines may have problem, but I think looking at battlestats they have a problem in general.
Background
Would you like Background submissions?
List layout
Minor point, should the 50% minimum from here be written next to Legio formations?
Organization wise, I have to be honest, I still favour the minimum 50% core, 33% maximum allies (aircraft and knights), anything for everything else.
Titans
Increase costs - What are pros and cons?
I think this links into below, 'Who is currently having problems against the AMTL?'
Otherwise the history of the change was as far as I can remember the gargants can do it, so why can't we? It tried to counteract the problems inherent in a few big activations.
The increased power of the variable weapons fit was bought in to partially counteract the activation disadvantage that is also dealt with by the increased number of cheap formations (particularly Hydra).
Also what effect does it have? It is a 6-10% increase in points depending on titans picked which translates in a 3000 point game to 90-300 points extra (the range being 6% of 1500 points to 10% of 3000) I think on average about 200. This is a pretty fine margin to be seriously affecting game results and although it could be a factor I don't think it will be the main one.
My vote is either to leave it as it is, or put the points back up with the requirement to have at least 1 tactical weapon per titan removed. This allows the construction of 'super titans' which would make up for the lose partly though in turn would dictate to players what army selection should be made.
Who is currently having problems against the AMTL?
My guard army isn't. Its formations are tooled up to deal with everything from infantry to titans so while I may lack a killer knock out punch it can beat anything out there (most of the time).
Likewise my siege army. Though possessing a bit over a dozen AT guns bar the artillery pieces and not MW/TK weapons beyond 2 deathstrike launchers it simply clogs up the cogs of the AMTL war machine with bodies and massively out activate it. To date all games have been draws or wins to the siegers.
So far all the AMTL support formations have been relatively easy to deal with and the remaining titans can then either be broken or outmaneuvered (having GT levels of terrain is essential). I have some qualms about the Warhound army but part of that is weapons fit and maybe the inferno gun change will help. If not something like 1+ battle titans in the list restrictions would do it.
Warhounds. the all warhound army remains a concern of mine (and the fluff strangely).
How about some of the following?
1+ Battle titans must be taken.
Warhound pack points costs go back up to 500 but they gain Scout. (I would really like them to have scout you know
)Warhound costs go back up to 500 and the warhounds have the option to buy scout for a support slot (1 support slot per titan in the pack so a 2 pack group can have no support, fitting really for scouts). I quite like this idea you know
Battle Titan Weapons
I like the 50% rule, its clean and simple. The variation it gives each Titan makes up for the lack of units in the army and the otherwise bland formations (in the battle titan formation we have... a Battle titan!). The minimum of 1 tactical weapon means 'super' mono mission titans shouldn't occur which I think are contrary to a titans role. Even a specialized titan should have something to fall back on due to equipment failure or a rapidly changing battlefield.
Assault weapons
I'm tempted to put them into the tactical weapons category - however on reflection perhaps that doesn't fit out chosen legios weapon fits and tactics. I can't see a balance problem however with doing this.
Scout weapons
I'm keen to try out the proposed inferno gun as I think it is more of a Warhound level weapon now.
Naming wise how about removing light from the scout weapons and adding heavy to the tactical weapons. Means the existing Warhound stats don't change at all, and makes the tactical weapons sound better
Also put a note in about more ammo/more power availible.Dafcra mentions the 'same model different stats' problem. It sorta exists due to forgeworld and legacy models. Will it be allowed? Is it something to check with Jervis? The fact a Warhound and a battle titan look so very different could be a saving factor here as although the weapons look the same and have similar stats it is easy to see one is on a Warhound and one is one a battle titan.
Tactical weapons
Naming wise how about removing light from the scout weapons and adding heavy to the tactical weapons. Means the existing Warhound stats don't change at all, and makes the tactical weapons sound better
Also put a note in about more ammo/more power availible.Support weapons.
Few niggles here.
The one shot missiles still ain't that sexy.
Would suggest the following.
Barrage missile
Unlimited range, 4+D6 BP, Single shot, No LOS required, Ignore Cover
Vortex Missile
Unlimited Range, MW3+, Single shot, TK(2D3), No LOS required, Ignore cover
OR funky warp effects
90cm Range, MW3+, Single shot, Pulse, TK(D3), Ignore cover (represent the warp hole gaping and closing etc).
The Quake Cannon still has the BP table wieghing it down. It has a big increase in power in pairs, singly its not as good.
Quake Cannon
90cm, 3BP, Macro Weapon
This won't make much differnce to testing as everyone was using pairs anyway. Now single guns may start to appear.
Knights
Okay, I've never agreed. Months ago with the WE vs AV poll my position essentially ended up as either, it really comes down to the stats.
Currently I think the stats are off. Dafcra also points out he though the Paladin was the most common knight, currently in a knight orientated picked list it wouldn't be. I tend to agree, the Paladin should be the most common knight as existing fluff and even it load out seems to suggest a mainstay.
However if we want to of course 're-image' the background the Paladin could become the aristocratic elite, leading the other knights to battle. This would then justify the limited numbers a qualitative edge in hardware. I would still like to see a little rationalization of the stats however.
Looking at the Paladin knight and comparing it to the Leman Russ and Land Raider throws up an interesting image. Leaving aside void shields and looking at the weapons it carries firmly put it in the 'engaging' role. Its mobile but short ranged with it strengths really coming out in the assault.
But what strength in terms of brutal assault firepower! It is streets ahead of what I think are comparable units. Assuming an ideal situation (the paladin reaches CC) -
3 land Raiders with 6 twin lascannon and 3 twin heavy bolter will do on average 1 FF hit (max of 3 hits). 3 Leman Russ with 3 battle cannon, 3 lascannon and 6 heavy bolter do on average 1 1/2 FF hits (max of 3 hits) (I can see the argument for Land Raider getting 4+ FF
).3 Paladin with 3 battle cannon, 3 autocannon, 3 shock lance and 3 chain swords have 1 1/2 first strike FF hits followed by 1 1/2 normal FF/CC hits and and 1 1/2 MW CC hits (4 1/2 hits total on average with max 9 hits, 3 of them FS).
Even if it is just a FF the paladin still has 3 FS and and normal hits.
So is the Paladin really more then twice as good in a FF (due to FS) than a Leman Russ (3 times as good as a Land Raider) and more than 9 times as good in CC?
I think the stats really need a change, they are simply too far out ahead of other Imperial Equipment. At its core the change for me would start with the Paladin and be the FF and CC going to 5+ with other changes coming from there. It would also include cheaper unit prices and larger formations as well. More in a seperate knight thread
Support units
I remain concerned at the number and quality of the small cheap support units. Time will tell I guess.
Skitarii Cohort. Add upgrade field guns? 3 field guns, towed by the cohorts chimera, 75-100 points.
Skitarii Tribune. Give this guy inspiring representing AM troops are better motivated and led in small unit /support actions than their IG counterparts?
Armeggeddon pattern sentinel - its got a lascannon! Yay
Chimera - can we keep the twin heavy bolter/hve flamer turret options please? Its a bit more variety as we don't have that many unit types compared to the other armies.
Possible support units
Many people are crying out for artillery guns. If you fold you could give it to them, but in a cunning fashion!
4 basilisks, 350 points. More powerful than your average squadron fitting the AMTL POWER theme, but also at a greater cost. The fragility of the unit makes you think twice about it but doesn't rule this out as a choice.
Aircraft
The 0-1 still looks artificial. Whats wrong with saying 33% or 25% max and dropping the 0-1? Scales better from 2000 to 5000 points. Currently you could have anything from a max of 37.5% at 2000 points to 15% at 5000 points. Whats the reasoning behind it?
Marauder Destroyer
I refuse to be convinced that a fixed forward autocannon on a bomber can engage aircraft and have an AA value as a consequence, they don't put them in turrets for nothing!
I would urge the following stats.
War Engine, Bomber, Save 5+
3 x Twin Autocannon, 45cm, AP4+/AT5+, Fixed Forward Arc
Twin Assault Cannon, 30cm, AP4+/AT4+/AA4+, Fixed Rear Arc
Twin Heavy Bolter, 15cm, AA5+
2 x Twin Missiles, 45cm, AT5+, Fixed Forward Arc
Bombs, 15cm, 2BP, Fixed Forward Arc
Notes: 2DC; Critical hit effect, the bombers control surfaces are damaged causing the craft to crash and be destroyed.
Well, knights as always deserve a seperate thread
) 
