Elsaurio wrote:
Interesting. Half the people commenting on this list say that they will never take Berzerkers over Warriors. Warriors are probably slightly better (the missile launcher beats out the +1 CC).
If you take Berzerkers you can't use the Thunderfire option
If you take Thunderers you don't have the amazing Hearthguard/Warlords.
Berzerkers will still zoom around like tiny, brittle units, which seems like the problem you identified is still going to be there. Why can't they be spammed? Thunderers can sit and guard and shoot with the Thunderfires. The Warriors... I dunno, they need something, perhaps as simply as just being larger and tougher but with less options, the anvil to the other units hammers.
With the way people talked about spamming Berzerkers, I'm sure people have two of those formations to consolidate into one. The changes to small warrior formations will require me to adjust how my units are based, so I don't see quite why that can be an issue the other way.
I don't believe 300 point units are, in and of themselves, just terrible units. Maybe they were terrible in 1.5s overall composition, maybe they needed tweaking or adjusting to be more valuable for the cost. I'm not sure I see reducing the formation sizes and costs as 'incremental' or somehow protecting peoples collections.
Any thoughts on making Warriors required? To my mind that instantly kills off the spamming problem, yet has been persistently ignored and never explained why it won't work. Do people object to having one or two required units so much as to make it completely unplayable?
I promise I'm not trying to be overly negative or confrontational about it, but Squats have always been that one list I've wanted to see polished and, perhaps sadly, always been the list that has evoked the strongest nostalgia which makes it the hardest to agree upon.
StevekCole wrote:
So simple solution, drop the points cost for warriors to 250 for 9 + a hearthguard.
This I like. Warriors being an expensive core choice might make them unpopular to some, but if they're still cheap enough to make them appear value-for-money, then the min-max lists will want to include them, at the opportunity cost of massive activation count.