Would increasing both the Warlord and Reaver move by 5cm each (They should probably be a bit more agile than their Ork counterparts) along with maybe a few alt weapons that add to FF be enough?

I know I'd look much more favorably on a Reaver able to move up to FF range of a formation I'm about to assault and lay a lot of FF support. I'm actually kitbashing a Reaver at the moment with one or two Melta Cannons, mainly as they're one of the few weapons that give extra FF attacks.

Not really in favour of core rule changes to make a few units (possibly) more appealing.


I agree with this.

_________________
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.

Agreed. There is no fundamental problem with the activation system, but there is a feature inherent in there that is not necessarily accounted for when costing things.

Anyway how much would you cost the warlord such that you might take it instead of warhounds? Despite it's better firepower and strength it's tactical worth is considerably less - especially to the marines - than the spam warhound.
How much is that missing tactical value worth?

I look away from this thread for a couple days and BLAMO!

Couldn't agree more with what yme-loc is saying. Besides, I was under the impression this thread was about the Warlord and some Pants...not the mechanics of EA.

I'd also argue that's not always the equipment that fails, but the guy using the equipment...IMHO of coarse.

Either way, I don't think it would be too much of a hassle to try the activation thingy out and discuss then how it fares. And I don't think either that all lists have to be changed when using the activation skip rules, in fact, I suspect the game balance to be rather untouched by it. Seems to me like one of these tweaks that could work like a charm for all those who are tired of activation build-up. In any case I will try it out. Maybe we should open another thread for this though.

Ok so I think we have it.

The warlord is pants because - You must have warhounds! And obviously having a warlord precludes warhounds (in 3k) games.
Without warhounds the whole army is pretty pants, and that includes the Warlord...

See recent warhound discussions for why you must have them - but note it's two separate warhounds you must have, not the single pair. Why......?

(Please note the above logical assertions are really matters of degrees, not complete absolutes)

Nah I and especially Andy can attest it doesn't perform when taken. Indeed you could take it and one warhound at britcon, but it wouldn't help!

Because a pair of Warhounds is worth about 500pts, whilst two singles are worth 300pts each, of course. :-p

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

They're not bad, it's just a combination of factors; it's slow move and the marine's low numbers meaning they can't control large areas of the table, mean it's easy to have it be innefectual due to no good targets being shootable.

the are bad... at least for marines - and hence worth less.

But I'm glad to hear Rug is going to have a go with them to prove naysayers like myself wrong. He's a good player and really developing a reputation for going for unorthodox armies and at least giving them a go.

I think DC9 would make it a little more desirable without needing a points bump. It's also background representative.

I'm with Rug...Me thinks I should give this a try at Adepticon in 2011...I want to be able to report, "I told you so!"

I'm sure you can get in the top half Rug. I've managed 12th out of 20. But you won't win. Unlike using a great gargant with which it is perfectly possible to win tournies!

Sounds to me like Demon Knight (Tales from the Crypt) but thats just me?