Why? The same unit may have a different value to a list, different benefits/synergies with a list, or other factors, so the point value may need to be different.

The Warhounds are a perfect example: In a Marine list , the Warhounds act on a Strategy Rating of 5, while in a Steel Legion list, they act on a Strategy Rating of 2. That's a fairly significant difference, so why should they cost the same amount of points?

Heck, Warhounds are more "useful" to a Marine list, as they fill a hole, so, in essence, they're "worth more" to the Marines.

Chroma speaks the word of truth.

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

It is a first step towards greatness.

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

Nah, can't get a flight of thunderbolts then. Only 2 singles, which is what most UK GT armies have

It would still allow for three Warhounds, which is actually fine; it's just that taking three singleton Warhounds at that point level wouldn't be as advantageous as it would limit air support and eat up points for other things.

Coupled with a drop in Tactical formations, it might encourage some different army selection to be considered.

The idea is not to stop 3 Warhounds from being possible. A wide range of possibilities is a good thing.

The goal to make the Warhound/Thawk builds comparable to other options. That probably requires a slight nerf to the Warhound/Thawk builds or a slight improvement in other options.

==========

On a separate note, in correspondence with Pulsar, he said he was already considering taking the BT Crusader/Tactical formation to 275. Despite the fact that he's passed the torch, I think he still has the most experience with the list and probably the best opinion on the matter. For now, that's good enough for me.