That's fair enough Steve but...
Warhounds generally are an automatic pick - they are an issue.
Thunderbolts are usually an automatic pick - same deal.
Vindicators, Land Raiders, Tacticals (to some extent), Preds are not auto picks. That is a huge problem with the list if the first 2 formations are chosen before Marine units. I don't see an issue in promoting the use of Marine units over Allies with a premium to the allies costs especially if a unit gains a benefit in comparison to another list using the same unit type. Plus we're talking 25 points here not 50- 100 points.

If I had my way I would like to put Warhounds back to 300 points in the list but there's only so much caterwauling a man can take regarding those

Maybe for the 2014 armies book. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I've no problem with reducing the prices of the various SM armour formations to make them viable alternatives to warhounds or to increase tbolts as they are too good for the points. If the aim is to make as many formations as possible viable then great, if its to pursue a contentious view of how SM should operate then I'm not in favour.

In my experience tacticals are a very common and useful unit though and reducing their price just offsets the tbolt increase in a standard list. IMO SM can operate far better without warhounds than steel legion can.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

I don't see the issue with tacticals either, my regular opponent uses them all the time. I think there's a very good reason for this:
1. You get 9 units which is a lot for SM, so are great at holding ground. It takes a lot to shift them.
2. For the same reason they are good SC formations.
3. Although more expensive, they are better than both assaults and devastators in engagements.
4. They are equally good at CC and FF, so are great defensively and very flexible.

Basically they are very well suited to objective holding, which is a role that is needed in every game and very closely tied to victory conditions. Holding an objective in the centre of the board in the face of an attack, they can net you a VC (T&H or DTF) and deny two more (TSNP & BTS). More subtly, they can shape where the fight takes place.

I can see why people might underestimate their value in a game as it's easiest to think in terms of how many points they "earned back", i.e. formations they destroyed. Since they often just grab an objective and place blast markers, this can lead people to think they are not worth it compared to other formations more specialised for offensive manoeuvres. Like with scouts, IMO this is not really a fair estimation of their value, which is significant but not easily quantified.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

+1 also.

_________________
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.

I understand your view point Steve. I just don't agree with it. You can still operate with those formations it's not as though I've taken them out of the list, but it's undeniable that at the very minimum the two Allies formations benefit from an SR5 compared with a SR2. The Warhounds have not even been touched.

To make those formations viable we need to have a balance on the formations that cause that problem in the first place.... All cuts and no additions seems wrong, really.The changes aren't arbitrarily assigned. For starters there's been a lengthy debate about them and a few of them have been accepted for a while now going back to Hena's days as AC.

Personally, I don't feel there's enough points increases but I worked through what I felt were minimal and acceptable by most people in light of possible immediate changes and settled on those. Other changes may still happen but it won't be for some time until we can ascertain these ones.

Just out of interest, have any of you folks "+1 ing" played with any of the changes yet? If so, exactly what major upheaval/imbalance did the changes bring to the games you played?

Cheers

We've played several games with the adjusted prices, and they seem to work out fairly well. The decreased Tactical costs have seen them enter play a lot more frequently, used for more than just as a durable BTS formation. Thunderbolt increase has seen fewer flights in the air, but the more numerous Tac squads means more spots for Hunters to provide air cover, reducing the burden on the TBolts as CAP formations.

Marines were already one of the good lists, this just makes them better.

I also think that warhounds are equally as good/important to IG as to Marines.

Warhounds are better for marines because A) they're SR5, and B) they fill a gap in the Marine list, which is a general lack of War Engines. Other than Aircraft, there aren't any WE available other than titans, unlike the IG's ready and convenient access to Superheavy tanks.

They bring speed to IG though, which the Marines have in spades.

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

I've played 3 games against Marines with the points changes and I'm actually ok with them.

I don't really see a need to change the Warlord/Thunderbolts but I can live with it.

My +1 is because I don't want someone else trying to make me play Marines how they think Marines should be played.
I can support making certain formations more competetive (internally) but not with list restrictions.

_________________
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.

And if Warhounds and Thunderbolts were Space Marine units, I think that'd be a much more reasonable objection...

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread