That'd be fine with me, both a fluff limit and also pricing them appropriately.

Something like 325 for Marine Warhounds and 300 for Imperial Guard Warhounds'd probably be fine?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If one single warhound is worth 250, then it doesn't necessarily follow that a double warhound formation is worth 500 because you get more value of from the two singletons. This is mainly because of the advantages of an extra activation, but also because of the lack of restrictions cause be the coherency rules.

Either the singleton must go up in price, or the the double must come down. When comparing with other formations with similar roles, it's clear that warhounds are the superior. Thus the price must go up, or the price of the alterantives must go down. Or there be the restriction suggested, (so that the advantages of cheap but tough activations can't be multiplied) So far the price has gone up by 25pts per singleton and has changed precious little.

If the large points increase does work, then you have the ideal position, i.e the choice is still there and the choice is a difficult one. 1, 2 or double warhounds? Or drop the warhounds altogether and choose something else. It would be a difficult choice. That's what we want, we want choices (so far as they fit with the fluff) and we want them to be hard

Well, 325pts for a single Warhound, or 275pts for a Predator Annihilator formation, that starts to look like a balanced choice. Ish.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

What he said.

EDIT: The He in this case being Ginger. Sorry for any confusion.

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

That's true.

At that cost, they're both rubbish.

It might mean Land Raiders at 350 get a looksee, though. Yay for balance!

Morgan Vening

Are they, though?

Two Warhounds would still be cheaper than a single Reaver (And yet have the same number of Shields, faster speed, roughly equivilent weaponry*, and two activations instead of 1, to balance against weaker armour)...

Also, Pred A's, are ok, if used correctly. Not a must-have, but they're ok.

*4 light weapons vs. 3 medium weapons.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Paired Warhounds are cheaper than a Reaver, but two singles are the same price (at 325). The shielding issue IMO favours the Reaver, and the Reaver is a much better assault/support platform. I just think 325pts puts them out of usage. Land Raiders definitely start looking better in comparison there. Is there a reason it needs to go up that much, that fast? Put it at 300, and see if they still dominate the tournament/casual scene.

I was over-exaggerating about them being rubbish (hence the smiley), but I'd typically consider the purchase to be a 'gimme' to the opponent (much like Tacticals outside BTS/SC usage). But at least they're better than Vindicators.

The Annihilators have been a problematic unit for me for a long time. They just never seem to work (either dying too easily, getting assaulted, or just not having adequate targetting opportunities*), they nearly always make me wish I'd spent the points on something that can kill things other than Chimeras/Rhinos/LV.

* Infantry, or RA vehicles, and the Annihilators can't do much.

Morgan Vening

It doesn't, because the Warhounds raise 2 per turn in the end phase, the Reaver only raises one.

Only a bit, 4 FF/CC hits per turn instead of 3... and the Warhounds have the speed to get into position...


Given the right deployment, they nuke AV's and LV's, and even do pretty good against RA if you put the target in Crossfire.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'd say 4 annihilators and a hunter are a popular combination are seem fairly costed and used.

Single warhounds dramatically increasing in price? Well I'd try it. Might be enough to take the edge off the marine dominance at tourneys (half were won by marines?) - though would it take it to far and shift reliance onto landing craft and terminators?

As TRC points out, with Marines coming 1st in most tournaments, and with consensus these days saying that they're the most powerful list, I don't think kicking out a few of their crutches is a terrible idea.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This year so far 4 out of 8 events in the UK have been won by Marines by championship scoring, and 3 out of 8 if you add in paint & sports scores.

But then only 5 out of 39 players have won an event this year, so looking at the top of the tree constantly may not give a totally accurate picture either.

That'd be why I noted that consensus opinion also supports the idea that Marines are the strongest list right now... I don't believe I'm wrong on that.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If you check the UK army lists, all the Marine armies who finished in the top five had 2 Warhounds (3 at Britcon) and 1-2 formations of terminators. Conversely, those lists that finished lower down had Reavers, Warlords, 1x or no Warlords (except at Britcon where most had multiple warhounds too).

That does not necessarily prove anything - the top players seem to stay on top despite the army in use - but the top lists do have a remarkably similar make-up, and all use Warhounds rather than Reavers or Warlords. I would suggest there are a number of synergistic reasons for this relating to the realtive cost effectiveness of Warhounds over the other titans - which have already been rehearsed above.

One of the major factors is still the number of activations provided. A 0-1 cap would definitely have the desired effect of limiting this activation advantage. Raising the cost by +25pts or even +50pts might have a similar effect, though it will be harder to prove.

I'm not sure that just because the Marines have won 4 out of 8 events makes them the best list, maybe the players using them have something to do with that !!! . Otherwise they are also the worst list as they have come bottom in 5 out 8 events this year too.

Remember, 4 - 5 years ago most players were saying Marines were way underpowered and almost impossible to win tournaments with . That was proved wrong.
Then 2 - 3 years ago most players thought Marines could only win with 3 or 4 Warhounds and 3 Terminator/Air assault formations . That was proved wrong.
I hope we don't make changes just to see in a year or so's time players asking why all successful Marine lists have Warhound Packs in them but no-one takes singles.

I think that to make the other options in the list viable then a big points hike would be needed.
Just adding 25 points onto the 'hound would still see them used in 2 singles but players would just trim the 50 points from elsewhere.

Maybe making the 'hounds initiative 2+ on top of any points change would lower their appeal a little (it certainly would for me, especially in a Guard army).

I'd hope that we could find a sweet spot wherein both are viable choices.


Doesn't seem to make sense from a background perspective. They're elite and highly trained, the "Marines" of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as it were.

Resolutely mentioning speed 25cm again

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter