| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Warhounds - geez... http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=21119 |
Page 1 of 8 |
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Warhounds - geez... |
How do people actually feel about no singletons? Obviously there'll be folks who really don't like the idea, but from my perspective you still get your Titan allies you just have to pay more for it and you have to slot them together rather than gain that extra activation which in turn might stimulate the use of more Marine formations... Anyway, interested to see how this one pans out 
|
|
| Author: | netepic [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
As a marine player I'd be ok with that as long a viable alternative is provided. Warhounds are great but once you turn them from a 275 point activation into a 500pt activation they become a lot less attractive. In general though, fluff wise whilst I'm ok with the marines being a drop force, I'm considerably less happy with them always using titans as they do at the moment. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
No objection if you feel it is the correct course of action. However I'd prefer 300pts rather than full removal. |
|
| Author: | netepic [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
Warhounds were meant to hunt in pairs in the fluff weren't they? |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
Yes. I see a single Warhound as the one survivor of a Warhound Battlegroup. I would restrict single Warhounds to 0-1 per 3000pts. |
|
| Author: | Vaaish [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
I really don't think a price increase or restriction on formation size is going to have much effect on people taking warhounds. IMO, the problem is there is very little to compete with the warhounds. Basically you have 1/3 of your points available for thunderbolts (cheap AA and activations) and warhounds. Both are extremely attractive to marines and neither competes for points even though they are in the same slots. They don't even require another unit to unlock a fixed number of slots like with AMTL. Even boosting singles up to 350 points you can still get two warhounds and two thunderbolts in that 1/3 limit. True, it does put some pressure on the rest of the list, but taking Dave's list as an example, he'd lose either the hunters or his chaplain and supreme commander (assuming the list is costing singles @275). It is a bit of a loss, but that's causing a relatively minor change to the list in return for pricing a single warhound absurdly high. At best it would cause people to take the warhounds as a pack which again doesn't help to discourage warhounds in marine lists or encourage the use of alternative formations. The only ways I can see to affect the desirability of warhounds is sticking something in that 1/3 that's expensive enough to impact the available points and is more necessary for the army to function well or to tie warhounds to support slots of some kind. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
0-1 singleton would be fine by me and make sense background-wise. |
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
I'm fine with them as they are with an amended crit... |
|
| Author: | Signal [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
0-1 singleton sounds better to me than just a price hike; as Vaaish said, a price hike would just mean fewer of something else, not fewer Warhounds. With how valuable activations are, there's rarely going to be anyone taking the pairs in a normal list. The added durability is great, but Warhounds are already pretty durable. |
|
| Author: | Ulrik [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
If a single warhound cost as much as a Land Raider fm, what would you pick? |
|
| Author: | Vaaish [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
if people's current patterns hold true, they'd pick the warhound. The warhound just fills more gaps. Brings speed, shields, MW shots etc. Truthfully, even at 350 a pop, you aren't looking at serious list changeing dynamics. You can still fit your favorite builds with few changes. |
|
| Author: | mattthemuppet [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
I think this question ties in neatly with the "where should the thunderhawk go" question. As has been observed, Warhounds are just too good at too many things for people to stop taking them, almost irrespective of price, as long as they're singletons. It's also interesting that Revenants have to be taken as a 650pt fm as it was deemed that singletons were too powerful, even at 350pts (also note that very few people ever take Revenants). If you really want to force people to take fewer Warhounds or allies, either make them 0-1 or stick the WE AC (thunderhawk) into the same air+allies 1/3 that they are in every other list that I can think of. If you really really want to make people take more Space Marines and fewer other things, reduce that air+allies section to the cost of the most expensive unit you can take (750-800pts, even if it means dropping the cost of the Warlord.). If you really really want to make people take more Space Marines and fewer other things, do the above AND put thunderhawks into that section. I don't think futzing around upping the cost of thunderhawks, warhounds or thunderbolts is really going to have any effect on their prevalence or the air cav + warhounds + thunderbolts lists. I would approach it from a more holistic point, taking into account the fluff, what SM are supposed to do, what people are actually doing, if indeed any of that is an issue, then figure out the simplest, most effective way of getting to that point. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
Mephiston wrote: I'm fine with them as they are with an amended crit... Agreed. |
|
| Author: | Angel_of_Caliban [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
I think a 0-1 option on Single would fix lots of issues when it comes to Warhound Spam. Some Ground Unit changes and this I would think would "fix" the SM to be a better overall list. |
|
| Author: | GlynG [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Warhounds - geez... |
I strongly approve of the idea of getting rid of singles entirely and think it should be trialled out as it will be a significant improvement to the list. Pairs is the way the background says they operate – to quote from the Forge World Taros book: “Warhounds almost invariably operate in pairs so that they can outmanoeuvre and outflank other larger Titans they might encounter.” Modelwise most people will likely have at least 2 Warhounds so will be able to field a pair. The current GW model is £17 for one, but the chances of anyone buying it are slim when the intermittently available FW ones are £18.40 for two much nicer models. The problem with the suggestion of allowing 0-1 single Warhound is that it only reduces the extent of the problematic ubiquity of allied Titans in SM lists rather than solving it. It is very likely that 0-1 single Warhound would be nearly always taken and it wouldn’t increase the number of SM armies with no titan allies. Warhounds are a similar situation to Eldar Revenant Titans, which also operate in pairs in the background but have no option for singles (though the one fallen in combat argument some are suggesting for a 0-1 could equally apply to them it's not an option in that list). Given how precious Titans are to the Imperium and Adeptus Mechanicus (The Warhound entry in the Taros book mentions they view/worship Titans as being the Machine God incarnate, with the loss of a Titan being a grievous blow to a Titan Legion and a source of much mourning on their home Forge World). if one Warhound is destroyed the Titan Legion may be more likely to pull the surviving Warhound out of combat till they have a replacement one to pair it with. In the Taros Campaign when the new Tau Tigershark variant destroyed 1 Warhound the remaining 3 were pulled immediately pulled out of the conflict and off the planet entirely. Switching to only pairs does make the decision to take them trickier and more interesting and would almost definitely result in an increase (of some extent) of armies with no allied Titans and to an increase in the points spent on actual SMs. 1-3 singletons Warhounds are often taken and can be used aggressively since they will not be the BTS. At 500 there is a fair chance they would be the BTS, unless another specifically expensive formation is chosen. A Warhound pair is not that tough as BTS go and also would need to be used more cautiously rather than casually/sacrificially (again fitting the background for Warhounds). Two Warhound pairs is also an option, but a bit unlikely/risky as then you have two equal cost expensive formations. To get another formation to be BTS perhaps a Tactical formation with Hunter, Supreme Commander and either a Land Raider or 3 Razorbacks may be the most likely candidate to get to 525. Spending 1025 points on two formations is going to limit the activations of the army though. All in making for more trade-offs and variety in armies, while still allowing Warhounds to be seen and used. |
|
| Page 1 of 8 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|