All the above demonstrate that the discussion is probably more about using the correct strategy and tactics than about the unit stats. Even the correct positioning of units is key and can be the difference between a formation breaking or surviving relatively unscathed.

E:A is as much about economies of scale / redundancy as anything else. Having multiples of any formation or large numbers of units in a formation allows a player to rely on a particular strategy. For example, in the Eldar a single formation of Nightspinners is weak and easily broken / destroyed. Multiple Night Spinners are much more potent and scare a lot of people (I think I am the only person to field five formations to date . . .)

Here, I agree with the others that the only thing needed is to allow Vindi upgrades to the formation - appropriately costed to give attractive point breaks. I note that E-UK still has them at 250, while NetEA has them at 225. . . .
Taking the NetEA costs, perhaps start with upgrades of 0-2 for 75 points or even allow formations of 5 Vindis for 275 with 0-1 extra for 25 points?

Equally, I think people have to start with the strategy in mind when building and using lists - assuming the above costing, consider building the army around 2x formations of 6x Vindicators (600 points) and then working out how these are going to behave in the army as a whole - possibly even including some air assault capability.

One last thought, what armies would people field if they could not use WarHounds?

=======
My only real beef in the Marines is the "hack spit" WarHounds. The point is that they are superb at what they do, and if anything is a no-brainer, it is the inclusion of WarHounds / Chaos Ferals in any list. Their speed, firepower, armour, walker and Fearless abilities far outweigh any Marine AV formation cost per points. Unfortunately this trait has been continued through Chaos and other lists, making this type of unit omni-present wherever it is available.

My solution has always been 0-1 singleton "Scout" titans in *all* lists, and possibly ban them altogether in some (like the Marines). I would even consider toning down the WH Gatling gun if they still prove too popular - though that may well be met with some resistance from the "single weapon stats" debate.

An alternative, though more complex approach, would be to allow them but only where sufficient numbers of other scout formations are present (they are 'scouts' after all) so perhaps a Warhound per two other scout formations . . . . .

I'd argue that, in the vast majority of cases, 4 Vindicators are at best of equal value to 5 Land Speeders (of any flavor). Try them at 200pts for 4 and I bet that wouldn't break anything.

Regarding them then being cheaper than Destructors, We're talking about another very rarely seen formation again.......

Just trial them at MW. It's not going to break the list or game. Spam them if you must... You'll see a list relies on more than a few MW.

Bulk vindicators will loose out to hordes, and be destroyed at range by most MBTs, same goes for demolishers.

Have a look at some of the stats, in a variety of situations, a MW vindicator isn't vastly more effective than say annihilators.

Well, vindi seems to get Disrupt to his gun.

About Warhounds: Take the AMTL Crit:

But one that is considered acceptable (the EpicUK version is cheaper but worse FF, the NetEA version more expensive but better FF).

Excuse me, no offense.. but no wonder why.

Night Spinner - AV, 35cm, 5+, 6+, 5+ 45cm 1BP indirect, distrupt, hover, transport 175p three of them (58,3 one). A good 50p less then should. And I seen in a list even cheaper (maybe 165p).

Whirlwhind - AV, 30cm, 5+, 6+, 5+ 45cm(???) 1BP indirect 300p four (75 one)


Vindicator:
The demolisher cannon IS a macro weapon. If chaos has already have lots of macro, why don't you take away some of their toys? If they have alredy that much.
Why bother the only single marine MW weapon, which is rightfully theirs?

Taking away titans dosen't solve anything (I never use warhounds by the way).
The problem is WHY they must NEED to take them.

_________________
Epic armies:
Blood Angels
Codex Space Marines
Titan Legions

You realise stuff like ATSKNF, initiative 1+ instead of 2+ and the overall context of the army costs points too, right?

_________________

Yes I am, and still stands solid.
Almost no one use whirlwhinds.
And hunters, insted they take airplanes for AA defence... marines with airplanes.

_________________
Epic armies:
Blood Angels
Codex Space Marines
Titan Legions

Hunters are pretty vital - for marines you can win enagements, but you need the enemy to have bm's to change those modifiers.

Not sure I've ever seen a SM list that wasn't all drop or all air without a hunter or more often 2

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

No, the Demolisher cannon is (at best) on the borderline between what should be a macroweapon attack and what shouldn't.




That is terrible, terrible design philosophy



It's not a macroweapon, and it hasn't been in the 10 years the list has existed. you want it to be a macroweapon, but that's a different thing entirely.




And yet the vast majority of Space Marine lists recorded feature at least one Warhound, and normally two or more.

And a single hit on the Whirlwinds breaks them, while it takes three hits to break the whirlwinds. Yes, the NS are cheap but very brittle which is why many prefer the Void Spinner; this *was* considered too cheap at 250 points so raised in E:UK to be 275, a lead that the current NetEA AC looks set to follow.

However, my point was that multiple formations of a single type has a multiplying effect - Try building an army around three sets of WW (as a laugh) and see how they do . . . .


To be fair, the issue is actually power creep in the lists, of which this is quite a good example. WHY do we need to arm the Vindicator with a MW weapon???

With all due respect, I doubt that making the Demolisher MW will actually see them taken more often in Marine lists (though it may well assist other lists ). The reason is simple, Marines need high speed manoeuver to ensure that they can concentrate at a single point where they overwhelm the opposition, hence they work best with some form of air assault. The trick is to have sufficient support to keep the opponents off-balance for the rest of the game.

In this, a 4x strong Vindicator formation is just not fast enough to fulfil that support role. The WarHound on the other hand kicks out more firepower, is faster and arguably better armoured than a formation of Vindicators - and singleton Vindicator upgrades hinder rather than help most of the formations that can take them . . .



By which I assume the implication that they provide MW firepower - well, so do Landspeeders . . .
Again, the actual issue is HOW to use the Vindicators. They are good in a niche role of assaulting or supporting assaults against cover - they are the archetypal city assault tank, not an open area battle tank. In this role, IC and *possibly* Disrupt are more than sufficient - MW is going much too far, especially considering the wide-ranging implications across multiple other lists (Chaos).

And why some of you think that?

It's not a macroweapon, and it hasn't been in the 10 years the list has existed. you want it to be a macroweapon, but that's a different thing entirely.[/quote]

Not I want it.
What is a weapon's stat even in epic, should follow to a reasonable degree what that weapon can do in "big brother" 40k.

It seems this going over, and over, and over again.
I think many people simply don't know what the demolisher is.
If it was a wrong design for 10 years, then even more here is the time to change it.

Please no one take this as some "fight" or something, and I said everything I wanted about this.

_________________
Epic armies:
Blood Angels
Codex Space Marines
Titan Legions

The Tau Railgun, at Str 10 AP1, is held up as the premier tank killer, yet is only AT4+ in epic.



Its a Str 10 AP 2 ordinance single shot; other weapons of similar power don't have MW.

Honestly, I think the Demolisher is a victim of the lack of garnularity in EpicA; there's a massive gulf between normal, not-affecting-armor-saves-at-all AT shooting, and Macroweapon, negate-all-normal-saves shooting. Replacing armor saves with some kind of penetration roll would allow for much more variation without any extra complication or dicerolls.

Finally, Don't think I'm against MW for any ballance concerns, even with a (presumably MW4+, no ignore cover) shot, they won't be that good; they'll probably have to at least move to get in range to fire and so will only be hitting on 5+ or maybe even 6+.

I beleive the idea is to move them to be AT lance?



Surely as a bunker buster they should remain IC no matter what happens to them?