Simulated Knave wrote:
However, proposed changes don't seem to be debated on their merits. They seem to be debated on a basis of "your interpretation of the list is wrong - you need to play better/read the fluff". Usually without explanation of what should be done or referenced in order to justify what currently stands. Or people are told that we're changing things too much, and there's been enough change.
This is the problem I have with stuff like the proposed warhound critical changes. I don't see anything broken by leaving the critical as is and it keeps it consistent with the rulebook sold by GW which in turn helps new players who buy the rulebook have an accurate rule set. It can be rather disheartening to pay $40 for a book from the company that owns the game only to find everyone saying such and such rule is different and the change isn't part of the FAQ but rather part of X fan document.
Quote:
But if the list is not meeting expectations, surely that is a sign of a problem?
This is true, but again, not necessarily a problem with the list itself. It can also be a problem with preconceived notions of the player using the list.
Quote:
I think if it were Tactical Squads or Assault Squads or Devastators or Predators or even Whirlwinds, you'd see less of that. But at the moment, the staple units of the Space Marine lists on the table seem not to be the staples of the Space Marine list in the fluff. One of them isn't even a Space Marine unit. And people notice that dissonance.
True, but this seems rather small picture. Warhounds or Reavers as a standard part of a 40k army would be justifiably out of place in the fluff. It stands to reason that with the scope of Epic, such interactions and supporting actions with Naval forces or Titan legions wouldn't be uncommon in the larger scale battles represented. Additionally, all of the must have units are taken from the allied slots. If the goal was to make marines take more marine formations, why aren't the suggestions to simply reduce the percentage of points available for allies to something more like 10 or 15% instead of repointing the Warhound yet again, or changing its stats?
Quote:
True. But on the other hand, if Dave Thomas is doing very well with a particularly army list configuration, it would seem fair to ask whether that army list configuration is what a Space Marine army 'should' look like.
Presumably, Mr. Thomas is competent enough to take something quite close to the most powerful army he can for his playstyle. If the most powerful army for the Space Marines is not representative of a theoretical Space Marine force, this may be a problem.
[/quote]
Yes and no. Continuing to use Dave Thomas as an example, his army compositions have varied to a degree despite always including the warhounds. To be perfectly honest, without complete battle reports of his games we can't even be sure how pivotal the warhounds were in the games or what his motivations for taking them were.
