Removal of the single does put the warhounds in running for the BTS. I'm not sure that would be enough to prevent them from showing up in a list and hiding out for a quick objective grab or contest though. If it does then more emphasis would be on the marine formations or cheap thunderbolts. I think that testing the removal of singles and a separate test of moving the thunderhawks to the 1/3 would be good.

_________________
-Vaaish

I think changing the Crit is a no-brainer, and does reduce their potency a little.

IF we want to do anything further to Warhounds, it is evident that increasing the costs will have little effect, so the 0-1 restriction is the way to go.
However I certainly would not agree to removing them entirely.

BUT this should also be applied to the Chaos Feral to be even handed; and it is this part that may well be harder to achieve.

Not necessarily - Chaos Marines are a different army, from a by-gone age with lots of crazy weirdness. Their logistics, attitudes and tactics could be different. The entry for the Imperial Warhound in the Taros book talks about them acting in pairs, but the entry for the Chaos Warhound in the Vraks book makes no mention of them fighting in pairs.

I doubt he will, but should Steve54 decide he also wants to make restrict Ferals to pairs, then that would be up to him, not Dobbsy. The current proposal is to change the Warhounds to pairs only is for the SM lists, not all lists.

Oh, dont get me wrong, I realise they are different lists and ACs. However, the later 'Chaos' lists followed the lead from the core lists and also allowed singltons. It is notable that singlton Revenants were considered overpowered and can only be fielded in pairs while all other scout class titans come in singles.

Indeed, I would like to see all scout class titans follow the same 0-1 rule with a separate cost for a pair, both because it is probably more 'fluffy', and because it is a more balanced approach. If adopted, I would propose allowing 0-1 singleton Revenant titan for 350

The goal would be to make Warhounds a less common/obvious choice, certainly not to prevent them from showing up altogether.

A controlling player may want to hide his Warhounds, but the opponent has plenty of ways to seek them out and destroy them.

Agreed.

_________________
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.

So you three aren't concerned that all you ever see in tournaments is the same builds, by-and-large and that less actual Marine units get used than really should...?

No really, no.
I don't see the "same builds" around here at all.
Many of the local Marine players don't take Warhounds at all. They are all still having fun and winning their share of games.

_________________
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.

Gotcha. So a nerf-change to Warhounds wouldn't even effect your playing group?

Onyx's group clearly plays for the fun and experience. That is a great thing, however it should not be taken as the norm as Vic (Australian) tournament list builds will show - starting to see tougher Eldar and IG armies. This may start to encourage some of those Marine builds from winning tournaments when opponents start researching winning lists before a tournament.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Wow...
Please note I used the word Many not all or none.

Nobody has caught me out or proved anything. All it does indicate is that Marines can win games without using all the cool toys available or without changing a list that is basically balanced.
I can see one or two minor adjustments that can be made to specific units/formations that may improve the list. Wholsale changes are not warranted.

If you want a discussion about these things, it's best not to try and prove my opinion to be wrong by making assumptions about our local group.

I haven't seen any argument that persuades me that Warhounds are an issue for the Marine list. Just because they may not fit in with what a few people percieve as a Marine army, does not mean they should be limited/removed from the list.

I seem to recall that someone in the recent discussions mentioned that the Ultramarines have 12 Land Raiders. So does that mean that if we see an Ultramarines army with more than a few Landraiders on the table, we should shout out heresy at the top of our lungs?

Dobbsy, you asked if I have a problem with a pattern of Marine lists that play in tournaments. My answer is a simple no .

_________________
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.

The Ultramarines have 19 Land Raiders. 12 sitting around the Armoury, 7 in the First Company.

They have only eight Vindicators, yet one of the example forces in the same codex has four of them.

If you see an UM army with 20 Land Raiders, I think you'd be justified in asking a few questions on several levels. Starting with "why the hell did you spend half your points on Land Raiders?"

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

Agreed

No, I have no problem with people bringing 2 warhound lists to tournaments. Do they win constantly? No.

As the opponent you know what the marine player is going to do and can counter accordingly. It's no auto win button.

But if people want to force marines into certain selections then the list would have to change into a core, support style list like eldar or chaos.

and, at last count, 0 warhounds.

and yet...

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~