3+ FF destructors for 250pts seems a bit too good!

I was worried that my 4+ ones for 225 points were a bit too good - I'd happily pay and extra 25 pts for 3+ FF!

3+ ff predators was agreed by the community here around six months ago. We have the option of going back to 4+, where they had been for several years, but nobody was using them, then.

3+ makes them the tank version of a devastator unit, similar utility and cost, faster if the devs lose their rhinos (slower if not), but more vulnerable because they can't take cover in terrain, and more expensive to transport.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And comments like this really make me want to bother to play 'your' lists.

Well, when they do start being used i think you're going to find them too good. Especially when a bit more creativity is applied with LC and/or spaceships.

I am just waiting to see the flow on effect to other lists to be honest....

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

So… after the many pages of discussion of the over-poweredness and over-usefulness of single Warhounds and the consequent ubiquity of Titan allies in SM lists, with a various different levels of suggestions to address it, have you really chosen to do none of them and ignore the problem? I hope I’m misunderstanding something or that would be very disappointing!

From either a background or game perspective did anyone have much of a problem with Warhound pairs? They’re the way we're told they operate for mutual support and (just going by the Epic-UK stats) virtually no one was choosing to take them at 500 anyway while the 275 single option was there. If the singleton were to have been removed then I could see perhaps see a possible price rise to 525 if 4 Warhounds in 3k were considered a problem (though I think the resulting low activation numbers with over half 3k points spent on just 3 formations to ensure a larger BTS, would ensure this build was rare and competitively sub-optimal in any case). With the singleton as is and the pair more expensive the pair will be taken even less than the virtually never it is now. Edited to add: just to make it completely clear: I have no problem with SM lists very occasionally taking 4 Warhounds, the actual problem is the ubiquitously taken 1-3 singles (and overall the presence of titans rather than no titans that this leads to).

Other changes generally sound good – hooraa to Land Raiders with Tacticals at long last! IMO bit of a shame you haven’t adopted the Epic-UK split Predator pricing as the standard 2 of each you get in a Predator pack becomes a sub-par option again, whereas the split costs neatly fixed this. I still don't think the unit needs or should have FF3+ either, but we can give a go and see how it performs.

I’m unlikely to get a chance to play any wargames till next year, as I’m hopefully going travelling in Central America for 6-9 months, but for the next 3 years after that while working around Oz and Nz I hope to get some games/playtests in. I’ll be taking my SM army with me and hopefully finally painting it along the way.

I don't get why you find my comment hostile.

you stopped using NetEA marine lists five years ago. Instead you use the EUK lists that you developed. To all appearances you're very unlikely to ever "bother" using a NetEA marine list, other than if you decide to make an EUK version of one.

So you won't have to "live with" any changes that Dobbsy makes, because you'll never use them. My comment was meant as a friendly ribbing and you took it as an insult.

Sorry for offending you.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

On the Vindicator, check Dptdexys comments. The point made is that they already *do* perform well if used appropriately.

Much of the debate about reducing costs on the various formations seems to be based on people's perceptions that they under-perform in some respect, whereas it is more likely that people are not using the formations to their best advantage (or are using the 'wrong' tactics). The one exception to this is the Singleton Warhound debate, which is largely about the 'look and feel' of the Space Marine army; whether the use of singlton Warhounds is inappropriate and what is the best remedy.

Please can we separate out the development into two stages, one to assess the impact of proposed changes to (some) of the Marine formations, and the other to test the impact of changes to the Singlton Warhound in the SM list.

The other possible changes should definitely not be tried, at least until the list is settled again - if at all (and I really don't think they are needed - but you knew that didn't you Dobbsy )

Please dont second guess what lists people will or will not use in their own games in their own time, or assume that just because they may not - in your opinion - play against or with a specific list, that they have no interest in seeing it balanced and successful. Its like saying I have never seen you play with an Ork Landa and so your opinion on the unit is irrelevant.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Ok Iain, because it's you I'll drop the subject :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Awwwww..... I am honoured!

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

It will offer the chance to change the feel of the list and I definately think that these changes could happen. As with all things they need to be tested and the results shown to the wider community. I will be watching this develope with interest.

So it's very unlikely I will ever use any of these changes - but hey its the internet so I feel duty bound to give my opinion anyway .

Land Raiders - 325pts

Seems fine for the formation with FF4+, but in reality so is 350pts. Its just there are better options in the list for what these give me as a formation.

Vindicators - 225pts

Again its fine, but again these guys are perfectly fine at 250pts with Walker, Ignore covers a great ability and they are very multi role. But again there are just better things available that I would swap them out for if I was going for maximum efficiency in list design.

Predators - 250pts Pred Dest FF3+

I prefer a split costing style and I dont think FF3+ is justified personally. But it certainly makes both Predators very good options.

Tacticals - 275pts + LR upgrade

Makes Tacticals a very good choice, personally I like Tacticals anyway at 300pts and at 275pts would definately start to use quite a lot of them. Land Raider upgrade is interesting - would probably add one to the BTS but thats about it.

Warhounds - 550pts (only pairs allowed)

OK personally I have no interest in changing Warhounds, I dont have a problem with them being very common in the list and think they are cool and fun to play with.

But if your aim is to make them a much harder choice then this would actually do it. Even if you dropped the singles or upped the cost of singles to 300pts - I would move to the pair at 500pts (and so retain the same number of Warhounds as before) for a simple reason - Its a really great and powerful choice that still gives my Marine army something its lacking. The reason its rarely seen now is because its just not quite as good a choice as 2 single Warhounds in the context of the air assault list.

Having said that I dont really care about removing Warhounds from the Marine list and the cost of 275pts per Warhound with the new dangerous critical is an accurate cost for their abilities.

1. OK
2. OK, points only
3. Questionable but testable. I would lean towards split pricing over 3+FF Destructors.
4. OK. LR upgrade not needed, imho.
5. No.

+1 to Neal. Why are the Warhound pairs being touched? Most people have a problem with the singles.

I'd rather see the Destructor/Vindicator cheaper than with a better FF or move. Granted the D throws out a lot of fire but very little is AT, FF should take that into account. Also, a Russ Demolisher has FF 3 and it has Plasma Cannons and a Lascannon, I don't think the Vindy is in the same category.

I'll probably give this a shot this weekend if no one wants to play the 'nids:

http://traitor-legion.appspot.com/choos ... x1~546~547

The reductions work out to an extra 2 Hunters in my mind for this list.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17