Frogbear's thoughts:

- 0-1 restriction is lazy and an ugly solution. Pricing the single Warhound up by 25 points is a start (especially with the new crit).
- The arguement that I will just drop a Chaplain is bland at best. When you lose that assault by 1 and your Marines break, you may just reconsider that 50 points in the future.
- Thunderbolts @ 175 points is justifiable due to the SR5. Being able to Teleport, have a better chance to get the first turn, staffe a formation and then retain to charge is not to be taken lightly. Neither is the ability to CAP first if required. Once the opposition then responds, you still have the Thunderhawks and LC to activate. At this point, your WE allocation has still not come into the fray. Marines have it very good so I do not see a real issue with the 25 point change. It's change may effect pricing in other lists however.
- Warlord - meh! - not really sure it is needed
- Scouts - I really do not see a reason for this change.

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

Almost noone takes pairs now. At 550 they're not worth taking. The reason single warhounds are taken is because they're a powerful yet cheap activation. A 500 point formation is not cheap, a 550 point one even less.





Since when has the problem been people filling their 1/3 with warhounds? The problem is people taking 2 single warhounds in almost every list.



I doubt anyone has ever taken 2 sets of warhound pairs at 3000 points. It's not a good choice, especially as it means no thunderbolts.

Individual warhounds are awesome because they're a cheap activation, pairs aren't.

I gave you my reasoning to answer your question not to have this 550 point debate spiral on.

OK 500 points for a pair only. Like I've said a couple times now, I'm happy to try it.


And that's the issue in a nutshell really. "Cheap activation" should ring alarm bells. Pairs make you think about it not just phone it in.

well at the very least greg flynn (whoever that is) has.
3 terminators (one with a chaplain)
3 thunderhawks
2 scout formations
2 pairs of warhounds.

not a great list but it is something someone has done.


personally, i still think the thunderhaws in the 1/3rd is the best way to handle it, but i entirely support the removal of solo warhounds. (though i dont think they really need a price rise aswell)
i also like the other changes listed here (but i dont think vindicators need FF3 and extra speed as well as a price drop)

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

So raise the price of an individual Warhound. 325 - about as much as a formation of Land Raiders. That's not unjustifiable.

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

The same price as an individual Revenant (albeit they don't come that way)? Not sure that will pass the crucible. Heck 300 isn't warranted by some folks' views....

Personally, I think after all the debate that given Neal and Meph's aversion to a change, we're most likely gonna be stuck with what we have. No change. <shrug>

The aversion is not to change. The aversion is to too much change too quickly.

Christ, dude. If I'm telling you it's too much change and E&C's telling you it's too much change, it's too much change.

Try 300. Or 325. Or cut the price of everything else so it's better than Warhounds. Yanking the unit wholesale is a last resort.

Personally, I'd recommend 325. Land Raiders are worth maybe 10% more than Warhounds, and with them at 325, the logical place for a Warhound is 300. Put it at 325 and its cost is slightly excessive - enough to limit its use to people who want Warhounds, as oppose to people who just want Titans or who just want to win.

If LRs go down further at a later date, so can Warhounds.

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

I don't believe that the problem with warhounds will ever be solved by price increases as the overall impact on the list in terms of what units can be taken is barely touched. True, it does provide slight nerfs to the list overall, but it does little to actually change the structure of the list.

The problem isn't that warhounds are overpriced or underpriced at all, it's that a good chunk of players takes them and then build the rest of the list. The only way you can solve people taking warhounds as marines is to either remove them entirely or provide something that is equally as attractive that competes with their slots.

Moving the thunderhawks to the 1/3 is the best option to do that without introducing new units to the list. This works because it the Thunderhawks are an essential part of the list and it forces you to weigh using your points to keep a strong air assault component at the expense of either AA or ground support with the titans. Now, I've seen a lot of comments saying that this is too drastic of a change and it will kill air assault lists but I've not seen much outside of alarmism as to why that is the case even when you can still create similar, albeit not as efficient, builds as under the current system. Of course, I thought the point was to change how the list played by putting more emphasis on the marine units. This change should do exactly that without messing with the costs of the warhounds further or fiddling with the costs of thunderbolts.

Besides, as you just said Dobsy, "...unless it's tried we won't ever know will we...?"

_________________
-Vaaish

Increase the price of Warhounds enough, other things start to be equally attractive.

I guarantee you, if it costs 500 for one, other options will be considered (a set of two, for example. )

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

The only change to warhounds I would try at this time is singletons at 300pts.

Pairs are fine and Noone at all has complained about them, and after the critical hit change singletons are notably less durable than they were.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The netEA project has been working for 4 years to produce a set of lists that are revised by the community + variants of them. Hopefully at some point soon this work will come to fruition with the release of the armybook.

How is it a good idea that before that is even released it will be outdated and obsolete? Surely there needs to be at least some periond after it before fundamentally changing lists? IMO fundamental changes should only, at this stage, be made for large balance issues - probaybl only for the nids of the 'parent' lists

Surely a better option would be to ask people to give Land raiders, predators, vindicators etc thorough testing in the current list and then address any issues in time for the yearly review. The virew that they are crap options means that they are rarely even tried so lets see people give them a go. For example dptdexys tried a vindicator formation at Counterattack and really liked them for clearing out scouts - said to me last night he would definitely take them again (especialy now they have Walker), both dptedexys and I have been using the TS+EC a lot recently and have used LRs in them. both of us thought that after giving thme a go and finding them decent we would use them in SM lists rather than automatically ignoring them. I'm definitely taking a pair with devs next time I take SM.

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

Any changes that fail to be tested adequately before the armies book is released can be put on ice till the next book release (2013 I guess), so there's no need to stop the development process IMO, especially a's the previous champion acted a's a brake on forward movement for years.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yay! = +1

FWIW, having 2 pairs for 1k pts is not a build people would use. So if that's the motivation for upping the cost of the pair, then it's not good motivation.

_________________

I think 0-1 is justified by the background. Warhound packs suffer attrition, the survivor finds itself alone - but if there's another survivor nearby they'd very likely group up, given that they're both mostly run by one person (the princeps), and the princeps are part of an elite brotherhood. So 0-1 is justifiable at any size - if there's another warhound on the battlefield, chances are that they'd "pack up".

Got no opinion on if 0-1 singleton or no singletons is the best, really.

edit: and this is a background issue, isn't it? Nobody's complaining that 2 warhounds is overpowered when facing other armies, just it's "wrong" for every marine list to have it?