Just to chime in as a long time lurker in the rules/developement section I'd quite like to see some of the generally accepted changes put in the list.

So
1. Y Is this also with the 75pt LR upgrade?
2. Y might have to buy some now
3. Y
4. Y, I know some people are against adding LR to tacticals but with devastators having them already I don't see why not, I know I'd use them. I'm actually keen to hear the arguments as to why not.
5. N I realise this has been canned already but throwing my 2 cents in anyway. I can see your reasoning and applaud you for sticking to your convictions in the face of so much criticism but I think the EUK style should be given a chance along with the above changes to see how it affects peoples choices.

I fear to post in these threads as I'm not as experienced in this as the rest of you, but I keep hearing that the lurkers should give their opinions so here it is.

If a 0-1 limit on Warhounds is fluffy, then surely a 0-1 limit on Terminators would also be fluffy? They are incredibly rare pieces of tech, and therefore would be equally uncommon from a fluff perspective.

Re warhounds appearing in 95% of marine army lists: Background I think it's fine. Marines can and should be able to operate with allied titans.

Balance wise it speaks to an imbalance in internal balance that warhounds are chosen insyead of predator or land raider formations 95% of the time. At this
Point the problem is more with them than with warhounds IMO and price drops should increase their attractiveness.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

No, because there's no limit on warhounds - just on singletons. If there are 2 warhounds, they operate in a pack.

Or at least that's a good way to justify a 0-1 limit.

you've missed the point. The proposals is not to put a 0-1 limit on warhounds. It is to put a 0-1 limit on lone warhounds, as if multiple warhounds are present on a battlefield then by the background they should pair up.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

QFT.

I'm one of the biggest changaholics, but this is skipping several steps on the road.

No, I'm just trying to say that attempting to justify such a change by 'fluff' alone is spurious.

Changing other formations to compete for inclusion vs a lone warhound is infinitely more desirable to me than limiting or banning access to warhounds, in singles or pairs. Then it's up to the player to chose what they want to play.

whatever the case, a 0-1 restriction other than for a commander or some serious fluff is being short sighted. If you do not believe me, create a list and make it playable between 2000 and 5000 points. If you still find that you are right, then refer to my next point: you are wrong.

So please, get past the whole 0-1 debate. It is ugly, lazy and limited. The NetEA lists of today are so much better than what they were several years ago for ditching the 0-1 restrictions.

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

Meph and Neal (and most of us) haven't been keen on the so radical 550 a pair only proposal as here, but that hardly mean change is ruled out. Don't take such a defeatist approach! Given the arguments and the weight of feeling of the need for a change I'd say it's clear we need to try *something* and as army champion it would be your call as to what option(s) you think best to try.

If the option of completely removing singleton Warhounds isn't on the cards why not try the 0-1 single Warhound option (with pairs freely available at 500). Some won't feel it's necessary, while others won't feel it goes far enough, but it would be a good compromise way forward to test. After giving it an good trial out in our lists for 6 months (or however long) we could have a more informed opinion and judgement. 300-325 could also be an lesser option but the likely upshot of that would be less points spent on SM in the list, while the upshot of the former would likely be more spent on them.

Should at least test 1-4 - they seem well-recieved?

A solo revenant would cost closer to 400. The bonus of seperate activations is why titans (and superheavies etc) are more expensive as singles.

Because it does not scale. It is really not that hard to understand.

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

It scales logically compared to the background. In all background stories, if there are two warhounds in a battle they pair up. Therefore, a large battle would consist of several pairs and then possibly a single left over one if there was an odd number of them.

I am sure we could justify anything with a story. How about the warhound that loses it's 'pair'? I am sure there is more than one like that.

What you are proposing is a shabby and lazy reasoning in favour of a simple 25 point increase.

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