Putting Thunderhawks in the 1/3 list is just weird... they're not piloted by allied organizations.

I don't know whether Space Marine lists win too much, too little, or just right, so I can't intelligently comment on whether Thunderhawks should be more expensive or tanks should be cheaper. My gut feeling is that a small points change wouldn't really change people's lists. If there are two similar units and one goes up in price you might switch to the other, but the Thunderhawk is unique.

My vote would be to allow Land Raider formations to transport any other formation.

neither are ork fighta-bombas, or eldar vampires. aircraft are restricted everywhere else for a reason. those reasons still apply to marines.

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

I do not see a need to put thunderhawks and landing craft into the 1/3rd limit. Happy to test 225pts if tank formations come down in price though.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Except that Ork Landas are freely purchased and don't count towards a 1/3 option.... and it's just not reasonable to have orks freely dropping their ladz into air assault as they see fit but having Marines restricted in a field they wrote the book on.

At this point in time I am ruling out a possible move to the 1/3 slot for Thunderhawks and Landing Craft.

A points increase might still happen but not right now. At least, until we see how any possible changes to ground units pans out.

Thanks for the input everyone.

So in other words, a list that isn't underpowered is getting a load of bumps and no nerfs.

Uhh, no.

Please remember this isn't the only item on the list to talk about, Zombo. There are a couple of things I would like to nerf. We'll see how everything pans out.

For now, the Thunderhawk will remain the same. No nerf, no bump.

Cheers

um, no. quite the opposite infact.
according to the 2010 netEA army draft, "Up to one third of an army’s points may be spent on Aircraft, Spacecraft, and Gargants."
that quite definitely includes the landas. they used to be freely available, but they where changed into the restricted area to prevent abuse and shenanigans.

i am rather disappointed that not just myself, but several people (more infact than any other opinion expressed in the thread at the moment) have spoken up saying that moving thunderhawks to the 1/3rd will probably solve the warhound problem and improve the general ground-pounder viability, and you're not even considering it. delaying a decision to try out other ideas is reasonable, but outright refusing to consider what appears to be a reasonably well recieved suggestion it is a pretty poor move to make as your first decision as an AC. as you yourself said about this very idea earlier in the thread "It can always be trialled and revert back if folks don't like it."

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

Yes you are correct, apologies for that. My copy of the ork list seems to be missing that section so I was referring to an older version it looks like.


Of course, I understand your disappointment. You want something you can't have - it's logically disappointing. But please don't tell me I haven't considered it. I have and I've made a decision based on what I've read. Sure it's not to your liking but you also have glossed over the fact I said:
"At this point in time I am ruling out a possible move to the 1/3 slot for Thunderhawks and Landing Craft."
Just because it won't happen right away doesn't mean it can't happen later.

Also, why is it that majority means it's right? Several other people also presented a different view to you and I selected a path that seems fair to my own understanding and gut feeling. I don't actually see the move to 1/3 making that much of a difference TBH. You still get to pack in Warhounds and Thunderhawks to the level they always were. 2xWHs, 2xTHs = 950 points. Sure you don't get a Thunderbolt formation but as someone mentioned in the thread TH's get AA already...


Well I'm never going to win everyone's love am I? Plus you're still forgetting what I just reposted above. Telling me what I outright refused to consider seems a little odd from where I'm sitting as I don't see it that way.

Also, telling me my decision making is poor, well that just hurts my widdle feewings

Seriously though, I have to make decisions. Either way, someone isn't going to like it. You are just one of the folks whose views aren't accepted right now and I'm sorry to do that to you but at some point a decision has to be made either way and I have.

I still wuv you though

well, "at this point, i have decided not to do this" is rather different to "i have decided not to do this at this point"

especially when you then make a specific point to say that while you're not going to increase the points cost, you may do so in the future. it rather strongly implies that you will not be entertaining the other idea. if you infact do intend to consider it in the future, good, but thats not at all what was communicated.

my disappointment was not so much that i have been denied, i am rather used to that, but rather that your first act was to say "hell, over half the people who cared enough to comment on my first question are wrong, i am going to ignore them indefinitely"
it all feels kinda like the new boss is the same as the old boss. hence disappointing.

and just because the majority arent always right doesnt mean they're always wrong either. if nothing else, the fact that the community is sufficiently divided should prompt you to look into the issue further, and not just dismiss it outright.

anyway, you're the AC, you can do whatever you want, i just rather hoped you'd atleast wait a fortnight before the power went to your head and you started screwing over the little people is all :P

and as to not being sure it will do anything, i think you missinterpretted. the conclusion i got from that post, and the army statistics was that it would indeed impact on most of the outlying army lists, and that the thunderbolts where more likely to stay than the warhounds, since they provide both AA and cheap activations, both of which are important to an air assault, and that forcing people to choose between air support and titans would probably make titans the more attractive choice for largely ground-based armies, while air support would be chosen during air-based ones.

and if nothing else, i am damn sure that it would have a much greater effect than a less than 1% price rise would

and, well, i think the Little Blue Man says it best :P

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

The problem being you can't really put a thunderhawk on CAP or use them as burner activations since you need them for assaulting. The loss of the thunderbolts also cuts out a burner formation or two you can use to stall with. So, while it is still possible to get 2x warhounds and 2x thunderhawks, doing so will cost you some of your flexibility. But at any rate, we can continue this if the debate ever comes up again.

_________________
-Vaaish

1/3rd, unlike 225pts, would possibly change the entire way in which the list works, so it's a really big step.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

actually, you cant put a thunderhawk on CAP at all, because it is a bomber

and i honestly dont think it would change the whole list. sure, all the people who take 2 hawks 2 warhounds and 4 thunderbolts will have to drop something from their list, but basically everyone else will be fine. aside from making people not take warhounds quite so much, which was, i gather, one of the key things we're trying to do here, i dont really see how it will impact much. as has so often been pointed out to me, noone actually takes 8+ thunderhawk armies anyway, so where is the harm with bringing marines into the same ruleset as everyone else

where as a points increase will do nothing but further marginalise character upgrades (well, all upgrades, but especially characters, since they're the only ones people are taking much these days anyway, and the easiest to drop to cover hawk-tax) and tactical formations. neither of which are things we want to do, right?

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

I'll have to disagree with that. It will change the list, but it won't entirely negate how it works. 225 points really won't do much of anything. At least nothing more than costing a commander here or there in that "standard" build. It's most definitely not going to reduce the number of warhounds you see either.

For the most part, the core of the air assault list will still be there with the thunderhawks, but you will have to choose between warhounds and thunderbolts if you don't want to compromise the thunderhawks.

_________________
-Vaaish

Actually, I'd really like that, but at least as much from a fluff point of view as anything else. Realistically, I'd like to see Space marine armored formations being a viable alternative to the current all-but-obligatory-warhounds.

Guys, please can we stop focusing on the THawks and LC, and concentrate on other areas that *may* possibly need attention (though IMHO they probably do not).


Putting TH and LC into the spacecraft and titan 1/3 will prevent the entirely "airmobile" list for those who want to try a slightly more 'fluffy' style of play! Indeed in the 3K list it would preclude any form of air-transport with a WarLord titan, and virtually prevents it with a Reaver (unless of course you were thinking of dropping their costs accordingliy )

As to costs and balance, people are ignoring the other hidden constraints in the list that are not actually part of the points cost, but which curb the use of the airmobile transport very neatly:-

• Restricted transport
  The loss of transport when using THawks considerably weakens the formation (reduced formation size, loss of mobility, loss of mobile 'cover' etc), while filling a LC reduces the number of activations dramatically.
• Spacecraft
  Their capacity and deployment limitations further restrict the formations and the way they are deployed, quite apart from their additional cost.
• Enemy AA
  Flying onto the table through enemy AA has a relatively small risk of disaster, but suffering a Critical can have a disasterous effect - especially if you are transporting ~1/3 of the cost of your army in the LC!

And finally on a lighter note, does a "really concerned" balance out two "disappointed"s ?

If so, I am 'really concerned' that Dobbsy is even considering any changes to these formations!