Sir, you have explained this far more eloquently than I could. You're spot on - if I have the resources, I want to be able to use them, not throw them away. Guard need all the help they can get! (Well, my Guard anyway!)

_________________
Adeptus Monk-anicus
Direct Fire! My Epic Blog
My Trade/Sale List

There are a couple of places in the list where some points costs could do with dropping by 25pts, IMO.


Guard are, next to Orks, the most well-balanced list (Both internally and externally), IMHO. They don't need a great deal of extra help.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Which is *NOT* to say they're *easy* to use... just they've got a lot of tools for various jobs... and you've got to know *which* sledgehammer to apply to which specific problem...

Well, specifically, I mean my Guard But I think that has to do more with my horrible dice-rolling, than with anything else...

_________________
Adeptus Monk-anicus
Direct Fire! My Epic Blog
My Trade/Sale List

The problem is spamming for an advantage in the game. The goal is to stop game imbalance, not spamming itself. If someone wants to take 10 of the same formation, that's fine, as long as it's balanced.

If those 10 formations were really worth 25 points more than their cost, the person spamming them gets a "free" 250 points. That's a serious incentive. A cap limits the amount of damage that can be done by any particular point discrepancy, but it doesn't remove the imbalance.

OTOH, a point change corrects the imbalance. It removes the "spam for advantage" function. Someone might still spam a formation for some other reason (e.g. they want a Deathwing SM army of all Terminators) but they don't gain an inherent advantage by doing so.

I always thought the reason was because of general utility purposes. In a majority of cases, taking two singular Warhounds for the same cost as a Warhound pack, comes across as a complete no-brainer.

Unlike say, Eldar Super-Heavies, there's no Core:Elite ratio that needs to be fulfilled. And besides the obvious activation count advantage, you gain access to both multiple tactical options (can tackle different objectives, fire on two targets, get an extra BM when firing on a single target, can choose between the last two depending on the results of fire from the initial Warhound). On top of that, you get the IMO huge advantage of if one dies, the other isn't typically broken as a result (The main reason I avoid War Engine packs in most army builds).

So, the way I see it, is that Warhound costings were increased to their true value, and a discount was applied to the pair. I've had several discussions the last couple days about the flexibility of points generation. There often needs to be a more flexible costing rather than just (4-12 units at X points each). At a certain point, adding units to a formation costs more than the net benefit. As an example, it's why I prefer Corsair Havocs to Black Legion ones, even though they essentially cost the same (Assuming plain additions, the Corsair ones actually cost more).

So, I don't see it as a penalty for the single Warhounds. The cost there I see as a more accurate representation of their 'true value'. The pack just gets a discount back to it's 'previous' cost.

Morgan Vening

I don't know - I still fail to see how adding 25 points to the formation was doing anything more than adding an artificial cap anyway. It didn't address any discrepancy in points - it was put in place so buying four Warhounds would put you over the 1000 point limit in a 3000 point game. Plain and simple. It wasn't like the consensus was "Gee, those Warhounds are just a couple of points shy of being perfectly balanced in terms of bang for your buck. Let's tack on 25 points and we should be good!" So far, the only explanation I've seen is that it was done in order to quash the "four-Warhound-in-a-3000-point-game" problem. Limiting the list to 1 Warhound per 1000 points would have been a viable alternative that didn't penalize the player, and still achieved the same effect.

That being said, this really reflects more on the fact that, as Chroma stated, with the points increase, I have to drop an entire formation from my list and fill the resulting spot with stuff I don't want. There is nothing that fills the 25 point gap nicely.

_________________
Adeptus Monk-anicus
Direct Fire! My Epic Blog
My Trade/Sale List

Except Warhounds really are worth 275pts.

I've even argued from time to time that when given a Strategy Rating of 5 (In Marine armies) they become worth 300pts!



That should be fixed before the NetEA army book is published. Remember that the current NetEA army list compendium documents are only the draft versions.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Actually, that's exactly what it was like.

Whoever told you that "4-warhounds" was the rationale was mistaken. I'll bet you that you can go back through army lists and tourney rosters that predate the NetEA/EpicUK change and you will find almost no armies with 4 Warhounds, possibly none at all. There never was any "4-warhound" problem.

bezerkermonkey isn't complaining about the "true value" at 275, he's complaining that the Steel Legion army list doesn't have much to fill that 25 point "gap" such costing creates.

Players should remember that any/all army lists, wether they be Official,EpicUK,NetEA etc are only designed to be adhered to for actual tournaments.

The rule book allows, actually encourages, players to change rules,points,stats etc. that their group do not think suits them or fits with their gaming.

If your group doesn't like the 275 points Warhound then change it back, if other players in your group won't allow it then maybe they think it's worth 275.
I agree with E&C that the Warhound is worth 275 and by only adding a limit of something like the 1 per 1000 points you end up with players gaining points. As an example take 2 Warhounds at 250 points and you could take a free hydra upgrade with the 50 points that should have gone on the Warhounds.

You could also just allow 25 point upgrades to companies (1 support team/lone sniper/single Ogryn etc.) as stated earlier your encouraged by the rule book to alter things to improve your gaming experience if your group thinks it is necessary. If others in the group are reluctant to try such changes then maybe they already think the lists are fine as they are or are just *rs*h*l*s who need every advantage they can get.

If all else fails then why not just play 3025 point games.

In UK tournaments only one player stooped low enough to take a 4 warhound marine list.

Guesses as to who below (and UK tourney players that were at that event keep it too yourselves for now!)

Gotta be TRC, no?

Hmmmm, far to easy really wasn't it

Heh.