Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

What was the rationale for changing single Warhound costs?

 Post subject: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound costs?
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Hamden, CT
I was informed that my group will be using the NetEA lists for an upcoming tourney, and therefore, my single Warhound for 250 points is now 275 points. What was the rationale for this? I couldn't find an answer anywhere. Is it just because "smaller unit sizes cost more as a rule?" The only explaination I could find was "Nope, simply cut-n-paste from the Marine "Allies" section; though I think many of the "newer" Imperial Guard armies follow the 275/500 thing anyway" and that really isn't a good reason.

The thing that irks me is that with a 25 point bump, I now have to dump a unit and will have 25 points that I cannot fill, unless I just throw a Chimera in for the sake of having one (obviously, I'm playing Guard.)

I don't have a real issue with changing things because of balance, but change for the sake of change, or because "all the other lists out there are doing it" doesn't sit well with me. Can someone give me an answer on this one?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:37 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
It's for balance. Multi-Warhound lists were always very strong in tournaments and Warhound spam was considered to be a problem because of it. 3DC, shielded, Fearless formations are quite durable and allow armies to retain a high activation count late in the game.

OTOH, Warhound packs of 2 do not offer the same level of activation and flexibility advantage as single Warhounds and were not considered unbalanced at 500 points.

I might be mistaken, but I believe the EpicUK group that runs tournaments in the UK came to the same conclusion and made the same change to point cost.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
I believe the EpicUK group that runs tournaments in the UK came to the same conclusion and made the same change to point cost.

Indeed they did.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Last edited by Evil and Chaos on Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Hamden, CT
It seems to me that it would have been better to put a unit cap on the Warhounds, rather than raising the price. If I'm running 4 Warhounds separately, this ruling doesn't hurt me in the slightest - I only lose 100 points of something else. So I lose 6 stands of infantry. Big deal.

On the other hand, if I am a player that is using one Warhound as support, that extra 25 points really hurts because I lose a unit that I might need, and I don't have anything to fill that gap, unlike the spammer who has 3 additional Warhounds making up for the lost 100 points.

Unit caps kill spam, not a couple extra points.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
berzerkmonkey wrote:
Unit caps kill spam, not a couple extra points.

Not all games are played at 3000 points, it's just the most common point value.

The case against caps is that they don't scale... allowing 0-3 Warhounds 250 points each makes them too good at lower point value games and worse at higher point value games.

Personally, I can see a case for leaving IG single Warhounds at 250 points vs the Marines at 275 points as 1) The IG have a lower Strategy Rating and 2) the Four-Hound problem was primarily a Marine issue, not a Guard one, as the Guard have a lot of other sweet options that compete with Warhounds at that point value.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
At 3000 points you can no longer run 4 and running 3 means max one T'bolt flight for fighter cover.

Units that are not correctly valued for their abilities get spammed, unit caps are then put in place to limit them. Many think it better to fix the points than put caps on units as these don't scale as game increase in size.

YMMV of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Chroma I'm going to respectfully disagree with you other the warhounds usefulness to guard. Nearly every guard list I've seen at a tournament recently has at least one warhound and normally more.

Even I succumbed and used 'hounds in my last guard list.

[EDIT] of the 8 guard lists brought to the 3 UK tournaments this year 5 had warhounds.


Last edited by Mephiston on Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Hamden, CT
Chroma wrote:
berzerkmonkey wrote:
Unit caps kill spam, not a couple extra points.

Not all games are played at 3000 points, it's just the most common point value.

The case against caps is that they don't scale... allowing 0-3 Warhounds 250 points each makes them too good at lower point value games and worse at higher point value games.

Point taken. Still, it does hurt the player who wants to only take one, as it creates an artificial "points gap" that is pretty tough to fill.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Chroma wrote:
berzerkmonkey wrote:
Unit caps kill spam, not a couple extra points.

The case against caps is that they don't scale...


Agree. It is fine as it is now.

Only other option I can see is 1 per 1000 points. No need to change it however. I do not see it as broken.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
berzerkmonkey wrote:
Point taken. Still, it does hurt the player who wants to only take one, as it creates an artificial "points gap" that is pretty tough to fill.

Hmmm... I thought the NetEA Steel Legion update allowed 0-2 Snipers at +25 points each, but that doesn't seem to be in there now... so I get what you mean by there being a single non-50-multiple formation in the list being a problem.

Currently, the only way to get another non-50-multiple upgrade is Mechanized Snipers at +75 points.

The NetERC will look into this.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Hamden, CT
frogbear wrote:
Only other option I can see is 1 per 1000 points. No need to change it however. I do not see it as broken.

I don't see it as broken either, just something that could have possibly been done differently.

Chroma wrote:
Hmmm... I thought the NetEA Steel Legion update allowed 0-2 Snipers at +25 points each, but that doesn't seem to be in there now... so I get what you mean by there being a single non-50-multiple formation in the list being a problem.

The NetERC will look into this.

Thanks! I mean, yes, I could take a sniper or Ogryn unit and a Chimera, but it's kind of like I'm shunted into taking a worthless filler unit to make up for the Warhound increase.

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


Last edited by berzerkmonkey on Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Imp Guard are the one army that I never have a problem making a force for.

They have so many options that are good and cheap. I find it hard to think that the 25 point bump on Warhounds would throw any IG army I made up out unless I had been playing the same force over and over again and trying to tweak it to it's min-maxed potential.

Is this the case berzerkmonkey?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
frogbear wrote:
Is this the case berzerkmonkey?

I believe it's mainly that there is only one other option in the entire list that is also a multiple of 25 points.

A single Warhound at 275 points means that you'll always be at *least* 25 points down from whatever point value of game you're playing, and, depending on other formations, potentially more.

That's the heart of the issue, no, berzerkermonkey?

And, just to nip it in the bud, the desire to "spend all your points", is *NOT* min-maxing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Example, here's a list from the pre-275 point change that I've used, a heavy armour/mech force. Changing the single Warhound to 275 (from 250) means I've got to drop a full formation to fit it in... and then add upgrades... and still be down 25 points.


Sample 3000 Point Steel Legion Army

Mechanized HQ Company
1 Supreme Commander
12 Imperial Guardsmen
7 Chimeras

Tank Company
1 Vanquisher
9 Leman Russ

Superheavy Tank Company
2 Shadowswords
1 Baneblade

Superheavy Platoon
1 Shadowsword

Artillery Battery
3 Manitcores
1 Commissar

Vulture Squadron
4 Vultures

Deathstrike Battery
2 Deathstrike Missile Launchers

Thunderbolt Squadron
2 Thunderbolt Fighters

Warhound Squadron
1 Warhound


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: What was the rationale for changing single Warhound cost
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Hamden, CT
frogbear wrote:
Imp Guard are the one army that I never have a problem making a force for.

They have so many options that are good and cheap. I find it hard to think that the 25 point bump on Warhounds would throw any IG army I made up out unless I had been playing the same force over and over again and trying to tweak it to it's min-maxed potential.

Is this the case berzerkmonkey?

Not at all. I don't think that the points increase makes the army worthless, it is just that I feel players who don't try to powergame are penalized. The guard don't have a lot of cheap, effective units, so when one is taken away, you feel it.

With a 25 point Warhound price increase, I lose a Hydra that might save my infantry unit from fighters. Or I lose the Support Squad that might have saved my artillery when Terminators teleported in.

My argument is that with the increase, I don't just lose 25 points, I lose a potentially useful unit and have to replace it with a poorer substitute or lose the points. The point values of the units on the list make it pretty hard to fill the gap.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net