It solves it in the same way that removing warhounds from the list entirely solves it.

I'd say we should at least tryremoving the singles. People still take scout titans for Eldar, and honestly I think it's better if there are no Titans in Space Marine lists than if there are two single Warhounds in every Space Marine list.

I disagree, but unless it's tried we won't ever know will we...?

It's excessive, and in no way the sort of caution that should be displayed in dealing with an official, finished list. This is not the place for wild experiments.

And I would ask then, why is it that people are still calling for change to the half titans/air "Space Marine" lists so prevalent in many tournaments...?

The "finished" list is far from perfect.

Fine.

225pts is fine. No to increased FF.

Fine.

Fine with cost. Not keen on the upgrade.

Absolutely not. No limit on single and no cost increase to pairs.

Not keen on this but I understand that having the higher SR could be a reason for this. There would only be a few times that a Marine players first activation would be CAP.

Not in favour of this because of the possible knock on effect to other lists.
I don't take Warlords because of the limited loadout of the Titan. If I could customise the titan I would use it but then it would truely list changing (think 2 quake cannons, Carapace Landing Pad and Close combat Weapon as a blitz guard for Marines = broken list).

I don't see the need for this at all.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Those lists never contain the warhonud pairs you're looking to make more expensive. They also contain at least two thunderhawks which you've decided not to touch. This change will make no difference to the UK tournament scene anyway.

Bring down the cost of the armour options, and the warhound becomes less attractive with its new nasty critical. A 300 point land raider formation becomes just as attractive.

You need to be more conservative with changes to such an important list. Change the vehicles and then see what impact it has on warhounds.

I'm probably with the majority here...

I'd say the ONLY problem with Warhounds is people running two of them as separate formations. I support the 0-1 restriction on singletons.

I think Thunderbolts are fine at 150; their individual cost is the same as Hunters and they're often used for the same purpose anyway. Conversely I don't think -25 points will make Warlords more popular at all. I think 800 should be the starting point!

No strong opinions on the other proposed changes. I don't think Vindicators need a stat increase, and I'm happy to see Predator Destructors become good at FF. I won't use the Tactical LR upgrade option but I'm not opposed to it either.

I would actively like the Land Raider upgrade for Tacticals, think Vindicators probably don't rate 3+ Firefight, Warhound Pairs should remain at 500 (they're expensive enough for a single activation as it is. Pushing to 550 is probably too much.) Thunderbolts at 175 might be worth trying out (SR5 makes them significantly better at CAP, as does the ability to soften targets for Air Assault.

As for single Warhounds, I think one of three things is a necessity:
1) Make Thunderhawks compete for 1/3 Allies,
2) No single Warhounds at all, just pairs,
3) 0-1 single Warhounds, no limit on pairs.

A points increase of only 25 is going to have entirely no effect, except for cutting out elements from the core list. Warhounds are so damned good for Space Marines, that people might still take them if they were 350. It's not like there was a massive drop in Titans when they went from 250 to 275; people just dropped a Chaplain, or some Razorbacks, or something else that is far more fitting in a Marine list. The current critical effect isn't worth a decrease in points, as it is still better than basically every other DC 3 War Engine, which just explode.

Personally, my preference is for #1, but #3 is the next best option.

Hey, as I mentioned, I'm happy to still try 500 for a pair if 550 is too much for people....

I am also with the others in wanting to keep Warhound pairs at 500. no price increase is necessary.

FWIW the original argument for 275 for a singlton was in part to cost in the additional activation for the smaller formation - a practice that is reasonably widespread across lists with similar situations eg Artillery company is cheaper than three Artillery batteries.

I just don't know why you're even considering changing it. Noone has ever complained about warhound pairs to my knowledge.

It's not about the complaints about pairs. It's about a compromise to try and sort the issue out.

The idea was based around the numbers you would be allowed to field. 550 means you only get 1 pair from a 1/3 allotment. It stops the over-use syndrome of the 2-3 x singles but still lets you field 2 Warhounds, however, you lose the bonus activation of the singles. You're also still paying the same as 2 singles so you lose no points in effect (other than the "formation= cheaper" design). You'd still get Thunderbolts but at 175 they'd be reduced too.

0-1 doesn't actually solve the issue either way, as you would most likely just see people take 0-1 and a pair if they're that good and you'd still get thunderbolts (even at 175) and Thunderhawks, so the issue of less Marines is still there. 0-1 total means it does not scale at larger levels, whereas 550 a pair means you can take as many pairs as you're allowed at 3000+.

No change at all means we'll see the same old builds and we'll have the same old calls for aeons.

Upping to 300 means no real change to the less Marines, more allies conundrum.

Pairs only at 500 means 2xpairs allowed - again less Marines, more allies.

Look in the end, I see this as a middle ground where no one is particularly happy but is fairer to all sides for that reason and staying truer to a more Marine design.

I can go round and round by choosing what one group of players wants only to cop it in the ear from the other 2/3rds and vice versa etc. There's no simple solution. This is the best outcome I can see.

And hey, ultimately it's not my decision. NetERC can shit-can it and we'll be right back where we started. At least I can say I tried.