Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

NetEA changes - Warhounds
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=19609		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Steve54 [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:  NetEA changes - Warhounds
From the updated list of SM changes viewtopic.php?f=73&t=19332 SM warhounds going up to 300pts appears to be a done deal now :(

How has this suddenly gone through? There are 11 pages of discussion about warhounds in which the majority view a token price increase to warhounds as a waste of time.

Warhounds are a staple of SM armies - increasing to 275pts was a good step as 1) 250 was too cheap and 2) players with no shame could no longer take 4 at 3k.

Increasing to 300 is pointless - 1) 25pts isn't big enough increase to make alternatives a viable choice and 2) it is in reality detrimental as tacticals will just be replaced by devastators to gain the points back.

So the change has really one sole detrimental affect and no positive ones - and is not even widely supported.


As I've said elsewhere the change I would make to SM is to drop the addition to ATSKNF on BM in assault resolution in the 2008 errata.
1) It gives the Air assault+teleport armies a completely unneeded boost. This boost has the effect of completely overpowering the effect of the drop in SM armour prices. (As shown in EUK events). To put it simply making a poor option decent is pointless if you are going to at the same time make a good option great by effectively giving a free chaplain to air assault+teleports

2) It makes no difference to ground assaults -ie assaults in later turns by tacs+devs. they have been boosted by the leader removes 2 BM so now they should be on less BMs than larger units by the later turns anyway.

3) It is very poorly written -as can be seen in the confusion over ti in the thread about it and in that at every tournament this year it has been queried more than once
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
Why is a simple 0-1 for single Warhounds out of the question?
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
Except being able to take only one Warhound does actually somewhat affect the value of the other one. Synergy and all that.
Author:  Steve54 [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
Hena wrote:
The whole point is to try to balance Warhound to the rest of the army, not try to balance air assault. At 275 it is still is better than anything else in the same price range. Or would you disagree with me on that part?

I suppose it could be left there, but I'm not sure it should.


Where have I said anything about balancing the warhound and air assault? The balance is against predators or activations and this change does nothing for that and will make a SM unit (tacs)that should be a staple less common

If you what a thorough rundown of the warhound debate their is an 11 page thread devoted to it
Author:  Steve54 [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
Hena wrote:
. I'm not going to touch ATSKNF at this point as it would change the army too much.

Why was it acceptable to change it at the 2008 errata then? The change was made then so surely it cannot be too much to change it back at the next review stage if, as seems to be the case, it was a mistake - all it would do is revert to the pre-errata rule (We're just talking about BMs in assault resolution)
Author:  Mephiston [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
Spirit stones anyone?
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
The general consensus of the ATSKNF thread seemed to be that switching it to "minimum 1" would work well, while the general consensus of the Warhound thread seemed to be pretty much no consensus, honestly.
Author:  frogbear [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
BlackLegion wrote:
Why is a simple 0-1 for single Warhounds out of the question?


This does not scale. The 0-1 restriction is not the same at 1500 points, as it is at 3000 points, and at 5000 points. It is better to restrict it in other ways.

Something needs to be done. As the latest game I showed, Morgan took a competitive Marine army where half the force were allies. That is just wrong IMO.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
I think at minimum changing the rule to "half BM's, rounding down, to a minimum of 1" is nessesary, simply because the current rule/wording is poorly written and confusing to newbies and experienced players alike.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
What Steve says.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
Quote:
2) it is in reality detrimental as tacticals will just be replaced by devastators to gain the points back.

Tacticals are 25pts too expensive. :)

Keeping an over-powered formation under-priced simply because people will stop taking an under-powered formation if the over-powered formation becomes properly priced only speaks to the problem being that the under-powered formation is too expensive.

IMNSHO.
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
frogbear wrote:
BlackLegion wrote:
Why is a simple 0-1 for single Warhounds out of the question?


This does not scale. The 0-1 restriction is not the same at 1500 points, as it is at 3000 points, and at 5000 points. It is better to restrict it in other ways.

Disagree. If only one Warhound was purchasable, then yes. You can still buy otherwise unrestricted Warhound pairs. One pair at 1500, 2 pairs at 3000, 3 pairs at 5000. The restriction just limits the number of individual Warhounds, to stop the relative effect of a decent independent formation for 275-300pts.

Personally, I'm all for requiring them to be pairs, like the Eldar Revenants. It'd likely show the truer strength/weakness of the Marine army. But if they're going to be individually purchasable as well, I have no issue with this restriction.

frogbear wrote:
Something needs to be done. As the latest game I showed, Morgan took a competitive Marine army where half the force were allies. That is just wrong IMO.

It was a third. Which is allowed by nearly every other army in the game. Not sure what your point is, here.

Morgan Vening
Author:  frogbear [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetEA changes - Warhounds
I took that as 1 Warhound choice, not just single Warhounds. I read bad it appears :P
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/