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

The Thunderhawk - price increase
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=21097		 Page 1 of 7
Author:  Dobbsy [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:41 am ]
Post subject:  The Thunderhawk - price increase
The proposal is for an increase in cost to 225 points.

I realise that change isn't everyone's cup of tea but others seem tired of seeing the standard air assault lists.

Personally, as previously mentioned here I would like to try 250 but am more than happy to try it at 225 first. I wonder if that will be enough but time will tell.

So let's start the debate about that value and whether it is a fair decision to make.

Cheers all.
Author:  Vaaish [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
Isn't the problem with the perceived viability of a SM ground force? If so, upping the cost of a unit to force a less viable alternative seems like a bad idea. I'm unconvinced that upping the cost really affects much about the decision to take thunderhawks because If they are seen as must have units to make the list work it would put the points squeeze elsewhere in the list, probably on commanders.

If the other changes to the ground aspect take affect, then it's possible 225 or 250 for the Thawk would work alright. Without those changes I would be more preferable to putting the thunderhawk in the 1/3 since it would at least put the competition between warhounds and thunderhawks and might leave points free to use some of the less taken alternatives to a warhound.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
So you would prefer to see multiple changes at once Vaaish? I'm kind of stuck between the "do it in increments" and "do it together with other changes" folks.

I'd prefer to see the latter myself.
Author:  Spectrar Ghost [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
Why is there a sense that putting THawks in the 1/3 allotment somehow going to make the list not air drop focused? My opinion would be that THawks (and LC) should stay the same price, but be in the 1/3. Therefore Warhounds would be found primarily in Ground pounder armies, where you'd expect them, and not in Air Assault armies, where you wouldn't.

The list will continure to be very capable as an air drop list, but will no longer get to have it's cake and eat it too WRT THawks and Warhounds.
Author:  Angel_of_Caliban [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
I do not like the idea of moving SM Air units into the 1/3 area.

I would prefer to wait on point raises on Air Units till after the Ground Effects Prices take effect, but 225 seems a good possibility, but 250 seems really pricey.
Author:  Vaaish [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
Quote:
So you would prefer to see multiple changes at once Vaaish? I'm kind of stuck between the "do it in increments" and "do it together with other changes" folks.


I didn't say that. I would rather see the incremental changes focus on the other areas before messing with the thunderhawks. That would leave the list the most intact while the other changes are evaluated. However, if none of the other are implemented I think moving the Thunderhawks to the 1/3 would be the simplest method of playing the thawks off the warhounds to change up the army composition on the field.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
That isn't a bad proposal, Vaaish. We can look at that if it's preferred. It does go someway to "going cautiously."

I do like SG's point about Air vs Ground in terms of the 1/3 as well. It can always be trialled and revert back if folks don't like it.

I am getting a sense that you can never please everyone though :D

EDIT - while I see SG's point I'm still not convinced that a 1/3 option means players could still do the TH/WH army list.
Author:  Angel_of_Caliban [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
Dobbsy wrote:
That isn't a bad proposal, Vaaish. We can look at that if it's preferred. It does go someway to "going cautiously."

I do like SG's point about Air vs Ground in terms of the 1/3 as well. It can always be trialled and revert back if folks don't like it.

I am getting a sense that you can never please everyone though :D

EDIT - while I see SG's point I'm still not convinced that a 1/3 option means players could still do the TH/WH army list.

Maybe moving SM Air Asset in the Codex list MIGHT be good, but I would want the Warhound left at as current(275 New Crit) status. Either way I agree focus should be other aspects like Ground units right now, we know Air works lets see what else can work in the "New" Codex List? Eh?
Author:  Jaggedtoothgrin [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
with or without a points increase you'd still be able to take 3 thunderhawks and a warhound (though not 2) or a bunch of thunderbolts, within the 1000 points restriction.
you'd still be able to take 2 thunderhawks, 2 thunderbolt squadrons, and a warhound
or two warhounds and 2 thunderhawks
or 2 landing craft and 2 thunderbolts (or a single warhound)
and without an increase the course, the 5 thunderhawk 5 terminator formations would still be available (though with it, even without the 33% it wouldnt really be anymore)
moving thunderhawks into the 1/3rd doesnt really restrict thunderhawks much at all (so if we think they should cost more, that would need to be factored in also) because unless you're building a dick list, you're unlikely to take more than 5 anyway, but rather, puts pressure on the already existant 'allies' section, being warhounds and thunderbolts. it makes the marine player think about these options more carefully, instead of simply autoincluding them. which should in turn, mean that warhounds will become less prevalent, especially in 'air assault' lists, while still allowing a variety of air assault lists to work quite fine.
plus of course, fitting in with a core principle of every other army in epic...
the only real difference is you wont see so many (or infact, any) "3 thunderhawks, 2 warhounds, 4 thunderbolts" lists around anymore. is that really the list we should be 'protecting' instead of the groundpounder options
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
Without commensurate price drops and upgrade changes elsewhere to boost the viability of ground forces I don't see the point in just increasing the price of the thunderhawk.
Author:  Onyx [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
I'd still take the T/hawk at 225pts but I guess I'd rather see it stay at 200pts.

With regard to opther units/formations, unfortunately for example, I don't see the point in taking a formation of 4 Vindicators even at 200pts.

If they are made even cheaper, they could be spammed and we'll have a made a good army even better.

When I want to take larger Marine formations, I can easily use the Scions of Iron list or the Black Templars. Why change the core list at all? We can't use the claim that the core list should be able to do everything because that argument was thrown out during the Tau development.

I just don't see the need for many/any changes at all really. I wouldn't mind seeing larger formations be possible but then you are stepping on variant list's toes.
Author:  Steve54 [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
I'd prefer to leave the bits of the list that work alone and tweek the other parts - Pred D, Ls upgrades, Land raiders

Codex SM play the way they should do at this scale - as an airborne surgical assault force, people get too into thinking that they hshould play like in 40k. You can use a ground force and be effective but the airborne is the most effective and thats how the list should be - like the Steel legion IG are best as a Mech Inf force but can be used less effectively as a tank or infantry army. Get the minor changes to boost some units and maybe increase some (scouts+tbolts to 175 would get my vote) and then concentrate everybodies energies on the variant lists which are confused at the moment - including a definitive ground based list
Author:  Dobbsy [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Without commensurate price drops and upgrade changes elsewhere to boost the viability of ground forces I don't see the point in just increasing the price of the thunderhawk.

I don't see it being the only change E&C. This is just the first discussion thread about a change. Land Raiders will be next.

Onyx wrote:
With regard to opther units/formations, unfortunately for example, I don't see the point in taking a formation of 4 Vindicators even at 200pts

If they are made even cheaper, they could be spammed and we'll have a made a good army even better.

And unfortunately, that's really the issue of most of the changes we're discussing - people don't see the point in taking them. I have to ask though, why would you spam Vindicators if they're not worth taking at 200?

Steve54 wrote:
I'd prefer to leave the bits of the list that work alone and tweek the other parts - Pred D, Ls upgrades, Land raiders

And that's a fair call. We're only discussing the Thunderhawk first to see where we stand. ;)
Author:  Mephiston [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
I don't think the Thunderhawk needs a price increase, or moving to the Titan third.

The list is at its heart an Air assault list and works well as such without being over the top. You can play it without the air elements but it's always going to be more of a challenge.
Author:  Athmospheric [ Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Thunderhawk - price increase
that's the issue. The them is too narrow. It is the player who should choose and theme his army, not the list.

If devs and assault marines were 25 Pts cheaper but the thundehawk was 50 Pts more expansive, it wouldn't change anything to most air assault formations effectiveness anyway.
Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/