Given that Dptdexys has been part of the E:A development since the start, is probably the top UK player and has also given this some thought, I am not so sure we should dismiss his suggestions so quickly. Especially if it would cause him to think twice about including the formation in his army.

Indeed if we were to take the comment about the nature of scouts at face value, surely that ought to mean that the Reaver and possibly Warlord should have an initiative of 2+ - which is obviously a nonsense. In practice the notion that one formation considers itself 'superior' to another is extremely subjective, and often wrong - history is littered with examples of 'levy' formations performing better than their veterna or elite compatriots.

If changing the initiative of Warhounds potentially has the of desired effect of reducing their effectiveness and desireability, it is certainly worth testing IMHO, even though this may seem to go against the 'fluff'. \My only concern is that it does not reduce the activation count, which I still feel is one of the main considerations here.

I don't doubt that Initiative 2+ for Warhounds would make them a lot less desirable.
From a pure "game" angle it's a good solution...

...but I'm also noting that it is a change that would be against the background as I percieve it.
Meaning that from a "fluff" angle, it is a poor solution.

Personally, I've little interest in playing a version of Epic that is "kinda, almost, maybe, set in the 40k universe". It might well be a balanced game, but it won't be Epic anymore. My objection is on those grounds, and those grounds alone, on this particular idea.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Also it would snowball into the AMTL armylist. Same formations should have the same Initiative throughout different lists.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Not a concern, really. I'd look to follow whatever was done with the main lists, if a major change such as initiative or speed were enacted.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Wile I accept the point I disagree that this small change in the initiative would irrevocably break the entire game (or any other such hyperbole)

I've always said, that big changes start with small steps.

EUK are already using "Baneblades" that don't have the correct weapons fit to be Baneblades (They're AlbionBlades, clearly).

Another step and you have Warhound Titans with oddly poor command and control abilities, another step and you have another small change...

...and before you know it, hyperbole has become fact, and you're playing a game with Space Marine Rogal Dorn tanks and force compositions that look unlike either their modern or their formative counterparts (With apologies to any NetEpic players who might stroll into this thread!).

The road to NetEA is paved with good intentions, but be wary of where that road may lead!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

My vote is to bump single warhounds to 300-325 points (275-300 in IG). Better that than changing stats or initiative when people are very familiar with the current ones. I dislike just changing single warhounds to 0-1 as 1 would still nearly always be taken and that doesn't solve the problem to my mind.

Even with extra cost single Warhounds would still be a good option but not the annoyingly mandatory choice to be competitive that they are now - titans should fairly rare as most SM and IG armies fight without them. Other units in the lists might see a little more use and SM would be taken down a notch from their winning %.

To address my opinion on 25cm warhound : I don't like it; the defining trait of the warhound has always been its 'scout titan' status, i.e speed and lightness. I understand this might be a tempting fix for the AMTL list where it can take 60cm range weapons, but IMO the problemcome from those weapons and not from the WH speed. Anyway, this is not really the issue in the marine list.

A Price bump and a more meaningful critical (additional point of damage) might do the trick. It is mysterious that the WH has one of the less important critical of the whole game.

Actually it'd positively hurt the AMTL list and require a lot of rebalancing. But, IMHO, it would fix the problem of Warhound Titans being so very good, whilst still leaving them as the fastest Titan.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Its interesting that not taking warhounds would kill the list for you- is that because you like warhounds so uch or because you see them as so critical?

As for the winning players rather than warhounds, the winning players always it seems have warhounds. It is impossible to argue that it is not an excellent unit - hell thats why the points were upped in the first place.

Fundamentally I guess I hate seeing them as a critical unit, virtually every other list component how more than one way of doing that role (2 air assault vehicles for marines, 2 lots of cc options, different FF options, different firepower options etc). What other unit does the job of a warhound?

AoC, the point here is that the 'good' players know how to get the best out of their army and the formations that comprise it - not least because they are better than the average player.

The Marine list provides a number of alternate strategies, but if you check the 'top' UK lists you will find they all have the same 'core' formations which allows the player to adopt the most appropriate one for their opponent. Consequently they all have 2x Warhounds, 1-2x air transport and 1-2 Terminators. The Warhounds become a vital part of each strategy because they have the speed to move across the battlefield in support of air assaults and teleporting formations, or to spearhead ground assaults - even in a sacrificial role.

Their weapons, shields and armour make them a punchy, reasonably resiliant formation and much better than any other marine alternative - Preds and tacs are too fragile, LR are too slow, none have the same fire-power and most are more expensive than the Warhounds - is it any wonder that Warhounds are so much in demand?

So, a concern that no-one seems to have discussed here is how will the Marine lists operate if we restrict (or remove) the Warhounds? Will they still be able to adopt several strategies in the same list (a practice that seems to be desirable)?
(Note I realise we have touched on this element in the other threads)

So, in addition to the restrictions suggested, IMHO part of the solution is to fix the Preds and possibly LR problems so that they can provide credible alternatives to the Warhounds.

Well 400 was a random figure - in part to show just how expense they have to be before you would stop taking them. At what figure would they become unlikely for you? For me I would be unlikely to take them at 350 - though note I could still do so, its not completely out of the question. I would instead though probably rely on pred a's and hunters and terminators instead at that point.

300 would indeed make no difference, I would just be 50 points down elsewhere (and no 3 warhound armies anymore, but they in and of themselves aren't a problem).

I would think as a minimum they should get an instant kill critical. This doesn't affect me taking them, it just makes it feel a lot better when you roll as the opponent as currently its time to crack the warhound critical joke.

Then if you really wanted to change their attractiveness over other titans and other things in a list you would need to hit the points/stats (I don't know if you could do it with points, hopefully yes, but is their a point where they go from must have to don't touch? I would have no problem with trying things like init 2+ which would hit a key plus point with them, that of being extremely reliable).

As to the seeing something else dominating. Great. Surely its better to have something else dominate rather than these things which have had their time in the sun for I think too long? Even better if its an element from the appropriate race.

the fact you don't normally take them also means the debate isn't really aimed at you, rather its looking at list tourney balance and flavour - I for one am sick of seeing warhounds in top Imperial lists but its hard not to take them. Saying that Ii was all set to launch my Chimera horde into open war, not saying it would have done that well though and deep inside I know replacing the third chimera company with 2 warhounds makes sense, even when they are inferior to the marine ones

Note I think this is different to the compulsory thunderbolt squadron. Hard to say why but having planes overhead when you need them seems a lot more likely then always having warhounds around. Maybe its my other gaming prejudices that tell me getting an A-10 when you need it is a lot more likely than having an Abrams permanently attached, since it can just fly over and give support to a range of armies operating in an area.

That and the fact they seldom dominate, never 'win' games (aren't on the ground), can be dealt with easily and don't reward spending loads of points on them.

Edit - and what Gavin said above - I don't think the marine lists were designed to have a reliance on warhounds, their constant presence has developed over the years. It is a good point though - does a non warhound list fall too much in power? Can land speeders, predators and land raiders make up for it?

As I noted before, 325 for Marines and 300 for IG would probably be ok.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter