Link to the UK site builds: http://www.epic-uk.co.uk/ukepicachampionship/albyr.php

They are different lists. In reality, there are recurring themes (the same in Net:EA list) in the builds that include either/both massed Warhounds or massed IG aircraft.

If your group is different to this, then your metagame is most likely different to the rest of the world. I am assuming when people get crafty and want to win at the expense of the fun games, you will start seeing the "same builds". If this then goes onto tournaments, people will have fun with the tightest army they can field. However if your group is using ALL elements of the current Marine list, I put it to you that they are not being as competitive as they could be.

On the tournament scene, I feel it is very much - "bring your A game or go home".

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

The norm in UK tournaments is 2 warhounds - hardly 'massed'

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

That's just pedantic. when 2 is the going rate for "you would not take more than", then it may as well be 1 or even 20.

Add in the planes and you are now looking at maxed (massed) points on allies for a 3000 point force.

If we spend time 'playing' with words we are really not going to get anywhere. It was quite evident what I was referring to.

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

My view is that warhounds add fun, speed and tactical flexibility to people's lists, which is why they are popular.

I know this goes against the grain in a thread like this, but 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.




Froggie, I am in Onyx's group. If that doesn't indicate that we play for fun, experience and to put the fear of the almighty god emperor into our enemies as their 6mm wives weep over the smoking craters where once stood proud armies, nothing will

Not a single list there with maxed allies. Most common are 2 warhounds+1 tbolts (700) or 2+2 (850). Closest to maxed out are Reaver+warhound from 2008

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Nah that's not how I was phrasing it, sorry if you felt that way. It was a genuine question that I missed the "many of" part when I typed it.


At what point in the timeline? Don't forget this game isn't meant to be just now.


No worries thanks.

I don't see it that way. I don't think picking a specific build doesn't mean you can't be dominant with it - Dave for instance.... It depends entirely on your gaming group/scene and your skill with your army.

BTW guys please keep it cordial, there's a touch of grouch-creep here.

It's funny that I've just spotted this thread. At last night's gaming meeting I mentioned that the best way to restrict warhounds and encourage more actual marines would be to make them only available in pairs (Like Revenants).

I don't really know if I'm in favour of it or not - I don't really mind 2 warhound marine lists (Although it does bug me to see loads of Warhounds in a Guard army - personal grievance).

But if your main stated aim is to make marine choices more prevelant in marine armies then this is definately the way to go about it.

i just went over the eUK marine lists*, and here are a few useful facts for you:

Codex Marines
88 lists.
Warhounds: 106 (5 pairs)
Land Raiders: 27 (3 dedicated formations)

blood angels
6 lists
Warhounds: 8 (0 pairs)
Land Raiders: 0

dark angels
5 lists
Warhounds: NA
Land Raiders: 0

black templars
7 lists
Warhounds: NA
Land Raiders: 12 (0 dedicated formations) (also, as a note, these where 8 crusaders to 4 regular raiders)

white scars
7 lists
Warhounds: 15 (0 pairs)
Land Raiders: 0


so in total we have
warhounds: 126 in 101 lists
raiders: 39 in 113 lists

now, considering that warhounds are 3 times more expensive than land raiders, we're looking here, at about 10 times more points spent on warhounds than on land raiders.


(*now i know we're not all in the UK, and that represents a specific metagame, and infact the eUK people are unlikely to give a damn what we do with our warhounds, but they're the ones with a database, and from everything i've seen, NetEA is certainly no closer on the land raider to warhound ratio)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Can't argue with those stats. Thanks JTG.

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

I can argue with them...but then I have access to the database! lol.

Can I ask if you went back through all the lists on the individual tournament pages or used the list by race page? If the former I think you need to remember that for a long time the Warhound was priced at 250 points and the Land Raider 400/100 so will skew your analysis...

alas you have pre-empted me. i did notice the price raise and drop. i was waiting to discuss that for my next big reveal, but i suppose it can go now.

when land raiders dropped in price and warhounds got a price increase guess what happened to their numbers?

basically nothing.

there has been basically no impact on the number of warhounds taken year to year (inclusion of 3 singletons dropped a little bit, but so did inclusion of pairs, inclusion of 2 singletons has remained pretty much steady)
land raider use actually seems to have fallen (definitely in dedicated formations)

the 25 point price rise for warhounds has done nothing. another probably 25 wont do anything either (you may see people take them in a pair if the saving is 100 points, but they'll still be taking 2)

dropping raiders in price might help them a bit, if the price is dropped enough, but the only thing that is going to stop warhounds being taken is to make the cost of inclusion be similar to that of a reaver (at which point you'll start to see reavers taken instead, but i'd hazard warhounds would remain more popular) either by removing singletons entirely and upping the price (btw, the number of people taking only 1 warhound is very small (though still more than taking land raiders at all iirc) so removing singletons might be a valid choice) or by a truly ridiculous points hike on singletons.

or, you could put more pressure on the 1/3rd selection where they are found. this could be done by moving aircraft into it (shock!) or lowering the allies section (but at the moment, if people get 750 points (ie: 1/4) they'll lose a thunderbolt before a warhound, so it wont work either)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

As the closest marine equivalents, how many Predators or land raiders would you have to get in 275 points to make then as worthwhile as a Warhound?

If we figure that out, hopefully we'd start seeing less Warhounds without the need for changing the Warhound at all.

Titans are extremely hard in the EA ruleset (fearless, fights at full effect until destroyed, good armour, shields for extra toughness), but most of them are undone by the high points cost, severely hurting activations. Single scout titans sidestep this. I suspect that single scout titans will be underpriced right up to the point where they're too expensive to field at all...

The simple act of removing singletons and forcing pairs of Warhounds as the only way to take them should be sufficient to make Titan inclusion a fair bit rairer in SM armies, I don't think a price rise for Warhounds on top as well is needed or a good idea. The BTS potential and activation reducing factors make pairs of Warhounds a less obvious choice - we would still see in some armies, but a lot less than we do now.

Exaggerating the power of underpowered elements of an army so they match the power of overpowered elements of the army is no way to fix a list. The Warhound is the single most important issue with the SM list and banning singles neatly fixes a lot of the over-use problem so I hope Dobbsy will give the idea a go for an extended period of playtesting. It would be interesting to see what effect it has on peoples lists and games.

I plan to post up some background stuff from the FW and BFG background here, making clear quite how independent SM armies are in their operations and how rarely they have titan support, even for large scale epic size engagements (it's a lot rarer than some people here seem to think and way rarer than the amount allied titans are seen with SM lists). That'll take a while of reading through stuff though and I have loads of overdue stuff to do. Maybe in a day or two.