StarCraft® II


Posts: 26
Needs to look stronger, and better supported. It looks like it could be pushed over!

My suggestion take a page from metal gear rex.
Reply Quote
Posts: 92
A little up here, to remind how important is it, to give the warhound a better design asap :)

I need an Omegalisk btw :p
Reply Quote
Posts: 189
I think that the the warhound design really fits everything blizzard shoots for in their artwork. For one it's unique and it has a shape that is seperate from anything that has been seen. It may look like it's wobbling in the art but from my point of view I see this being something like a jittery robot. It twitches in every direction shooting with excellent quickness. Kind of reminds me of zant from twilight princess.
Reply Quote
Posts: 72
I'll be honest here, from what I see You guys want both an anti-armor factory produced unit that fits terran AND a factory based harrasment unit besides hellion.

May I make a suggestion? /spy
Reply Quote
Posts: 18
Blizzard should just replace it with the Diamondback. The Warhound just doesn't fit in.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,198
06/20/2012 06:50 PMPosted by Ghilliedrone
Blizzard should just replace it with the Diamondback. The Warhound just doesn't fit in.

Neither does the diamond back. What place could it possibly fit into in the game?
Edited by AscendedOne on 6/20/2012 8:49 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 296
i have mixed feelings about the Warhound. On the one hand, i like that it is meant to be a more mobile mech unit (the big problem i always hear about mech is that it's slow); but on the other hand, it just looks ridiculous with it's asymmetrical design. I was ok (not overly enthused, but ok) about the earlier design:

But the new design:

One arm and an imprctical looking shield? It just looks retarded. As someone pointed out, what use does a giant mech have for a shield?

They should have just stuck with the earlier model and then improved it like what some other people have done here. I could accept the twin, differentiating arm weapons if they fulfilled different functions. The Warhound is supposed to be anti-mechanical. So, why not have the rightt gun be an anti-personnel weapon, used against enemy infantry (marines, zealots, zerglings, etc) and the left gun be the anti-mech weapon, sort of like an armor busting rocket. Doesn't even have to be two separate attacks, just different animations. But even then, that pistol arm needs to be beefed up a bit. It needs to look more like an arm mounted artillery piece and less like a scaled up infantry weapon. Finally, remove the shield on the left arm, stick a rocket pod on the other shoulder, make it look a bit more rough and/or beat up, and i think it can work as a Terran war machine. But in it's current incarnation, it just doesn't look or feel the part.
Edited by Machairodus on 6/20/2012 9:54 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,403
The warhound looks better in action than it does just sitting, that said if you realy want to change the look, I sugest making it look like a pilotable A.R.E.S (

On the other hand, holy !@#$ look at the STATS of these things. If they stay at 2 supply they could completely replace marauders in every way, except maybe for drops (due to not have the medivac heal synergy and likely taking up 4 transport spaces instead of 2)
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
06/21/2012 04:49 PMPosted by FrostyPyro
If they stay at 2 supply

Shouldn't they be 3? You'd think it would be a decent sized tank more along the lines of a Siege Tank than 2 supply things like the Marauder, Viking mech mode, or battle hellion.
Reply Quote
Posts: 353
The Warhound model simply looks very clumsy and unbalanced (literally). It looks like if a person leaned on it while it was sitting idle it'd topple over. I'm imagining something like the goliath but with rocket pods and the cannon on it. Off topic though, I can't wait to use the Warhound regardless of what it looks like. It'd be great to finally do a mech build against Protoss without getting completely decimated.
Reply Quote
Posts: 15
it looks like a mechwarrior mecha ¬¬
Reply Quote
Posts: 32
only effective against mechanical units,...i rather want the Goliath , it gives u great versatility and support alongside with vikings and tanks....

Zerg units are fine ...buuut .....where are my LURKERS ?!?!?!

Protoss Tempest have an insane range...could be seen as a Protoss Tank
Oracle requires alot of micro...and you can cripple your rival economy ..that gives you alot of advantage, Mothership Core ...crucial while expanding....

I think Protoss have the best set of UNITS of the 3 races......cause terrans have only 2 new units ...Helions alt Mode ,and Widow mine( a superb tactical mine but still a mine ) ....dont have the same impact as protoss units ,Zergs are fine

Terrans need another unit..Goliath or Hellhound ...wt u say ?
Reply Quote
Posts: 18
The Warhound was removed several months ago and it isn't featured in the new features trailer. I doubt the Warhound or any other unit will be added before release.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1
please blizzard the warhound his great! i test it in map editor are u planning to make him in multiplayer?BTW if its for the next starcraft after hots can u do 2new one also?
Reply Quote
Posts: 5,046
please blizzard the warhound his great! i test it in map editor are u planning to make him in multiplayer?BTW if its for the next starcraft after hots can u do 2new one also?

The warhound was an anti-mechanical unit, I believe it was decided that it was too powerful vs toss, and weak vs zerg.

Reply Quote
Posts: 395
Actually as was shown only thing on the ground that was capable of killing 100 supply of warhounds was 400 banelings with 5 remaining
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Explain (256 characters max)