At the outset of my fandex projects, I was determined to avoid vehicle squadrons. Because of the imbalance inherent in vehicles themselves, I see Ordnance squadrons, like Basilisks, as much more powerful point for point than vehicles like Predators. By getting heavy hitting, widespread, long-range firepower on cheap, disposable vehicles, Ordnance squadrons can be incredibly dominant. The same goes for Monstrous Creatures as well, which led to the rise of Tyranid Godzilla lists. In terms of the FOC, it also strikes me as odd that Heavy Supprt vehicles can be taken three to a slot where as Troops, for example, can only be taken 1 to a slot.
I want foot-slogging lists to be as competitive as mech lists, to allow players to have to rely on their skills as a general and list maker instead of how well they can exploit a typical build. The point system is there to balance the discrepancies between certain types of units.
However, I find myself now going back and forth on the issue. First and foremost, the squadrons are undeniably effective on the table top and many people enjoy playing in such a fashion. There is also the idea that by allowing squadrons players can field armored company style lists. Furthermore, because vehicles can die to a single hit, there is an argument to be made that many of the lesser armored vehicles need redundancy to remain effective choices.
To my few readers, I address the following questions: What are your thoughts on the issue? What do you believe can be done to balance this? Am I missing a vital component to either side of the argument or does the real issue simply lie with the core rule set alone?