Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

Army List: Space Marines

 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3132
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I agree that something has to be done about the Librarians. While the Warlock is a no-brainer for the Eldar (psychic lock and Eldrich storms are very useful), the Librarians are - in my considered opinion - crap. The only thing they are useful for is maybe as a counter to the Warlocks or Weirdboyz but have no real offensive powers to harry the enemy.

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3132
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Mattman wrote:
I suppose it depends on how much shooting is done with them. I can say that in my games they very rarely shoot, they quite quickly get thrown into combat. A little shooting improvement might make them usable in other situations and shows they have better equipment than the average marine (and you have to pay the points for it!).
But then that is why we are having these discussions :)

Matt


Yes, though I don't use them any more because Dark Angels don't get them, I always used Veterans the same way I'd use Assault Troops. The -1 modifier would make it more tempting to use them for something other than close combat. Sorry Irisado!

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:17 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:50 am
Posts: 21
Will have to keep this short - am on honeymoon and she'll kick my ass if she catches me posting... Oops, too late.

I think Razorbacks are currently too dear. Would 250 points in additional to losing Rhinos be better? I'm trying to compare them to Predators in terms of points value.

Appreciate the point about Dreadnoughts but think that on terms of gameplay, the 150 point scatolos(?) are pretty well balanced and I'm not sure they need changing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1490
Something that was mentioned in the Errata thread, but was never dealt with, that I can tell anyway. For Space Marines, a card of Robots costs 150 for four Robots. For every other Imperial faction that has access to Robots, it costs 100 for four. As far as I can tell, the rules are exactly the same. Why the price difference?

Suggestion: Drop the cost of a Formation of Marine Robots to 100 to be inline with all other Imperials.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
I have been pondering about dreadnaughts recently and I think that the weapon load outs aren't right and a little rejigging might make them more appealing.

I am going to restrict myself to just talking about the Contemptor and Scalato variants as they are the most easily accessible for players (if you can call any epic model accessible these days, but you are more likely to be able to pick them up than the rarer SM1/AT models) and also stick with 3 Scalato options.

One of the most obvious issues is that you can't get a Scalato model with a heavy bolter (please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you can only get missile launcher, las-cannon, assault cannon, heavy flamer/melta options). For me the standard armament for a dread is the Assault Cannon, that is the weapon I think of when I expect them to be armed. So one of the variants should have an Assault Cannon.

Okay, so on to the variants.
The Assault variant is fine as is. High CAF, flamer weapon, designed to get in close combat. If this variant is based on the Ironclad, then there could be an argument for a 3+ save due the increased armour they have. The only change I would make is to call it something other than an Assault variant (as you will see below, the name is better suited elsewhere, so maybe just call this version the Close Combat variant).

The single las-cannon shot from the Heavy variant is a bit weak and more often than not whenever you see a dreadnaught that is providing fire support from distance they are also armed with a missile launcher. So I think the missile launcher from the Support variant should be put on here. Las-cannon/Missile Launcher is another standard load out when I think of dreads (as above this variant is better suited as being called the support variant, since it will provide fire support). The missile launcher used on dreads are no different to standard types, so I think boosting the range to 100cm and dropping the save mod would represent this and give it an anti infantry weapon to support its anti tank weapon.

Lastly the support variant. To be honest, I think this should just have the stats of the Punisher (I am not sure where the Punisher variant came from as I have done some googling and can’t find any reference to a Punisher dreadnaught) and be called the Assault variant. It will provide close support to units with its assault cannon and has reasonable CAF so can get in combat.

This give us three distinct variants which can each fill different roles. I have done a quick excel table to show the stats.

Attachment:
Dreadnaught Types.JPG
Dreadnaught Types.JPG [ 22.99 KiB | Viewed 2034 times ]


Now the Contemptor.
Reading the background information on it, I came across these titbits of info:

“The Contemptor Pattern Dreadnought, like much of the technology developed at the dawn of the Imperium of Man, is larger and more powerful than its standard pattern counterparts.”

“A more powerful combat walker than the current patterns of Dreadnought in service with the Adeptus Astartes, the Contemptor Pattern Dreadnought featured many technological systems that found a parallel in the combat robots of the ancient Legio Cybernetica, including such fabled techno-arcana as Atomantic Field Generator technology that would later be refined and incorporated into the Storm Shields used by Space Marine Terminators and other now-lost secrets from the Dark Age of Technology that were meshed with the Contemptor's basic systems.”

“Kheres Pattern Assault Cannon - The Kheres Pattern Assault Cannon is an ancient pattern of the weapon that was commonly deployed on Contemptor Pattern Dreadnoughts during the Great Crusade and the Horus Heresy. It maintains a higher rate of fire than the standard pattern Assault Cannons used in the late 41st Millennium.”

So this goes completely against what the stats say with it having a poor save and minimal weapons. Contemptors are bigger, badder, tougher and better armed than current dreadnaughts.

So with that in mind, this is what I propose.
Move of 10cm. There is no information that they are any faster than current dreads.
Save 4+/6+f. They are at least as tough as current dreads and the extra fixed save shows they have these shields.
CAF of +4. They may only have a single power fist, but being more powerful than a Combat Scalato I think give them the ability for a high CAF.
Weapons. Armed with an assault cannon like the Support Scalato, but with an extra attack dice.
So this give us:

Attachment:
Contemptor Stats.JPG
Contemptor Stats.JPG [ 11.42 KiB | Viewed 2034 times ]


Now I haven’t worked out any points yet, but I foresee the Scalatos staying reasonably cheap in the 100-150pts for 4.
The Contemptors on the other hand would need to go up in price. I am guessing into the 200-250 region and their removal from being able to be used in Mutilator or Combined Dreadnaught squads.

Well, a little more than rejigging, but what do people think?

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27066
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Mattman, it all looks good from my end. I was thinking of things o similar lines. I think it is good to try to define a variants "niche" to make them appeal more. :)

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27066
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Status Update:

If you choose to "lead" a particular army, just post a message on the respective army thread as to where you are on reading the books for corrections and such.

This is just to get an idea to see where we are all at. :)

Primarch


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1490
The Punisher stats, as far as I can tell, were made for the 'Imperial Dreadnought' model included on the Stomers sprue. At the least, that's what I'm using them to represent. Those should be about as available as anything.

I'm wondering where you got that info on the Contemptor, as I cannot find anything comparible in either 1st or 2nd edition 40K or in 1st or 2nd edition Epic. (I was going to include 3rd edt 40K, but that seems to be when they changed over to the Scatolo pattern.) Please do not reference from the 'Horus Heresy' game, as that is intentionally built to be overpowered compared to normal 40K. I don't see any need to change their stats. Even if the Contemptor had technology that was better than the Scatolo, it is already represented by being physically smaller and more streamlined. Sure, that doesn't come across as well in Epic as it does in 40K but if you get a chance to compare the two models in their 40K sizes, you'd see the difference.

As to Scatolo weapon loadouts, in 3rd edition 40K the options were: (I reference 3rd edition as that was the one that Scatolo in Epic would have been based on back then.)
Right-arm: Assault Cannon, twin-linked Lascannon, twin-linked Heavy Bolter, Multi-Melta, Plasma Cannon, twin-linked Autocannon.
Left arm: Close Combat weapon with Storm Bolter. May upgrade Storm Bolter with Heavy Flamer. May upgrade CC weapon (presumably including Storm Bolter) with Missile Launcher.
Technically, there is no 'default' armament beyond the CC weapon. All of the right-arm weapons had to be bought.

I could see the Attacks values being increased for the weapons above listed as twin-linked, or more likely the TSM as the two shots would really go to the same target.

Your idea of making the Support version have the Lascannon and Missile Launcher sounds like a good idea. We might also make a second Support version with Plasma Cannon and Missile Launcher.

Heck, while we're at it, why not make versions with all of the right-arm weapons? Then make a Formation (IE card) that includes one of each of these loadouts.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
Why are there stats for both Contemptor and Punisher? What was the point of having them both?
The info on the Contemptor came from 40k.wikia:

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Contemptor_Dreadnought?useskin=oasis&cb=346

The assault cannon info is under the assault cannon hyperlink.

Horus Heresy game? All that info comes from the Imperial Armour and Horus Heresy background books as referenced at the bottom of the page.

We can't be comparing model sizes to determine ability, we know the scale in epic is screwed up. And we know the new fancy FW Contemptor is obviously based on the old model from the stompers box.

Obviously I know about all the weapon options and we could potentially add every combination, but we don't want to overload the choices. Assault cannon, lascannon/missile launcher and flamer are pretty standard choices for load outs without going to over the top and those weapons were the only ones released for epic dreads, so it made sense to pick those options, heavy bolters, plasma cannons and autocannons would require some conversion work by people.

I don't think we can start bringing twin linked into the equation as we would have to apply the rule to land raiders as well.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1490
Mattman wrote:
Why are there stats for both Contemptor and Punisher? What was the point of having them both?


During late 1st and 2nd edition 40K and 1st edition Epic the three types of (Human) Dreadnought were Contemptor, Deredeo, and Furibundus. During 2nd edition Epic, they simplified down to just one Dreadnought model & set of stats. The model from Stompers had the exact stats as the other Dreadnoughts during 2nd edition Epic. Where that sculpt came from, I have no idea. This is just a guess, but I'm thinking that the people who put together NetEpic wanted to allow people with the older, 1st edition models to use them as their former selves (or some variation thereon), and this is why there are stats for all of them. I'd guess that they also wanted to differentiate between these metal models and the plastic one from Stompers, and thus created the 'Punisher' for that role. Perhaps Primarch can confirm or deny this?

Mattman wrote:
The info on the Contemptor came from 40k.wikia:

urd removed to save space

The assault cannon info is under the assault cannon hyperlink.

Horus Heresy game? All that info comes from the Imperial Armour and Horus Heresy background books as referenced at the bottom of the page.


That is exactly my point. We cannot and must not pull information from the Horus Heresy game as the power level is entirely different than 40K, and Epic is mostly based on 40K and not HH. If you fight HH units against 40K units, the HH ones will win every time, as they are far more powerful for the same points. Thus we must excise any and all references from that game before converting to Epic, otherwise we will only be unbalancing the game. Admittedly, this is just my opinion. Perhaps others would comment with their opinions?

Mattman wrote:
We can't be comparing model sizes to determine ability, we know the scale in epic is screwed up. And we know the new fancy FW Contemptor is obviously based on the old model from the stompers box.


I apologize for not specifying here, but I was referring to comparing the 40K models for size. You are correct that Epic scales are a bit skewed. I'm not aware of whatever FW has done, as I don't follow their things, but the model from Stompers was most certainly NOT a Contemptor. Well, it wasn't at any time during Epic anyway. If they are calling a new model that looks like the Stompers Dreadnought a Contemptor, that's just some idiot again rewriting history.

Mattman wrote:
Obviously I know about all the weapon options and we could potentially add every combination, but we don't want to overload the choices. Assault cannon, lascannon/missile launcher and flamer are pretty standard choices for load outs without going to over the top and those weapons were the only ones released for epic dreads, so it made sense to pick those options, heavy bolters, plasma cannons and autocannons would require some conversion work by people.

I don't think we can start bringing twin linked into the equation as we would have to apply the rule to land raiders as well.


Actually, you made it quite obvious that you did not know all about the weapon options because you expressly said that you were not sure about the Heavy Bolter. Thus I wanted to clear that up. Admittedly, the allowed weapon options may be different in 6th, 7th, or whatever the current edition is, so you might be right as well.

You have a good point about the twin-linked weapons. Trying to 'fix' that would affect so many troops, vehicles, etc that it would not be worth doing short of the next edition of NetEpic.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
Actually, you made it quite obvious that you did not know all about the weapon options because you expressly said that you were not sure about the Heavy Bolter. Thus I wanted to clear that up. Admittedly, the allowed weapon options may be different in 6th, 7th, or whatever the current edition is, so you might be right as well.


I guess I confused you there as well. I was making reference to the weapon options that are available to the Epic scale scalato model, not the 40k one. There are no arm options for heavy bolters, autocannons or plasma cannons for the epic scale model, let alone seismic hammers or hurricane bolters which the new versions also have access to.

You say we must not pull information from the Horus Hersey game, but the first edition of Epic was from the Horus Hersey era! And not all the equipment from back then was better.

I forgot that one of the 1st edition dreads was also called a Contemptor (thought it had a different name), that just confuses things even more :-\ but in 40k lore now a Contemptor dread looks exactly like the stomper dread.

I have nothing against people wanting to use all the models available, I just think we need to make sure that the stats give a close approximation to what the models are. The stats in the rules for the old Contemptor, don't actually relate to the model since it should be armed with 2 twin linked bolt guns, not a heavy bolter. And why does the Furibundus have zero CAF when the Deredo has +2, they are similar machines just with different heavy weapons?

I suspect twin linked has been taken into account in some areas of the rules, but not all. Take the Baal Predator, it has 3 attack dice (maybe due to its twin linked assault cannons), whereas the Land Raider Crusader (which also has twin linked assault cannons) only has 1 attack dice. Some lascannon stats have a save mod of -1, whereas others are -2, is that due to being twin linked, maybe.

I know some people are against to much change and the addition of new units, but the precedent has been set with were we are with gold. We have lots of new units in the lists and a lot which relate to the newer eras of 40k.

So back to the dread stats, how about these (ignoring the Furioso and Venerable for the time being):

Attachment:
Updated Dreadnaught Stats.JPG
Updated Dreadnaught Stats.JPG [ 48.14 KiB | Viewed 1979 times ]


I think these tie in more closely to what the variants do.
For the old models.
The old Contemptor is built for combat, so keep the +4 CAF and change the heavy bolter for 2 bolt gun shots (25cm, 5+ to hit), as per the models.
The Furibundas and Deredeo are built very similarly for combat with a single power fist, so both get the +2 CAF. The Deredeo keeps the standard Lascannon whereas to differentiate the Furibundas (the current weapon stats are almost identical) I have changed his missile launcher to be more of light barrage weapon. I have given them the @ symbol so they combine their BPs, but they could quite easily do without it.
This gives 3 distinct dreadnought versions for the old models.
For the new models.
The Combat and Heavy Support Scalatos are as I discussed above. For the support Scalato I have trimmed an attack dice off his assault cannon since he isn't twin linked (and helps the Mk II Contemptor stand out with its better cannon, see below).
As above, this gives 3 distinct dreadnought versions for the new models.
And lastly the Punisher/Contemptor MkII/Whatever he is???
As mentioned, he has a better assault cannon (but maybe not 4 attack dice good) so just the 3 like the current Punisher and just to make him a little more unique, the fixed save for his shields.

When I see these dreadnoughts, I can see them matching up very closely to their marine equivalents.
We have close combat dreadnoughts which matches up with the assault marines.
We have assault dreadnoughts which matches up with the tactical marines.
We have heavy support dreadnoughts which matches with the devastator marines.
We have an elitish dreadnought which matches with the veterans/terminators.

Thoughts?

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1490
Yes, 1st edition was set during that era, but not the version of that era as portrayed in the current game by that name. Also, NetEpic is (mostly) based off of 2nd edition Epic, with added units from other editions and later 40K versions.

I just realized there is a major flaw to my arguments against this. The flaw is that I keep saying (and rightly so) that HH units are more powerful for the same points cost. However, while you are proposing making the Contemptor MkII / Punisher / whatever it's called more powerful based on that fluff, you also stated quite specifically that their points cost would have to increase as a result. This is quite reasonable.

With that in mind, I'm withdrawing my opposition from the idea of changing their stats. Personally, I don't see a great need to change their stats, but then I don't often play Space Marines, and even then use Dreadnoughts even less often.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 2:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:18 pm
Posts: 1619
Location: France
Mattman wrote:
Proposed Rule Change

The basic company costs are slightly unbalanced. 3 Battle companies costs you 2550 pts, whereas an Assault, Devastator and Tactical company costs 2500 for almost exactly the same models (you get an Assault HQ with +1CAF, +5cm and Jump Packs for that 50pts rather than a normal HQ).
Marines are built around their battle companies, so make it slightly more attractive to take them.

Proposal

Reduce the cost of Battle companies to 800pts.



Why giving an extra discount on an already very interesting company ? Devastator company is a "unique card", usually you pick one and add battle companies to get more devas and some assault & tactical troops. I've always considered battle companies perfect for their versatility at their actual cost...While battle company devastators are in your basement firing at enemy units, you can send your assault troops in the heart of battle (in thunderhawk) without being afraid of giving easy VP. That's a big advantage in comparison to picking a deva, an assault and a tactical comp vs 3 battle comps for just more 50 points...

Imho, they are more important adjustments to be done in the Space Marine List:

- Land Speeder Typhoons & Tornado: too expensive or too small unit
- Razorbacks too expensive but hard to balance (BP bonus etc...)
- Iron Hands Chapter way too strong (elite devas with regen..., 50 points single dread elite & HQ support card, get extra VP for wiping a complete enemy detachment... just check the special rules, you won't want to play another chapter).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
Of course they are good in the right games, at low points you get a mix of troops, but as soon as you can afford multiple companies, the slightly cheaper option looks appealing.
I also think you are less likely to give away VPs with a Tact/Assa/Dev company arrangement against 3 battle company's.
If you play a game and you lose most of your assault and tactical detachments then you easily give up the VPs of each battle company, doesn't matter if the devastators remain unscathed. In the other arrangement you give up the VPs of just the tactical and assault companies. If the devastators remain alive, then you have only given up 16 VPs due to the loss of your tactical and assault marines compared to 27 for the battle company arrangement.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Army List: Space Marines
PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3132
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I'd reduce the cost but not for any of the reasons stated above. I'd reduce 'em because Tactical Marines are pish. If I could burn them from the army lists I would.




By the way, not joking. I really mean that.

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net