Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

SM Transport Rule
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Plus, the Epic Rulebook itself says that the army list included can be used to make land-based or sky-based armies (It even says that tank-based Marine armies are viable!).

The intent is obvious; The list was originally written to provide for both types of army.

Thus, if we have the power to fix this original error (Whatever form that fix takes), then we should.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(Hena @ Oct. Oct. 03 2007,16:37)
QUOTE
If a ground based infantry force is wanted. Do a variant list. Base list shouldn't be used to make everything.

(Hena @ Oct. 03 2007,17:33)
QUOTE
That list (from the Armageddon book) is viable as land based army. Some things need tuning to be more balanced though.

Huh?




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
Right now we have a situation where we have a formation that costs 300 points (for a tac detachment, in this instance) whether you take take rhinos or not. Clearly, the formation with the rhinos is actually worth more than the unit without them. Now, maybe there is some value in being able to be carried in an air-tansport or to be drop podded, but some of that cost can be rolled into the cost for those other forms of transport (space ship or aircraft) just like it is in every other army.


There is obvious value in being carried in a Thunderhawk than in Rhinos, speed and mobility being the obvious benefits.  The cost of putting a Tactical detachment in a Thunderhawk is the points cost of a Thunderhawk plus the 3 Rhinos that would normally be with the 6 Tacticals.

There is also obvious value in being carried in Drop Pods than in Rhinos: planetfalling and all of the associated rules.  The cost of putting a Tactical detachment in Drop Pods are the 3 Rhinos that would normally be with the 6 Tacticals.

There is also obvious value in disposing of the Rhinos: being allowed to occupy the garrison objectives.  The cost of putting a Tactical detachment in garrison are the 3 Rhinos that would normally be with the 6 Tacticals.

Alternately, we could simply require all SM infantry (15cm move) to be mounted in one form of transport or another. If SM's truly are supposed to be played one way, then make that a solid requirement.

When you look at it the Space Marine Transport Rule pretty much says that you get Rhinos if the detachment is allowed to have them and if you want them.  You may not want the Rhinos if you have other transports, want to put the marines in a garrison position, you have a devious plan, or you have been struck mentally retarded.  If you want them, take them.  Apparently that is hard for some people to wrap their mind around.

Maybe it would help to approach this flexibility from another direction.  Instead maybe the affected detachments would automatically have Rhinos assigned to them and if the player wants the detachment to have Razorbacks or Land Raiders the cost is "100 points and 1 Rhino, if present, per Land Raider" or "50 points and 1 Rhino per 2 Razorbacks."  For Drop Pods there would have to be a line item and it would be "0 points and all of the detachment's Rhinos."  Instead of assigning a points cost to a Rhino make the Rhino part of the cost of something.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Ive given this some thought and have to say that I actually think Neils proposals make sense.  The SM transport rule is really just a glorified free upgrade that all marine units get; adding it as a defacto upgrade, even a zero point upgrade, would bring the marine list in line with the general army list ethos and would be no bad thing, particularly given the questions regarding odd synergies of marine transport that IMO definitely tread the line of beardiness.  

Regarding whether there should be a points change could be seen as a separate balance issue.  The first question to ask would be what changes if we re-jig the transport rule and apply zero point upgrades?  Does it make army creation easier?  What inconsistencies does it lead to?  If you drafted up an army list with the zero point upgrade ideas perhaps it would make these ideas clearer and may even  bring round some of the doubters.

Regarding re-balancing the list I have to say I reckon it would be no bad idea in some respects- and would definately go a long way to making the SM ground army more viable from the core list, which I would think is a great idea.  For a start if you look at the other core lists they are remarkably flexible and allow you to create any umber of variant armies; for the marines the general consensus is that only the air cav approach is really viable.  Certainly thats been my experience, maybe i am generalising too much.  One thing to be careful of if upping air transport and reducing infantry would be does the increased Thawk cost take account of the fact that you would generally, but not always, transport 2 units? So is it increased by 50 or 25 pts? Also what happens to bikes which are thawk transportable? (nothing I would say, but it is a thought nonetheless).

Variant lists are all very well, and add a lot of flavour to the game but by their very nature they tend to be less playtested, can lead to lots of divided effort and are less likely to be adopted for tourney play.

Edit- and now ive read Blargs post and that too makes sense. Particularly the automatic upgrade bit.  It seems teh main question is is the transport rule designed to be an advantage at deployment or should it be utilised earlier.  However I still feel that the  ground pounder list needs more than a couple of speed increases to make it viable.




_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
semajnollissor
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

(Blarg D Impaler @ Oct. 03 2007,12:21)
QUOTE
There is obvious value in being carried in a Thunderhawk than in Rhinos, speed and mobility being the obvious benefits. ?The cost of putting a Tactical detachment in a Thunderhawk is the points cost of a Thunderhawk plus the 3 Rhinos that would normally be with the 6 Tacticals.

There is also obvious value in being carried in Drop Pods than in Rhinos: planetfalling and all of the associated rules. ?The cost of putting a Tactical detachment in Drop Pods are the 3 Rhinos that would normally be with the 6 Tacticals.

I more or less agree with this, but thats why I think that if the cost of rhinos and the cost of the infantry were separated, then those other forms of transport would have a points bump.

There is also obvious value in disposing of the Rhinos: being allowed to occupy the garrison objectives. ?The cost of putting a Tactical detachment in garrison are the 3 Rhinos that would normally be with the 6 Tacticals.

I disagree with this, though, since this would be the case for all infantry in every army. However, it is only SMs that actually have to pay for both transports and garrisoning. This is the crux of the issue really, and it seems to some people that assigning a cost to the rhinos would actually go a long way to solve other issues in the list, like the disadvatage of using dreads, or the superiority of air-based lists over land-based ones.

...Apparently that is hard for some people to wrap their mind around.
Again, I'll point out that people get "confused" because this approach is the odd-man-out. The rule doesn't really add to the flavor of the army, it just uses a different method than the norm. So why accomplish the same goal by 2 different methods? It seems like a legitimate debate to me.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
and it seems to some people that assigning a cost to the rhinos would actually go a long way to solve other issues in the list, like the disadvatage of using dreads


This is ridiculously true. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jb1
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 1:52 am
Posts: 213
Location: Janesville, Wisconsin, USA

(nealhunt @ Oct. 03 2007,09:19)
QUOTE
What is wrong with the Space Marine Transports rule? ?How can it be confusing? ?I find it brutally simple:


I would agree, however, it's clear from the insane number of questions and debates about it, that's not the case.

...WTF? :laugh:
Also someone here previously mentioned SMs should have some form of transportation invloved. I don't like it,because the way the rules are now I don't want the liability of transport when I need to go more than 10cm into a builtup or wooded area. If I see areas of these descriptions you bet I will have infantry to
"go into" these areas if need be. Rhinos,LRs,and Razorbacks, if part of the formation keeps the infantry within its 5cm zone-hence can't get too deep into these terrain features. The SM transport rules are good they way they are, simple, and  you still have choices on how you want to deploy...




_________________
... there is nothing like the smell of bolter burned wraithbone armour in the morning....it smells like...like Victory!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(semajnollissor @ Oct. 03 2007,13:55)
QUOTE

(Blarg D Impaler @ Oct. 03 2007,12:21)
QUOTE
There is obvious value in being carried in a Thunderhawk than in Rhinos, speed and mobility being the obvious benefits. ?The cost of putting a Tactical detachment in a Thunderhawk is the points cost of a Thunderhawk plus the 3 Rhinos that would normally be with the 6 Tacticals.

There is also obvious value in being carried in Drop Pods than in Rhinos: planetfalling and all of the associated rules. ?The cost of putting a Tactical detachment in Drop Pods are the 3 Rhinos that would normally be with the 6 Tacticals.

I more or less agree with this, but thats why I think that if the cost of rhinos and the cost of the infantry were separated, then those other forms of transport would have a points bump.

Why would it be advantageous to increase the points cost of Razorbacks and Land Raiders because you have assigned a points value to Rhinos?

There is also obvious value in disposing of the Rhinos: being allowed to occupy the garrison objectives.  The cost of putting a Tactical detachment in garrison are the 3 Rhinos that would normally be with the 6 Tacticals.


I disagree with this, though, since this would be the case for all infantry in every army. However, it is only SMs that actually have to pay for both transports and garrisoning. This is the crux of the issue really, and it seems to some people that assigning a cost to the rhinos would actually go a long way to solve other issues in the list, like the disadvatage of using dreads, or the superiority of air-based lists over land-based ones.

I think part of the reason why it is done this way is because of the low value of the Rhino.  Let's face it, compared to almost all of the other APC/IFV that are in the game the Rhino is little more than a mildly armored box with doors and caterpiller tracks that moves fast.  Aside from the rules regarding the various interactions between INF and AV the Rhino only adds some bulk and a Speed of 30cm.  Realistically, especially in reference to other APC/IFV in the game, what would the points cost of the Rhino be?  5 or 10 points?

...Apparently that is hard for some people to wrap their mind around.

Again, I'll point out that people get "confused" because this approach is the odd-man-out. The rule doesn't really add to the flavor of the army, it just uses a different method than the norm. So why accomplish the same goal by 2 different methods? It seems like a legitimate debate to me.

What you say is valid, but I see a lot of variation from how armies are constructed from list to list.  The different army and operating structures drive different list structures.  Compare the Codex Space Marines, the Steel Legion IG, and the basic Orks: each have different force structures and a different army list format to go with it.  Realistically there is no norm in regards to how the army lists are done.

You guys can do what you want, but I think that trying to redo how the Space Marines handle Rhinos is a waste of time.  The rule is not that hard to understand and the benefits (if you want to call them that) to be gained from working on this are trivial.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
semajnollissor
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

(Blarg D Impaler @ Oct. 03 2007,15:26)
QUOTE
Why would it be advantageous to increase the points cost of Razorbacks and Land Raiders because you have assigned a points value to Rhinos?

Because assigning points to rhinos implies that the naked infantry detachments would get a point reduction (if they didn't, there wouldn't be much point to what I've mentioned). If you knock some points off the plain formation, then you have to add points to the non-rhino type transports that normally replace rhinos, such as razorbacks, T-hawk, or strike cruisers, for instance. Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our own tails.

I'm not saying the approach doesn't have drawbacks, I'm just saying that it worth discussing.

...Realistically, especially in reference to other APC/IFV in the game, what would the points cost of the Rhino be? ?5 or 10 points?

Good question. While it might not have the shooting ability of a chimera or a battlewagon, it does benefit from ATSKNF and other bonuses given by transports, so I'd say 10-15 point each. Alternately, if a tac detachment + rhinos if actually worth 300 pts, how much is that tac detachment worth without the rhinos? 250? 275? The difference in points would be the cost of 3 rhinos (and also the amount of point increase required for the non-rhino transports). At least that's how the logic of this goes, regardless of the value of the entire idea. (also, assault marines would get the shaft without some other point adjustments)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Edgar-San
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:50 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Bristol
I'm surprised none has mentioned this before...

Chaos Marines pay 10 points per rhino and 5 points per droppod unit.

This way they get to choose if they want to garrison, drop or be transported and are not penalised points-wise if thye choose to garrison.

I agree with many of you. If they were costed, at say 275 points for tacticals +25 for 3 rhinos or droppods, a garrison force with dreadnoughts would be more fesible.

It would also bring the layout of the  list more into line with the other lists.

I don't see any draw back from this, it would only serve to make things clearer and fairer.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Umm, I must be missing something here, as I think the main reason for this thread is being ignored. Let me see if I can summarise what has been suggested and discussed:-

The "marine transportation rule" 6.3.1 causes much confusion in several ways around "swapping" vehicles in or out and timing etc. To fix this we are proposing to give the transports some value with the following effects:
  • Recognise that the infantry cost includes an element for transport, let?s say 25 points. So Tacs, Devs and Scouts drop to 275, 225 and 125 respectively, and Rhinos (or drop Pods) become a formation upgrade value of 25 points.
  • Thunderhawks and Landing Craft must now get a price increase to ensure that the total costs stay relative. Spacecraft can be left alone because the total cost of transport and formation is identical. (However, this does raise the question of how much costs need to be raised; Is a THawk worth one or two ?formations worth of transport, +25 or +50 points? And as for the Landing Craft !!??)
  • This process must also take into account the value of the denuded infantry formation - could it be abused in some way by taking no transports?? Put another way, is the value of the transports equivalent to a Razorback, Character, Dreadnought or Hunter??
Like others I am really uneasy about taking this course because people are already being tempted to use it to fix the list in what seems a totally inappropriate way, and the arguments will be interminable.

Furthermore, there is a major flaw in steps 2) and 3). The point being overlooked here is that the "denuded" formation is significantly weaker than one with a full compliment of Rhinos in many ways; size, manoeuvrability, resilience in assault (Rhino meat shield) etc. While Drop Pods or Air transport do permit a rapid deployment and possibly one good assault, the troops are then stranded and weak when the transport is removed. Consequently IMO the air transports costs should be left alone. If we need to minimise the abuse outlined in 4), lets keep the "value" of the transport to a minimum, so 25 points, or perhaps even just notional +0.

However, none of this actually addresses the original issue - "swapping" vehicles, minimising their numbers and what is or is not permissible (or cheesy). ?

Rather than imputing and changing costs, wouldn't it be better to reword 6.4.1 in some way and leave the current costs alone (at least in respect to this exercise)??

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jb1
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 1:52 am
Posts: 213
Location: Janesville, Wisconsin, USA
The only confusion I see is in this thread's contents of trying to fix a (problem??) that doesn't exist. The rule 6.3 and the following are really straight forward in 8th grade level of understanding that should be left alone. ? If you don't want the bloody vehicles just don't take them,if you want them you got them-simple,non of this 5pts here 10pts there crap. This addition and subtraction that is mentioned is what is confusing....and the reasons for it make just as much non sense.
If anything is confusing is the fact that some armored vehicles have no more armor than some of the troops!Thats some of the stuff that needs attention,not special rule 6.3.1 Space Marines transports. BTW I've worked on that by using D10s KISS




_________________
... there is nothing like the smell of bolter burned wraithbone armour in the morning....it smells like...like Victory!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
The only confusion I see is in this thread's contents of trying to fix a (problem??) that doesn't exist.

The problem does exist. We see people cropping up on the SG forums asking how the rule's supposed to work all the time.

I've seen it myself a coupe of times when introducing new players to Epic in real life too... I'll come back to them a few weeks after I've given them an intro game to find they're puzzling with their (also new) opponent how the rule is supposed to work, getting in arguments over how Razorbacks are incorporated, etc.


Plus, giving Rhinos point values and discounting formations makes the list as a whole more balanced. No other army has to pay to garrison.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

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