I've been playing Marines for over the last year now, as I've been slowly putting together my force. Up until June I ran a drop list but when I finally finished up my tanks I started running some armored lists.

I like to try and keep them fluffy so most of them were a battle company (with bikes and speeders instead of assault marines) with what I like to call "9th company support". This usually took the form of 2 preds, 1 vindicator and whirlwind detachments along with 4 hunters scattered throughout the list. Another variant I've playing is the 6th company (lots of bikes) with 9th company support. I've done fairly well with these playing against 4 different opponents.

I think the real challenge of these kind of lists is keeping the tanks and APCs alive. I tended to play a reactive game and really had to pay attention to fire corridors and terrain. Essentially I based my orders around protecting the formations first rather than trying to maximize their firepower.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Yes, you need to heed the Tau philosophy of patient hunter with a ground marine force. Suck the enemy in then hit them swiftly from close range.

I'm not sure I made my point clear. The Epic list and how it performs is extremely true to the fluff. I don't have a problem with the list. I do think that eliminating the Air assault option is akin to the IG not taking artillery or tanks. Can you still win with those lists? Yep, but you have to play very, very well.

To get back to my point, though, if you play the SM as a line 'em up and shoot army or a tank army, then you are going to struggle. It's how the list is built. That doesn't make the list wrong or bad. In 40K, you can line up your SM and if played reasonably, have a decent chance of giving the opponent a hard time. You can't do that in Epic. The SM do not work that way. The game mechanics are more complex than that.

The SM are by nature an elite infantry force. Do they have tanks? Yep. Are their tanks as good as others? Except for the LR, the answer is noto really. SM tanks are in a force to support the infantry. Rhino's are not IFVs, they are taxis. Their whole purpose is to enhance the mobility of the infantry so they can get to where they are needed and do their job (killing the enemy).

So I go back to my earlier statement, if you play Epic SM as if they were 40K SM you will lose most of the time. The SM require a much deeper understanding of their strengths than other lists in order to be effective on the table top.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I can get SM ground-pounders to work.  They need to use deepstrike options, but they don't need to be heavy on air assault or take lots of Warhounds.

Mine usually end up being something like a battle company + assault company (bikes and speeders).  If I drop something from that arrangement, it's usually the Devastators from the battle company.  A typical force for me would be something like...

2x Tacs with SC, Hunter(s) + Razorback(s)
2x Assault
Thawk
Bike
Speeder
Speeder Typhoons
Whirlwinds
Tbolts
Termies or Warhound
Plus a few characters scattered around

Usually, the Tacs + SC are a hybrid force, part maneuver and part for holding ground.  I plan to keep one of the fast attack formations close in case a combined assault becomes possible, but it rarely happens.

The Tacs + Razorbacks are fire support and ground holders.

Bikes and Speeders are maneuver element and the SM fast attack formations are cheap for helping out activation count.

Typhoons are mobile fire support.

Termies and/or Thawk are usually used in Turn 2 to hammer a vulnerable bit of the enemy without over-extending.  I might hit on Turn 1, but it's often suicide to do so, so the target better be very juicy.

The only problems a force like this has are with big War Engines, which in GT games can usually be avoided.  That can also be addressed if you choose more basic Speeders and concentrate on using their MWFF support fire.

All that said, they are still quite unforgiving if you make a mistake and you have to play a maneuver game.  You have to work on claiming objectives.  SMs are extremely unlikely to win on points.

===

Fire support options

Tacs + Razorbacks - Razorbacks are cheap so you can crank out quite a few.  Downside is that most of the shots are not high to-hit values so firing on the move is not very effective.  On the positives, it's a lot of SM units.  Once in place can hold ground and control a substantial area.  These can, imho, basically operate independently.

Speeder Typhoons - Fast and the Typhoon launcher has good enough to-hit values you can move and expect to still do damage.  Downside is that it's only 5 units and LV so you have to use them cautiously, moving and using pop-ups.  Use these to support another element, either hitting something another SM formation damaged using their speed to prep for assaults.

Pred Annihilators - They have to have Vindicator and Hunter upgrades to take the formation to 7 units.  They have pretty good firepower at 45cm and good firepower once the Vindis are within 30cm.  Obviously, it comes with its own AA.  Downside is cost.  Work well in conjunction with small-to-moderate sized infantry units, where the infantry takes cover and serves as an anchor for the Preds to "swing" off of.

Whirlwinds - 4BP arty and hard to suppress, so they are solid artillery.  Downside is fragility, with 5+ saves.

_________________
Neal

I realise and agree that the tactical dimensions are different and W40k tactics or trying to line up and shoot wouldn't work in Epic, my point was not about the tactics used - I took for granted these were adapted to competitive epic game ones - but about the lists internal balance and costings even with good tactics. Indeed ultra-competitive tournament style gaming brings out the flaws of the list in the builds of what are under-used and over-used.

I do definitely think the SM army list is flawed and in this area poor - even after current Net-EA or Epic-Uk mods - it does not cater for a ground based marine list as well as the regular air/drop lists. I am fine with a situation where the optimum SM army remains an air/drop list, but an all ground based list is excessively poor in comparison and making some small changes to address that and to make a wider range of list builds possible, as this does, is a very good idea IMO.

Points values for SM infantry units are costed highly, taking into account the possibility elements of the army can be flown or dropped into action. Selecting a ground based SM army results in a sub-par list competitively and to correct that and make the ground based marine army list - which should be a valid alternative style from W40k / the background / realism (SM can not retain air / space dominance over every battlezone they fight in). This list attempts to fix this by cheapening the points of ground units and raising those of air and space assets - this is a variant list, if you don't choose to play it yourself then don't, but it provides a valid alternative for those that choose to.


But that's not strictly a 'ground' force then either though; which done purely I'd interpret as not having any air or space assets.

I'm not having a go but bringing a mono themed force to a combined arms game is never going to be optimal.

Combining all arms of warfare can often be the best but it's not necessarily so - plenty of competitive epic list builds have no aircraft or spacecraft e.g. Dave Thomas didn't in his LaTD when I played them at Open War.

The aim in all arms list is to correct some perceived internal balance issues between units with the SM list and to allow the optimum air options to be used at a greater cost while the basic ground troops are cheaper. Thereby making a wider selection of list builds be competitively viable (or sort-of competitively viable!), rather that it being biased too much in one mono direction of needing to go air/drop as I feel the SM list is now.

I have to admit having only read a dozen or so 40K books my knowledge of "new" background on the marines isn't the greatest.

Could someone list me a few books which show the marines fighting en masse as a ground force where there are no Air assets or Titan allies so I can catch up with the "new" background .

The only books I've read where marines have had no support has been small scale actions,forces as small as Epic A formations not Epic A Armies.



Onto the List.

I don't think the Codex Marine list should be forced into an all round list,it should be re-named as an Air Assault/Invasion force list with new variant lists done to make other styles viable.

I believe there are to many variables to make an "All round/All in One" Codex list where every style of Army is balanced and points costed correctly.

As I see it changing the points for Air assets etc. to make an all ground force viable in this list is then going to make the Air Heavy list overpriced.

We are then going to be in the same boat where instead of ground forces being overcosted just incase they are Air dropped to be where Air Transports are going to be overcosted to use as viable Bombers.

It may make "ground pounders" a more viable force but what about the players who use the Air Transports just as Bombers, they are then going to be paying over the odds.

Why should "Player A, I want to use an all ground force" wishes come above "Player B, I want to use my Air transports as purely Bombers without using them for Air Assaults".

Seriously?  If that's your standard, you're right.

For most people "ground pounder" means mostly ground units, a good portion of infantry and minimal, though not entirely absent, specialty support.

_________________
Neal

That'd be easily sorted if one (or both) of the Gunship variants (Close Support/Saturation Bombing) were allowed in the core list.

That way if someone wanted to take Air Transport, they pay appropriately. Player A is satisfied, as his ground forces should be more effective with the change (he isn't penalized for not playing air). And if someone wanted a heavy air support but didn't want the transport capacity, he wouldn't be penalized either. Player B would be happy also.

Or, you could take a page from a portion of the Eldar list, and have a surcharge for use of the transport option. Eldar pay more for Falcons that can use their Transport capacity, than those that don't.

Just some ideas to throw out there.

Morgan Vening

Sorry Morgan As usual I wasn't clear on what I was thinking   .

Your idea of adding in the variant T/hawks is good but I was really trying to show that wanting things changed/re-pointed because players want to play a list differently to it's design, for me is not the way to go.

My view is we need a variant "Codex" list to balance a ground based Marine army instead of trying to change the core one too much.

I'll try to explain my feelings a little better.
I feel the call to change the list because it doesn't work in a way some want would be the same as me wanting the T-Hawk/Landing Craft (in a list were the variants you stated were included) to be dropped in points because I wanted to use them as a bombers not as their main roll of transports.

Again, for me there needs to be a new variant list for  a ground based marine army not an all in one list.

Thas cool, and I understand it. It's really just a difference of perspective. I'd much rather see the Codex Marine list being the standard, not a variant. Raven Guard in the NetEA list seems to take the position of the Air Assault philosophy list.

I'm also of the belief that if there are significantly substandard choices, the list is inherently flawed. It's not so much that the airborne approach is overpowered in the Marine Lists (I've not seen any call for them to be toned down regards tournaments), it's that the ground based approach is inherently weak. Really, for all intents and purposes, several formations/units could be deleted from the Marine Codex, with little, if any, impact on it's competitiveness.

But really, yeah, we're just talking about a minor quibble as to which should be 'base'.

Morgan Vening
- All your base are belong to NetERC

I agree! The ‘all arms’ list promoted here is such a variant list to allow a more ground based force, it’s not intended to replace or affect the main 'air assault' SM list but to provide a different alternative for those who prefer to use it. It still allows air/space options but prices them rather more expensively. Perhaps a more self explanatory title than ‘all arms’ might be better for it to avoid confusion...

Eclectic background waffle:

P9 of the 4th edition SM codex talks about there being three main forms of tactics marine armies use to attack their foes. The first quick option is orbital assault with orbital bombardment followed swiftly by a drop pod and thunderhawk assault. On the second tactic it says “if they are able to land heavy equipment, an equally devastating tactic is the armoured spearhead. Manoeuvring at speed, behind a far ranging screen of bikes and land speeders, the Space Marines smash their powerful tanks against the weak link of the enemy army, armoured columns slashing left and right.â€Â