The lists were written with the Armageddon background in mind (as an aside do I remember correctly that that's the background reason why Thunderbolts are in flights of two?); but clearly the NetEA project (in general, and Space Marines specifically here) has grown beyond that single campaign.

There's plenty of background reasons why Titans or Imperial Navy wouldn't be fighting alongside Astartes, and we wouldn't bat an eyelid if another campaign-specific or faction-themed list changed things (compare the Legio Gryphonicus and the Legio Destructor lists).


It's a persuasive argument, but allowing other options to deal with battlefield situations without forcing them to take units that some players would prefer not to would be good, surely?


Because the appeal of the game for some is expanding on a shared universe that feeds the imagination and allows choice.


I don't think that's universally true, any more than characterising the conservative viewpoint as 'CHANGE? CHANGE?! NEVER!' would be fair.


But the changes that Dobbsy is asking to be playtested aren't forcing anyone to not take allies – it's giving the choice.

What about a player who wants to build an army themed around the Badab War, where the Imperial forces specifically didn't send in Imperial Guard, Navy or Titan Legions, for example? I think background discussion is largely fruitless, as (like aesthetics and balance) relies heavily on interpretation and opinion – because as I say above, there are many interests (amongst them balance, aesthetics, background) that should feed into these discussions.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

I don't think that's happening.

Thunderbolts have been increased in price because they're suppsedly worth 175pts, not because they are being discouraged.
Tactical formations have been decreased in price because they're supposedly not worth 300pts, not because they're being enforced as a must-have. Now there's testing to check if that change is unbalanced.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Why not just make a different Space Marine Codex ? .

Rename the the original to "SM Codex-Armageddon" and name the new one"SM Codex-Different World".
Players can then choose to use whichever suits their needs and developers can stop trying to get a list that covers every possible playstyle and fluff/background that often contradicts itself.

Agree with dptdexys (dave?)

The Marine list suffers from trying to be too much. All variant lists doesn't have to be a specific chapter.

Why? I don't think that follows.


'Forced' is a bit strong – and it misses the point of Dobbsy's changes. The 'tacticians playground' is apparently a bit stale if it relies heavily on Warhounds and Thunderbolts. Would you agree more variety on the table would be a good thing for the game?


If that's what you're taking from this discussion, then I apologise – I've rather derailed the thread with talk of the background. Let me rephrase it like so: The lack of MW and TK weaponry ensures a reliance on certain formations that leads to stagnant and predictable list-writing. The alternative – formations with multiple decent AT shots – are overpriced compared to the extremely flexible and reliable Warhounds.


That's rather a good idea! My only caveat would be that this was attempted with the nobly-intentioned "Apocrypha of Skaros" list, which sadly languished.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

It could be a naming issue. "Apocrypha of Skaros" sounds like some homebrew chapter to me, not really interesting. Codex Astartes: Vraks Campaign (or maybe preferably connected to an upcoming supplement) could perhaps get wider support.

Well, the Apocrypha list doesn't look much like a generalist Codex Marine list for starters, and for seconds it's a reflection of what marines were 20 years ago, not what they are today.

Also, I think the changes are so minor as to not require a variant list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Actually, the Ultramarines are listed as having 25 Predators, while the Blood Angels have 38.

No-one here is suggesting or wanting that! Lets not set-up and fight extreme straw men.


I agree and wonder that too!

Space Marines are highly independent and self-sufficient force, often the first to arrive to a conflict and/or getting dispatched to conflicts on their own – have a read of the Forge World Badab War books that focus on SMs to get a better feel for how they operate. A dozen or so chapters fight for decades with only a single battle having titan support.


I agree and wonder that too.


That’s really not necessary or a good idea. These are a set of small changes to the core list that also radiate out to all Net-EA SM variants.

With Dobbsy’s trial changes in place who does the core list supposedly not cater for? The minor points costs adjustments to Tactical, Predators and Thunderbolts roughly balance out or go slightly in the SMs favour. Yes, with Thunderbolts at 175 some builds maxing out on aircraft or aircraft and titans may be a little more limited by the 1/3 e.g. you couldn’t take 2 separate Warhounds and 3 flights of Thunderbolts, but it’s only extreme builds that are slightly effected and if they are tough - I'm sure some complained about the rise of Warhounds from 250 so they couldn't take 4 in 3k, but it was the right thing to do.

no one is forcing you to use tacticals, just making them a bit more usable... fluff wise more than half of the marines are tacticals, so dobbsy is trying to help people who want to play them to be able to do it competitively, dont you like tacticals? no one forces you to use them, the rest of the formations are unchanged so you can still play with them


why should it be that way? why cant a fluffy player play competitively?



as i said, no one is forcing you to play fluffy, just making fluffy armies more competitive. also, making the game more fun because tournament lists would be more diverse if all of the units are good choices, not just a couple of them... also if you do not like playing with some fluff restrictions, why play a game with such a vast background? and well... why cant i play with leman russes in my necron army? thats a restriction based on fluff... and as you said that kind of restrictions goes on " the detriment of both competitiveness and enjoyment of the mechanics and variety of the game "



changes are being done for balance, no one said that the change was done solely for fluff reasons, tacticals see very litle use in competitive lists... maybe that is because they are overcosted, so dobbsy is trying to test if a reduction in their point value makes them more usable without unbalancig the whole list... allowing people who like playing fluff heavy to play litle bit more competitive and those who do not play fluffy to have more available competitive options.

the main problem i see with you arguments (rug) is that you are against fluffy changes in a game based on fluff... so, as i said before someone could want to play leman russes in necron armies, or falcons with tyranids... why not? it would make the game more varied and with more tactical options... or i may say that my necrons are unbalanced because we dont have AA support outside WM... well... armies are done with a backgroud basis... like it or not.

the most interesting thing about this is that dobsys changes while having some logic fluuf wise are done thinking in game balance... the more balanced is a list the more options available there are for players... the only thing that seems a restriction is the point increase in tblots, well, they are far better due to SR5 and thunderbolts so they deserved an increase in points... and even then the warlord is reduced in points just to try and not restrict too much

If it's my SR5 Warhound versus your SR2 Warhound, and mine sustains fire first, it's better.

Of course that's completely abstract in isolation from other context, but I don't think it's an unfair point to make.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

My thoughts, based on a more limited number of test games (3)

[list=][*]Land Raiders 325 point per formation/75 point upgrades(no 85 point add-ons)
I used these in all three games; both as formations and upgrades to Tacticals/Devastators. The saving (which worked out to ~100pts across the army) compared to the old prices, gave me some resilient mobile AT fire.
In isolation, I'm all for this change. In conjunction with the other drops in price, I think they are a decent alternative to Predator Annihilators.

[*]Vindicators 225 per formation
I'd agree completely with Dave's analysis (first post)

[*]Tacticals 275 per formation. Allow LR upgrade
I used up to four formations of Tactical units with this reduction, which basically bought me two free character upgrades. I like it; as I think the points matches their versatility compared with Assault and Devastator formations better. The LR upgrade makes for a very solid Break Their Spirit.

[*]Predators 250 per formation/FF3+ for Destructor
[quote=Dave]I'd be inclined to follow the EUK in this and change the Predator formation to 4 Destructors for 225 points, with an upgrade that allows you to upgrade pairs to Annihilators for 25 points a pair.[/quote]
An opinion I wholeheartedly agree with.

[*]Thunderbolts 175 per squadron
[*]Warlord at 825
Didn't use either.[/list]

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC