Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you

 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
carlos wrote:
Signal wrote:
I just checked the Epic-UK tournament stats for this year and 2010:
Of the 15 Codex Marine lists that placed in the top 5,
100% took at least 1 Thunderhawk, and 73% took two
100% took at least 2 Warhounds, with one list taking three.
13% took more than a single Tactical formation


Which is why I laugh every time people in this and other threads go on about ground-pounder marine lists being as good or better than the standard marine list. Ah Ah Ah!

IIRC the Metagame for Epic seems to greatly varies from County to County. The way people think and build there list has been pointed out alot. As useful as it is the recurring posting about "Epic UK" stats are a bit...annoying? This isn't the closed developmental Epic UK forums. This is the NetEA SM thread. I understand the the lists are similar and data is helpful at times but it feels...I'm not sure what it feels like. It just seems like there are/will people throwing out there 2 cents and never plan on playing anything but EUK lists. This isn't intended to hurt any feelings btw.

The main issue I see here is that people want Ground Pounding SM to be a playable tactic as much as Airborne. TBH I really don't see it be hard to do. I see that some Ground Units should receive some help to make them more viable but let's face it Air SM is a bit more fluffy in general and who doesn't love a Thunderhawk. Really having a whole SM list is a bit daft I think unless your Marines formations are painted different Chapter (Which I think I'll be doing), Because really most Chapters couldn't fill more than 2 Terminator formations, let alone all in the same spot. Why not put basic IG units in the Allies section or hell make SM lists 50% SM and 50% something else. How often do entire Chapter go to war? Everyday? Every Tourny? In reality they don't but this is a fun game and SM are fun and popular choice so we have an all SM list and primarily an Airborne list "Oh well" I mean if we really want to start whining about how unnatural it is to always have Air SM with Warhounds why not go all the way and say how unnatural it is to have 5-10 SM list out of a 20 player Touney? Or how most SM are split up to less than Company size levels all over the galaxy. Really SM should only be Allies for IG and other Imperial lists for the most part.

So why don't we just fix some units like Pred and leave the Air "issues" how they are eh?
I think the Preds and Land Raiders are the most needed of review. Or even Tacticals? They should be the most numerous SM unit yet you never see them. Maybe the list should be "You may take a SM formation for every Tactical Formation you take" Eh?

Just 2 Cents...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
I'm thinking that it's perfectly OK to say that a standard SM task group is about the size of an Epic army. It may not fit perfectly with the (chaotic and always changing) GW background, but's it's close enough that it's good enough for this game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:32 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 2:55 pm
Posts: 611
To reiterate my view, I think the Codex marine list is, by and large, fine; I mainly just want to see marine armored formations become a viable alternative to the currently ubiquitous Warhounds. Though I can see the logic in doing this by restricting Warhounds more (0-1 single Warhound, or only available in pairs), I think making Predator, Land Raider and Vindicator formations more viable is a better way to go.

Though that would be buffing specific Space marine formations, it wouldn't (hopefully) be buffing the list itself, as they're all infrequently taken choices, and they should only (again, hopefully) be raised to parity with the more popular formations; adding more choice but not an increase in overall power.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 1978
Location: Thompson, MB, Canada
I'd concur with MikeT. Sums it up, really.

Plus, that leaves room for the Apocrypha to be that crazy list with the big formations and the really tiny Ally contingent. ;)

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
A novel idea: If Tactical Detachments are underused how about removing 2 units from it?

Tactical Detachment - 4 Tactical units - 200pts (or even 175pts?)
Upgrade: 2 Tactical units - 75pts (could even be available to Assault and Devastator Detachments... Land Raider Detachments too)

Another thing:
Remove the 1/3 rule for Allies. Make each choice for Allies a 0-1 choice per 3000pts.
So in a 300pts battle you can get one pair of Thunderbpolts andone pair of Marauder sbu tnot two pairs of Thunderbolts.
You can get one single Warhound and a pair of Warhounds but not two single Warhounds.
But you could field a Warlord AND a pair of Warhounds AND a single Warhound AND a Reaver if you want.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Last edited by BlackLegion on Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:26 am
Posts: 311
The only benefit Tac marines have at the moment though, is that they're more numerous (and thus more durable) than the other infantry.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
GlynG wrote:
To respond to a few bits:
(snip)
Ginger wrote:
the Vindicator, which I cannot remember ever being used either as an upgrade or a formation in its own right – but I would equally have to ask, “so what”?

One of the goals of rebalancing a list is obviously to tweak under-performing and under-used units. I’m bemused that you're even questioning this or ranting against it happening. Rebalancing such units encourages more variety of competitively viable lists, which can make the army more interesting to play with and against. It's also better for players owning those models to have a good opportunity to use them rather than them being rarely/not used.

I contend that Vindicator cannot easily be made 'competitive' through cost changes alone, purely because by design it has a very niche role; other formations give the player more options and better results. IMHO, to make the Vindi more desirable you would have to change the unit stats to the point where it would no longer represent the "Space Marine" Vindicator, which defeats the purpose of the exercise

GlynG wrote:
Ginger wrote:
The SM list per se has no TK and very limited MW capability. Among the best tools available in the list are Imperial titan allies - which is why they figure so prominently in current lists to allow the marine player the option of going for the BTS goal...you might well argue that the Marines are all about selecting the right tactics and tools for the particular task in hand – and in that respect the list works very well at providing the player with the relevant options.

It is a significant failure of the list that those options are relied on. The SM and Adeptus Mechanicus Titan Legions are separate organisations, both fiercely independent and with their own interests. Titans are also rare and not commonly available for SM battles whether the SM would like them to be or not. Sometimes Space Marines may be lucky to have Titan support for a particular battle, but often times there won’t be Titans within thousands of light years of the planet they are fighting on. No one is suggesting removing allies from the list, but they shouldn’t be such ‘must have’ choices and the list should be able to function nearly as well without them. The potential points cost raise to 300 in addition to the worse critical could help matters a bit and I do have a left field suggestion that could help the list rely less on allies, but I'll write and post that up another day as I've spent a lot of time here again today when I have loads to get done.

To some extent this is the reverse of the Vindicators question. The Marine list is undoubtably harder to use without titan capabilities, especially with the "power-creep" that has been the hallmark of many later lists. But increasing the cost of individual Warhounds to 300 points will not necessarily stop people from using them, it will just shrink the points available for real marine formations, reducing the list capability and thereby weakening the SMs list as a whole.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 1978
Location: Thompson, MB, Canada
Quote:
I contend that Vindicator cannot easily be made 'competitive' through cost changes alone, purely because by design it has a very niche role; other formations give the player more options and better results. IMHO, to make the Vindi more desirable you would have to change the unit stats to the point where it would no longer represent the "Space Marine" Vindicator, which defeats the purpose of the exercise


I dunno. It may be short ranged, but the shot's flexible enough.

You're telling me you wouldn't take Vindicators if they were 100 points for a formation of four?

Quote:
To some extent this is the reverse of the Vindicators question. The Marine list is undoubtably harder to use without titan capabilities, especially with the "power-creep" that has been the hallmark of many later lists. But increasing the cost of individual Warhounds to 300 points will not necessarily stop people from using them, it will just shrink the points available for real marine formations, reducing the list capability and thereby weakening the SMs list as a whole.


Then the list needs some appropriate other way to provide what the Warhounds do.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:26 am
Posts: 311
To me what this indicates is a need for an additional source of ranged Macroweapon, or some access to Titankiller weaponry. I know introducing new units is always contentious, but is there a way to introduce this capability into the current list?

I still think making Captains have thunderhammers (EA+1 TK(1)) would work, as the proposed EA+2MW doesn't necessarily compensate for the loss of Inspiring.
Perhaps the addition of a Pinpoint attack to the Strike Cruiser would help?

The other main benefit of the Warhounds is durability, but an efficiently-pointed Land Raider formation should help with that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote:
Then the list needs some appropriate other way to provide what the Warhounds do

Well I'm still hoping to make the Land Raiders a closer option in terms of cost. It's not MW but it's heavy AT fire.

Quote:
To me what this indicates is a need for an additional source of ranged Macroweapon, or some access to Titankiller weaponry

Yeah I won't be looking to introduce more MW/TK weapons. It's not what the list does and you already have the option for it in the titan allies. It is still feasible that Marines would fight alongside titans in large battles but it's not something I want to increase or reduce in terms of choice.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 1978
Location: Thompson, MB, Canada
What about Pinpoint Attacks? Right now, Bombardment Cannon give 1BP per point of strength in BFG (Weapons Batteries give 1BP per 2 points, and you get 1 Pinpoint Attack per 2 Lances) - if half went to Pinpoint Attacks and half went to Bombardment Points that'd give the Battle Barge 8BP and 2 Pinpoint Attacks, while the Strike Cruiser would get 1 Pinpoint Attack and 3BP (making it the same as the Lunar, but such is life).

That, or make Space Marines able to retarget their bombardments by a certain amount.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
i do like the idea of the captains (and supcoms) getting a TK(1) weapon instead of a MW
and i know i'd consider taking a battle barge if it had 2 pinpoint attacks...
personally, i'm fine with marines not having much TK ability. they're generally a mobile enough army that they should be able to avoid the enemy titans where needed (and i cant think of too many instances in the fluff where marines take on titans anyway)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 6:05 pm
Posts: 169
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
Checkpoint: If the participants haven't read through the entire thread recently, I'd recommend that you give it a try. The discussion sure seems like it's entered into a flat spin phase without definitive points that could lead to a resolution.

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 740
Location: San Francisco, CA
Unless the currently-popular builds are not grossly overpowered, I propose that we stop trying to discourage their use through list changes. Some people like those lists and they should be allowed to keep them. The greater issue is that fans of ground-based units feel lost.

Pretend you want to play Space Marines without Thunderhawks, Landing Craft, Drop Pods, nor Titans. What does your imagined list look like? How do you think it'll fare? Is anyone in a position to actually try it out in real life? Compare it to non-marine transport-based armies rather than to airborne marines.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:39 am
Posts: 1097
Location: Alleroed, Denmark
Ginger wrote:
the Vindicator, which I cannot remember ever being used either as an upgrade or a formation in its own right – but I would equally have to ask, “so what”?


Just as a small datapoint, I routinely take a Vindicator or two, as upgrades to garrison tacticals (Tacticals + 2x Dread + Vindicator seems like a solid enough formation),

If I take Land Raiders (which I admittedly rarely do, I think they're too expensive too), I usually upgrade them with a Vindicator too, for extra numbers and some AP capability.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 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