Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Balancing Marines
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=19562		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Steve54 [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Balancing Marines
With all the attention on possible SM changes I'd like to suggest the following-

Remove the 2008 errata changes
- the changes to BM (halving in assaults etc) has just made the air assault build an even better option. Now you can make an unprepared air assault and (assuming no damage) be only at a -1 through BMs rather than a -2. So air assault has been made better
- same for teleporting. It was always a good option and now the risk of getting a BM and starting at -2 has gone
- its very confusing and poorly written. I doubt there is ever a tournament when a question about it doesn't comes up - even from veteran players.

All these changes have done is make air assaulting+terminators better. Which wasn't in any way necessary and has meant that SM air assault armies now have the edge at tourneys which wasn't really the case before.

Probably the only decent change is the characters remove 2 BMs but even that isn't really a necessary change.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
Hmm given the SM copped a hiding nearly everytime I ever played, or saw them played, in the pre-2008 errata, personally, I'm not keen to re-visit the old days.

IIRC the changes were introduced to give them a better strength in their chosen field of battle - which they sorely lacked before - and a little better command & control.
Author:  Steve54 [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
Dobbsy wrote:
IIRC the changes were introduced to give them a better strength in their chosen field of battle - which they sorely lacked before - and a little better command & control.


C&C I can just about swallow for the leader changes but before the errata SM were great at air assaults and teleporting. Now you just don't have to plan them as well as before and the risks are reduced. I don't see how making air assaults+termies better will encourage use of armour formations so the reduction in cost of amrour is completely negated by air+teleport being even better.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
I agree that the "halve BM's in engagements" rule has meant a slight boost to the air assault style, and would have no objection to seeing its removal.

I also agree that the wording of the "halve BM's in engagements" rule as it stands is very poor.

Quote:
Probably the only decent change is the characters remove 2 BMs

You would want Scout Drop Pod hot-drop spam back? ***
And to reverse the opening up of the Hunter upgrade to extra formations?


***I use "hot drop" there as the change was influenced by the current edition of 40k, where Scouts cannot hot drop directly into battle, instead they're supposed to land a day or so before and, well, do some scouting...
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I agree that the "halve BM's in engagements" rule has meant a slight boost to the air assault style, and would have no objection to seeing its removal.

Thus seeing the rest of the army become crappier again...? That won't make people take armour.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
Marines weren't crap before. People did win tournaments with them.

They were however seen as a lower-tier army rather than, as they are now, top of the heap.

But I would propose that deficiency could be remedied by a continuance of the "points and stats" balancing approach, by dropping Tactical formations by 25pts, by dropping tank formation costs to EUK levels (Or, where justified, lower), by upping tank stats (Predator A's, Land Raiders), etc.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
I like the 2bm for leaders at it brought broken units back into line and emphasised taking leaders (chaplains at least :) ). Even though i normally forget it :)

I never ever ever liked the half bm rule. Its wooly, creates questions and simply isn't needed. I would love to see it go, its not as if marine assault options were weak anyway.

Also it would have no impact on tanks and really going from dead cert for my random teleporting terminators who regularily face off against entire armies and get away with it, to somewhat risky is I think a good thing.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Marines weren't crap before. People did win tournaments with them.

They were however seen as a lower-tier army rather than, as they are now, top of the heap.

Ahh, don't misrepresent what I said. I said "crappier" not "crap." They were only crappier than they are now. There's a difference.

Evil and Chaos wrote:

But I would propose that deficiency could be remedied by a continuance of the "points and stats" balancing approach, by dropping Tactical formations by 25pts, by dropping tank formation costs to EUK levels (Or, where justified, lower), by upping tank stats (Predator A's, Land Raiders), etc.

Personally, I think the entire process of Marine costing needs the effect of ATSKNF correctly costed first so we can work out base unit costs (for base unit stats)without it then add in ATSKNF. But I'm pretty sure no one will do this and I'm not smart enough to work it out ;D
Author:  zombocom [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
Dobbsy wrote:
Personally, I think the entire process of Marine costing needs the effect of ATSKNF correctly costed first so we can work out base unit costs (for base unit stats)without it then add in ATSKNF. But I'm pretty sure no one will do this and I'm not smart enough to work it out ;D


It isn't really possible, because ATSKNF becomes more effective for very small and very large formations; very small because it removes the problem of single kill breaking, and very large because they become effectively unbreakable except for assaults.

Having said that, I believe during the Chaos development a figure of around 30% was used as a baseline for the value of ATSKNF.
Author:  frogbear [ Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
Quote:
and very large because they become effectively unbreakable


Finally, someone saying something that is QFT
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
So the only person so far objecting to Steve's proposal is Dobbsy?
Author:  frogbear [ Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
Evil and Chaos wrote:
So the only person so far objecting to Steve's proposal is Dobbsy?


It is a shame that the gaming community does not respond on lists because 5 people is a far shot from being representative.

I myself have stayed out of the discussions but I have my own reasons for that.
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
I'd think it might be an improvement, but I'll admit that I haven't played ATSKNF any other way.

If we depower ATSKNF that way, is it possibly to be coupled with improvements to make the Marines somewhat better all-round (as in the whole 'better costs, etc, etc').
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
frogbear wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
So the only person so far objecting to Steve's proposal is Dobbsy?


It is a shame that the gaming community does not respond on lists because 5 people is a far shot from being representative.

That was partially my point, in calling for more opinions.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Balancing Marines
Evil and Chaos wrote:
So the only person so far objecting to Steve's proposal is Dobbsy?

I hope that's not a carte blanche reason to push this through....
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/