I feel this also leads to the "benchmark" lists essentially having to play their perceived optimum game against the new lists as that's what they're aimed at. E.G Codex Marines now pretty much have to play the air game to compete

Sent from my 4034X using Tapatalk

I tend to agree with the sentiment, though the point remains that the core lists are probably still the yardstick by which we should be measuring the strength and effectiveness of new lists. It is true that newer lists can also be played optimally, and power-creep really kicks in when we use the latest lists to test the strength of a 'new' list. Consider the following;

List 'X' is considered strength '5.0' against an average Marines list played by an average player. So we might consider the list to be reasonably balanced. Under the above argument it may seem slightly underpowered, so we might upgrade the list making it strength '5.5'. But if list 'Y' is vetted against list 'X' under the same conditions, it could come out at strength '6.0', while list 'Z' vetted against 'Y' becomes strength '6.5' etc.

The simplistic answer is to only use the core / original lists for testing purposes, but that ignores the newer dimensions of some lists, and the inherent issues in scaling up some units and formations. If we were to test the Marines now, we would have to consider spamming Terminators, Warhounds, air-units and ground units etc. trying to exploit design strengths in teleportation, air assaults, Titans, armoured formations, and we might well make changes to formation sizes and costs (see the many thoughts in this thread )

In practice, balancing a list internally and externally is an arcane art that depends on many things, starting with consistent use of terrain, coverage, definitions etc. I have long argued that the tournament environment (especially that in the U.K.) provides such a 'stable' environment, which is only marred somewhat by the extensive group of lists permitted (encouraging the power-creep described above). This is made more complex by trying to balance the list with armies ranging from 2700 - 5000 points.

Perhaps we could agree an expanded group of lists (or even specific armies within these lists) that should be used when testing and approving new lists, along with a predefined set of table layouts etc.

G'day all,

Its been almost 2 years since I've added much to the epic community on taccomms but a change in jobs should allow me to contribute once again. I've played marines regularly, since the early 2000s during the play testing of EA, and they would be my go to force.

I've tried a number of times to make a ground pounding SM force competitive, and had mild success in the Australian tournaments that I attended, however playing without terminators, thunderhawks and warhounds is like trying to fight with an arm tied behind your back.

If I read the preceding posts, I think its fair to say the general consensus it that air assault is where marines are best, and they don't need any boosts to the air game - I agree with this statement

I'm pretty happy with the codex marine list as it stands, though it does drop off in competitiveness if you were to veer away from the above mentioned units (Term, THawk etc).

Its probably also an agreed point now that newer lists have added an element of power creep to the game, and whilst its is not the fault of the SM, one could ask the question "is it now easier to make a small tweak to the codex SM list, than reign in 15+ offshoots?"

If I were to tweak anything it would be the two units people love from a theme/model stand point but rarely take in competitive games - the dreadnought and vindicator.
Specifically I would change:
Dreadnoughts to CC3+ / FF3+
Vindicators demolisher to be 30cm AP3+/AT4+, Ignore Cover, Disrupt
Allow predators into the tactical, assault and devastator formations as an upgrade

No doubt these will receive some criticism, but I think after 10+yrs we can fairly say both dreadnoughts and vindicators are not being widely employed in "competitive" matches. Adding predators to the standard infantry formations allows for some more robust ground builds without slowing the rhino mounted infantry, and supports the combined arms effect that marines should also excel at, though I think most competitive players would avoid this anyway as it further reduces activation count which is fairly important to marine builds.

From a justification stand point:
(dreadnought)
28mm/6mm translations - The Dreadnought has seen a slight improvement in its CC potential in both 40K and 30K
Fluff - The dreadnought is supposed to be a champion of the chapter, on par with the best of his living brothers, and carries equal or greater weaponry than equivalent 5 man power armored marines squads.

(vindicator)
28mm/6mm rules translation - the debate has raged for years why this is not a MW, and it fairly so. However MW has been ruled out a number of times due to the issue with comparable weapons in the IG lists and probably elsewhere.
Fluff - This is a siege gun, capable of blasting defenders our of hard cover and leaving the survivors dazed and vulnerable to the assaulting marines. The inclusion of disrupt had proven to be quite thematic and useful in tests back in 2012/13. It also makes vindicators slightly more distinct role in the list, as opposed to a poor mans predator. The additional BMs often proving quite useful preceding a follow on assault or helping to break small DC WEs, such that they ceased to be an immediate threat to the marines.

Anyhow, I've rambled enough, Marines are good at air assault, its just a question as to how far do we go with the standard list to make them workable in other types of list design. Personally I'd prefer one list with multiple play styles than 6 different variants each with their own one method of war.

I'm happy to create a 2017 Marine playtest PDF, incorporating these minor tweaks if that would actually help progress testing as opposed to ongoing discussion for limited tangible effect.

Regards and happy gaming in 2017.

Kev101 is one of the veterans on the EpicUK scene and was pretty successful (13-11-11 W/L/D) running the following list

TACTICAL [400]
6 Tactical units plus Transport, Hunter, Razorback LAS

TACTICAL [375]
6 Tactical units plus Transport, Hunter

DEVASTATOR [275]
4 Devastator Units plus Transport, Razorback LAS

SCOUT [175]
4 Scouts plus Transport, Razorback LAS

SCOUT [175]
4 Scouts plus Transport, Razorback LAS

SCOUT [150]
4 Scouts plus Transport

LAND SPEEDER [200]
5 Land Speeder

TERMINATOR [350]
4 Terminator units

THUNDERHAWK [200]
1 Thunderhawk gunship

WARHOUND TITAN [275]
1 Warhound Titan

WARHOUND TITAN [275]
1 Warhound Titan

THUNDERBOLTS [150]
2 Thunderbolt Fighters

although it does include terminators and a thunderhawk, I think you'd be hard-pressed to call it an 'air assault' list...

While it would be nice for the codex list to have a wider variety of builds, I do think that from a fluff POV and the way the list was designed, the 'surgical strike' aspect using air and drop assets should be the optimal build for the list, in the same way that an ork shooting list or an eldar attrition list could be made, but would be sub-optimal....

and whether people would prefer a master list with more options over multiple lists, each with a different flavour, is a bit of a moot point.... unfortunately we're too far down the rabbit hole at this stage and we're kinda stuck with it

I do tend to agree with Ginger that having the codex list, steel legion, ghaz orks etc as fixed-in-time yardsticks for playtesting is important to at least attempt to reign-in power creep in newer lists, so while it would certainly be easier to tweak a single list, you'd be giving up a pretty important playtest resource in the process....

ps. Welcome back to the forum Ortron

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

The guy who won the Swedish League last year did that with playing a ground slogging marine list (and with a IF force ). No Terminators or thunderhawks in sight there.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Agreed, everyone has their "thing" they that do better than someone else. Some lists can potentially do a few things well such as shoot at range and air assault, or shoot well and drown you in bodies, or swarm the field and assault well etc. Give this is about discussing the options/depth of the codex marine list, do the marines need to do something other than assault well and have excellent morale / staying power? its a hard question to answer as everyone has a slightly different opinion as to what marines should be good at, often biased by individuals fondness for a particular chapter or fluff - hence the large number of offshoots



Never say never but agreed, the horse has somewhat bolted...



I mostly agree, though I think constant review and flexibility is required in any system. Who is to say the initial codex marine list was perfect? its not, its just been around the longest and is probably the most tested, but it has slightly changed over the years.

My recommendations are more about tweaking those units that rarely see competitive use and making them a more viable option to the competition player. Having a quick look through the epicAU and epicUK records, I rarely see vindicators being used, either by SM or CSM (similarly few baneblades or leman russ demolishers in the IG lists) and dreadnoughts are almost non-existant compared to the popular choices like terminators, thunderhawks or shadowswords etc. People have long used the excuse that a change would affect multiple lists... I say who cares if hardly any one is using them...

Cheers

I think the issue is often that of upgrades vs. activation count... Sure vindicator and baneblade formations rarely get used, probably as they are a bit of a casualty of the EA system... (6-strong vindicator formations are p.decent in the IF list IMO) the reason you rarely see dreads and demolishers and the like is usually because they eat into activation count, which if you look at most tournament metas around the world, is generally the most important factor in building a list.... Dreads could be considerably better than they are now and I'd still rarely take them due to the fact that you are potentially giving up an activation to free up the points and you're losing a competetive edge....

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

BatReps are always welcome to illustrate tweaks. At worst it gives something concrete to "chew on" so go for it.

I should point out that vindicators and dreds are a core force in the IF and IH lists respectively and important parts of them so are seen there. Pushing the latter over into an Approved status from would probably be a bigger ROI than revisiting this list (2 cents).

Ground Pounding Marines are already superbly represented in both the approved SoI and Salamander lists so I consider that a pretty dead discussion (again, prove me wrong-always up for more data ). A marine tank list, already in existence with the AoS list, getting finished would be a nice addition but nothing that is a must have. The fact is there's a plethora of playstyles available to the marine player and the fact that players are overwhelmingly comfortable with the Codex Air Assault build isn't an issue in lists but in being "comfortable", "known", and well.... "easy" to do.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I think your correct in the dilemma both units cause by being an upgrade, however I'd counter by saying there are those upgrades that the general player base perceive as being worthwhile, and those that aren't. By that I mean there are plenty of chaplains, hunters and supreme commanders being taken at the expense of activations.

Vindicators as a formation are less popular than predators, whirlwinds or landraiders because why? Too situational? Less effective per point?



Noting the IH list is still a way off, but why do you think these units are more worthwhile in these offshoot lists? Is it these lists lack air assaulting terminators and therefore force a different play style or do these units some how better synergise with the rest of the force?

Personal opinion is both units are sub par compared to other options, both as upgrades and formations, but happy to be convinced otherwise.

I guess going back to the initial discussion, I don't think marines are really struggling to deal with any lists in particular as long as you play to their strengths, which for some may have become a little old.

Unit options, points, formation sizes all make them attractive. In short, the lists are designed wherein those peculiar units are actually useful in a variety of builds and situations. A large formation of Inspiring RA+IS dreads getting shot into your face will ruin most people's days, even if they are ultimately overcome it tends to wreck their ability to follow the battelplan, for instance. Pretty worthless in most Codex builds as an upgrade however.

As to IH going stable Developmental, it's all about the batreps. It's not really far off (considering the dozen or so good reports on 1.0) and just needs people to pay attention. FAR FAR FAR less testing than taking a unit, even a rarely used one, and validating the knock on effects on existing approved lists in a sweeping update. e.g. Easier to make a IH Orton's Special Kick ass dread in a sub variant than it is to take something in multiple lists and get it out the door tested. After we get the weight of tourney batreps and data behind it it's a lot easier to make the argument for the sweeping update.

Basically my take on it approval balance: It's not really balanced and tested until it's been approved and well used in actual tourneys for a bit (see DKoK).

I'm fully with your final statement that playing to the specific lists strength and that people are using "stale" builds they're comfortable with and not stretching out into new ways of playing.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Units don't get used for reasons that are specific to the list, but you have to really look at the selection process to understand why, and in some cases units are always going to be underrepresented due to their role in the list.

In the case of dreadnoughts, personally I don't think bumping stats will make a blind bit of difference as the reason you don't see them often is because the formations that they go in without slowing them down (basically blitz guards and drop pods) are themselves not all that common and/or don't really need dreadnoughts to fulfil their roles. Unlike chaplains which have a more direct benefit on the main role of the formations they go in, which are themselves common. So dreadnoughts are only "nice to haves" which tend to be taken with spare points, and quite simply it isn't often you have a spare 50 points. Taking an upgrade is done either because you have points spare (25 point razorbacks) or because you are happy to accept the opportunity cost of not spending those points elsewhere. Taking one thing means you don't take another. So for vindicators, taking such a situational choice is done at the expense of another formation that is simply more useful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

See, I like dreads and I do use them. Especially when mixed in with a unit that I am going to use to sit on objectives. My like for them is partly fluff based though and I know they are not that great in Epic. I have always had the bug bear that they are either a) too expensive or b) need a stats boost.

Sure in comparison to a Titan they are feeble, But compared to a standard SM they are mighty. Just not in Epic.

_________________
Walk softly. And carry a big gun.

The only way dreads and vindicators will see proper use is if they are given a swap out/replace option - thereby not affecting activation count.

And even then their stats probably need a boost.

I know this might be a bit silly but... What about being able to swap in one/multiple dreadnoughts as direct replacement for transports? Let people still take them as upgrades for drop pod formations by paying points, but otherwise... why not?

You lose a LOT of mobility by losing rhinos anyway, so why not get something out of it?

Marines get Rhinos for free already. So you're saying, if I'm reading this right, that you csay have a tact formation and ditch your Rhinos but get a free Dred automagically?

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!