Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Where do marines stand?

 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 946
Location: On the Ohio river, USA
Trying to get the current consensus on the Codex List (if there is one).  I'm putting this post up to avoid thread-jacking the Marine Article thread.

I've heard lower Land Raider formation costing by 25
Lower all armor formations by 25
Change Vindicator Speed to 25
and Get Dreadnaughts free in exchange for transport in Inf. formations.

Any of these been tested?  Any working out well?

Any chance of getting a comment from the ERC?

From what I've seen (and admittedly, I don't read everything everywhere), the ERC is down to Neal & Greg.  If this is the case, I'd consider it "official" to hear Neal say he's talked to Greg & they are confident that "X" is going to get their stamp of approval.  

These are the men in charge as I see it.  I'll be very happy with ERC stamp of approval as I don't feel, with Andy's work load, he is going to be able to do it anytime soon.

_________________
Understand this: that skag and his floozy...they're gonna die


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I've been playing with:

- Land Raiders @ 375
- Terminators @ 350
- Normal Marine characters remove 1 extra BM.
- Marine Supreme commanders remove 2 extra BM's (so 3 in total).
- Probably some other stuff too.


TBH I think the Marines need an Army Champion to centralise all this.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
That list above, barring the Supreme Commander change, is the full version of the list I've been using.

I was under the impression that this list was pretty much 'set', but that we had no Champion to enshrine it for us.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:27 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Sotec/Tepoc is also on the ERC, as are (technically) Andy and Jervis.  PG resigned a couple weeks ago.

I'm pretty much right on with Hena's list.  AFAIK, that's what Greg Lane's crew is using as well, though they might have some 0-X limit on Termies instead of or in addition to the price change.  I'm not sure what Sotec favors but I don't think it's far off from that.

I would venture to say that Andy and Jervis won't fight anything very hard because they're largely out of the process.

As far as I'm concerned, potential changes to Dreadnoughts are still on the table.  Personally, I favor an expanded upgrade over a dedicated formation but I'm not strongly opposed to it.  I'd just prefer to see a dedicated formation saved for a chapter-specific list like the Ironhands.  I can't say what the opinions of the other ERC members are.

At this point, I suspect that there will not be a new SM champion.  The tweaks to the three core armies (SM, IG, Ork) are all minor enough that a dedicated champion is probably not really needed for any of them.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Personally I favour an all-dread formation as an option, simply because there is precedence for the formation type (The 'ironwing' formation), and at Epic's large scale I can see such a thing happening fairly regularly.

I certainly think that Dreads are due Multi-Meltas.


The tweaks to the three core armies (SM, IG, Ork) are all minor enough that a dedicated champion is probably not really needed for any of them.


So new unit types that have been introduced to the Background in the last few years such as the Thunderhawk Transporter or LR Helios are entirely out of the question as far as you're concerned?





_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:59 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 11 2006,16:46)
QUOTE
The tweaks to the three core armies (SM, IG, Ork) are all minor enough that a dedicated champion is probably not really needed for any of them.


So new unit types that have been introduced to the Background in the last few years such as the Thunderhawk Transporter or LR Helios are entirely out of the question as far as you're concerned?

Unless Jervis comes down and uses his divine influence, yes.

One of the core principles of the game design from the very earliest playtests was that army lists never be retrofitted with new units/abilities/whatever to prevent introducing balance problems in existing lists.

OTOH, new lists, like chapter variants or other themed armies are just fine for such things and in fact the restriction serves as a major justification for having the variants.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
TBH, that sucks. :(

We all know Jervis is dead.




I was really looking forwards to using Transporters...

Maybe that's a possible justification for having a new Marine Champion, to assess the possibilities of bringing in a couple of new units... after all it looks like near-on everything in the Marine list is being rebalanced anyway.



OTOH, new lists, like chapter variants


But Transporters / MMDreads etc are used by every Chapter. Even Helios Land Raiders are pretty common, used by Codex-adhering Chapters most of the time (So you'd have a list that was 100% identical to the standard Codex list except it would also have the Helios... rather redundant!)... there's no place to put them except in an 'Expanded Marine List'.

Hmmm... what would be the chances of getting authorisation from the ERC to produce a tournament-legal 'Expanded Marine List' which included a few of the extras that have been discussed recently?





_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
As I said in the other thread, the Crusader deserves to be in the core list the most - it is in the 40K Codex army list with no restrictions, after all.

I think the Transporter could go into the core list, but it is far from a vital unit, and a set of "add on" rules in a FOL article would be sufficient to let people use them - especially since there will probably never be a SG model for one.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:30 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 11 2006,17:26)
QUOTE
OTOH, new lists, like chapter variants


But Transporters / MMDreads etc are used by every Chapter. Even Helios Land Raiders are pretty common, used by Codex-adhering Chapters most of the time (So you'd have a list that was 100% identical to the standard Codex list except it would also have the Helios... rather redundant!)... there's no place to put them except in an 'Expanded Marine List'.

You cut off the second part of that quote:  "...or themed lists..."

Just to throw out a random example, a good place for a Thawk Transporter might be something like a SM Orbital Assault list that would have expanded air assault and planetfall options and limited ground deployment (maybe Scouts and Speeders only).

A lot of "standard" codex gear isn't represented in detail in the codex list.  There are probably a hundred different Predator configurations but they're broken down into just 2 patterns.  Same for Dreadnoughts.  The codex list was never intended to cover all the possible fully customizable combos that the SMs in the 40K universe have access to.  It's simply a basic, vanilla SM force and much of the minutia of unit differences is abstracted out.

I think the important thing to keep in mind is whether or not it changes play appreciably.  What difference in play would a MM Dread going to make in a Codex list?  Very little.  Will a Codex list using Thawk Transporters play differently than one using Thawks and/or LCs?  I don't see how it would.  The core character of the army list and the associated play experience remains the same.  What is the benefit?  You've muddied the conceptual focus of the list and introduced potential (even if unlikely) balance problems.

And on the flip side, if introducing a new unit does significantly change the character of the list, then that's a big warning sign that there is a probably balance issue and a lot of playtesting required.

The idea of theme lists is to avoid both problems - boring, unfocused, comprehensive lists and balance problems.

Include the shiny new units that people want in lists that stylistically feature the abilities of the new units.  As an example, the LR Crusader, with added assault and transport capacity, best suits the horde-ish assault army represented by a Crusade chapter list.  The unit is featured and because the number of variables in the list is reduced it should be easier to balance.

====

That's not intended to change your mind.  I'm just offering it as an explanation of the design philosophy.

It's clear from previous discussions that you have a fundamentally different idea of how development should proceed.  You seem to like big comprehensive lists with all the options available (like the imperial titan selection).  There's nothing inherently wrong with that approach.  Both theme lists and comprehensive lists have benefits and drawbacks.

It's just that Jervis originally intended to go with the set of benefits and drawbacks of multiple themed lists and so far development has stuck with that direction.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Hena @ Oct. 11 2006,06:45)
QUOTE
5) "And They Shall Know No Fear"
- Number of BMs is halved when counting modifiers for resolution (round down)

I still don't like this part of the changes and greatly prefer the "never outnumbered only doubly outnumbered", as it feels more heroic to me.  I realize the theme of "Marines need 2BM to be suppressed" plays into this option, but I still don't like it.

The "halved BMs rounded down" can give up to the equivalent of a +2 bonus to Marines (any time they only have 1BM and their opponent has any) while the "outnumbering" option give a max of +1 bonus.

Anyone else have any input?  I've playtested both options several times and still favour the "outnumbering" option.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:11 pm
Posts: 418
Location: France (Rouen)
I play Marines like Hena, but I add a 4 dreadnoughts detachment (200pts, options : drop pod).

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
It's clear from previous discussions that you have a fundamentally different idea of how development should proceed.  You seem to like big comprehensive lists with all the options available (like the imperial titan selection).


Sometimes, when appropriate, yes I do prefer more detailed lists. However my Death Korps list for example is really quite limited in scope (There are only a few basic themes you can build, everything is focused on theming the army list towards the Korps MO) so I'm not always in favour of giving points values to the different marks of powered armour tactical marines. :)


It's just that Jervis originally intended to go with the set of benefits and drawbacks of multiple themed lists and so far development has stuck with that direction.

I agree that that was the original intention, however I also don't think that it is beyond this remit to include a few new units (Especially the two with released models which do not require conversions - The MM dread and the T-Hawk Transporter) if they do not 'break' the basic list.


What difference in play would a MM Dread going to make in a Codex list?

Well, the shorter ranged MW attack would allow for slightly different play styles with Dreadnoughts, giving a slightly more defensive/engagement range theme to a formation.


Will a Codex list using Thawk Transporters play differently than one using Thawks and/or LCs?  I don't see how it would.

The difference is the ability to air-insert smaller formations (with vehicles) across a wider area (Since you'd have more transporters than Landing Craft). The drawback being a loss in capacity (force projection) as compared to a LC.

It's the difference between using an LPH and a LPH/D, both useful, but with specific and distinct roles.





I think the Transporter could go into the core list... especially since there will probably never be a SG model for one.

I tend to believe a model is a model is a model. If there's a model, and it belongs in the list, then the opertunity is golden.

It doesn't really matter to me whether the model comes from a GW studio with 1 employee or with 30 employees, just as long as it's a GW Epic model.





_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Where do marines stand?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(Flogus @ Oct. 11 2006,20:18)
QUOTE
I play Marines like Hena, but I add a 4 dreadnoughts detachment (200pts, options : drop pod).

I think that's the best solution to the dreadnought question tbh... they just don't 'work' with the majority of formation types.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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