Marine Suggestions |
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions  Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:25 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
| Quote (Honda @ 19 May 2006 (13:51)) | Regarding the transport option for LR's, since there has never been a restriction on using the LR to transport any type of 40K SM unit, does anyone know why this restriction was added in EA?
How big a deal would it be to allow LR's to transport Terminators, Scouts (not saying that would be a good idea), tacticals, and devastators? |
LRs CAN transport them, if they're in the same formation. This is the same as any transport vehicle in a separate formation. Eldar Falcon Troupes have the same restriction on them, effectively, as the Land Raider Formation. But, the Falcon Troupes cost 50 points per model (250 for 5 rather), while the transport option costs 65 points per model. The Land Raider costs 100 points both ways. Either 400 points for 4 or +100 points for 1. Terminators and Devs can both take Land Raiders as upgrades, Tacticals and Scouts can't. The basic issue is if you're paying for 4 units which can transport, but can't do so due to being in a separate formation, why are you still paying for their transport capacity? Hence the suggestion to cut back their price a bit to something like 350 for a unit (Dropping them to 87.5 per model) when fielded as a separate detachment. A minor cost-decrease to account for the lack of transport ability.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 3:04 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
I think 350 is going to be too low and same for 250 points for other armor formations. It's not like the current point costs were pulled out of thin air. There was a lot of playtesting and I am not convinced that the point costs are off ~15%.
As far as "wasted" transport capacity, I think that's a non-issue for the LR. Transport is a secondary (by a wide margin) function of the unit and if you look at what is paid for transport capacity for other units, it is cheap. A comparison to Eldar Falcons is not valid, imho, because the Falcon costs are out of whack with pretty much every other transport in the game.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Jaldon
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 1:13 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am
Posts: 720
Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.
|
In the early playtesting of the SM the transport capacity of the LR was never considered as part of its cost, so it is a non-issue.
Also, I agree with Neal that a 50pt bump would be too big, it should be more like 25pts.
Jaldon 
_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
yme-loc
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 4:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 599
|
|
I'm certainly not going to argue this very hard - I'm mostly an eldar and ork player, but at the end of the day I dont think I have even seen a marine predator, vindicator or land raider in a game for about 2 years.
Do you really think a 25 pt reduction to what are essentially useless formations in an effective marine army will make any difference.
_________________
Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK
[url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
dptdexys
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 6:36 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
|
|
I usually use marines at tournaments and as Joe said 25 point reduction would ?make very little difference to them being used.
I have seen predators and land raiders used in tournaments but they were usually in the marine armies that finished very near the bottom .
I don't think that dropping them by lots of points is the answer either. They just don't fit in a SM army (as they are now) ?if you want to have a competative army.
The problem as I see it is that a SM army has to use Air assaults and Drop pods etc. to be really effective.The Preds and LRs would mainly be used to destroy/break flak and lay BMs ready for the assaults but the Warhound does this much better.3 warhounds would be the same as 2 LR formations @ 375pts each,which means 1 extra activation(really essential if the "landers cannot claim objectives experimental rule" does come in) and better alpha strike capabilities plus the Warhounds are better armed for all-round use.
@ 275 for preds and 375 for LRs the points would be O.K. if they were being used in a guard army where less emphasis is on manouvering and they were on advance orders more often,but for a marine army they would not be of much use.
The only way I see these being used (as there stats are now and with the 25 point reduction)is if the T/hawks and LCs are moved to the 1/3 titan support limit which would severely limit the Warhound numbers but that would probably be too much of a downgrade for the marines to remain effective.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 9:46 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
What do people think about dropping the price of the infantry?
And yes, I'm serious.
I think an argument can be made that SM infantry is not very effective. It seems that a lot of their point value is supposedly tied up in their durability - good armor and TSKNF.
However, their transport is weaker than their troops, frequently failing saves and adding BMs. Also, there seem to be an awful lot more MW/TK weapons than there were in the core armies (SM, IG, Ork) and those largely negate their armor save. Finally, I find that I frequently have infantry in cover meaning that there really is little advantage for SM armor except in an offensive assault where other, less-well-armored troops can't use cover saves.
MW/TK - MW pulse from Eldar are everywhere. CSM have some nasty Ignore Cover, MW barrages. Nids have quite a few Ignore Cover MW weapons, including templates as well as the obvious MW/TK CC attacks. It seems there may be some creep going on.
It seems to me in the changing environment that SM infantry is now facing challenges that horde armies aren't up against.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 9:54 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 23 May 2006 (21:46)) | What do people think about dropping the price of the infantry?
And yes, I'm serious.
I think an argument can be made that SM infantry is not very effective. ?It seems that a lot of their point value is supposedly tied up in their durability - good armor and TSKNF.
However, their transport is weaker than their troops, frequently failing saves and adding BMs. ?Also, there seem to be an awful lot more MW/TK weapons than there were in the core armies (SM, IG, Ork) and those largely negate their armor save. ?Finally, I find that I frequently have infantry in cover meaning that there really is little advantage for SM armor except in an offensive assault where other, less-well-armored troops can't use cover saves.
MW/TK - ?MW pulse from Eldar are everywhere. ?CSM have some nasty Ignore Cover, MW barrages. ?Nids have quite a few Ignore Cover MW weapons, including templates as well as the obvious MW/TK CC attacks. ?It seems there may be some creep going on.
It seems to me in the changing environment that SM infantry is now facing challenges that horde armies aren't up against. |
I'd actually rather agree with this... Personally I'd love to field a squad of Land Raiders in an army. They'd make a nice solid road-block for the enemy and soak up lost of damage. Trouble is, there's never enough points for them. Once I've filled out my 'required' infantry bits (The parts of the army I expect to be able to take ground and hold it) I rarely have enough points to buy more then whatever is going to be carrying my troops into battle. I thinkn some of the MW weapons in the other lists really shouldn't be macro-weapons, myself. Bio-Cannons come to mind (being actually LESS powerful then Demolisher Cannons via the fluff/40K rules). But that's another argument. I could see rolling back the Space Marine infantry a bit, dunno how much though.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 1:49 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
What do people think about dropping the price of the infantry?
And yes, I'm serious.
I think an argument can be made that SM infantry is not very effective. ?It seems that a lot of their point value is supposedly tied up in their durability - good armor and TSKNF.
However, their transport is weaker than their troops, frequently failing saves and adding BMs. ?Also, there seem to be an awful lot more MW/TK weapons than there were in the core armies (SM, IG, Ork) and those largely negate their armor save. ?Finally, I find that I frequently have infantry in cover meaning that there really is little advantage for SM armor except in an offensive assault where other, less-well-armored troops can't use cover saves.
MW/TK - ?MW pulse from Eldar are everywhere. ?CSM have some nasty Ignore Cover, MW barrages. ?Nids have quite a few Ignore Cover MW weapons, including templates as well as the obvious MW/TK CC attacks. ?It seems there may be some creep going on.
It seems to me in the changing environment that SM infantry is now facing challenges that horde armies aren't up against.
|
I too am a strong advocate of either this approach or somehow making the SM infantry units more effect in an assault.
I have had sideline discussions outside this forum on the same points that were brought up by others, i.e. vehicle cost reductions and the points drop necessary to actually field additional units (part of the SM problem), isn't supportable.
So, I think cost reductions for Tacticals, Dreads, and Devestators should be considered. I think Assault and Terminators are priced correctly as is. I also think there should be a 0-1 per 1000 pts restriction on terminators.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
| Top |
|
|
|
yme-loc
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 4:33 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 599
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 23 May 2006 (21:46)) | What do people think about dropping the price of the infantry?
And yes, I'm serious. |
I dont have a problem with it as long as you arn't including terminators in that.
I personally would make the following changes to the marine list
Land Raiders 350 pts FF4+
Predators ? ? 250 pts
Vindicators ? 250 pts 30cm move
Tacticals ? ? ?275 pts
Devestators ?225 pts
But up the following
Landing Craft ? 400 pts
Thunderhawk ? 225 ps
Oh also as a strange idea - instead of a dread formation, add dreads to the transport option to say that a marine formation that gives up its transports to garrison gets a free dread.
_________________
Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK
[url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
dptdexys
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:31 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
|
|
I personally would make the following changes to the marine list
Land Raiders 350 pts FF4+
Predators ? ? 250 pts
Vindicators ? 250 pts 30cm move
Tacticals ? ? ?275 pts
Devestators ?225 pts
But up the following
Landing Craft ? 400 pts
Thunderhawk ? 225 ps
|
These look interesting Yme-loc especially coming from someone who usually faces marines.The point increases on the landers would be OK if the call for them not to be capable of holding objectives doesn't go ahead otherwise it would be too great an increase.
Oh also as a strange idea - instead of a dread formation, add dreads to the transport option to say that a marine formation that gives up its transports to garrison gets a free dread.
|
again this looks interesting but would it be limited to garrisoning only or allow Devs and tacts to utilise the dreads for use in air transports.
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 2:16 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
|
I think the marines do need some tweaking upwards as well.
Warhounds 275 points.
Terminators 350 points.
Landing Craft - yes we all know it needs to go up!
Lascannon Razorback - drop to FF6+ (no one has any reason to take heavy bolters normally).
They are the most effective units in the list and to be honest I feel they are too effective.
As to infantry devs and ass. marines deficencies are made up for by the thunderhawk (so down, down, up is an option to give ground troops a chance). Tacticals could suffer a drop, but with a change to ATSKNF they wouldn't need it if terminators went up, currently there is no real comparison.
Something else to consider. Give Rhinos, Preds and Raiders an invulnerably save. MW/T is the marines biggest problem I feel. It gives them a slight chance there without affecting anything else.
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Marine Suggestions Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:17 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
We played 4K Orks v Nids this weekend. We used the following changes:
Armor formations at -25 cost (except Whirlwinds)
Land Raiders and Preds at 4+FF
Vindicators at 25cm move.
Hunters at +1 to hit and available to armor formations.
TSKNF changes (no outnumber, leaders remove 2BM, 1/2 BMs in assault).
The SM players decided not to field any Vindicators, so no test on them.
There were one Predator formation and 2 Land Raider formations. There were 4 Hunters.
The Land Raiders were (imho) deployed in a vulnerable position. While they were alive they remained a threat but they quickly came within range of 2 Supastompas and a Gargant. One also ended up out of position and went down to an air assault. However, while alive they were a significant deterrent. I think with better support they would have been a serious factor. They did get in some FF fire, with one formation clipping and completely eliminating a formation of Stormboyz. I think 375 is about right on points and I would like to see the 4+FF if we can work something out with the chaos list.
4 Hunters with 60cm 3+AA is bad news. Despite putting significant effort into neutralizing them and playing the angles/suppression to maximum effect, they were still able to shoot down 350 points of Ork aircraft. There were simply no targets that were not covered until very late in the game and in most cases even if the approach move skirted the AA fire, the disengage did not. I also kept a rought track of it in my head and I think there was only one ground attack in which the disengage took fire from a unit which did a "flak rush" (to our opponents' credit that was incidental to the formation's action, not an intended effect). 2 of them were in Tactical formations and 2 were in the Land Raider formations. If they hadn't been in the LR formations, they may very well have been more effective. Basically, I'm not convinced that both changes is not overkill at this point.
The SM players said they felt the Predators did fine. At 275 points they reported that they felt relatively expendable. They stayed in close proximity to one of the Tactical formations and made good use of cover. The end result was that they were only reduced to 2 units while doing a lot towards taking out both Supastompas. I felt they definitely earned their points back.
The SMs had a little bit of trouble with the WEs (2 supastompas, 1 gargant), but with Predator fire to strip shields followed by a Warlord titan on Sustained Fire the Supastompas were in a hurt locker. One survived with only 1 DC and no head due to mediocre to-hit rolls and lucky armor saves. The other vaporized (I think total damage to it ended up being 7 or 8 points, plus a critical on that one, too).
I discussed the TSKNF in Chroma's thread but briefly, the outnumber benefit is a big deal. The others are minor boosts that played little part in the battle.
As it was the SMs lost pretty badly but as I noted in Chroma's TSKNF thread, the game hinged on 2 major assaults. The SMs lost both despite being at +2 in the assault resolution. Success on either one would have both eliminated a lot of Ork firepower and made it very tough to grab objectives due to slow ork maneuvering.
To sum up my impressions:
-25 points on armor should be fine
Hunters may be acceptable solely with increased access
Undecided on the outnumber bonus for TSKNF, but I'm leaning towards including it
I'd like to see the 4+FF on LRs and Preds
From a previous test, I think the 25cm move and price cut for Vindicators is probably sufficient to make them viable.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
