Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 6
  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Changing the core Marine list
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Everyone would like to see the core list alter so that it gives options for 'mud marines' to be competitive.

So which way to go?

Have two lists as mooted a while back - one dropping from the skies and one on the ground - or one that is balanced for both?

I know the suggested changes try and go the latter route but I don't think they are enough to field a force that can avoid using air assaults/drops completely. Shouldn't both extremes be possible (if not as effective as a more rounded force). Currently the all death from the skies list is a lot better than the all on the ground list - leaving taking 4 warhounds aside.

So what to do - combined or seperate lists?

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
For playability and simplicism I would say: different lists. So working on one list will not constantly alter the other list.

If you really want to weaken the Drop list, i suggest the following discussion points:

-Take away scout drop pods (they are infiltrators, not assault troopers)
-Make Single Warhound detachments 275
-make Termies 350
-make Landing craft 375

BUT, to get also some goodies done for the list:

-think about allowing Infantry detachment upgrades like Assault troopers to tacticals or tacticals to devas. (for a price sure).
-thing about the Thunderhawk with Turbolaser and Antitank rockets
-think about TH Transporters, which should really have a place in a drop list.


my 0,002 suggestions for discussion




_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(Soren @ Apr. 24 2007,14:20)
QUOTE
-Take away scout drop pods (they are infiltrators, not assault troopers)
-Make Single Warhound detachments 275
-make Termies 350
-make Landing craft 375

I think they need those changes for straight balance as the list is now.

The 3000 points 4 warhounds - 5 scouts - strike cruiser - other stuff combo is deadly to most armies - even those that garrisson forward lots as now the warhounds get to rip you up. Termies are just great in both teleporting and the air and getting better with the hit allocation rules. And some of the lander combos bring tears to an opponents eye - especially when combined with Warhounds to knock enemy AA out.

-think about allowing Infantry detachment upgrades like Assault troopers to tacticals or tacticals to devas. (for a price sure).
-thing about the Thunderhawk with Turbolaser and Antitank rockets
-think about TH Transporters, which should really have a place in a drop list.


I would leave the infantry mixing to alternative lists.
I'm all for a bomber and even an interceptor thunderhawk (its almost as fast as a thunderbolt you know, and its a fighter in BFG).
TH transporters I think are unnessecery. We have the far better lander. I can't see a way to have them both in, especially when the only formation a transporter can carry is a devestator one.

Something we can have reguardless of lists is a 'complete' list of unit datafaxes, following on from E&C's efforts. Perhaps a 'living' one of the internet like a wiki that we can add to as we think up new ones :)

Othewise with the proposed changes (in essence some stat boosts and hunters for all) I still don't see the army as all that competitive.

For a combined list there is a limit to how far you can go without altering the thunderhawk in some way, which is the key part of the list.

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
? Don't quite get you. What assets are being taken away?

The above list of 'nerfs' I think is agreed by most as they are what is abused in a gt game army. It doesn't alter the whole air assault nature of the list, just tones down some of the excess. And in no way should marines on the ground be reliant on warhounds (indeed going by gt games I would screp the Imperial armies and give everyone warhounds, of course there is more to it than that but Epic wise they are fantastic, as we AMTL nuts discovered when using 11 and some flak :) ).

And even then warhounds are still there as 2 for 500, no change there - its just stops the excess of single ones (which most gaming groups seem to have a gentlemans agreement over not using).

If your arguement is, like the steel legion, the marines cannot be effective without reliance on in their case aerospace assets you essentially fall into the camp of having seperate air/ground lists, which is all the question is about :)

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I would consider:

- Changing Assault Marines to 4+CC, +1EA, at maybe 250 points.

That at least would help hinder the creation of overly-cheap drop armies, while also boosting the Assault Marines to be more representative of their background / 40k counterparts.


I'd also consider upcosting & upgunning the Thunderhawk Gunship.

- The model has a twin lascannon that is not represented in the rules... 45cm AT4+.
- Up cost to 225pts.
- Allow 25pt turbolaser, bomber & missile upgrades.
- 3DC 5+ RA save.

That would allow you to organically field a true Thunderhawk Gunship, without recourse to using non-Astartes Marauder bombers.

Plus, IA:3 actually refers to a 'missile upgrade' for Epic Thunderhawk Gunships.. makes sense there should be some stats! :D



So essentially, I'd slightly up the cost of the airdrop list, while also upping combat power slightly too.


For the ground-based list, I'd probably drop most formation costs by a blanket 25pts (Including the revised Assault Marines above, which would move to 225pts), and then charge 25pts for any formation that wishes to use drop pods.

Which means that the 3000pts ground-pounder list would get approx 1 extra activation over a 3000pts drop pod list, which should help to fix the imbalance.

I'd probably charge 25pts for any terminator formation that wishes to teleport too.



Oh and I'd make the Landspeeder Tornado a free upgrade, instead of +10pts.



All of the above would serve to make an airdrop list roughly the same in cost, but would make a ground-pounder list slightly less expensive (Probably yielding about 250pts extra for the ground-based marine army, which can then be spent on an extra formation to help overcome the power projection dichotomy).




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:00 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
My opinion probably won't surprise anyone...  :p

The army lists are supposed to be relatively static once published.  SM changes should be limited to tweaks to address balance issues and help it meet its goal of being a multi-role (but not universal) list.

Any substantial changes in focus or force org should be done as an alternate list.  If there is a desire for a ground-heavy SM force, it should be done as an alternate list.  Imperial Fists are an excellent candidate for a ground-oriented list based on their "siege mentality" background.

Just off the top of my head:

Ground force - Imperial Fists
Horde-ish SM force - Templars
"Speed Freek" SMs - White Scars
Assault-y SMs - Blood Angels
Footsloggers - Salamanders
Drop/scout/air - Raven Guard
Smaller, more Elite - Dark Angels

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Bombot
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Reading, UK

(The_Real_Chris @ Apr. 24 2007,08:13)
QUOTE
Currently the all death from the skies list is a lot better than the all on the ground list - leaving taking 4 warhounds aside.

*Sigh*

Why does it have to be one or the other?  The mixed air / ground list is perfectly ok, and it's what most people seem to use.

_________________
"The Hoff isn't just a person - he's a state of mind, a kind of higher power"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
Assaults now do roughly 2,5 Hits in CC, the upgrades version 4 in average. But nevertheless it?s a one shot formation, so 250 comes a little but much for me.

Compared with Striking Scorpions, who can be used the same way as assaults(ground attack via vampire raider or in lesser cases via gate), have the same stats excluding JP and lacking TKNF :

Marines: 4 at 250
Eldar:     8 at 300

And we also know after one attack there is not much left from our 4 stand assaults, at least most times. If this would be the prize I say, keep them like they are. If we keep them like they are now, they do at least one thing good: being cheap and giving activations the list barely needs.




_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Note that the SG model of Thunderhawk does not have those lasers, thats FW add-on.


Which is SG's mistake. FW have produced the definitive version of the Thunderhawk, in three different scales so far.

Okay the BFG thunderhawk is a little dinky and lacks the lascannons... but interestingly it has 'S-foils locked in attack position!' :D

Dropping cost of Termies is way out. They are cheap insertion troops to T'hawk as is.

With a Thunderhawk that cost +25pts, the -25pt'ed Terminators would remain at the same cost as now. Your Thunderhawking Terminator/Thunderhawk combo would be identical in cost.

That's the whole point of my points cost nudges.

With my proposals above, barring the Assault marine changes, the total cost of a typical Marine air-drop list would remain the same as it is now!. It'd get cheaper by maybe 50 points, total. And that's only if you take two Thunderhawks each with four Devestator formations.

For the most part all that would change with my proposals would be that ground-based Marine armies would get cheaper.


And missiles and bombs on a craft that is landing? Does not make any sense.

It certainly does make sense.

Ask any modern airborne cavalry commander what he'd rather have backing him up... an unarmed transport chopper, or one that has optional rocket pods strapped on.

It certainly happens in real life, and definitely happens in the background, the 40k rules, and even in the Epic scenarios in Imperial Armour 3 (Even if Warwick was under the misguided impression that the 'missile upgrade' for Thunderhawks exists in this edition of Epic, the point stands that several scenarios for Epic include Thunderhawk Gunships tasked with transport missions with added 'missile upgrades').




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(nealhunt @ Apr. 24 2007,19:00)
QUOTE
Imperial Fists are an excellent candidate for a ground-oriented list based on their "siege mentality" background.
Ground force - Imperial Fists

I'm on it (well Bans is) as we speak. Very yellow.

That is essentially a quote for split lists as it were.

I don't mind having a 'split list' as it were at teh core - however it should be remembered by people who wish to do varient lists what the thrust of their base is.

Horde-ish SM force - Templars
"Speed Freek" SMs - White Scars
Assault-y SMs - Blood Angels
Footsloggers - Salamanders
Drop/scout/air - Raven Guard
Smaller, more Elite - Dark Angels


As for the rest I would have thought Wolves would be the true marine horde. Templars the CC specialists?

Perhaps we should all natter about what chapter does what and pin it somewhere for keen marine players to view and try :)

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:07 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Chris:  Yep, Wolves would also be horde-ish, just in a different style.

===

As far as the actual detail changes to the SM list, I'm still in favor of:

point changes -
+25 Termies
+25 LC
-25 armor formations

Hunter upgrade- 1-2 Hunters, available to armor formations
TSKNF changes - half BM in assault, Leader removes 2 BMs

+5cm move to Vindicators and maybe to Attack Bikes

Maybe Dreadnought upgrade at 1-4, instead of 1-2

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
orangesm
 Post subject: Changing the core Marine list
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:50 pm
Posts: 482
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area, CA
Well what does the the current list represent?  Ultramarines?

Neal's slight tweaks to the current list would also roll into the other list.  Few of them look to be harsh.

The Thunderhawk (and Aircraft in general) have a variety of different rules and minis available (or unavailable like the Chaos Swiftdeath Fighter) each with differences the Thunderhawk has the Battle Cannon and Tubro Laser variants and the FW model has the Lascannons.  So which way do we go? FW based rules or SG based rules?

_________________
Airspace - AeroImp Forum
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 6
  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 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