Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you

 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
I am with Zombo here in wanting to be very cautious about further boosting the list. IMHO A lot of the issues are with the tactics and strategies used rather than the units themselves.

The usual cry is that 'ground-pounders' don't work - well I have taken them to tournaments with a degree of success - it is not as easy as the 'standard' air lists to play, but by no means a poor choice.

People tend not to take Dreadnoughts because of the way they limit the formation, but they are excellent in Assault or Defence
  • Two added to Devastators (with a Hunter) makes a first class garrison that provides forward air cover, and with a scout screen as well this can control part of the table quite effectively
  • Two added to a Devastator formation can be carried into an assault position (or better, a shooting and supporting position)
  • Two added to Terminators and carried in a Landing Craft they make an exceedingly powerfull 1st strike formation that can easily destroy very significant targets

People tend not to use LandRaiders, but again they definitely have their place. Try putting some Land Raider Crusaders in a Landing craft together with other troops and planetfall on the flank of the enemy:- the Crusaders provide a powerfull support formation to the assaults, and a strong local defence formation to capture / hold objectives.
Alternatively, used with Devastators they can equally provide a strong mechanised formation.

Hena is a master in the use of Predators, using their mobility to hide behind terrain until needed, then popping out to get cross-fire on their target. While the Anahilator is the tank of choice, the Destructor is not that bad.

Tacticals are the standard mainstay, that (like most core E:A formations) need upgrades to realise their full potential.

And Captains are most usefull in two Assault / Devastator formations carried by THawk for assaults after they have landed etc

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, dropping the costs of these formations will increase the number of Marine activations which actually boosts the power of the whole army.

So IMHO we should *not* drop the values of any of the formations (except, perhaps, the Vindcators, which I agree are almost impossible to use well). Rather we should provide guidance and encouragement on how to get the best out of the units and formations as they are.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:51 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:17 am
Posts: 720
Location: Agri-World-NZ77
Maybe worthwhile treating identification of units needing a boost seperately from what the boost acutally is (price drop/stats/competing unit nerf...).

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator:
Armyforge


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 1927
Location: Australia
I would agree with E&C about the formations being unattractive and that Codex Marines are played in a specific stile based on the lack of performance of some formations. Maybe cost reductions are the answer. I would suggest that they should be able to get an upgrade to the formation to make it more durable and competative against other choices. Often Marine tank formations go up against twice their number in enemy tanks, although they are durable to a degree they cannot meet the range or number of shots of opposition tanks. I would propose that Tac, Dev and Tank formation be able to take an armour upgrade of 0 - 2 tanks of any sort, rather than the current 0 - 2 Vindicators.

This would certainly enhance Marine play and make a ground pounding Marine formation more attractive, Marines are not shooty, yet often oppose shooty armies that outnumber and outgun them. To tackle that, Marines need to be more competative in the shotuing stakes.

I would also ask, why cant the Marine Captain be Inspiring, he is the company commander, the number one Marine with centuries of experience. It is the function of a leader to inspire men, not merely give orders and expect them to be followed. I can tell you from personal experience that there is a great difference in units that have inspirational leaders as opposed to a figure who gives orders. Leave the Captain at 50, but make the fella Inspiring.

I may be preaching heresy, but the Codex list should be able to be played in any style, so it should have access to all the toys available to Marines. What I would suggest is that everything is in the Codex list for use, not the varied formation types or upgrades but all the equipment at it base style. This would give them more flexibility as a list.

Matt

What is the chance of seeing a complete Marine guide, all unit data types consolidated, all formations consolidated?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
I’m going to assume that the newer changes agreed by Hena e.g. Tactical Marines going to 275, Tornado free upgrade, etc are still in place. Below is a list of changes I think we should adopt to improve the SM list:

Allow Tactical Marines the Land Raider upgrade. The current list fails by not really allowing the sorts of mixed armour and mech-inf formations the background says Marines generally use. Mechanised use of Tactical Marines in Epic tends to be the poorer/rarer option as the fragile armour 6+ Rhinos are very vulnerable to being shot up by enemy fire. Space Marine’s tacticians are well aware of the vulnerability of their Rhinos and normally use them in mixed formations, with a tougher Land Raider, Predators and/or Vindicator at the front to take the fire instead.

To appreciate this properly you should really look at the ‘Space Marines Formations’ section in Forge World’s Imperial Armour II: Space Marines and the Inquisition. There are 7 larger than A4 pages full of diagrams and commentary on SM formations and the tactics they use. All 9 formations including Rhinos also have one or more heavier vehicle too, leading the way to protect the Rhinos. The diagram on page 180, for example, shows a Land Raider, Predator and Vindicator advancing spread out side by side down a street, with a column of 3 Rhinos close behind the middle vehicle, using it to hide from enemy sight/fire. The text next to this says “Space Marines commonly use combined arms and ad-hoc formations. The heaviest armour leads the way...Rhinos are protected behind the lead units.” Mixed armour is something really basic that should be included in the core list, not just left to the Scions of Iron list (which is very different and non-Codex in lots of respects).

Tacticals (just called a different name) with Land Raiders has been around for ages in the Black Templars list and has proved fine there. I really think the option needs to be in the main list, rather than having to forgo titans and ‘counts as’ other coloured marines as Templars, just to have a Land Raiders spear-heading Tactical formations (as I did last tournament I went to). Another reason Tacticals should have them is that though sadly SM Veterans have been left out of the Epic list, those of us wanting to include some in our armies would probably count them as Tacticals and Veterans would be even more likely to ride Land Raiders into combat. Lastly, I don’t think a single Land Raider should cost below 75 points, but a multiples points break could be a possibility. Something like 2 for 125 or 3 for 200 perhaps.

Adopt the newly revised Epic-UK Predator pricing and stats instead. (225 base cost for 4 Predator Destructors with +25 points per pair upgraded to Predator Annihilators. Predator Destructors stay at FF4+). I believe it is a much better way to fix the Predator Destructor than the FF3+ we have currently tried. FF3+ is excessively/inappropriately high for its armament. A Leman Russ has 4 guns and as many shots in W40k as a Predator Destructor (with one of them being the very powerful large template from the battlecannon) yet it only has FF4+. FF3+ also encourages people to possibly add Librarians to Predators, which is a dubious idea background-wise. Going any cheaper than 225 would be unnecessary and potentially a bad idea I feel.

The change also makes mixed Predator formations a better prospect, rather than a poor idea as now. Given that the Epic-UK Predator pack as sold by GW contains two of each type it would be better to have this combination be better, rather than most people ending up actually having to buy two packs.

Give Tactical and Devestators (perhaps others too) the option to upgrade with up to 2 Predators for 50 points per Destructor and 75 points per Annihilator.
“The Predator is the main battle tank of the Space Marines...a well-armed and mobile tank, equally capable of holding ground or spearheading armoured assaults...the Predator’s chief function is to provide fire support for the Chapter’s infantry.” (Codex Space Marines, current 5th edition). The aforementioned ‘Space Marines Formations’ section in Forge World’s Imperial Armour II: Space Marines and the Inquisition clearly shows Predators mixed in to Rhino formations to shield/protect them (this isn’t a one off – this happen in 6 formations in the diagrams). We have Vindicator upgrades all over the place, yet Vindicators are specialised tanks normally only deployed for sieges, or areas with dense cover. Predators are also a lot more common that Vindicators - the Ultramarine Chapter has a total of 25 Predators (including both types) for example, but only 8 Vindicators. For some reason the Marines MBT isn’t being given the option to fulfil the role it is meant for properly (and the Rhino suffers more kills due to it too).

It may be best to combine both the Vindicator and Predator upgrades into a single ‘Armour’ upgrade to save space in the army list and to limit it to a max of 2 of either.

Give the Space Marine Captain a second EA, probably also MW. Of the four character options the SM Captain is clearly the poorest of the and very rarely seen. Which is a shame, as background-wise you should see a Captain leading every 100 or so men, meaning at least one would normally be expected in a 3k sized battle. I went through the Codex Marine lists on the Epic-UK (91 army lists in total) and found they included 63 Supreme Commanders and a whopping 123 Chaplains, but a grand total of 5 Captains (and 4 out of those 5 players lost more games than they won). The Captain clearly needs a boost.

In W40k a SM Captain is much more of a combat character than either a Chaplain or Librarian, having higher WS, BS, W, I and A than a Chaplain or Librarian. Unlike these two he is also standardly accompanied by a Command Squad of veteran marines (who have 2 attacks each basic and the ability to take power weapons or special weapons) including a Company Champion (the one in the middle of the linked photo) with power sword and combat shield, who’s role it is to challenge/fight enemy leaders to leave his Captain more free to dictate the battle. I think a combination of the Captain’s extra combat ability, his command squad and his Company Champion he justifies having a second +1 EA MW from the Company Champion. This seems a far better option to me than making the Captain cheaper – he becomes a true combat character, leading the fight from the front, exactly as should be. I realise the Captain is a character in Epic, not a unit and I’m not suggesting the Command Squad be represented ruleswise as a unit at all, but that we could assume the marines of the stand with him to be veterans marines and abstract the various better stats/weapons to justification an increased combat ability for the Captain upgrade.

Note; though I think the new extra attack for the Captain should also be a MW, if the community feels (or playtesting shows) this to be too powerful it could just be a normal extra attack instead.

Make the Typhoon upgrade cheaper. Epic-UK recently made Tornadoes free and dropped the points for a Typhoon upgrade down to 10 points, which seems more reasonable than 25 points. A single 25 points to add to the formation may be ok but if you take multiple the points got very expensive quickly. 5 Typhoons would cost 325 points and really wouldn’t be worth that.

Make the Vindicator 225 points.
I don’t think the formation is a good choice at the moment and I view the Vindicator as roughly equivalent in power to a Predator Destructor and think it should cost the same.

Lascannon Razorbacks should drop to FF6+. (I actually thought we’d already done this? It’s not in the Net-EA Marine draft document though). It’s a more appropriate value for its armament and it makes the Lascannon ones less of a no-brainer choice of the two as the Heavy Bolter ones would have better FF (though overall the Las option would still be the better option).

Dreadnoughts really shouldn’t have a 3+ save – that’s inappropriately high for the unit. They are armour 12 front and sides in W40k, the rough equivalent of the Predator and Vindicator (which have 13 front, 11 side). I think you should return the unit to its 4+ save and instead have the upgrade be “Add 1 Dreadnought for 50 points or 2 for 75 points”.

Remove the Razorback option from Scouts. Add option for 4 Land Speeder Storms for +100 points instead.
In W40k rules and background Scouts have never had access to Rhinos or Razorbacks – they’re not vehicles they use. While they could still operate fine on a W40k battlefield on foot, they would have been very poor in Epic without any transport vehicles, so for the lack of any other good option they were allowed access to Rhinos and Razorbacks. A few years ago GW finally released a dedicated transport specifically for transporting SM Scouts the– the Land Speeder Storm (which carries 1 stand and is armed only with 1 heavy bolter) and I believe we should adopt the proper Scout transport in the Epic list. The Land Speeder Storm has been in the Raven Guard list here for a while now, but it is not specially associated with the Raven Guard – Storms are used by all chapters.

In an ideal world I’d much prefer getting rid of both Rhinos and Razorbacks for Scouts, but that might be a step too far for people to go with. A lot of people take a single Razorback with Scouts, as the extra 25 points provides a good weapon and an extra transport capacity, which can help as they take casualties. This good option would be removed and they would either have to run them the 150 points basic or pay 100 points for the 4 Storms. Scouts are too good/cheap at the moment. Removing the Razorback option might just be enough to balance them, but I could well see them going up to 175 also.

Thunderbolts should be increased to 175.
At the moment they are too good and useful for SMs as they’re a cheap activation booster and particularly useful to be able to target anywhere on the table, since SM lack truly long range artillery. They’ve also been boosted from how they originally were by the changed intercept rules that give +1 to hit to interceptors. Dave Thomas (widely believed to be the best/most experienced epic player on the planet) previously suggested he thought they should cost 175 points. At least myself, E&C and the Real Chris agreed and Steve54 commented he wouldn’t mind paying 200 for them. Of 91 Space Marine players 48 took a squadron, 27 took two squadrons and only 18 players took none. The average player took 1.29 squadrons.

Possible Battlebarge points drop by 50ish points?They’re extremely rarely taken from what I’ve seen (out of the 91 Epic-UK lists none took a Battlebarge), due to Slow and Steady. I don’t think they should ever be a good choice and larger points games need to be considered too, but I do think a bit of a points drop is in order. 350 points is a lot for a unit that comes in once on your 3-4th turn.

Thunderhawk cost should probably be discussed. I actually think the increase for Thunderbolts and Scouts (if they come to pass) would be enough to balance most lists and the improvements to less taken units and that increasing the Thunderhawk as well could be a step too far. Increasing the Thunderhawk to 225 could perhaps be an option though and if the other two changes don’t happen I would be more behind it.

Warhounds have now got the worse critical causing an extra point of damage as well as a stagger I believe? Were it not for this I would suggest perhaps bumping the cost to 300, but the critical hopefully nerfs it enough (or at least deserves more testing).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:42 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311
I'd hate to see more than minor changes to the list to address problems.
- predator destructors
- land speeder typhoon
- LR FF
- some unit changes - FF on AT Razorbacks for example

Putting thawks in the 3rd allocation is a massive change and one I don't think should be made, I don't see the problem that SM are best played as a surgical strike force. Thats how marines should act at this scale.

Land raiders - I wouldn't mind them being a tac upgrade but please no funky transport rules
Making SM pay for transport - I'm not sure of the point of this but it really doesn't fit with the movement and flexibility that SM should have
LS Storm - IMO as far as possible 'core' lists should be freely available model wise
Vindicators - dptdexys used these at Counterattack (pre-Walker) and thought he would use them more regularily as Walker would be a good boost

One thing I think would benefit the SM section, and also other sections, is housekeeping at the top of the board. Up to date stickied threads with current lists, recommended changes from the rulebook etc

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I agree with steve's last point. A lot of the suggested changes in this thread have already been agreed but newer players don't know what was agreed because the last champion never did any board housekeeping.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
I will post my thoughts on the Imperial Fists probably this weekend. This may also includes feedback on the codex list as well.

I think people should also realise in these discussions that if you go and make things cheaper (for whatever reason), it will not only flow onto the marine sub-lists, but also the Chaos lists, as well as any others that may be using Marine costing as a base. So when making suggestions, please consider the wider impact rather than just what you see in the list under discussion.

That is not a request to keep prices where they are - it is just a caution to consider cause and effect and whether it is the right move. At the end of the day, I too would like all options to be an equal consideration - it is a big part of why I price and include the units that I do.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Even though I'm not supposed to..... I agree with Ginger!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:19 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Well just for ideas see my attachement.


Attachments:
FullCodexSpaceMarinesV1.3.pdf [185.53 KiB]
Downloaded 347 times

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:26 pm
Posts: 166
My opinion is that air assault is very undercosted in the codex list and as a result of that ground formations are undervalued, sure some of the ground formations could use a tweak, but the core of the problem imo is the air assault cost, I think that should be the first focus of changes and ground formations should be evaluated after that has happened. I also believe that air assault wont be fixed by simply making ground formations cheaper. Air assault, its power and flexibility needs to cost more.

Now the simplest way is to increase thunderhawk costs, putting them in the 1/3 is also a good idea imo, even with a points increase you could still take 4!

I also think that drop pods are underused, which is a shame, however there isnt really a point to using them as you can garrison pretty much anything you can pod anyway, and if you want to pod offensively you either have to throw 3 formations down to support each other or have a spare thunderhawk to go pick the solo formation up after it has done its drop/assault, so why not have them in a thunderhawk to begin with. I dont really have any solution to the pod issue, but I think it should be looked at.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
BlackLegion wrote:
Well just for ideas see my attachement.

Wow......Lots of reading their BL. Some awesome idea but then....it seems to jump off the deep end at times. I'm not sure if I completely agree or disagree but I think its a lot of stuff to consider and a huge re-haul to the SM list that may or may not be needed. One thing I did find as a glaring oddity is the ability to have mix Assault and Regular Terminators in a formation. I thought that was a special trait reserved for the Deathwing since it was thought to fiddy making a new unit stats to show there remarkable talent and mix arms approach that they are revered for.

There are opinion's and comments listed here that I agree and disagree with here. But since they been posted I reserve my comments to the long debate threads I'm sure will arise. My biggest personal concern is the Dark Angels list and its path of development oddly enough ::) I know BL and TRC came up with a mix list of there own's which is the current NetEA I think? However there some disagreements I've had over it and caused me to write my variant. I find the DA list to have a lack of difference that were unique to them and it seems there was a lack of support for them beside BL and myself and TRC has been AWOL again and his opinion were more Tounry based driven than fluff I thought. When the last SM review was underway awhile back I remember Hena PMing for thoughts and insights for the DA because (I believe) there was a lack of supporters and agreement. Hopefully in the days to come I'll have time to review mine and BL lists and see how much difference are left, IIRC in the last updates we were down to a minor few? I know one thing that was pressing was the ruling on Slow Fire on Plasma Cannons, but that's a NetERC thing right?

Also I don't like the idea of throwing T-Hawks in the 33% Allies section. Like others have mention that would really shake up the list. I really think if we really wanna force people out of the Air Assault(Which I don't think is really needed) thats not the way to go.

Oh and as for Points Costs, I like them to stay the same for different lists when available(for the most part) ie Warhound 300 for SM and 250 for IG is daft.

Just some thoughts.... ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I'm going to let this thread run for the week to get more people's comments.

Most of my feelings so far seem to lean towards promoting use of units not often seen and reducing the reliance on over-used unit types rather than implementing wide sweeping additions of new gear and introducing wholesale change. They're not set in stone, just how I feel at this point of the discussion.

In the meantime, my thoughts are:

POINT DROPS

Tacs - 275 points (as already proposed and supported) and add LR, Preds optional upgrades - I think anything that promotes the use of Tacs other than as a SC guard is beneficial. As Ginger mentions they need upgrades to realise their potential.

LR - 300 points for a formation and 75 per upgrade. - It promotes their use plain and simple. Not seeing this tank very often is a bit sad and just kind of wrong IMO.

Land Speeders - I had thought about just pointing them all the same at 200 but the idea of a 10 point upgrade for the Typhoon is also appealing. - I'm not a fan of 'bit' point costs really but +50 for an all Typhoon formation is more pleasing than the 325 currently.

Vindicators - 200 point formation - They're slower than the other armour hulls so lack the mobility to get about like Preds. Plus they're already 50 points each and 250 for a formation doesn't quite add up to me, even though I know there's probably a "formation" factor involved. Also it might promote their use more often.

Dreads - 25 points each with 4+ armour (although I had thought 2 for 75 as well) - They're pretty vulnerable whatever their incarnation and it often stops folks using them. At 25 they aren't so expensively expendable. One thing that makes me hesitate on 2 for 75 is load out for air assaults. I haven't yet done any comparisons for this hence the parentheses. They also fill a 25 point hole if needs be.

POINT LIFTS

Thunderhawk - 250 points (225 is still very possible however) - It's a big jump I know. However, I'm resitant to putting them in an Air/War Engine section as part of the 1/3 rule. I would much prefer to see them go up in price to make them more an "Ooh, an extra 50 point cost. I have to think more now." I would prefer it to be a "brainer" rather than a first-selected unit type.

Warhound - 300 each/500 pair. Cut/reduce the recent crit rule and up the points. - Again I would prefer to see these as a "brainer." At 300 taking 2 individuals is more of a decision you have to make versus a 1st-selection. Also, at 300 they match the LR formation points above (also similar number of hits needed to kill) and even though they have a slight edge over the LRs(MW and better AP shooting) the LR's now look more attractive due to heavier AT shooting stats from the Las-Cannons in comparison to the VMB. Just as an edit - Having them different points costs in individual lists (SM vIG) is fine IMO. How a unit fits in a list can have an effect on its cost.

Scouts - 175 - seems reasonable given their ubiquitousness. Removal of the APCs is highly feasible too if this becomes the general opinion and so the LS Storm is maybe the one 'new' unit type I'd be happy to implement in the list as a replacement. Standard speeders could be used 'counts-as' for those without access to a water-born mammal's/undeadwebsite's/blue werewolf's optional pewter-ware.

OTHER ADJUSTMENTS

Captain - +1EA is my preference at the moment. - While captains can be inspiring in reality I think if any captain type would get that it would be the Supreme Commander. Abstraction of heroes in Epic means that while they inspire their troops they may not do so at the true level of the SC or Chaplain.

UNDECIDED

Predators - I'm still mulling this one over atm.

So that's where I'm at right now. I know it's probably more adjustment than some would like but I would like to find a point in between "more usable by newbies" and not "overly scalpel-like precision needed" for the top vets like Mr. Thomas and his Dr. Hector Hammond-like ilk :D - For the record this is how I picture Neal Hunt, too :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
For the most part I like your list. Exceptions:

- Warhound - 300 each/500 pair. Cut/reduce the recent crit rule and up the points.

Considering EUK are now using the modified critical, I'd prefer we stick with that for international commonality.
Also as Mechanicus Champion I'd prefer we use the modified critical.

Stagger + 1DC of damage is a simple and long overdue downgrade (Its Critical basically does nothing without the 1DC of damage). If you think it needs a points increase in addition to that, I could agree.

Quote:
Captain - +1EA is my preference at the moment.

I'd prefer +25pts for Captains, as making them CC combat-characters means that they'd never be chosen for Devestators, and be unlikely for Tacticals.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:41 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311
Before boosting captains its worth remembering that tthe stats quoted on their rarity are at 3k. Larger games then that - 4-5k for which the list is still supposed to cater for far more often feature captains to allow 2 terminator formations to combined assault or devs+tacs to do so

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 'new' Adeptus Astartes and you
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
@AoC: Well the Space Marines ARE that flexible.
I did a similar "full" list for the Imperial Guard though.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 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