Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Codex Astartes v2012

 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
I agree with GlynG on the tweaks.

Not sure how other people do stuff but I do not write a report on each game but I still can draw some conclusions from my overall gaming. Not really sure what good playtesting these changes would do. I do not really think they will affect the power-level at all just make some of the units appear a little more often. I never take the sniper upgrade, AP razorbacks or the Typhoon. Not sure these changes will make me take them but I will at least consider the Sniper and Typhoon...

Restricting the Scouts isn't necessary in my opinion as nobody uses them in large numbers.

Small changes shouldn't make the list go back to development status, and these changes would be very small...

Still I tend to also agree with Dave on the time aspect with this making it to the 2014edition. This is one of the core lists so it would be nice to have a broad consensus on these changes so it needs a little time...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5593
Location: Bristol
uvenlord wrote:
I tend to also agree with Dave on the time aspect with this making it to the 2014edition. This is one of the core lists so it would be nice to have a broad consensus on these changes so it needs a little time...

We're moving towards getting the next Tournament Pack ready, but it'll still be a bit longer so there should be time for people to discuss it and offer their opinions.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
GlynG wrote:
uvenlord wrote:
I tend to also agree with Dave on the time aspect with this making it to the 2014edition. This is one of the core lists so it would be nice to have a broad consensus on these changes so it needs a little time...

We're moving towards getting the next Tournament Pack ready, but it'll still be a bit longer so there should be time for people to discuss it and offer their opinions.

Then I'm all for it :)
Perhaps the changes needs to be made a little clearer and put in a separate topic?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
GlynG wrote:
Are you thinking about making any small changes to the codex list for 2014 Dobbsy? Dave is putting together the next Tournament Pack so now would be a good time. I've used the 2012 list loads and am very happy with it, but there are a few small things I reckon should be tweaked:

The Sniper upgrade is pretty rubbish, costing 25 points to upgrade a single stand to have sniper. Could we take a leaf out of Epic-UK's book and make the sniper upgrade +50 points to give all the scouts sniper?
Razorbacks – the internal balance is wonky and the Las Razorback is much better than the Heavy Bolter version (AT is more valuable than AP plus the extra range to boot). Could we keep the HB Razorback as is but drop the FF on the Las Razorback to 6+? 6+ is the normal value for other units with only a single powerful AT weapon e.g. the Hunter. The Las Razorback would still be better, but it'd be less of a no brainer.
Make the Land Speeder Typhoon cost a bit cheaper as previously discussed.
My 2 cents on Glyn's proposed changes.
  1. "Sniper"
    I just checked the last 31 published lists in the E-UK site.
    • 5 lists did not use scouts at all
    • 16 lists had one or two formations of scouts without any modification
    • 9 had at least one formation of scouts with Razorback (Las)
    • Only 1 list had two formations of scouts with sniper (and one of these also had Razorback - Las)
    The point is that Marine lists need upgrading to work well but there are usually very few points spare to spread around; Razorbacks are much more usefull than "Sniper", so the "Sniper" upgrade is rarely taken. My vote would be to just make the "Sniper" upgrade +25 for *the entire formation* and leave it at that!!

  2. Razorbacks
    While I understand the point about the Las version, this choice depends on the makeup of other formations and especially whether Predators and Land Raiders are taken. In the above 31 lists, only 3 had both Razorbacks and armour (although there were 17 lists with armour, just over 50% of the lists).
    IMO this shows that players are much more likely to take the Las version of the Razorback as it forms part of their armoury needed to address the general lack of AT capability.
    Consequently I suggest leaving the stats alone because changing them is very unlikely to affect why people are choosing the Las version.

  3. Landspeeder Typhoon
    Cheaper? We can certainly try that though I am not sure that it will make any difference, except where a list spams a number of Landspeeder formations and needs some variety for other reasons.
GlynG wrote:
Scout spam armies have the potential to be annoying, I would be happy to see Scout and Terminator formations made 0-5 as chapters normally have a hundred at most. That would leave 99.9% of people's lists unchanged anyway while removing the worst lists abusing them.
Scouts are definitely an excellent choice, though I agree with the others that 'Scout spam' has not been seen widely, so we should hold off from making such changes until it is necessary. Ditto for 'Terminator spam'.

TBH IMO the excessive use of Scouts and Terminators are actually a reflection on the *Tacticals* which always seem to underwhelm. My suggestion here is to add an upgrade to Tacticals, permitting players to pay +75 for an additional pair of Tactical infantry units +transport.

(I realise that it may not be deemed 'fluffy', but with the current price reduction to 275, this would mean you get 8x Tacticals for the same prices as 4x Termies, which is a reasonably close match with the discrepancies reflecting the Elite status of the Termies.)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
I'd rather we don't start messing about with formation sizes in a list that's about as "core" as it gets. I'm not actually sure any of these changes are really necessary or will have any effect, but I'm not against them in particular. I am certainly skeptical that "testing" will tell us anything useful. It would take literally millions of games to tell you whether 25 points for sniper is OP. If you think it is a problem that these upgrades aren't taken, AND that making these tweaks will fix them then just do it. And if you think one of those is not true, then don't bother. (I'm with ginger, I don't think they will make a difference).

On a more general note I'm now a bit confused about what the NetEA development process actually IS. I was under the impression that Approved was about specific versions of a list, rather than he army as a whole. Thus the tournament pack would always just show the latest approved version of a list at the time of publication, and it would be normal for a list to constantly be in an update and approval cycle. That is, you keep on making new versions of the list for the community to review, which are not approved (and are therefore "developmental"), then when you think a version is tournament ready you submit it and it becomes Approved. This just seems natural, being similar to how software development works (there is always the latest stable version, with beta versions released in between for testing). I wouldn't expect marines to be removed from the tournament pack just because a developmental list has been put together for play testing.

If that process is correct, then how can a list ever have any changes if we worry about it being "de approved"? Of course a playtest list isn't Approved, that's the point of it, but having bleeding edge versions of a list doesn't cause the approved ones to cease to exist.

Maybe I am just wrong in how I thought it was supposed to work? Are we supposed to playtest individual changes, and avoid writing any of them down until they become Approved for inclusion in the actual list?

I have noticed a fair bit of this confusion even amongst ACs and some reticence to actually publish a list for people to download and work to, so it would be good to do something to clear this up. In fact why not just take a few minutes to set out a clear versioning strategy exactly as would be done for a software product? It can be as simple as you want it to be so long as it represents the different states that lists exist in in the real world. For example: version every list document uniquely, and label it with one of three statuses: stable, beta, alpha. The versions can be anything so long as they are unique and preferably sequential - so 538, 2014-09-10 and 2.5.8 are all fine so long as they are consistent within an army, although if you use X.Y.Z it should be clear to everyone what each component actually means (eg increments of Z are only formatting). For the status, only ERC can label a version as stable, otherwise it is up to the AC. Obviously ACs keep publishing new beta versions with tweaks here and there, and once really they ask the ERC for permission to label it as stable. Heck, all of the versioning and list production can be automated if we drive everything from the unit database and list generator that Dave is using.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5593
Location: Bristol
Ginger wrote:
My vote would be to just make the "Sniper" upgrade +25 for *the entire formation* and leave it at that!!

That would probably be fine with me. It would only result in sniper on 4 x 30cm AP5+ shots (what Eldar players get with 100 points of Rangers). 50 points for all would be more likely to have wide acceptance, but it's up to Dobbsy to make the call on which.
Ginger wrote:
Razorbacks
players are much more likely to take the Las version of the Razorback as it forms part of their armoury needed to address the general lack of AT capability.

Mechanised SM armies are less viable under the Epic-UK version of the list in general with more expensive Land Raiders, Predator Annihilators and Vindicator formations. Personally I often take 4 formations of such vehicles, plus 3-4 infantry formations with attached Razorbacks and Land Raiders and do well with such an army.

With the change I would still mostly take Las Razorbacks, but if the change makes Heavy Bolter Razorbacks rarely taken rather than virtually never taken then it will have helped and been a good success.

Quote:
Landspeeder Typhoon
Cheaper?

Absolutely. The Land Speeder Tornado is still the original +25, which is blatantly overcosted (Epic-UK price the Typhoon at +10 for comparison). It was discussed a lot back in January with very strong support in the discussion and poll for reducing the cost. Dobbsy agreed it will be changed, hasn't got round to it yet, but doing so now would be the perfect time.

Quote:
I am not sure that it will make any difference, except where a list spams a number of Landspeeder formations and needs some variety for other reasons.

Bad Ginger - you don't need to use loads of Land Speeder formations to be effected by fixing the Typhoon. Small changes still help and everyone who bought an EpicA Land Speeder pack will have one in five of their models being a LST.

Personally I have 2 LS formations in my collection, one of which is a formation with all 5 being the EpicA model Land Speeder Typhoons. I acquired them at a fair bit extra cost but have never them in game yet because 325 points for a formation of Land Speeders is just ridiculous. Please make this feasible Dobbsy!

Ginger wrote:
*Tacticals* ...always seem to underwhelm.
Are you basing this on the Epic-UK meta? If so then I would agree. At 275 they are well costed IMO - I normally take 2-3 formations at 3k and fine them to do well. The key is to add a single Land Raider to each formation to absorb incoming firepower, they're a lot better that way. I wouldn't want to see extra Tacticals being an option.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5593
Location: Bristol
Quote:
On a more general note I'm now a bit confused about what the NetEA development process actually IS...
how can a list ever have any changes if we worry about it being "de approved"?

Don't worry, that was a misunderstanding. It's not possible to 'de-approve' a list.

Your idea of the process sounds right, although Army Champions are allowed to make a load of smaller changes to their list at their own call without it needing playtesting or effecting it's approved status. This often happens around the time of the year when a new tournament pack is being put together and such changes are looked at and agreed by the ERC before making it into the new version of the tournament pack.

For testing more radical changes army champions have put out developmental versions of the list which they want a lot of testing of before being made approved. This is the case with all the Eldar lists and the Tau list for example.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
GlynG wrote:
Quote:
On a more general note I'm now a bit confused about what the NetEA development process actually IS...
how can a list ever have any changes if we worry about it being "de approved"?

Don't worry, that was a misunderstanding. It's not possible to 'de-approve' a list.

Your idea of the process sounds right, although Army Champions are allowed to make a load of smaller changes to their list at their own call without it needing playtesting or effecting it's approved status. This often happens around the time of the year when a new tournament pack is being put together and such changes are looked at and agreed by the ERC before making it into the new version of the tournament pack.

For testing more radical changes army champions have put out developmental versions of the list which they want a lot of testing of before being made approved. This is the case with all the Eldar lists and the Tau list for example.

Good to know, but I still think there is a general air of uncertainty that is cropping up regularly regarding what the system is. So evidently it is not "clear".

I know the system allows these small changes, but where I see the confusion is in how exactly this works. I realise it is a subtle point, but perhaps it is at the heart of things so i will re-iterate: in my mind, it is not "the marine list" that has Approved status, but a specific version of the marine list that is submitted to the ERC. So it is not a question of marines "losing" Approved status, so much as there being multiple versions of the marine list, some of which are Approved and some (what we might call "playtest lists") are not. Obviously the one most fit for distribution is the most recent version that has been submitted to and Approved by the ERC.

It matters because instead of ACs being "allowed to make a load of smaller changes to their list at their own call without it needing playtesting or effecting it's approved status", it's rather that they create a new version of the list with some changes in it - this list is NOT approved, and when the ERC checks it, it gets the Approved stamp. The reason why I think this matters is because how are you supposed to playtest changes that you're not sure about? You don't know they have minor impact unless you test them. Or just generally tinker with the list to try out different tweaks and then pick the best? You don't want people to use these lists UNLESS they are playtesting as it's confusing to have it change every couple of months, so you explicitly need a playground to be able to generate non-Approved lists without confusing people as to which one they should be using. The list status system is perfectly capable of handling this, so let's use it.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
GlynG wrote:
Ginger wrote:
*Tacticals* ...always seem to underwhelm.
Are you basing this on the Epic-UK meta? If so then I would agree. At 275 they are well costed IMO - I normally take 2-3 formations at 3k and fine them to do well. The key is to add a single Land Raider to each formation to absorb incoming firepower, they're a lot better that way. I wouldn't want to see extra Tacticals being an option.
Tacticals at 275 seem a reasonable idea, not sure why E-UK have not adopted this.

I understand the reticence to having extra Tacticals as an upgrade. I am unsure they should have access to a single LR upgrade - do you ever field Tacs with 3x LR (500) or even 2x Crusaders (425)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Kyrt wrote:
GlynG wrote:
Quote:
On a more general note I'm now a bit confused about what the NetEA development process actually IS...
how can a list ever have any changes if we worry about it being "de approved"?

Don't worry, that was a misunderstanding. It's not possible to 'de-approve' a list.

Your idea of the process sounds right, although Army Champions are allowed to make a load of smaller changes to their list at their own call without it needing playtesting or effecting it's approved status. This often happens around the time of the year when a new tournament pack is being put together and such changes are looked at and agreed by the ERC before making it into the new version of the tournament pack.

For testing more radical changes army champions have put out developmental versions of the list which they want a lot of testing of before being made approved. This is the case with all the Eldar lists and the Tau list for example.

Good to know, but I still think there is a general air of uncertainty that is cropping up regularly regarding what the system is. So evidently it is not "clear".

I know the system allows these small changes, but where I see the confusion is in how exactly this works. I realise it is a subtle point, but perhaps it is at the heart of things so i will re-iterate: in my mind, it is not "the marine list" that has Approved status, but a specific version of the marine list that is submitted to the ERC. So it is not a question of marines "losing" Approved status, so much as there being multiple versions of the marine list, some of which are Approved and some (what we might call "playtest lists") are not. Obviously the one most fit for distribution is the most recent version that has been submitted to and Approved by the ERC.

It matters because instead of ACs being "allowed to make a load of smaller changes to their list at their own call without it needing playtesting or effecting it's approved status", it's rather that they create a new version of the list with some changes in it - this list is NOT approved, and when the ERC checks it, it gets the Approved stamp. The reason why I think this matters is because how are you supposed to playtest changes that you're not sure about? You don't know they have minor impact unless you test them. Or just generally tinker with the list to try out different tweaks and then pick the best? You don't want people to use these lists UNLESS they are playtesting as it's confusing to have it change every couple of months, so you explicitly need a playground to be able to generate non-Approved lists without confusing people as to which one they should be using. The list status system is perfectly capable of handling this, so let's use it.
Agreeing that this system is a little hard to grasp even for some of the ACs. Sometimes a small change (like the 25p reduction on the Fireprism) needs playtesting...
Putting out a new SM list for play testing without naming it "development" would be fine with me. Just name it x.1 and keep it out of the compendium.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
uvenlord wrote:
Putting out a new SM list for play testing without naming it "development" would be fine with me. Just name it x.1 and keep it out of the compendium.


Space Marine Codex Experimental Changes "Bucket List v0.1...?"

Fill it with whatever people want to see adjusted or changed once every few(6?) months? Could be an ongoing list well past a year for other new ideas/changes.

What system do we want to use to decide what gets put in it? Ideally we don't want kitchen sink. I'd also stipulate that it requires actual playtest and I mean batreps of things in the list before they even get a chance of being in the Approved list.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5593
Location: Bristol
No need to reinvent the wheel. Just follow precedent from other lists and call it 'Codex Astartes Developmental X.X' with the Xs being a version number for the list. It's what Yme does with the developmental Tau list for example. Most people will stick to the approved version from the tournament pack, while those interested in playtesting might try out and report back. Some changed could just be made at your call though, you don't need to playtest small changes.

Ginger wrote:
I understand the reticence to having extra Tacticals as an upgrade. I am unsure they should have access to a single LR upgrade

I'm baffled why you might think they shouldn't? Land Raiders are commonly deployed with Tacticals. SM background (from the Forge World book on SMs) described SM mechanised infantry formations as normally having a tough tank up front (Land Raider, Vindicator, ect) to take the hits rather than the Rhinos. Devestators and Chaos Space Marines have always been able to take a 1-4 Land Raiders also.

Ginger wrote:
- do you ever field Tacs with 3x LR (500) or even 2x Crusaders (425)?

No, that wouldn't be cost effective. You get the most benefit from having one and using points elsewhere. All Land Raiders gets expensive.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 5:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9633
Location: Manalapan, FL
Well as Crusaders are not available in the Codex list I'd state "NO, no one uses them like that" ;)

I'm also with GlynG on the whole Land Raider Phobos bit. It completely makes sense to allow a Land Raider singleton upgrade, both tactically and fluff.

I disagree about cost-effectiveness as a blanket statement. It makes a good hard as nails BTS formation when you play very large games (5k and beyond). However that's far outside the norm admittedly and in no way would I ever see that in say 3k.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
I am an avowed 'fluffyphobe' so am totally unaware whether or not the following is true for 40k.

While I can imagine a commander giving the odd Razorback or Dreadnought to a formation to provide the additional firepower they might need, in this context Land Raiders are 'armoured transport' IMO, so they should be provided for every unit or not provided at all. That said, I would have no problems with using Crusaders or any other type of LR as that choice is 'mission dependent'.

And, yes this might mean that the LR upgrade is only seen in larger point armies. Don't forget that the 'tournament lists' are intended to be balanced up to 5K and there may well be some 'less competitive' elements in any list.

Finally, I would have thought including all the different LR types is the kind of minor change that Dobbsy intends discussing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Codex Astartes v2012
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
perhaps I'm missing something but the tacticals can already take 0-4 landraiders, do we want to take this away?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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