what about those two explanations is so terribly incorrect?

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

You aren't seeing the bigger picture.. If you need to lose to allow the Imperials to conquere the world and then fight off the chaos invasion in 100 years time, you do. It is all pre-ordained...

As for fluff justification it is rather easy for marines. They start in orbit and as they approach decide on the best course of action, either deploying from orbit at a distance (standard deployment) or directly into the force (drop assault).

Do you think what they can do currently - deploy a thunderhawk with troops inside from Orbit or fly onto the board, or start empty and drop/fly onto the board is unfair as well? All the marine fliers already do this choice prior to the battle, this justs extends it to their cargo in a more flexible manner. Do they climb into the thunderhawk, landing craft or drop pod as opposed to just thunderhawk and landing craft. Also remember a marine drop operation takes minutes, not even hours. I don't know how else to put it, but it is a list where it is already happening and requires no stretch of the imagination to extend it.

Now combining with dreds being vehicle spaces on the cruiser havn't been tried, so might change things. But I doubt it as marine dred mixes are basically garrissons and these would lack hunters making them less than optimal.

Hey steve 54. Yeah people have explained the ww thing. I agree that 120 is a bit of a drastic change. And see that its not needed. I still find it hard to agree that ww are a useful formation. But thats more to do with my style of play and experience with guard.
I dont know what to do to make them a more viable optio though. Happy to discuss. And not going to die in a ditch over the 120 range.
Overall I would like to see a marine list emerge that is competitive in a number of builds and not just a single build or reliant on a single auto include unit.
At the moment you need to take a titan and thunderbolts to deal with specific threats that arent viably treated by marines at 3k tourney lists.
We are playtesting the heresy list at the moment and fellblades have become essentially an auto include. Because if you don't take them and your opponent does you have very luttle in your arsenal to effectively treat the threat they pose.
I like the idea of st giving marines more flexibilty in terms of how they treat specific threats but just see it to be not effectively addressing the issue of dealing with the issue of the limited types of viable marine builds.

Ah, I begin to see the issue. You appear to be concerned that the only 'viable' list is one that contains 1-2 Terminator formations, 2 Warhounds 1-2 Thunderhawks and 1-2 Thunderbolts . . . .

Rest assured that the list does work without several of these, though some are always going to be needed. For example Stephan Hess took this list to one of the UK tournaments and did reasonably well, with a win a loss and a losing draw on points. However, the vast majority of lists tend to use these components because they work well together and the strategy and tactics are relatively well known and understood. Other formations will work, though the strategies may be harder to use well - the Marines are not an easy list to use, but a general rule is that formations need to be in mutual support to maximise effect and minimise enemy counters.

Another rule is that most armies in E:A work better when there are several formations of a given type to provide redundancy. There is a fine line to be drawn between formation costs and effects. Try a 'ground-pounding list with 2 WW, 2-4 Preds, titan support, 2 Landspeeders and other formations to suit. The key here is to use the fast formations to set up cross-fire - and using the high Marine Strategy Roll to set up positions for sustained shooting. These kind of armies need to make best use of terrain (which should cover at least 25% of the table).

Above all, have 'fun', experiment with lists to suit your style of play. Work out what you want to do and build an army around those principles - each of us sees the battlefield differently, so play to your strengths and try to work out and exploit the weaknesses of opposing armies.

All snipers for 50pts - supported

Typhoons - 10pts each is probably simpler for everyone to understand but the effect is the same, supported

Dreadnoughts - no issue, doubt it will make much difference as Dreadnoughts seem to be rarely taken. Though combined with Superior Tactics the dreadnought might become more viable.

0-1 Warhound singletons? I don't really care. I don't think it addresses the issue of Marines relying on Warhounds for any decent MW.

Predators - Don't see the need for a price hike, especially given a bunch of earlier posts were about peoples concerns over warhounds being too heavily relied upon. Uping the cost of predators just makes warhounds more attractive. If its still felt the annihilator is significantly better than the destructor, then make them 10pts extra like the typhoons, or a separate formation.

Vindicators - Whats the benefit/reasoning for this change? given they are considered a sub par unit, how does taking more of them make them better? Are we similarly going to let all marine armour formations be between 4-6 units?

Happy to trial the Superior tactics, it might just make tacticals more present in the lists, after all tactical infantry should be the core of any marine list.

Lastly,
If you breaking this into a auto include and trial rules. Can we also add some new units to the "trail" SM list.
I get a number of people don't like anything new GW invents, but a number do. Slowly including some new units to the base SM list will keep things fresh, encourage new players and modelers, and also might encourage older players to mix up their play style some. On the other hand people can ignore the new stuff and just keep plodding along with the tried and tested old stuff.

I say include them for trial because everyone has said how reasonably balanced the marine list is. Therefore its is a good test bed to trial new units in. It also prevents a new off shoot list being created every couple of months to include new units. These lists then typically find it hard to make it to approved as they have a small player base and are typically limited in play style to justify the inclusion of new unit/formations.

As an example I'd suggest adding the Landspeeder storm, Landraiders Crusader/Redeemer, Thunderhawk transporter and Storm Talon to the standard list for 12 months. The next 12 months might look at thunderfire, stormraven, razor back variants, Helios etc.

I'd perfer to see 2-3 balanced and approved marine lists in total rather than a bunch of marine lists for every chapter.

For those units that are "rare" in GW fluff, create a "restricted" or "relic" formations that uses up 1/3 points for allies. That way you can take standard marines supported by Navy and Titans, or you can give up warhounds and thunderbolts to access some of the cooler/rarer Marine units.

Dobbsy - I can show you what I mean in .doc / .pdf if your at all interested.

Isn't that kinda the concept on the Ultramarines list we've talked about a few times?

_________________
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!

But what are ultramarines if not codex? I don't care what we call it. I just don't really see a need to make another almost codex SM, marine list if we could just propose, trial and accept over time new units into the existing marine list.

I know GW base a lot of their stuff on a desire to sell new models, but it does keep the game fresh and now and then upsets the existing status quo. Now as a community we don't have to take on new things just to sell models, but we can do so to increase options and change up the standard competitive builds that do tend to appear. Yes people from time to time run something a little unusual and often do well, but the amount of marine lists I see on EpicUK and in our own tournament scene that are 1-3 warhounds and 1-2 terminators in Thawks is pretty telling that there is a real or perceived gain or strength taking those units over others.

While I'm at it... back to the old vindicator, how come it was never AP3+/AT3+ IC? thinking back I can't remember why it was considered equal to the battle cannon or twin las cannon at busting armour? I do recall a trial of MW but then we went the way of giving it walker and a speed boost IIRC. Would anyone be more likely to take them, and demolishers, if they were AP3/AT3 IC?

This is supposed to be codex marines on Armageddon. The original list idea is you have a finished list, then instead of adding new bits you make a new list so everything is internally balanced. Why not make a 40k list with everything in 40k in it and drop stuff like landing craft. Make air assault less of a focus because those bits you are talking about aren't really air focused and then change the points costs for the new overall balance.

Yes but that was the approach years ago to get the first three armies done and into the rule book. Years later a codex list could afford to be a little more encompassing. A new list for each new unit is inefficient, have a look at how many half finished marine lists have been created over the years. Have a look at the way net epic have addressed the marine lists. They have a core list that each chapter essentially modifies as appropriate to their background. It could work for us to. The AC essentially runs the core whilst the sub ACs are only responsible for their mods section, not a whole new list. Anyhow this is no doubt heresy to most of the forum, but I seriously think it would help get the variants to approved and make inter list balance much easier to achieve.

Why make a new list if 95% is unchanged?

You don't think adding a dozen new units would be a bigger change? Also the stats/roles amongst many of them wouldn't change much but you would be able to optimise each formation more - eg melta tanks for the landing craft. Doing a list where every unit is still a viable choice would be quite tricky.

_________________
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

my opinion on this is that the Codex list was written a long time ago, back when only BT could take crusaders, storm talons (thankfully) didn't exist, and the GW studio hadn't stockpiled enough crack to smoke in order to dream up the centurions

Time has moved on, GW has released new models and changed the background so everyone can take LR crusaders and stormravens and whatnot, this is not reflected in the main epic codex marine list any more, so people new to the game, coming from a 40k background, may find it frustrating that they can't field all the units they like, all in one army, like they can presumably do in 40k....

is it really that bad that this is the case? I've used my imperial fists as codex marines, black templars and imperial fists and made use of all the shiny toys I've acquired over the years, units I've not got the exact models for have been proxied with a close equivalent

The thing is, that GW will not stop releasing new units (unless of course they go out of business ) and rehashing the background and fluff to suit whatever sales model they are trying out, we can try to keep up, adding new units to the list with all of the playtesting and debate that goes with it (and that can be a huge amount of debate, with people refusing to budge an inch..... ), or we can say 'enough is enough' and we leave the list at a fixed point in time, then we know we can eventually get it to a point where it's balanced and ready for approval

so if we add a slew of new units to the codex list, we'll probably be having the same discussion again in 5 years time...

there is also something to be said for having benchmark lists, having fixed codex marines, orks, eldar and steel legion, gives us something to test with.... if a new list is routinely spannering the codex marines in playtests then we can have a good idea that it's perhaps a bit overpowered/imbalanced, if we significantly change the 'core' lists then we lose access to that standard

I believe Dobbsy started this thread at least partially in response to what he sees as percieved power creep in other lists leaving the codex marines behind, for me the solution is to tone down the other, newer lists rather than buffing the marines to keep up.... personally I am fine tweaking points here and there on existing units, or even messing with weapon stats... but I'm wary of adding new units and rules to what is a popular and well balanced list, surely we can improve the list and broaden its playstyle through comparatively minor changes in points costs, formation options or tweaks to weapons?

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I agree with this ^

_________________
-Vaaish

Agree with Kyussinchains also.

"Core" armies act like a kind of litmus test for variants. They aren't necessarily as specialized, and don't have those strengths that come with such specializations, but the "core" lists also shouldn't necessarily have the weaknesses that should come along with those specializations either. This isn't to imply that "core" lists should be jack of all trades master of none, more so they are simply very solid and stable lists.

Lastly, I am a big proponent of leaving the pred annihilators as is. Bump up the cost and the desire to field Warhounds increases even more. They compete for good AT shots. And it's not like they are a steal to begin with. It seems the issue lies more pred destructors than any issues the annihilators might have.

I agree annihilators are fine at 250 (epicUK are you listening? ) but I think destructors are a bit expensive..... I can't see an easy fix for that unless you make destructors 225 for four then add any number of annihilators for 25 points or something like that?

Thinking about the vindicator a bit, while MW would be welcome on the gun, would that mean the baneblade would get it on its own demolisher? In fact, could that be an option to boost rhe BB too? IIRC back in the days of 2nd edition vindicator guns had the same save mod as a volcano cannon!

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator