Actually that's an interesting point, what's the reasoning on the removal of Marshall?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

You should still be able to take any action which allows a player to move out of the ZofC including assaulting another formation (as long as you move out of the ZofC by the shortest route). If you are forced to take a hold action then you have to attempt to move out of the ZofC (even if you have 0cm move).



Any situation where you enter the target formations ZofC first is still allowed, Epic UK are just not allowing players to break the rule by using entering a ZofC at the same time as a way of avoiding this.

I'd presume if you used the barge part you would have to stay within the rules and go directly towards nearest free enemy unit and not rotate/wheel to get the extra attacks as that would be the same as what the above is trying to stop (gaining extra movement).

It was something that he was informed about during a game at the GT so I assumed it must've been either something I've missed in the rulebook (time to get my fine toothed comb out I guess) or a rules amendment I had missed.

Regarding the THawk spam list, this has always been a possibility ever since the core list was created, and there have been a few semi ‘apocraphal’ attempts at creating similar spammed air lists, most of which were quickly forgotten since few people actually had 12+ T-bricks (as they were then) with one Landing craft as the BTS, or some variation on a theme. Competitions were more gentlemanly etc and only the core lists and Swordwind existed. Ahh, fond memories . . .

Back to reality

The current THawk spam list is both valid and evidently very broken :- the player uses the long range firepower of the 6x-7x THawks to suppress any ground AA, then flies on with 5x TBolts to shoot up key formations. Rinse and repeat for two turns, and then claim objectives on the third turn.

Placing the THawks in the space 1/3 is a non-starter since it invalidates many lists that combine these with Titan etc. But I believe the simple solution is to impose a straight limit to the number of aircraft available to the marine player (this can be varied by list for additional colour):
That gives the standard 3k list 5x aircraft, the 4K Britcon list 6x aircraft, which from memory covers the vast majority of past lists without resorting to other tricky rules.
If people want to relax this in the future, you can drop to 1x a/c per 500 points etc though I would not recommend going much below that point for obvious reasons.

What do you think guys?

I don't see how putting thawks & landing craft in the 1/3 invalidates anything. You can still run 2x thawks, 1x tbolts, 2 x warhound/1 x landing craft in a codex marine list which is basically replacing a single unit of tbolts in the 2 most common marine builds. However, this will be playtested, we don't want to jump right in there.

_________________

Like when Chris used to run 16 activation siegemaster armies where every other unit had indirect barrage?

_________________

Initial post edited
Starting activation in ZoC - to any move action

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

Regarding the thawk spam list none of these proposed rules clarifications have any impact on it or are aimed at it. We are testing some simple changes to it and other lists hopefully in time for Full Scale Assault.

The rose tinted glasses seem to ignore the TRC siegemasters, near broken Swordwind book Eldar, various test lists that were allowed at tournaments and that the thawk spam list is a perfectly legal original book list.

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

HaHa, not too rose tinted Steve54. LoL.
In the 10+ years I have been going to uk tournaments and contributing here, I have never seen a Marine list like this. So despite the potential temptations, there seems to have been a ‘gentlemens’ agreement not to adopt some of the more ‘beardy’ army builds - until now . . .

As for Swordwind, Chris took on the AC role of the Siege masters list after he proved it to be broken and effectively rewrote it to nerf it considerably; Sotec, Greg, Neal and others took a great deal of time and effort up to 2008 to redo the Biel Tan Eldar list (tho with a few mixed results IMPO), and there has been a great deal of other development elsewhere - but practically none on the core lists, with good reason.

SteveC, putting THawks and LCs in the space/air/Titan 1/3rd basically cripples a considerable number of lists other than the ‘ultra competitive’ warhound THawk style list; it reduces the very flexibility that the Marines are supposed to have.
So a player would no longer be able to experiment with Reaver, air cover and Space ship; planetfalling artillery to support a Reaver; and no form of air assault to support a Warlord (and yes I know these are potentially all sub optimal, though possibly fun to try). There are lots of other ‘funky’ things to try that should not be banned out of hand just because this one list has been found.

Not so long ago, Brumbaer was fielding 3x Whirlwinds with great success in the EEC, despite the collective wisdom of the forums, and there are other examples. Let’s keep the Core Marine list as flexible as possible by effectively banning this particular THawk spam list, rather than making a significant (and IMO detrimental) change to a key core list.

ok Dptdexsys, thanks for thread resurrection




I am sure this was debated and agreed to be inclusive of the formation being carried, irrespective of whether the WE was Dedicated or Independent - What are your views on this?

It was agreed and is in the rules of 1.7.5 that units in the same formation being transported count for BMs and other things .
3.1.3 allows (independent) WEs to follow different rules to 1.7.5 and the rule does not state transported units count as part of the formation except when they dismount and only until the end of the action.
Suppression should be easy to work out when following the rules, are they in a position to shoot and thus take a BM for suppression (being on board a transport would not normally allow them to fire so would not be in a position to take a BM).

I think the concept that lists can be broken, but no need to change them, as we will all play as "gentlemen" is absurd. The lists exist, and creating a winning list is a key part of the game. Play vs Necrons and tell me it isn't. (The next person whom questions my Gentlemanliness will face a morning duel on thoroughbreds with cravats on).
Some lists can be played in a eschewed fashion gaining an advantage, but when this advantage is too great (army of scouts in drop pods) either the list or rules need changing.
Regards the thunderhawks this gives a few options, change the stats, change the points or change the list build. Of the three, the latter is the only real option that will not change all other 'working' SM lists.
I think this is easily addressed through moving the thunderhawks into the air third, but, if that does detract from other lists, then keep the list the same with a "one thunderhawk for every thousand points" rule.

What is the rationale behind the Independent Warengine ruling? Apart from making many of them unplayable it has answered a question in such a way as to create way more!

What happens when the WE carrying other formations breaks? Do they break too? Dismount (if so when?)? Can a broken transport "ferry" unbroken units through ZoC screens? How do hack downs work? etc....

As far as I'm aware I'm the only person who has actually used Support Craft as transports at an EUK event, I did it at two tournaments, I didn't do great but didn't do too badly, i.e. the method I was using wasn't broken. It was relatively easy to explain how the thing worked. I had some specific suggestions for improvements to wording. The direction taken just seems totally left of field, not based on actual tournament experience at all!

From the DE list point of view, apart from the Executioner now being a really bad choice in itself it gives any list it's in a real headache on an AA front. If you take a Executioner you need the spacecraft to get the utility out of the thing, leaving no room for air cover, this was mitigated by the option of everything hiding in the Executioner which is clearly not an option any more. Being able to bump DC (for moral purposes) also meant you could use the most expensive unit in the list without it breaking all the time if you were prepared to sacrifice the use of another formation to garrison it.

As I said, a rationale would really help with this ruling, how is it intended that we sensibly use our Mantas and Executioners? Or are they just collection pieces like Emperor Battleships?

As far as I can see:

1. Any transported formations wouldn't have taken any BMs from whatever broke the transport, with the exception of crit effects that might kill some of the transported units. Why would they break?
2. As per 3.1.3 they can dismount at the end of any move made by the War Engine, so would have to dismount when it falls back or wait for it to rally and activate.
3. Transported units aren't on the table to interact with ZoCs.
4. Hackdowns would only apply if the transported formation was also broken.

For what it's worth, this is how I'd already been playing Plague Towers ferrying other formations in NetEA Death Guard and it's not caused any rules issues so far.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion