Well if the tanks for one of the two kinds of Tactical Detachments in the Scions of Iron armylist wheren't mandatory and if the list would include Assault Marines and Devastators THEN i would see them as the ground pounder Space Marine army list we all are looking for.

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

Would the Devastators have the same 2 Rhinos + 2 Predators/Vindicators option?
My choice would be no, as then they'd be just what they are in the Air Assault list- better Tactical Marines formations for cheaper.

I can see no real qualms about adding in a Devastator formation with only the option of Rhinos, and Assault Marines.

Making the Rhinos + Predators/Vindicators optional I also can't see the harm in.

Frankly though I'd still end up taking the mechanised existing Scion units and the same problems would kill the footslogging list.

-Assault Marines without a Thunderhawk Air Assault are rubbish.
-Why take Dev's in Rhinos, when you can take Tacticals in Rhinos with Predator/Vindicators.
-Any of these units without Rhinos, Drop Pods or Thunderhawks is just as weak, slow and ineffective as in the Air Assault list. Marines don't walk.

The list you propose can easily be done with the Codex Astartes list by taking no Thunderhawks or tanks. It being competitive is another question though.

As the SoI use only 4 strong Tactical Detachments then Devastators wouldn't be cheaper, they would be more expensive.


Perhabs. So at least in the SoI list they could be made cheaper. Or they could be only availabkle as an upgrade of two units for other Detachments.


Tacticals would be cheaper.


Yes Marines don't walk and i think no one is suggesting a pure walking Space Marine army.

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

I got the impression nothing short of walking Marines would suffice.

No Thunderhawks.

No tanks.




How much more expensive? That 3+ Firefight is golden.



Possible.
I have to admit even in an Air Assault list I've gone from 2 Assault Formations to none- Devastators do better in engagements and can shoot.



So the Scions list as a base:

-Add more expensive Devastator formation.
-Add cheaper Assault formation.
-Plus transport optional (deduct cost from Tactical/Heavy Tactical)
-Plus 2 Predators/Vindicators optional (deduct cost from Tactical/Heavy Tactical)

They also talk about increasing the costs of Air Assault elements.  So the cost of Air Assaulting is borne by the units that allow it.  The whole point was to make it so air assault lists would cost roughly what they do now, while ground lists would be cheaper than they currently are.  



If they were kept, they'd increase in cost and move into the support section.  I'd assume Marines wander around on the ground in circumstances where Thunderhawks being used as transports is too risky - and thus a distinct lack of Thunderhawk transports would seem OK.  



Yeah.  That's why there's Devastators, Assault Marines, Land Speeders...

It can represent an army doing so.  It does not adequately represent the options available to Codex chapters when they do so.  It represents some of what they could do, not all.  



Firstly, the idea that every chapters' eighth company is as good with bikes as the White Scars is a load of fine, pulpy excrement.  

Secondly, and for the last time, there are massive gaps in the Scions of Iron list.  I mentioned them above, for the second time.  There are things that a marine chapter on the ground could do that the Scions list is incapable of doing.  A lot of them.  It's a good armor list.  It's not a good general ground operations list.  I am not going to bother explaining this again.  Black Legion has also pointed them out.  



No, I don't want a list where the tanks are the focus, nor do I want a list where piling everything into Thunderhawk transports is the only way to be effective.  

There is a distinction.  



Can be fixed easily by (many of these already mentioned)

-Make them cheaper/make them an upgrade to existing formations/both.  
-Because they will be costed so that the two options are roughly competitive with each other.  Alternately, allow Predators/Vindicators for Devastators, as well, while making them sufficiently more expensive that Tacs are competitive.  Or give the Tacs viable options the Devastators do not possess.  
-No one said a damned thing about removing Rhinos.  Don't be silly.  

You don't seem to think it's possible to change costs, change options, or change much of anything.  Which makes me really wonder what you think writing an army list entails...



You're mad.  That's all there is to it.  A list of pure infantry would be completely insane.  Which is why no one here was ever so foolish as to suggest it.  



As much more expensive as necessary to make Tacticals competitive with them.  



No.  The Codex list as a base, with some of the changes the Scions list makes as a guide (some).  The Scions are a longer way from Codex than this should be.  Plus, it might be nice if the Scions list retained a bit of its uniqueness.  Starting from the basic list and wandering in the appropriate direction seems a more appropriate way to ensure that than starting from the Scions list.


HenaEdit: Removed a personal comment that doesn't add into conversation.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

I would say its a non standard tactic. Hena has no non codex units - say marines with 6+ armour saves. So the Ultras could indeed use it as well and you can ignore Henas background if you don't like it.

However its definitively the marine tank list, too much armour and too few troops for it to be mechanised I feel.



Sigh, in 1st edition they put roughly half in



That wasn't what I was getting at - rather if you have a marine list with both viable air and ground its better than the current list and you aren't supposed to in Epic make lists obsolete.

Of course if you are just after a list with less aerospace and more ground, thats different



Yeah, just reflects that on the ground you oft need a big/tough formation to crack a hard target. Though I guess commander covers that as well! The option of adding assault marines in rhinos would be different though.



God its a travesty. Still if you want to make vindicators even more unattractive

_________________
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

Yes, cheaper Devs in particular.



I disagree, I think you can push the cost of thunderhawks up and retain them,. So instead of running with 3 you will now have 1 to represent the surgical supporting strike. (Ala Salamanders.)



Have you tried the list? It plays quite differently because of the changes to the core units. And hell no warhounds or titans or fighters is a massive change.

In general I think the key points are an army of razorbacks is the best ground army and that Salamanders with their focus on mech fighting. Hena with focus on tank fighting and the DA looking at alternatives to planes and titans all have lessons.

I will at some pint dig out all my IF notes and update them and stick them up.

_________________
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

That will be a fine art to see- how cheap and how expensive will the two elements be?
Air Assault has such a huge advantage in terms of protecting your SM's until they fight, choosing exactly when and where you fight and getting into an engagement anywhere on the board.
Upping a Thunderhawks cost by 50pts won't change that.
As long as Air Assault is in the list, ground pounding will be 2nd best.

Can I have some numbers? What pts cost are you considering for the Gunship, Tacticals and Devastators?



SM's don't have a Support Section at present, but I suppose you could add one.

I've already covered the background 'why' SM's would work on the ground- it's admittedly a rarity though. Early posts in this thread wanted ground-pounding Marines to be the norm to reflect their 40k counterparts- that was cringeworthy. Perhaps all weapons should only have 15cm range to reflect the 40k ranges...



It does have Land Speeders. Though I'll give you the other two. For me, Devastator Marines man the Chapter's battle tanks, much like Assault Marines man the Chapters Speeders and Bikes.



Not bothering to explain your reasoning, a surefire way to win a discussion...
What else can a Marine army do on the ground that can be represented and effective in the Tournament Army List?

If you want a siege or last stand you need to tailor a specific scenario and units for it.



I don't think any amount of pts changes will make ground pounders viable whilst air assault is still in a list. The flexibility of air assault goes way beyond the Gunship being a 'bit cheap'.
Check my IG and Tyranid army lists if you want to gauge how good or bad my army list writing is.
Can I have some examples of your army list writing to compare?



Depends how expensive, anything short of 300pts and I'm still taking my 2 Gunships.



I've looked at it. The lack of titans/aircraft means nothing to me, I don't use them in my standard Marine list. The only other noticeable change is the Devastators.

DA/BA started off as a Codex Chapter that had it's background fleshed out in 2nd Ed. Through 3rd, 4th, and 5th GW has found it necessary to add gimmicks when re-releasing the Codex supplements to hide the embarassing fact their flogging you different coloured Codex Chapter Marines.
So in 3rd DA for some reason spammed Plasma, never reasonably explained- this hangover is represented in the Epic DA list.
The BA for some even more bizarre reason in 4th found out most of their Codex Chapter Marines are Assault Marines, despite their organisation saying they are not- this gimmick brought us Assault Marine spam. Though it's not as bad as the gimmick of Death Company an attrition rate that should have seen them die out thousands of years ago.

Some Chapters/Legions have always had a different justifiable playstyle however, these are the one's that deserve Epic lists.

HenaEdit: Removed a personal comment that doesn't add into conversation.

DarkAngels didn't change much since 2nd Edition. They allways had special Terminators and Speciel Bikes/Land Speeders. The Plasma thing i tend to overlook

And Blood Angels have a pretty high degree of recruitment for a Space Marine Chapter. And the PDF Codex shows that they use lots of Assault Marines from their Reserve Companies as their common tactic.

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

This makes no sense, of course adjusting the points value of units will affect their viability. At it's most basic it would allow more of the line troops and by definition (assuming terrain is used to its best advantage) that will mean more will reach the enemy.

I really don't understand the objections to a ground forces based list.  Surely it's not uncommon to encounter enemies entrenched in areas with massive air cover where flying a few Thunderhawks in would be near suicidal.  Space Marines may be elite on the ground but when airborne their transports can die just as easily as those of their far more numerous enemy.

And you would be 100 points down then as they are 250 each. You might be good enough to make up for this (its 2/3's of a scout or fighter activation) but then...



You are going to lose a lot in a tourney environment which is what these lists, not units note, but lists, are aimed at. Before another debate starts on this, trot over tot he EpicUK site and find out the highest placing marine list that had no navy and/or titans.



I take it then you are referring to the EpicUK Dark Angel list?



I think its more about delivering different play styles wrapped up in fluff (i.e. a different chapter).

_________________
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

For the Gunship - I'm debating its inclusion (since it could easily be replaced by one of the support variants without transport capacity and have most of the problems avoided).  At minimum, I'd say it's going to 275, and moving into the support section (with the Titans and other Aircraft).  300 is not outside the realm of possibility, but seems a bit high.  At anything less than that, there's little or no reason not to take them.  At the moment I'm thinking 250 each for Tacticals and Devastators.  I was tempted by 225 each, but that seems a bit too good.  



Despite many people's insistence to the contrary, the two game systems are related (if only in the units and the background).  If an army in 40K works in exact opposition to its Epic counterpart, it seems fair to raise questions as to why.  If the answer is "they fight one way strategically and another tactically", well and good.  But I think you can agree that if the Eldar focused on speed in 40K and massed assaults in Epic, it would be fair to question this difference.  



...Considering all the explanations for my reasoning have been ignored so far, I didn't really see any point to it.  

That said: I'm not sure I understand your question.  Most things on the ground can't be represented and effective in/by the Tournament Army List.  It flat-out costs too much to attempt it.  Hence this.  That's kind of the point.  

If you mean "what could someone want to do the Scions of Iron list can't"?  Battle Company in Rhinos supported by Land Speeders.  Can't be done with the Scions list.  

As to why a marine force might want to do that: hotly contested air war, Thunderhawks committed elsewhere for some reason, atmospheric conditions not kind to aircraft, the enemy has a very capable anti-air technology, the chapter for some reason prefers it that way, or an opposition to the wastefulness of loading everything back into Thunderhawks again.  Or they're operating in hostile territory and don't know when they'll encounter resistance, which makes Thunderhawks something of a liability (encountering resistance a few thousand feet up going a few thousand miles an hour can hurt).  Or mountainous terrain (which Thunderhawks would likely not be well-suited).  Or they're fighting in an urban environment.  Or they need the heavy equipment that can be carried by ground forces.  Or when they want to sneak up on the opponent, avoiding air-based-radar.  In short, all the same situations where modern commanders don't send in the airborne infantry.  

As to why a marine chapter in such circumstances wouldn't just load up on the armored assets: They don't have them along, the terrain is more amenable to infantry (which covers a chunk of the above examples), the commander doesn't feel like it/thinks infantry would be more effective in this situation.  



It's not that you seem to think they won't work, it's that you seem to think that they cannot actually be done/no one can try to do so.  It's a little odd.  

Personally, I don't much care how good or bad your army list writing is.  Mine is likely going to be very much in evidence shortly.  The point is that you seem to think this list would not and could not change anything from the basic Space Marine one, which seems a very odd point of view to take.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

I agree on this. It would be a good start at least.

Simulated Knave --> I like your reasoning,and look forward to seeing your own attempt at this kind oflist. I have a LOT of marine infantry and ground vehicles lying about and would love to test lists over the holidays.

_________________
"Don't use finesse, if force will solve the problem."

- Lieutenant General Michael O'Neal

I've been asked to provide the source file for the 'all arms' list style that we spitballed on a while back, so here it is:

http://www.epic.host56.com/files/Marines.pub

It's in Microsoft Publisher format, and is entirely untested.

Mess about with it with it all you like, if nothing else it has a pre-written format for creating your own army lists.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter