I can't say I behind any of the changes, especially taken as a whole. Dropping prices on some formations (some by up to 50 points), raising prices on others while possibly changing a stat and a special rule is no way to evaluate anything.

I'll echo Zombo and Ginger here and say that Ground-Pounders strategies and tactics have a steeper learning curve then air lists. I can count on one hand the number of times I've used a SM air list. The number of ground games I've played has to be in the hundreds by now though. I've had a good record with them, not just within my own group but within 3 others, with the previous set of reductions and without. They do work very well once you figure them out.

If anything is done I'd rather see it done piece-mail, and with some battle reports. We also shouldn't be ignoring what the EpicUK has put out. If anything we should evaluating those changes before we start ignoring them or shooting past even their price reductions, especially given the amount of testing those changes have seen. That'll help both groups and maybe we'll even see fewer stat/price differences between the two.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Have to say I'm with Dave (and the previous cautious posters).
This seems like a lot of changes to a list that already wins enough games. It's just feels like too much to me.

For those that struggle to play the list (let's face it, Marines are not a simple army to master), rather than seek to change the list, why not change your play style or switch to a varient list that you works for you?

The only change I would like to see is for Thunderhawks to go to 225pts. Anything else is really changing the list and I don't believe there is good enough reason to do so.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

+1

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

Dobbsy – Overall I’m happy/pleased with the direction and scope of your initial proposals They will require a lot of testing but should lead to a more balanced and varied list. However, I believe you go too far in some cases and really need to tone some things back a bit. Am I correct in thinking we’re free to comment now since you’ve posted your ideas? I’m going to do so here, yell if we’re still meant to be saving it for later.


I think 225 is a great idea but 250 is absolutely definitely too much – with price increase for Warhounds and Scouts as well (both a regular feature of air-drop lists), it just isn’t needed or a good idea at all to increase it that much as well.


75 points for 2 is a 25% reduction in cost but 50% in one go is OTT and 25 points really makes them too good in some uses I believe. As well as air assault combos you should also consider drop pod use. This change now makes it just 300 points for a Devestator formation with twin fire support Dreads and Deathwind Drop-pod. They can sustained fire with 12 shots plus Deathwind and the infantry can all take cover against the Dreadnoughts.

I really hope you’re not suggesting not adopting the extra damage? That was generally supported here and what E&C (as the Titan Legions army champion) wants to adopt. Points differences aren’t a big deal but it would be better to share the same critical worldwide. The Warhound is the cheapest, best titan, that also lucked out on a negligible critical initially – it’s long overdue the change to a properly hurt-full critical like is standard for that size WE. If you want to make it 300 as well as the worse critical I could live with that myself, though others might grumble.


I think they’re a good choice at 225, but 200 and 275 with the obvious Hunter upgrade is almost definitely too cheap. Though they’re slower than Predators they have Walker and the Ignore Cover weapon – less generalist, but more useful in their own niche.


There are a range of proxy options available depending how much time/effort a player wants to spend. A regular Land Speeder as is could be a simple Storm proxy just painted in camo-colours (the Forge World books show SMs occasionally use camo and despite GW’s default colour scheme the Storm is the vehicle camo makes most sense for). You could clip the circle bases off and attach a Scout model or two to the sides as though they are holding on/shooting in transit/disembarking – the current metal Scouts can be bent and re-positioned very easily.

Optionally, if a more complex/detailed conversion was desired, a regular Land Speeder could be sawed in half horizontally, with the two halves then pinned together with a gap and the gap filled with a layer of plasticard. Possibly appropriately sized plastic rod could be used to add a third exhaust to the back if particularly bothered. Lastly there’s always the possibility a suitable proxy could appear through CAD at some point in the future, though this isn't necessarily needed.


If Assault Terminators are included in a particular SM list there’s nothing suggesting stands of them shouldn’t/couldn’t be mixed in a formation with regular Terminators. Deathwing mix assault and heavy weapons within one squad (i.e. within one 5-10 man Terminator unit) rather than specialising shooty or assault units as codex Terminators do. I might represent that by CC2+ FF4+ Deathwing with 2 heavy weapons, but lets leave the Dark Angels discussion for another thread.

I agree as well. You want to reduce the number/ effectiveness of air assault lists but you are also hurting those who use ground pounding SM forces.

Other than the Warhound and Scouts changes, every single ground based change Dobbsy proposed benefits ground based armies (In general, lots of cheaper tank formations).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The changes look to be trying to rebalance overly good/bad units and allow more variety in competitive list styles, including an overall increase in viability of mechanised units compared to airdrop. It was never necessarily going to be free ride for all ground units. If you consider the overall package of changes ‘grounder pounder’ style of play gains more than it looses though. Allowing Predators and Land Raiders to be added to Tacticals in particular makes core mechanised infantry more viable and interesting to play. I'm certainly looking forward to trying out marine lists including multiple mechanised tactical formations with upgrades as a good core of the army.

I'm not convinced that Upgrade Predators will be worthwhile without being very cheap.
Land Raiders on Tacticals might be attractive, though.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

There's no need to panic guys these won't necessarily be my implementations. Like I said these are just my initial ideas. None of them are set to be implemented - if at all. If anything these ideas can be tested individually over time.

I'm in no rush. The list still functions well enough that it can stay as is until playtests have been trialled.

Until then, if you haven't already, please still give your views.

The individual unit threads will appear over time - most likely starting with the possible increase to the Thunderhawk as that seems to have the most interest.

This isn’t about making the list win more games – it’s a very successful list as is (ideally the overall power level should stay the same or perhaps very slightly reduce). Many people have had and expressed issues and ideas about the SM list for a very long time but we’ve had an especially cautious/conservative army champion resisting changes. A new army champion is obviously going to take a fresh approach, which might be a bit of a shock to the system at first, but its perfectly reasonable.

A number of people have expressed a wide range of initial suggestions and opinions already as requested, across a wide spectrum – there’s nothing surprising or bad about that and I’m sure there will be plenty of time to discuss and test potential changes properly in the coming weeks and months. Lets not be overly quick to criticise and give Dobbsy a fair chance at this!

I think you’re misconstruing the situation a little unfairly if you’re implying these changes are coming about from weaker players wanting to make the list easier to them use. The change to the Scouts pricing for example comes about because they are particularly useful unit in the list, especially in the hands of a good player – it was Dave Thomas (arguably the best epic player in the world) who first suggested it I believe.

IMO ongoing development should rebalance and improve lists so that a wider variety of units and tactics are competitively viable. To get the best out of an especially bike heavy army, a player could maybe best use the White Scars list say, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for a player to need to go to a variant list for something basic like Vindicators that are worth taking or the option for Land Raider(s) mixed in to Tactical formations to help shield the vulnerable Rhinos. These are basic general things the core SM list should have/allow/price-correctly.

As many battle reports as possible are a must, I agree. I suspect only a minority of us are ignoring or unaware of the Epic-UK changes though (even those not in the UK might look for curiosity/ideas?) – the Typhoon change originated with Epic-UK for one and them going with the extra damage critical clinched the decision to here too I believe. I suggested 225 Destructors with Annihilator upgrades here last year, but it gained no traction till Epic-UK gave the idea new wider support. There is a fair amount of cross over of players and ideas and the Epic-UK changes are definitely being considered – or (arguably) improved upon. The groups and lists are written for subtly different goals/remits and it's ok to go different ways in some respects; we shouldn’t aim for the Net-EA list to be a clone of the Epic-UK list – people may as well just play the Epic-UK list if that’s what they want.

Personally I think it's ok to test a small number of potential playtest changes at once, as synergistic effects get can missed trying to test new things only one or two at a time. If they’re planned to be tested in time anyway I figure they all might as well all have a long period of testing together, rather than testing each separately only briefly. Each to their own though and do what works best for you. For organising community development picking a smaller number to focus on to discuss/test at a time probably works best I guess.

whaoooh dude this seems like a lot of changes are the space marines reelly that bad that they need all of these changes

No they aren't but losts of people are getting on their soapboxes to push their wishlists

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

OK


Too cheap. You see LR formations in Chaos lists at this point level, so people think they are worth this even without TSKNF.


I think Typhoons are probably worth 325 points. They might be a touch too expensive at 325, but there's no way they should be 250. That's almost a 25% drop in formation cost. Maybe some other pricing scheme is in order, but that's too much.


I'd go incremental, with a 25 point shift rather than 50.


The problem with Dreads is not the price. It's that their role just doesn't fit with other SM units and formations. At 25 points you still won't see them do anything they aren't doing now, but you would make them a no-brainer in any situation they are currently used - air assaults and garrisons.


Again, I'd recommend incremental changes. The list is not so far off that it requires major changes.


Maybe, but I'm dubious.


This is one of the few "retro" inserts that I could probably live with.


I'd rather see this addressed with the Commander ability.

It's a solid list that generates lots traffic when ever it gets discussed.

For me there doesn't need to be wholesale changes, but many disagree and want to promote a more ground based core list that the current air assault styled list.