Big change this version is that artillery pieces are gone and Support Weapons are back to being Tarantulas. Oh, and Scouts are now wildly different. That's about it, honestly.



Mediafire Link (PDF)

No Full Version this time - wouldn't be that different in any case.

1.0d -> 1.0e
Detachments:
Tacticals gain Fire Support option.
Devastators gain Fire Support option.
Terminators to 275 (Teleport to +75). Gain Hunter option.
Scouts lose Rhinos. Now have Land Speeder Storms by default. Cost to 250.
Predators lose Armoured Support.
Vindicators lose Armoured Support.
Fire Support is now Armoury. Three Space Marine Heavy Bolter Tarantula MkIs and two Space Marine Lascannon Tarantula MkIs (flimsy INF AT\P4+ and AT4+ respectively). Cost 175 (compare to Dreadnoughts if you feel that's too low). Options reduced to Dreadnought and Fire Support.
Dreadnoughts gain Fire Support.

Options:
Armoured Support has been heavily revised to allow up to three additional vehicles in a variety of configurations.
Fire Support now adds one or two Thunderfires at +75 each.
Support Weapons is now Tarantulas. Adds two HB and one LC for +100.

Explanation for changes (and why I didn't make some other changes).

Why I Didn't Reduce Costs on the Tacticals and Devastators.
Well, I went and compared them to their Black Legion counterparts some more, and thought some more, and pondered. At 250 points for Tacticals, the ratio between them and the BL was 1.26 (50 vs. 39.375), while at 275 it was 1.38 (54.167 vs. 39.375). 1.38 might be slightly higher than I feel is justifiable, but ATSKNF almost definitely makes a base of tacticals more than 25% more effective. Ditto for Devastators.

If throughout further playtesting it is found that they really should be further reduced (since they can't drop pod, Air Assault or Razorback spam), then we'll see. Who knows, maybe I'll throw up my hands, put the whole list on increments of ten, and damn the eyes of everyone who disagrees.

Why I Screwed Over Scouts
Because Scouts should not be cheap throwaway interdiction troops. They're the future of the Chapter, among other reasons. Nor does it make sense to have them in Rhinos in the background (they're infiltrators) or in regards to other rulesets (Scouts have rarely been able to take Rhinos as a dedicated transport - in fact, I'm pretty sure they couldn't when Epic came out - and they can't again). Scouts have a transport option other than Rhinos now, and it makes sense for them to use it.

Why I Got Rid of Artillery
Because there were two things in the list which couldn't really move worth a damn - them and Tarantulas (well, and Dreadnoughts, but Dreadnoughts are cool. Everybody loves Dreadnoughts). Tarantulas still make sense in a Space Marine army since they're not crewed, and thus are a minimal investment of manpower. Artillery pieces don't.

Why Tarantula MkIs Are Just Fine, Thank You
They make a lot of sense for Marines - they hold ground well, and do it without many bodies. It makes sense for Marines to use them. The movement can be interpreted as grav-lifts, crew assistance, or a necessary abstraction to facilitate gameplay - depending on individual taste. I'll likely claim all three in the background. Hopefully, the mixture of AP and AT and the general flimsiness should make them balanced.

I hope people enjoy this version, and would love to hear what people think. I will forcibly restrain myself from acting on it for a while, but I'd love to hear it.

Since I move 2000+ miles in three weeks, that's going to be it for a while. Thanks again.

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

OK. It's been over a month, I'm more-or-less settled in at law school and in Winnipeg, and there have been about 25 downloads of the list.

Does anyone have any thoughts, impressions or experience with the list in its current form? Anything you particularly agree with, disagree with, or wish to see purged with fire?

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

Hi SK

Looking through the list now:

- Land Raiders at 350 points - I think this is a little expensive. Would not 325 points be more in the affordability for these? They are good, however there is only 4 to a formation. Then again I am comparing them to 75 point Land Raiders in Chaos Lists... If you have worked out the premium and are happy with it, then I guess it is OK. Not sure if I would consider them myself.
- Predator formation - Again, I see this as expensive. 250 points maybe?
- Demi-Company - Not sure is the assault units + transport (if they can) are too cheap. Are you confident on the costing? Also may need to reword the +175 points for both (scratched my head with this one till I worked it out). Going back to the assault units - is this priced correctly?
- Predators (upgrade) at 75 points each. Don't you think this is a little expensive? The Detructor is not worth the same points as the Annihalator is it?
- Land Raiders (upgrade) - these are the same price as Predators (armoured support)?
- You know my view on the Thunderfire Cannon - should be LV. Shall we discuss that again?

Otherwise, on initial observation looks ok.

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

Well, at the moment ATSKNF would make them about 16.5% more effective. I think you'd agree that's very, very plausible. Plus, their initial cheapening hasn't even been extended across the board yet.



The trick is that all Predator Annihilators would definitely be worth 275.

Making the base formation all Destructors at 225 and offering an option to upgrade pairs to Annihilators for 25 points each suggests itself, but I'm not sure it's entirely necessary - honestly, 225 point formations of Destructors sounds like a REALLY sweet deal - possibly too sweet.



The assault units don't come with transport. It's just two assault bases. Would you pay more than +75 for those?

The fact that you figured it out says it's worded well enough. And I can't think of a more-effective-but-still-concise way to express it.



The Destructor's worth about 65 points. For some reason, the ERC is insistent that increments of 25 points are critical to game balance (personally, I think the nearest 10 would be a much better choice, since it's got much greater granularity but still works well). Hence why the Destructor pair is cheaper. It's about the only way I can accomodate it.



They're not worth 100, and 85 points isn't a multiple of 25. If people are going to make me get rid of funny increments, I'm getting rid of funny increments.



Oh god no. I'm not entirely persuaded by either POV, so I'm sticking with consistency.

Thanks for looking, man.

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

Anytime SK

I do not think the ERC are set to 25 point increments - people like me are

The Black Legion list is just one example on non-25 point increments as well as marines (Rhinos @ 10 points a pop)

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

There's no NetEA/NetERC mandate on increments of 25 points... there are several NetEA lists with 10s, 15, or other non-25 increments.

What bothers many people is when lists have only *one* such non-25 increment, say, Land Raiders at 85 points, and no 15-point option to "fill in" those points to get a nice 100, if you can only buy a max of four, you'll always be "down" 10 points, that can't be spent (unless you buy five formations worth!). People dislike the thought of "unused" points that these different point values allow for. It's just something to keep in mind when using such point values.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?