No probs Captain. Any feed back is well-received.

Hey Dobbsy,

Why 175 for TB? Marines are lacking inreach with Offensive Support weapons so the TB is a great addition to the team to add some reach. I get the idea of the changes is to make the overall list better at providing the player with good options to ground pound or play from a airmobile stance. Increasing the cost of the TB just limits that option to both styles of play.

I think the changes to the gound formations are making great headway for the mud marines, don't attack their options for OS assets to compensate for changes.

Cheers
Aaron

I'm guessing 175 pts for Thunderbolts is to deal with Thunderbolt spam? 25 pts isn't very noticable for one formation for CAP, but makes 4 fms less desirable.

Why would you spam them, the points could be spent more wisely elsewhere in a list for some real firepower. They are not that resiliant to fire and do not deliver that much punch in the overal scheme of things.

Cheers
Aaron

probably because they're very good for 150pts and are one of (the?) cheapest fms in a SM army, so loading up with them both boosts the SM's activation count AND makes for a virtually impenetrable air umbrella. 25pts isn't a huge difference if you take 1, but is worth a character if you take 2 and you can't take 3 plus 2 single warhounds.

I think it's about right. You can't charge anymore for such a fragile unit, but at 150pts I think they were undercosted for the amount of AA firepower they put out.

[quote=Angel_of_Caliban]I don't like the 175 Thunderbolt, I won't play it and I doubt the ERC will approve it. I think we should worry about the SM units right now and not mess with Allies.[/quote]
Conversely, I do like the 175pt Thunderbolt and will play it. I hope the ERC does approve it; but of course it's going to be down to lots of playtesting and sensible discussion

I've no real interest in using allies with my Astartes; and would like a list that can operate without relying on Titan and Navy support. The changes suggested in this thread enable me to play the Space Marine army as I want to - the points saved on ground formations generally save me sufficient points to get a couple of extra Hunters so I don't need to worry about AA so much.

A better-balanced list allows more personal choice in your army, and I think the changes being trialled here add to the internal balance of the list.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

why such a strong stance? It's only 25pts, that shouldn't make that much of a difference to whatever lists you play

They're rather a no brainer choice at 150 as a cheap activation that can hit anywhere, with most marine armies taking 1-2. The list has had a lot of undepowered units boosted and it's a good idea to worsen some arguably too good/useful units too. If I remember correctly I believe both the competitive Dave T and TRC suggested 175 in the past.

TBolts fulfill several roles while also being relatively cheap at 150.
The cost of Hunters and lack of other AA make TBolts a reasonable choice, though they are brittle. However, they come into their own against soft targets and as a 'broken formation' hunter. And at 150 they provide an activation boost.

Agreed the 25pts increase may not be very significant, but I am not entirely clear it is warranted. I am also uneasy at the point reductions elsewhere because of the way they boost the strength of the SM as a whole.
But we are where we are, so I guess the jury is still out until these proposals are tested.

Ahh, there's the positive attitude I've come to love here on TC....

Look in the end, the changes may not be your cup of tea, but you have to realise your views may not be other people's and at some point you have to go with the flow. Changing a unit cost by +/- 25 points isn't the end of the world, in fact it's minimal per unit.

If you're against the change it's even more important to play it and play it often and then show some reports and feedback showing why it's a bad change. Staying silent only means that it'll look more like a good change if all feedback is positive. Stamping your foot and pouting doesn't help anyone.

i'm all for the 175pt thunderbolts. (though i still say his aircraft changes dont go too far enough :P)
frankly, at 150 points, the number of thunderbolt squadrons that show up in my marine list is atleast 2, sometimes 4.
thunderbolts in a marine list are worth more than in an IG list, with a better SR, and an increased need for ranged blastmarker-placing and activation padding, at 150 points they are a no-brainer. at 175, they're still good value.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Well...that IS crazy

A Startegy Rating 5 Thunderbolt formation has a much better chance to go on CAP first than a Strategy Rating 3 Thunderbolt formation. So the former has to cost more.

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

Playing devil's advocate:

Imperial Guard (represented by Steel Legion most of the time) have access to better and more AA in their hydras, and more and better access to indirect firepower in their various different arty.

It's these more than the SR 5 that makes something like Thunderbolts better for marines than for Imperial Guard.