Points noted. So you're both really only rallying against "tyranny" then?

Seriously though, these are not restrictions they're points adjustments. And that's a big difference. Can you still take the Warhounds? Can you still take the Thunderbolts? Restrictions would be "0-1 Warhounds" or "No Warhounds if Imperial Navy is used" etc.

I'm sorry, I just find this a bit quizzical if this is what you're spending so much energy and time arguing about. Why do you play any list if you rail against restriction? Every... single... list has restrictions in it. Does the Steel Legion get to take Space Marine Terminators...? Does it allow 10 Deathstrike Missile Launchers? Those are restrictions.

Can I ask why you made any points adjustments to the SL list, Rug?

(BTW Rug, I need that list of changes again for the Army Book - due to accidental deletion)

Cheers

I'd prefer a split Predator costing, but otherwise I think the changes are all great.



The fact that only 5 of the top 14 lists has 2 or more Tactical formations supports the case for the change. I've used 275 point Tacticals with Land Raiders in 4 games and found them fine.

Then let's look at the army list.

Warhounds are listed in the "Imperial Navy" section and Warhounds in the "Titan Legion Battlegroups" section. All other units, meanwhile, are in the "Space Marine Detachments" section.

The page before the army list in the rulebook explains that Titans and Navy are support elements that "may" be taken.

So, even with no knowledge of the fluff, it's still clear that Titans and Navy aren't the core elements of the list and aren't Space Marines.



A Space Marine is a member of the organizations the list is supposed to represent. They are represented in that list by the units from the Space Marine Detachments section of the army list. All that information can be determined by reference to pages 130 and 131 of the main rulebook.

And that's without getting into the (completely ridiculous) idea that army lists intended to represent forces based on the universe of Warhammer 40,000 shouldn't do just that. Including adjusting point values to make unit types more or less common where appropriate.



I think the basic idea is that allies should not be ubiquitous and superior choices to core elements of the list. Which I don't think is an unreasonable viewpoint to take at all.

Do people think this is more important since Marines work unsupported a lot? Sure. But the basic idea is based firmly on reasonable general principles.

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

Who moved my cheese?

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

So how many tacticals would be sufficient?

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

I think it's clear that the greater majority Marine armies that select Tactical Marines @300pts take them to be the SC's formation. Comparatively few Marine armies take them to be useful in their own right beyond that first SC formation.


The background says that Tactical Marines should be the most common type of Marine encountered.

Numerically, 440 of the 1000 Marines in a Codex Marine Chapter are Tactical Marines, not including the Tactical Veterans (Sternguard) of the 1st Company which would push that number to closer to 500 (Most Chapters only have 20 or so Terminator Armour suits for their Veterans to use, so the rest are deployed as Veteran Tactical or Veteran Assault units. Veteran Devestator seems not to be in common usage).

Ie: 45-50% of your Marine infantry should be Tactical Marines, in order to match up to the Codex Astartes properly.

Some deployments would have more Tactical Marines, and some would have less, but according to the background, they should be the most commonly encountered Marine infantry type, making up about half of your numbers of Marine units*** deployed.


***Units in an Epic sense. Not formations.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The background also says that SM armour should be very rare - the ultramarines IIRC only have 2-3 pred formations

If we want to go down this route should terminators be 0-1 to represent their rarity and should we make all lists choose 2 tacs, 1 dev + 1 assault formation to start with? May fit fluff-wise but is overly restrictive and will produce very standardised lists.

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

What if i represent it as two or more chapters?

Pricing is not restriction. If the list was priced this way from the start and it was then being priced up to match the list before these changes, would the same people have an issue arguing the other way?

Is it merely the fact of change that is dragging this discussion on and on?

Just asking.....

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

The background seems well represented then, considering the rarity of Predator formations out there. ;-P


Nope, I think 275pts for Tacticals is just fine as regards addressing their comparative rarity. If it proves overpowered it can always be returned to 300pts.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

every wargame dictates what you can use against your mates based on a fluff. it can be historical or science fiction based fluff but always restricts list making to match that fluff and make the game more balanced.
should you not like restrictions... well... play with your mates as you prefer, nobody says you cannot make your own house rules...

now with the changes:
after playing a couple of games with the trial changes this is what we found:

tacticals seem to work well at 300 points due to them being the only ground holding formation available... but also SM players seem to try to get the objectives in the last turn not to hold them for turns so i agree that the point reduction should help to see more tacticals in epic games.
vindicators see very low use at 250 and they are not going to be played more at 225... i find them to be a good unit but there seem to be better choices at their role. maybe they should be used as cheap upgrades to other units
preds really need the change, the comparison with warhounds was clearly on warhounds side. even with the change i still see warhounds being a bit superior choices to preds, but i´ve always thought that warhouds needed a litle increase in their cost.
tbolts are clearly better in SM lists due to the SR5 and them not being a SM unit should be enough reasons to make them cost a bit more. this is the most obvious change in my opinion.
25 points decrease in warlords cost makes no diference, but allows tbolts to be included in a 3000 point game what, in my opion, helps with the game balance. fair change if tbolts cost gets increased

my only fear about this changes is that many litle cost reductions could make a big bump to the army, as far as i have tested i havent found anything unbalanced, but more testing should be done

I agree wholeheartedly. The idea that NetEA lists should preferentially use in-game balance over background story feels wrong – the two should be equally weighted, or why bother playing with models representing the inhabitants of the universe?

It's fine to say:

...but flip that on its head and see it from a background-weighted player's point of view. If you don't want to use allies, the current Space Marine list has no access to TK or MW weapons beyond characters.
Why should they (read: 'I' ) be penalised because I want to have a Space Marine army that adheres closely to the background? The best solution would be the one that I think Dobbsy is working towards: a list that balances different player's desires. Since I don't use Warhounds, I rely on Land Raiders and (to a lesser extent) Predators to deal with War Engines, and these price drops help me achieve that. Similarly, since I don't like aircraft, the cheaper Tacticals help offset the cost of multiple Hunters.

I appreciate that not using every choice in the list is my decision – but if there's the possibility of pleasing both sides, that's a great aim! Once Dobbsy gets sufficient feedback, the NetEA marine list will allow you to have Titans and Navy for variety; I can take a background-adherent force that won't get rolled; and [GENERIC PLAYER X] can make a half-way house force that stands an equal chance against both of us. Surely that's a goal worth a little compromise?

In short, considerations of personal preference in aesthetics, and balance in the list, aren't mutually exclusive.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

I'm not sure a non-ally army would really be more 'fluffy' than one that uses allies. Space Marines aren't supposed to be self-sufficient - after the Horus Heresy the High Lords of Terra actually did all they could do to limit SM independence, even though the chapters have had ten millennia to undo that work.