Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=19720		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  GlynG [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:26 am ]
Post subject:  Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
I present an alternate Space Marine list I’ve written, it’s titled as a list for the Ultramarines Chapter (which I intend to paint my Marines up whenever I find time for painting), but it could really be used as as experimental alternative rules to represent any codex chapter if one chooses. I personally think ALL current Space Marine lists do a poor job of representing the Space Marines in many ways and I’ve basically tried re-doing the list and units more true to the background and how they play in W40k. I’m not expecting it to be officially Net-EA adopted or anything and I’m sure some will hate it and others ignore it, but some may like to try/discuss it or some of the changes and ideas in it.
Attachment:
File comment: Ultramarine 0.1 (changes flagged up in red)
Ultramarines v0.1.pdf [500.19 KiB]
Downloaded 621 times

It seeks to update the Marines and to correct mistakes in how they were originally stated in epic; to better bring them in line with the background of a ‘codex’ chapter and the restrictions of the W40k list. Specifically it has Tactical Marines, Scouts and Terminators with half the amount of heavy weapons they have in epic now, as they should by the extensive and clear background (both old and new).

It also adds in other newer formations and formations missed out before, namely: Techmarines, Assault Terminators, Scout Bikes, Land Speeder Storms, Thunderfire Cannons, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, Thunderhawk Transporters (ALL chapters use these extensively – there’s zero reason for them to be available to the Black Templars only) Sternguard Veterans (deadly at short to medium range shooting yet still Assault Marine equivalent in combat) and Vanguard Veterans (elite Assault Marines with power weapons). Some may argue the Veterans aren’t needed on this scale, but I’d argue their absence hurts the character of the epic list and the internal balance of power of the formations in it. If Eldar can have 15 different types of infantry and Chaos Marines 16 then I don't this think it’s too unreasonable to add 5 more types onto the mere 6 in the Marine list.

Have a look and let me know what you think?
Author:  GlynG [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
Considering there are a lot of little changes I figure it might help to run through the units/rules to comment on specific things (sorry this in all is a bit long - feel free to skip it and just look at / comment on the list if you like!):

1st Company Veterans – this rule makes these elite troops appropriately rare in Marine armies and provides an interesting dilemma on what flavour of veterans to take. I realise added Veterans will make other marine formations better (and it will have to be carefully tested), but in a standard sized game they will be doing without Terminators to get them and one of the goals of the list is to boost the basic marine formations and allow a more elite flavour.

Armour - In Forge World’s Imperial Armour book on Space Marines there are several pages of diagrams and explanations of the sorts of formations the Marines use in different situations and that is very clear in the diagrams and the text is that the Marines are well aware of the fragility of Rhinos and their tactics involve ad-hoc formations with other tougher vehicles (Land Raiders, Predators and Vindicators) in front to protect them from incoming fire: “Space Marines commonly use combined arms and ad-hoc formations. The heaviest armour leads the way…Rhinos are protected behind the lead units.” “the heaviest armour is dug-in at the front, to bear the brunt of the fighting, with infantry held in reserve to counter-attack” In the current list Tactical Marines can gain no protection from Land Raiders in their army, as they should, and consequently Rhinos get blown apart in short order and mechanised formations not used so much. This list tries to address this by having considerably cheaper Tacticals (but more expensive Thunderhawks) and options to add Predators or Vindicators and a limited number of Land Raiders, on to Tactical and Devestator formations. A Tech-Marine can also be added to further protect a formation.

Assault Terminator are a new addition with 2+ CC and disrupt as well as MW on their extra attack to represent the shaking shock of their Thunderhammers, but no FF or ranged attacks. There’s background support for Marines using massed Assault Terminators to take down titans incidentally (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Cus ... Squads.pdf)

Dreadnoughts – now include an option for Ironclad Dreads.

Marauder – I’ve adopted the war engine profile for this from the Death Korps of Krieg list, as I prefer to have the stats that do justice to the size of the W40k model. It’s more useful here than the already barrage heavy siege though so I have upped the cost slightly.

Predators – Predator Destructors. Points altered so that if you have 0-2 Anhilators in the unit cost is 250 but if you have 3-4 cost = 275. Upgrade cost kept cheap also. Destructors need a boost and I think this is a better way to do it than boosting their FF all the way up to 3+ (problem with that is that their shooting in W40k is basically equivalent to that of a Land Raider’s which has only FF4+). Hopefully this might encourage more Destructors to be taken (they are meant to be the Marines main battle tank afterall).

Scouts – they loose the Rhinos and Razorback option, which have never been a legal transport vehicle for them, but they gain Land Speeder Storms instead. A full scout squad is 10 men, just like other Marine squads, so they’ve also dropped to half a heavy weapon. If the Sniper upgrade is taken they have an AP5+ Sniper shot per stand, but their CC goes down to 5+. These are now the only cheap 150 point unit in the list but unless transports and/or snipers are paid they may only have limited tactical use. This is deliberate as it forces a Marine player to take a smaller amount of better formations rather than really maxing out the activation count.

Scout Bikes added in, giving another scout option. Just stat-ing them up as less tough Marine bikers doesn’t really do justice to the sneaky scouty role in W40k where they call in reinforcements and orbital bombardments using specialised tracking and communication gear, so I’ve invented their Locator Beacon rule.

Sternguard Veterans – new addition, as Tactical Marines but with FF3+ and CC3+. They also have a ranged shot to the tune of 30cm AP4+ due to them being able to use special long-ranged bolter ammunition.

Tactical Squads – the Codex Astartes prescribes tactical squads to have one heavy weapon per ten men. I understand 5 man tactical squads with a heavy weapon were commonly min-maxed in competitive W40k gaming at the time epic was written, but it this was flaw of that version of the codex and it was a mistake to adopt if for epic. Note in the current version of Space Marine Codex has made it compulsory to have a full 10 marines in order to have a heavy weapon. The Tactical Detachment has also had a significant points decrease to make up for the lesser firepower and to encourage their use as the heart of the army.

Techmarine – add-on stand giving an additional 6+ repair save versus normal shooting to armoured vehicles in his own formation (can’t be used against CC or MW hits, nor if the Tech-Marine is in combat or has marched). Though not allowed a Rhino in W40k it makes sense for them to be able to travel and the latest FW IA Badab book contains the image of a Techmarine Rhino, so there’s background justification. He also has a Heavy Bolter and Multi-Melta from the Servitors.

Terminators – they’ve gone down to a single assault cannon shot per stand as Terminators only have two heavy weapons per 10 man squad.

Thunderbolts – these are possibly a little too good and no-brainer a choice for their points in the Marine list, so I’m going to experiment with them at 175.

Thunderfire Cannon – as per the Imperial Fists list, though here just as a +0-2 add on rather than whole formations of them.

Thunderhawk Gunship – I’ve upped the points to 250 to tone down the internal balance of the airdrop element of the list slightly, but given the option to equip it with either a Turbo Laser or a battlecannon.

Thunderhawk Transporter – neither Net-EA or Epic-UK stats do this justice at all; it should be just as tough to kill as a Thunderhawk so I have made it so. It also has the four twin-heavy bolters it should have. I gather people have objected it having the proper stats in the past in that it encourages its uses as a bomber, which isn’t appropriate. Therefore I added in a note stipulating it can only shoot while on the ground and on a turn it has dropped off or picked up troops.

Vanguard Veterans – new addition, as Assault Marines but with an extra MW attack. These are significantly different enough from normal Assault Marines to justify their own stats.

Warhound – these are a bit too good and over-used in Marine armies at present so I’ve upped their points a decent amount (perhaps too much but I’d like lists with the other things tried out more). I’d suggest trying out the newer harsher critical idea too.

Incidentally, for what it’s worth, other things I toyed with changing but decided against in the end: Thunderhawks gaining the Lascanons on the models; Space Marine Bikers CC dropping to 4+ (assuming the average of 3 bikers to a base they should be worse than a Tactical Marine stand in combat, not better – 3 Bikers have only 6/11 of the Tactical Marines combat ability so even 4+ would be on the generous side); Attack Bikes becoming infantry with two to a base (legal in the requirements as four rider models on the base) with one Heavy Bolter one Multi-Melta – perhaps as +15 or +25 point upgrades of normal bikes (this would add in another way to get needed MW attacks in, though at a premium compared to Land Speeders); representing the Land Speeder Storms Cerbus launchers by making it’s FF attack disrupt.
Author:  frogbear [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
I think we all need to gain parity in stats on the Assault terminators.

One set of stats please.

We either go with:

a. CC2+ and EA+1MW or
b. CC3+ MW and EA+1MW

In these, people need to take into account FF0 and how drastic a fall this is. Yes they hit hard IF you get the initiative. Otherwise, and on later rounds, they are at the mercy to everyone with a FF stat.

I also think that by allowing the Ultramarines to have them, you are opening it up to all lists to make excuses as to why they should have it too. The Imperial Fists are iconic for their Titanhammer terminators. By adopting the "me too" rule, it takes away their flavour.
Author:  frogbear [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
Based on that last line of my last post, I do not think Ultramarines should have different Terminators other than what is the Vanilla list.

Effectively, they are the Vanilla Codex list.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
Hmmm very interesting. Reminds me of a draft list i made some time ago (see attachment).

One typo: Turbo-Laser has a range of 60cm, not 45cm. Losing the second barrel doesn't reduce it's range ;)

Attachments:
UltimateSpaceMarinesV1.2.pdf [177.73 KiB]
Downloaded 287 times
Author:  frogbear [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
GlynG wrote:
Assault Terminator are a new addition with 2+ CC and disrupt as well as MW on their extra attack


This is not evident on the datafax

Quote:
Dreadnoughts – now include an option for Ironclad Dreads.


Are they a siege list? Do they need it?

It just seems the list wants everything rather than settling on a theme. This is evident in the Land Raider options and a few other things.

If you have a range of ideas for different things, do you think the Ultramarines list is the appropriate format for those ideas?
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
@frogbear: I thing GlynG list isn't there to be specifically the Ultramarines but just a generic jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none Codex Space Marines army list.
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
Quote:
I personally think ALL current Space Marine lists do a poor job of representing the Space Marines in many ways


Yes. You keep saying so, at the slightest provocation.

Speaking as someone who wrote one of those lists, it's getting insulting.

Quote:
Have a look and let me know what you think?


You've basically added a ridiculous amount of detail for minimal benefit - you've got four different First Company unit types, and you're never going to be able to use them all in a single battle.

My thoughts, in order:

Assault Marines: With the increase in cost to Thunderhawks, the Assault Marines are now paying twice for their ability to Air Assault. I'd recommend dropping them to 150 - though, honestly, I find they make a lot more sense as upgrades to other formations.

Assault Terminators, Sternguard and Vanguard - first, what is the point of adding so many Veteran formations when you're only going to restrict their use a lot? It might be worth having Veterans and Terminators, but I really don't think it makes sense to introduce three new unit types and then massively restrict them.

Tacticals and Devastators - We needed four different kinds of Veterans, Techmarines, Thunderfires, a new kind of Thunderhawk, and Scout Bikes. But you didn't give two of the most basic unit options, including the one that should be the most common in any army, any of the additional weapons they have access to - even though you took away the extra shot from the Tacticals because that's 'not Codex'.

So, basically, your list adds a whole bunch of fiddly things without actually doing anything to make the core units more interesting. I think you've rather shot yourself in the foot.

Honestly, this list doesn't do a damn thing other than recreate the latest Codex. And I honestly don't understand why you'd want to do that. Equally, I don't understand why you think that the best way to make a Marine list interesting was to add a crapload more fiddly, relatively minor units while downgrading the basic Battle Company units.

One of Epic's strengths is that we're not tied to particular codices - lists can draw from a variety of sources and are free to try to represent something more than whatever GW churned out last week. Why you'd want to throw that away (and do it in a fashion that doesn't even seem to do what you intended to) I have no idea.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
Quote:
Yes they hit hard IF you get the initiative. Otherwise, and on later rounds, they are at the mercy to everyone with a FF stat.

Ahh so do you recognise there's an issue with degrading troops after the first attack...?
Author:  frogbear [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
Dobbsy wrote:
Quote:
Yes they hit hard IF you get the initiative. Otherwise, and on later rounds, they are at the mercy to everyone with a FF stat.

Ahh so do you recognise there's an issue with degrading troops after the first attack...?


Dobbsy. You are relating this to another thread? If so, and it is what I think it is, then you did not use your transports correctly to alleviate this.

And for the record, no. I do not believe there is an issue to degrade troops after a first attack. The troops should be costed to what they do, and a FF0 is a HUGE deficit in Epic:A IMO. Simple as that.
Author:  frogbear [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
Simulated Knave wrote:
Quote:
I personally think ALL current Space Marine lists do a poor job of representing the Space Marines in many ways


Yes. You keep saying so, at the slightest provocation.

Speaking as someone who wrote one of those lists, it's getting insulting.


+1

The goal may not be to make friends, but you not not have to be a doosh-bag with the same old rhetoric either.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
It's an interesting take Glyn. I'm not really sure it's needed however. Also are those changes totally necessary for the Codex list? I can see it muddies the water on Codex SM though as adding new unit types while up-to-date just means the SMs become a new list given the changes added.

Oh, just so you know I'm not in the boat of "insulted" at all. ;)

Quote:
If so, and it is what I think it is, then you did not use your transports correctly to alleviate this

I do enjoy being told that I'm doing things wrong even when the person saying it wasn't there to witness the situation or the reasoning behind doing what was done. :-\ I love the whole "it has to be done this way or it's incorrect" theory, but carry on in your "beliefs".

Sorry for cluttering up your thread Glyn.
Author:  frogbear [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
Dobbsy wrote:
Sorry for cluttering up your thread Glyn.

Prevention is usually better than "sorry". *shakes head*

By all means, have the last word now
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
I'll have an eyeball tonight and leave some thoughts.
Author:  zombocom [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ultramarines Codex Astartes list V0.1
Other than undermining the codex list, I don't really see the point of this list.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/