I've been pouring through the SM threads as of late (along with everyone else it would seem), looking for some common ground. Here's a suggestion on some changes. They boil down to three point reductions (those that something approaching a majority approve of) and some added flexibility of where you can add armor in the list (to give the tanks a chance to be used more). I don't think the reductions are needed but that's what testing is for.

• Remove the following Detachments:
  
  • Predators
  
  and add the following instead:
  
  Code:
    Annihilators  4 Predator Annihilators         Armour, Commander, Hunter       275 points
    Destructors   4 Predator Destructors          Armour, Commander, Hunter       225 points
  
  
• Replace the Vindicator upgrade (and all references to it) with the Armour upgrade:
  
  Code:
    Armour        Add up to two of the following units:   Predator Annihilator    +75 points each
                                                          Predator Destructor     +50 points each
                                                          Vindicator              +50 points each
  
  
  add add the Armour upgrade to the following Detachments:
  
  • Devastator
  • Vindicator
• Reduce the Land Raider formation to 325 points
• Reduce the Vindicator formation to 225 points

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I'd rather test changes in small groups then start throwing everything but the kitchen sink in at the same time. Destructors, LRs and Vindicators seen to be what people most people dub over-costed/not-worth-it, so let's lower the cost on those, increase their flexibility and see what happens. After a period we can re-evaluate if need be, there's no need to do everything in one go.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I think by far the best option (also what Epic-UK have gone for) is to have 225 Destructors with +25 points upgrades per pair of Annihilators. Why unnecessarily force one way or the other? A pack of Predators from GW contains two of each type, so it would be preferable if the mixed formation could be used and worth it.

With the in place I would nearly always include a formation of 4 Destructors + Hunter in my army, plus most often a second mixed formation of 2 Destructors and 2 Anhilators (depending on their chosen target they could place the least good for that at the back to be suppressed).

I previously suggested an Armour upgrade like that would be a good idea for the infantry - Predators are ad-hoc added to such formations in the background and formations in the FW IA SM book, but I specifically advocate it for Tacticals and Devestators only. I don't think it's a good idea for any of the other formations at all. The cost reductions already discussed for the vehicle formations fix them much better and simpler.

As I said before I think a better costs for the 0-2 tanks would be:
+60 points for an Annihilator (it's obviously not as good as a Land Raider even with the LRs slower speed)
+50 points for a Destructor
+40 points for a Vindicator (it's obviously not as good as a Destructor and is rarely been taken at this cost now, due to the speed drop for not that much benefit).

AOC: 275 was changed by Hena, so that's already agreed and inplace (I used a few 275 Tactical formations in a tournament a while back).

Personally I disagree on the need/benefit of only having so few changes at once too. The Land Raider option for Tacticals should be included, as it interacts with the other armour choices, so it'd be wasting time to test them separately. I would also like to see the Warhound, Typhoon and Scout change in, as what is done to particularly the former has a big effect on the amount and choice of tank / infantry+tank formations.

I like the EUK pricing scheme but still think it should be dropped another 25 base points. 4x predator A's are not worth the same as a warhound Titan. They're just not.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Tacticals would have it, since they have Vindicator now and that would be replaced with Armour.

I've never seen Preds mixed, that's why I suggested the above. If they are used however we could obviously shoe-horn that in like the EUK.

A smaller set of changes means we're closer to the base-line and know what's affecting a list. If we throw everything in there it'll be harder to see a way through the forest of all the changes to pinpoint what's causing a problem/if it has been fixed.

You may be right in that a 0-1 limit on the Warhound will mean more tanks are taken, but can you say that the above changes aren't enough on their own? If they are found to be we won't invalidate any lists as we would with the 0-1 limit being enforced.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Formation size has always been a problem for Marine armoured formations. It looks like Dave is suggesting the potential for fielding up to 6x Predators which could fix the problem. Worth trying anyway.

Not entirely sure about adding this to every formation, so we might want to revise the wording to revert to "Hunter", "Vindicator" and "Predator".

And giving Tacticals the LR option also seems plausable.

The only real problem occurs when the Tactical formation has taken multiple upgrades, so has:-
3x LandRaider transport
2x Predators
1x Hunter
1x Vindi
6x Marines
Total cost 750, for 13 units and a stack of shooting - is this excessive?

Ok, that’s good. Is it wise for Assault Marines to have access to Predators though? It’s not so bad for them to have access to Vindicators as it slows them down and is short-ranged, but for a 50-75 point upgrade they could now still move 30 and shoot up to 45cm. I guess it might not be too bad, but it'd be something to look at.

I imagine you wouldn’t have – when the costs are the same for the both the optimum would be to go for all of one (generally Annihilators). Split costing fixes the issue and makes it viable where it wasn’t before (but should ideally have been)..

But there are a lot of different areas and problems and whatever may happen with the tanks costs has no bearing on whether the Storm is included or not, say.

Personally at this point I think it would be better to do a higher number of changes at once and then test the changed lists holistically for a long time, perhaps specifically focussing on and incrementally tweaking particular elements at a time, but working with the changes in place together initially. Ultimately it’s up to Dobbsy, though perhaps some can focus on a few changes and others implement all at once, depending on preference – both options have advantages and disadvantages.


I wasn’t suggesting just 0-1 – I strongly support Dobbsy’s proposal of removing the option for single Warhounds entirely, for reasons I argue in the other thread. That would definitely have bearing on the what is and isn't taken in the list, but that's the point. Perhaps I can’t say for absolutely certain that the above changed won't solve the ubiquitousness of Titans in SM, but I would estimate a 99.9% probability if single Warhounds can still be taken they will very commonly be, regardless of the changes here, as they are very useful for what they can do.

The Hunter wasn't suggested to be included in the armour upgrade anyway. Which formations are you concerned about it being added to?

My original proposal (which I think is better and would still advocate instead) was to add a mixed Vindicator/Predator Armour upgrade to Tacticals and Devestator only, but Dave is applying it much more widely. Edited to add: At first I ran with the idea, but the more I think about it I increasingly believe such a wide application of Armour is a really bad idea - I don't think 6 strong Predator formations, Vindicators with Predators or Land Raiders with Predators are a needed or desirable at all. The existing cost reductions for those fix them better and simpler.


Were it was done via an Armour upgrade it would be 1 less as it would limit it to 2 Predatos/Vindicators combined. It would obviously be nasty, but a lot of eggs in one basket and the army as a whole likely to be lower-ish on activations. Whether it's excessive or not would need to be explored and tested a lot. Apart from the Hunter it's only 45cm shooting and it would be too big to be air-dropped, while it's limited by the 25cm LR movement. A formation of Shadowswords could make a mess of it (potentially restricting it's movement by sitting on overwatch, plus with that much spent on one unit titans to be other targets may not be that likely) as could ork MW barrages.

I like the idea and suggested it in the original thread before they were broken down into the variius proposals. I dont agree with adding LR to Tacs as a transport option though, I have no particular reasoning to back up the notion. Tacs should have the option to add Armour, if it isn going to be a straight swap for an upgrade, what is the harm of having Assault Marines that have access to Predators? Does anyone take AM without TH to insert? Maybe th addition of armour with range would make them a more appealing option to a Marine player.

Cheers
Aaron

According to some, Tacs + LR upgrade is 'fluffy', and it would certainly make them more resilient (if they really need to be), - though this does beg the question on how much terrain is on the table and how it is used.

If AM + predators is Ok, why not all vehicles with all Marine forces? After all, they are supposed to have a lot of these assets aren't they? - To which I suspect the answer is that the lists are supposed to have some inbuilt weaknesses.

I have been known to take Assaults without THawks, and especially to start them on the table - they can march and embark into a THawk that has landed in turn #1, allowing the THawk the potential for a form of 'continual assault' -- though it is very hard to pull off!

You may be surprised. Preds have ATSKNF, give you access to relatively cheap ground AA and can be inserted onto the battlefield via Landing craft, which is quite a nasty combination.

They're not the easy/lazy option that Warhounds are but with the application of some thought and skill they're as capable as a WH. Similar to Fire Prisms in the swordwind list, costing the same as a Falcon fm, yet being capable despite needing more thought and a steadier hand.

Take two formations of pred a's to your net EUK tournament then, and find out how well you do.

75pts for a single 4+ shot is not relatively cheap aa, either.

Even at 250pts, you're competing with Devestators (ff3+, faster due to rhinos, can take cover in terrain, can take cheaper air transport... That doesn't make 4 predators look overpowered. Balanced, maybe)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Check here for related predator arguments

Hell, I'm never going to argue that Predators are better than Warhounds, that'd be foolish. Just that they shouldn't be written off so easily. They're not overpowered, agreed.

It's cheap AA compared with the other options you have (Also, that's it's one of the few options that suits and has access to ground AA). Commonly the BTS tactical blitz guard Which often costs upwards of 475 pts.

325 points for 2 destructors, 2 Annihalators and a hunter to Guard the blitz and possibly make last turn 30cm+ move objective grabs is actually quite useful and spares points for more offensive options.

I've used PAs + hunter in a LC to good effect in the past. My brit-con BT list (Which sadly won't get a showing again this year because I'm away ) contains a Pred destructor fm with 2 x Hunters in a LC that has proven to be VERY cheeky in playtesting.

(Also, I know it's a bit pedantic but Rhinos are EXACTLY the same speed as preds and are much easier to pop, with the net effect that Predators are actually much speedier than Devs - 3 preds moves faster than a dev unit with only 1 rhino left. Preds can also use cover - neither one needs the cover save as they're already 4+ sv, they're there for the -1 to hit and devs with Rhinos/AA can be shot at by AP AND AT weapons. Finally the Predators have more firepower, so it's not as cut and dry as you've implied).

I do agree that people would pay 300 pts for warhounds and they're probably worth that too.

2 x PDs and 2 x PAs + Hunter for 325 points would certainly be a more attractive option if WHs were costed at 300 pts.