Tactical Command | View topic - Where do marines stand?

Page 4 of 5

[ 74 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Where do marines stand?

Steve54

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:10 pm

Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311

Neal Hunt - that is precisely my point - these 25 point drops do absolutely nothing to encourage use of 'weaker' SM options. Why would any SM player take LRs instead of terminators with a character?

what can LR do ? to actually shoot anything they will have to wait for targets to come to them before doubling to get in range. predators - similar range problems and very fragile, vindicators - fragile, short range slow, both 275 points why as one of about 10 activations in a 3k tournament is a SM player going to take a unit which requires targets to come to it and has virtually no chance of making it through the first turn?

Any SM armour is butchered by any competent opponent. Why pay 375 points for LR when if your opponent has bought soopa gunz, soopa zzapz, vultures, artillery, leman russ, shadowswords or a wide range of eldar units then they are dead.

25 point drops still leaves them ineffective and not a viable choice.

The vast majority of competitive SM lists in the last three tournaments I have attended have had 2-3 air assaults, 3-4 warhounds and a dev formation to get a hunter. How will these changes alter that? the warhounds suppress flak - can LR do that? No not enough range and 125 points more, Predators? No - not enough range, pathetically fragile and 25 points more
To make these a viable choice thety need to at least have some benefit other taking a warhound, be a unit that you can leave at the back as flak cover with some hope of survival or make it possible to be competitive without an all out air assault. These token changes do virtually nothing

As for rhinos they are just an easy way for your opponent to put BM on your formation.

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

Top

consectari

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:00 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 946
Location: On the Ohio river, USA

(nealhunt @ Oct. 13 2006,11:43)

QUOTE

Consectari: ?Greg Lane is the rules review champion. ?He is in charge of setting the agenda and pace of the core review, so to that extent there is a nominal leader. ?I think the army list review will go very quickly once that's done.

Thanks for the heads up Neal. At least now I know which burning bush to look to for divine wisdom.

_________________
Understand this: that skag and his floozy...they're gonna die

Top

Steve54

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:00 pm

Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311

If a unit works well I don't see that means it automatically has to be increased in price. Yes Warhounds are effective - 105cm range but they are also fragile if effectively targeted. Their proliferation in Sm listsn , In my opinion, has more to do with the dearth of alternatives than their being undercosted.

The only SM unit I believe could be increased in price is terminators as they are already good but will become even better when the assault rules are updated

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

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:31 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

Steve54: I don't see all the stuff you claim happening, either in games I've witnessed or in batreps people have posted. Although uncommon, I see SM armor used effectively currently, including all the roles you state they cannot perform, so your assertion that they won't be viable after dropping in price and increasing in ability is something I don't understand.

As to why anyone would take LRs over Termies, the LRs are faster, pack more firepower, and there are generally fewer AT weapons around to hit them. I regularly take LRs in chaos armies even though Chosen are available. The price ratio is about the same (LR = 1.15x the cost of termies) not even counting the free Chosen character upgrade.

_________________
Neal

Top

Steve54

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:41 pm

Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311

Well I see it every time SM armour is fielded, how exactly can you effectively hold your baseline with armor or suppress flak?

I also play BL and I have yet to discover how they are a competitive choice in that list.

I really don't think its true that there are more AP weapons - just from the last couple of tournaments virtually every IG player had Vultures and virtually every Ork player had Fighta Bommas - both potent AT units that could easily destroy SM armor hich unlike the dev alternative cant get in cover.

At open War it was commented upon that several players there were dropping out of contributing to the rules review as they were fed up to the back teeth with
'I don't see all the stuff you claim happening' replies to arguments - we are seeing it happening but apparently that doesn't matter and nobody on the UK tournament scene has the position to influence decisions

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

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:50 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

I prefer to use the Marine list without Landing Craft, and without Landing Craft, I find that Marine Armour is pretty much useless. It is quickly outranged and destroyed by units which cost less yet have several times the armour protection (Statisitcally speaking).

ATSNNF is of no use because Marine armoured formations are small, and are quickly destroyed before ATSNNF even comes into play.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:01 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Steve54 @ Oct. 13 2006,21:41)

QUOTE

Well I see it every time SM armour is fielded, how exactly can you effectively hold your baseline with armor or suppress flak?

Have you posted any games? I don't mean full on batreps with pics and everything (though those are definitely wlecome

). I just mean general descriptions of games that included SM armor.

At open War it was commented upon that several players there were dropping out of contributing to the rules review as they were fed up to the back teeth with
'I don't see all the stuff you claim happening' replies to arguments - we are seeing it happening but apparently that doesn't matter and nobody on the UK tournament scene has the position to influence decisions

Well, I hope that's not true. As noted, no one is asking for extensive details, just general descriptions of games. We indulge in lots of "theoryhammer" around here to be sure, but in the face of actual game results to the contrary theory has little standing.

When it comes down to it and there is Group A saying "We never use that unit, it's terrible" and Group B saying "It works okay" and both sides have concrete, in-game examples, then I think you have to go with the group that thinks it is okay for reasons of play balance. If the "it's fine" group gets a boost, then the unit becomes overpowered.

For example, many, many people don't field Librarians but a different group of people use them a lot. It's a style-specific unit, so if you improve it for more general use in a wide range of play styles, those that are already using it well suddenly have an advantage. Another example of that balancing process is Assault Marines - fielded on the ground they aren't worth it but fielded in a Thawk they work fine. If you listen to the "mud marine" players and adjust them then the Thawk use becomes overpowered.

_________________
Neal

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:06 am

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 13 2006,21:50)

QUOTE

I prefer to use the Marine list without Landing Craft, and without Landing Craft, I find that Marine Armour is pretty much useless...

ATSNNF is of no use because Marine armoured formations are small, and are quickly destroyed before ATSNNF even comes into play.

That brings up a good point. That's pretty much exactly how many people have expressed their feelings on Assault Marines/Thawks as opposed to armor/LCs.

How do you balance armor so that it's good enough on the ground and not overwhelming in an LC?

Is the answer to LCs/Armor destined eventually to be the same as Thawks/Asslt, i.e. using mud marines is just a sub-optimal strategy?

Just in case it's not clear, those are real questions not rhetorical ones.

_________________
Neal

Top

Steve54

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:11 am

Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311

If, in a tournament game ie 2700 or 3000 points, a SM player is willing to field a LC (350) filled with Predators(275) I am assuming as support to an infantry unit - say devastators (250) then they are putting nearly a 1000 points in one initial activation, even without the infantry thats 625 points minimum - no matter how effective the LC initial incursion is the SM player is going to really struggle as they are going to be massively out-activated in the first turn - that LC is going to be sat on the ground for several opposition activations, and then the situation is only going to deteriorate as the LC and contents will likely be gone and they will be left with approx. 6-7 activations if their lucky.

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

Top

Steve54

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:21 am

Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311

As for mud-marines being a sub-optimal strategy I believe that is how it should be - SM are a rapid strike air assault/drop pod army, but it it is too 'sub-optimal' at the moment to a point where it just isn't practical to include any of those units.

If you compare it to IG the only units(excluding titans+aircraft) I haven't seen in competitive lists are baneblades and bombards, for Orks - battlefortresses
For marines - vindicators, whirlwinds, LR, Predators

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

Top

consectari

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:37 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 946
Location: On the Ohio river, USA

(nealhunt @ Oct. 13 2006,19:06)

QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 13 2006,21:50)

QUOTE

That brings up a good point. ?That's pretty much exactly how many people have expressed their feelings on Assault Marines/Thawks as opposed to armor/LCs.

How do you balance armor so that it's good enough on the ground and not overwhelming in an LC?

Is the answer to LCs/Armor destined eventually to be the same as Thawks/Asslt, i.e. using mud marines is just a sub-optimal strategy?

Just in case it's not clear, those are real questions not rhetorical ones.

As you put it, this is nothing more than "theoryhammering", but wouldn't the ideal method be to balance units as a ground force, then balance them as an air assault force by pricing the transport unit to match the increased effectiveness? ?

If units are significantly more effective in air assault than on the ground, then the balance should come in a higher cost for the transport.

@Steve54
Marine armor was never an air assault force before E:A, I don't think it's right to force everyone to change now that there's this pricey new LC model. ?It's doing what everyone blames GW for all the time. ?Changing a game to sell an expensive new unit.

_________________
Understand this: that skag and his floozy...they're gonna die

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:02 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

I think that all Marine Armour could do with a +1 AS buff (Excepting Land Raiders), currently they're not even worth taking in an Air-Assault list, they're that bad.

For the Land-Raider, I'd be tempted to give it an Invulnerable save... its armour is significantly better than a Leman Russ in the Background / 40k rules yet all it has over them is TRA; not enough IMHO, certainly for such a small/expensive formation.

ATSNNF is of less use when applied to small formations as opposed to larger formations; the infantry get the use of Rhinos to take extra BM's to keep them operating (That 4-unit devestator formation is 6+ units with Rhinos, Hunters, Razorbacks etc). Marine armoured formations are always 4 units, and they suffer because of it (Two incoming enemy fire events & two dead tanks and they break... and with Marine armour values it's surprising if you only lose two tanks!).

Oh and I do believe that introducing Thunderhawk Transporters would make air-assaulting Armoured formations a more valid choice, incidentally. (Transporters drop the Armour in a position to lay down some kills/BMs, then a Sustaining Gunship or Landing Craft Engages with its infantry to break the damaged formation).

How do you balance armor so that it's good enough on the ground and not overwhelming in an LC?

Currently they're not good enough for either, so they're due a buff at least.

Oh and you balance it by making the cost of the transport appropriate, balance at the source of the force multiplier, not on the basic formation, as that just leads to the Assault Marine formation problem (Overpriced/Understatted for normal operations, but with a cheapish flying transport they're golden. It should be more towards the other way around in an ideal system).

Is the answer to LCs/Armor destined eventually to be the same as Thawks/Asslt, i.e. using mud marines is just a sub-optimal strategy?

As I've outlined above, air-assaulting has been built into the Marine list as a theme from day one... this is fine if that's what the designer was going for, but the consequence is that Marine ground formations will always underperform, because the assumption has been that the Marine player will go for the cheap synergy/force multiplier of air-assault / drop-pods.

If you want to 'fix' mud marines, you need a Champion to fundamentally rebalance the list so that there is the possibility of building decent lists for all playstyles, not only one.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

BlackLegion

Post subject: Where do marines stand?

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:41 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe

If the SpaceMarines Armylist in the rulebook is an air-assault force list...then why don't you invent an armylist for ground operations?

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

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 4 of 5

[ 74 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Where do marines stand?

Who is online