(Lion in the Stars @ Oct. 20 2006,12:52)

QUOTE

Just one other thing: ?Following the example of the Eldar list (don't hit me yet), where Falcons cost more as an upgrade to Aspect Warriors (62.5 points each) than they do as a separate formation (50 points each), I think that the Armor Upgrade should come at a higher cost than the per-unit cost of the Tanks in a formation. ?Simply put, larger formations are worth more than smaller ones in Epic, especially with ATSKNF, but you can't simply raise the cost of the base units in the formation. ?You have to make the upgrades cost a little more than the base cost of the unit that you're adding to the formation.

(Honda @ Oct. 20 2006,13:06)

QUOTE

This may not surprise many of you, but I have to strongly disagree with the "major change needed" proponents for the SM list.

I am reading all of the comments, but what seems to be a common thread is that the SM don't do what "I" want them to do (i.e. be better armored force).

First of all, that goes against the fluff. Yes, I know, there are instances of some armor being fielded, however, those are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule.

Secondly, and more importantly as it is in strong conflict with established fluff, but given that a chapter only has 1000 marines in it, the most effective way to deploy those limited, albeit very specialized, highly trained assets in an effective manner is exactly how they are portrayed in the current list.

SM Chapters don't have access to a huge amount of vehicles of any type, they don't have large numbers (especially when compared to IG who have access to millions) even if they did have a lot of tanks at their disposal, so complaining about how they are defined is not a very good use of debate time.

You're complaining about the way the tool was defined, when you should be using a different tool.