Hymirl, since you have deftly avoided my earlier post suggesting you put forth some evidence AND then followed up with some more unsubstantiated assertions, I renew my call for you to put up or shut up. In my experience, predators of both varieties and land raiders have been both taken in lists that have ended up victorious and the formations have been effective in their own right. Prove me wrong. Do it. Just point to some evidence. You are substituting repetition for a real argument.

You may want to look up the definition of "straw man." What about Jeridian's post makes it such a thing? Was he setting up a counterargument to his own that is easily disproven? It seems you are the one not carefully reading. I don't think anyone on this thread has argued that particular units are "not to be used" either.

As for your response to Dave's post: this is problematic on many levels. Again, a blanket assertion that vindicators only "annoy" some infantry. They are overcosted, but I believe others on this forum are working pretty hard to rectify that in the codex list. But, you seem to imply that SM tanks should be able to accomplish the destruction of their enemies single-handedly. Yeah, vindicators can't do much relying solely on their shooting, but the marines strength lies in assaulting, and using their formations effectively means using them together. Woe to the Russ coy that strays into range of units like bikes, assault marines or terminators. And before you dismiss this as too many formations to do the job, a Russ coy is usually the BTS; it should require that many formations to take down a 650 point formation.
Finally, you don't believe him? Really? Do you really think he went to the trouble to provide some examples of how to use SM tanks because he wants to blow smoke where the sun don't shine? I see a pattern emerging here: folks who agree with you get Mr. Nice Hymirl, those who disagree get accused of lying, setting up straw men, ignoring the thread, etc., or even better, playing in an extremely uncompetitive environment. Well, as Dave's primary opponent, obviously I take heavy exception to that last point. I don't need to stroke my own ego enough to dispute that, but even if it was unintentional you can see how that might be taken personally, yes? Even if it was an unintentional slight (which given the pattern of your argument is questionable), it still needs to be said: don't be a d*ck.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

QFT

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

It looks like we must agree to disagree on the "fluff" front, but it sounds like we're fundamentally in alignment regarding how to progressâ€â€

Okay. I wasn't going to get stuck into a debate about what does and doesn't exist in someone else's fictional universe, but it seems now that I must as silence on the issue will be taken as some kind of acceptance, so here's my take.  

GW re-writes the background information for any and all of their fictitious races in order to support the sales strategy of the moment. This is widely known and frequently commented on here and elsewhere. I therefore refuse to treat much of what GW writes these days regarding the 40K universe as axiomatic, in the sure knowledge it could and likely will all change again tomorrow when they decide chapters are maintain at least 73 Thunderhawks at any given moment andohlookhereisournewplasticThunderhawkkitforyoutobuy!

More power to them. But I reject it. It's a stupid way to develop a universe. To my mind, they got it right the first time, back in 1st Ed, before they limited each chapter to just 1,000 men.

With regard to the Ultramarines, specifically, I choose to apply a little common sense, too. In order to maintain and police Ultramar as described in the WH40K Codex, let alone contribute to military actions around the galaxy, the Ultramarines must have significantly more troops and materiel than 1,000 men, 12 main battle tanks and, say, 30-odd mid-range or light tanks.

A force of that composition could not successfully invade New Zealand; it certainly could not conquer entire worlds. A single division in WW2 had more firepower.

At least the 40K Codex (either the current or previous) allows for variation in the Ultramarines' chapter size with the statement that the Ultramarines do indeed have more troops and materiel at their disposal than other chaptersâ€â€

Considering the marked unwillingness of many members on this forum to read anything produced after about 1993 in regard to GW fluff, I find it intriguing that as soon as anyone suggests marines using large quantities of armor, as much new fluff as can be found is dragged out to oppose it.  

Also, it should be kept in mind that many of the planets of the 41st millenium have smaller-than-expected armies (for any number of reasons I could think of), smaller-than-you-might-think populations and lower-than-you-would-believe tech levels.  And little or no tactical sophistication - who do they have to fight against?  

So 1000 marines conquering a planet gets more likely as you modify the planet, I guess.  

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

Indeed - I'll repeat my invented tag line for marines here "Do more with less"

For codex marines - tanks aren't going to be a big feature.

Never-the-less if it is felt that tanks show up a little too infrequently, then perhaps some small fix is needed.

Epic UK has tried points drops for Preds, Vindis and Land Raiders. We continue to wait to see if that has made an impact at tournaments here in the UK.

Aside from points drops there are alternatives.
I might suggest that the "Do more with less" tagline would not increase wepaons, armour or formation sizes, but add special abilities - in order that marines can make the most of the few  bits of armour they have.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

I'd look up the definition of straw man before throwing the word out- that can only be a strawman argument if I don't exist...in which case it would be impossible for me to post it!



Then why is the IG Tank Company always brought up as the way armour should be in Epic for SM's.
The point still stands that it is always Marine players whining that they want to have the playstyles of every other army plus there own- and I blame the conditioning people recieve playing 40k, where Marines are half the armies available and are lauded above all other models.

Please show me a thread where Orks whine that they have no long-range artillery, or IG whine that they have no War Engine Aircraft transports...



As others have said, they are there to be used as support not as a line them up and throw dice you want. They are not meant to go toe-to-toe with IG Tank Company's and similar armoured behemoths, they are light tanks- they are meant to use their speed and high training (Strategy Rating, etc) to flank, to isolate and to strike first.



Well yes, we're playing Epic Armageddon with Epic Armageddon army lists. If you want 1st Ed stuff, go play 1st Ed games. Your stance is inherently flawed on this basis.



And IG had Land Raider transported formations, Orks had Bolters and where as accurate as Guardsmen, etc, etc.

Epic Armageddon is based on the 3rd/4th Ed interpretation of Space Marines, 3rd/4th (and now 5th) have Marines as 1000 strong Chapter forces that are the surgical scalpel of the Imperium, using their superior training and mobility to strike hard and fast at isolated important parts of the enemy. They are not power armoured Imperial Guard, they are not intended to send a hundred tanks to fight a hundred tanks in a slug-out. A Space Marine force that's trading shots in a battle of attrition like these has already lost as it has thrown away it's only strengths.
Truth is, a Marine force is supposed to be led by military genius's doing far more with far less soldiers, so it shouldn't be surprising that Marine players have to work hard to isolate and pick on the enemy rather than line the models up and throw dice (you have 40k for that).



We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I personally think Marine armour requires more elaborate tactics than line up and shoot (which is what going toe-to-toe is), in line with the Marines being a more elaborate force than 'number of bodies' and 'fire until it falls over'.

So... make the things that go in the Landing Craft cheaper and the Landing Craft itself more expensive.

I don't see the point in putting 'lemon' units in Tournament lists human nature is such that they will rarely be used (and those that do choose them out of a sense of fluff are unfairly punished for trying to play the game without the 'optimum' build). Hence the current state of affairs where a 'competitive' marine army relies of air assaults and Titans, Orks cram in as many Oddbyz as possible, every Guard army has Shadowswords and no Baneblades and all Chaos Marines are Pedestrians hanging out with their Obliterator friends. In the ideal world every unit should be viable and then it's up to the player to build an army that works coherently within the bounds of the list.

I also take issue with the 'Codex' marine list being an air assault list, if it was a 'Raven Guard' list say then fair dos, it's not, it's supposed to be the generalist marine list which it currently fails epically at.

Here is how I think we came to the situation we find ourselves in.

Back when EA was shinny and new, Jervis had a dedicated team devoted to SG. They had plans for an ongoing release of new miniatures and list development would continue giving all races plenty of options. So the initial list is built with the idea of an air assault list. However you couldn't have a marine list without land raiders and predators in it, they are too iconic.

Time moved on and GW say fit to move Jervis, streamline and ultimately can SG and we are left picking over the pieces forcing a list to do more than it was initially designed for.

A ground list is viable with the current list, certainly not optimal, but viable. If I so chose I can play a siege type list with the steel legion by selecting only infantry companies and artillery, but I'd be better advised to use the Siegemasters list.

To justify large ammounts of tanks under the current background, all you have to say is "this army represents several chapters combining their resources and using all their tanks. Oh and they all painted them the same for this particular battle."

Done.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yep Dave, and now all that has transpired, I think there's a real feeling for a little more help for tanks in the CM list.

Following on from my more-with-less theme, the best way you can do more-with-less is with optimal placement and timing. Picking up termis with a thunderhawk and using them again in the next turn is an incredible example of making the most of it.

Air, drop and teleport help with this, but these options are impossible or severely restricted or unattractive for tanks and dreads. Combine this lack of ability with current stats and formation sizes and you've got the reason why you don't see them much.

(I should add that TSKNF helps also with the more-with-less thing)

If these units had the same free ability to be inserted like infantry can, then they might well be worth the full whack.

Other than that, quite significant prices drops (as EUK have done) or some kind of other help would be needed.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

All I know is the last SM army I encountered was literally half tanks and it wiped the board with my IG.    It certainly seemed like a workable army from my perspective.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.