General Notes:
Everyone seems very concerned about Razorback spam: I must ask - is this not the fault of the Razorback, rather than the formations to which it is attached?
What would people think of 75 points per Razorback pair? It seems competitive with Predators and Vindicators, reasonably balanced, and would help limit possible spamming. And I'd still take them at that price.
Four replies below. And pictures of my Terminus!
E&C:
Quote:
Why no single Warhounds?
The list is intended to try and steer people away from the Titans+Thunderhawks=Profit school of list design (as I suspect you remember). Eliminating lone Warhounds encourages that. It also feels a little more appropriate - there's either some serious Titan support or not much. A single Warhound just seems weird.
It also seemed like a good idea at the time.
Quote:
Why is a Tarantula an infanty unit with a movement speed, when in 40k it's an immobile light vehicle with the same armour class as a Sentinel?
Partly for consistency with various other artillery, partly because that's the stats on the Epic 40,000 version (and I didn't read the background closely when looking at them, so I missed the bit about anti-grav), and partly because immobility seems a good way to make sure no one takes them ever.
Quote:
I assume because you're writing a list that reflects what a Tarantula was 20 years ago?
Say rather that it reflects what the Tarantula has been more often than not (and theoretically can be under the current background - it does mention the possibility that they can be crewed, and can presumably be manipulated by them).
And I'm perfectly fine with modern presentations. Just not if I like the old ones better.
Quote:
If so, I recommend you rename your unit to "Tracked Tarantula" or similar to make the anachronism clear.
Actually, I'd say the obvious course of action is to just say that they're crewed and that the Marines can carry them.
The old Tarantula apparently used anti-grav.
Quote:
The Land Raider Terminus looks underpriced to my eyeball.
You figure? 125 felt sufficiently expensive that people wouldn't take it.
If you'd take it at 125, I suspect I could be persuaded to readjust the price.
Quote:
Tempest Launcher should be listed as an "AND", not an "OR".
Fixed.
Quote:
Thunderhawk CAS stats, the Turbolaser has been given the to-hit stats of a Battlecannon.
It has? Damn. I'll fix that, too.
Quote:
I would recommend against dropping the points cost of Terminator formations by 25pts.
Keep in mind that air assaulting with them now costs a net 50 points more.
Quote:
All the scouts getting "Sniper" for only 50pts is likely too cheap.
I took the pricing from, IIRC, the Raven Guard list (though I think another list has the same option at the same price. Can't remember which one).
It should be Sniper on their Heavy Bolters, actually. Should fix that.
Quote:
Overall, the list seems okay, albeit not greatly focused (It seems a "generalist" style list representing a (mostly) Codex Chapter fighting a ground war, with a blending of units both modern (LS Storm) and old (Thudds, Mole Mortars, old style Tarantulas)).
I could probably focus it in a little more by eliminating the Thunderhawk gunship and leaving the two non-standard variants. Leaves the list with no Air Assault whatsoever, though. Which might curtail its audience. It would be interesting, mind...
Good summation, BTW.
I'd say that the main list represents Air-Assaulting marines, the Scions of Iron represent a Marine armored company, and this represents a Marine mechanized company.
Quote:
I suspect that you'll find that in practice the ability to add a variety of 10cm move infantry artillery/fire support units to mainline formations will be a drawback, slowing down formations like Tacticals or Assaults that should be wanting to reach Engagements, not stand back and shoot.
I didn't figure it'd be that popular - more that some people might want to do it. I'm always bothered by upgrades that only involve one or two units. I'll likely eliminate it from Tacticals, and might from others. Devs and Dreads might have more use for it.
Quote:
Ultimately I think the approach is interesting, but (by eye) likely overpowered in the hands of an experienced player.
Particular areas which seem so and/or recommendations for addressing this?
I suspect you're right, honestly. Elaboration would be helpful.
Quote:
The inclusion of several units that haven't been available to Marines / part of the background in 15-20 years doesn't fill me with enthusiasm; Who are the "Apocrypha of Skaros" Chapter that they have such units available to them?
Like Chroma said - oldest known copy of the Codex. If such units and methods are anywhere, they would be there. It seemed a good name for a list which partly alludes to how Epic/Marines used to be (both in the style and in some of the choices).
In the eventual fluff text, there will be much muttering about how Marines on the ground turn to older methods of warfare more reminiscent of the fighting in the Heresy, hauling out older weapons and dragging up old tactics.
* * *
Hena:
Quote:
1. I can't start to like the Terminus. It still feels like "5 year old meets Land Raider" (eg. lascannons are cool and Land Raider is cool so lets put LR full of lascannons).
But...but I made one...
How about if I pout and bat my eyelashes?
And most 40K vehicles feel like that to an extent. Certainly most of the variants do. I mean, look at the Annihilator...
(
My Terminus. For those
who are interested.)
Quote:
2. Terminators are prevented from Teleporting is odd one. Why is that? I'd probably keep them as normal.
Well, Teleporting is usually done from dedicated teleport facilities - and in most cases one would assume that to be a starship. Other than in Dawn of War, I can't recall any allusion to Terminators being able to teleport without the proper infrastructure. Considering the list rather eschews most orbital support, eliminating Teleport felt natural.
Quote:
3. Tactical and Devastator detachments are too cheap. I maintain that full razorback army using these would be nasty. Support with Thunderhawk attack ships and/or Warhounds. Devastators and Tacticals are being fielded on ground with regular list as well.
Devastators...I'll probably give you. The more I look at them, the more I suspect that (sadly) they may be too cheap.
A lot of people bring up Razorbacks and how dangerous an army full of them would be. The problem would seem to lie more with Razorbacks being too easy to spam than with the cost of the units themselves...
I'm tempted to try 75 per pair of Razorbacks. Something tells me people would still take them.
Seriously. The fact that the choice is almost always "more Razorbacks" suggests something of an imbalance...
Quote:
4. I'd probably leave Mole Mortar out actually on a second thought. There is long range firepower already there that it feels a bit extra.
I know what you mean. I'll likely just switch the Thudd Gun and Mole Mortar into a generic "Space Marine Artillery".
Quote:
5. Thunderfire should be Disrupt. I know what the 40k rules say, but this isn't that detailed a game so those sillyness of use this or that ability should be forgotten. Closest equivalent that comes to mind is Basilisk and that is much more sensible as it creates two completely different fire modes.
Unless the masses cry out in large numbers for both, you'll likely get your wish.
* * *
Rug:
Quote:
The LS Storms don't need "Scout" to garrison and are very abusable when they have it (they also don't behave like transports should). This came up in the BA development and "scout" was dropped from the notes.
Will do.
Quote:
The Damocles Rhino. Marine Leaders remove two BMs right? If I can use the Rhino ability on a formation which already has a leader I can totally remove upto 8BMs from a formation... that's quite powerful!
8? 4, I can see, but 8?
Though even four would be pretty powerful. Though I think also a good representation of Space Marine capabilities.
Quote:
Can I use the Damocles Rhino rule to provide a Space Marine leader to my Titans?
Not after I fix the rule to read "friendly Space Marine formation" instead of "formation", you can't.
* * *
nealhunt:
Quote:
It is an interesting list but I have some reservations. Basically, when I look at this list and try to think up army lists I would want to play, I end up with something like I would build with a Codex list, but cheaper. They also look a bit like I would build with the Salamanders list, only with lots of light armor instead of with LR spearheads ... and still cheaper. For example, Tacs + Redeemer for 385 versus Tacs + 5 Razorbacks for 375; the Razorbacks have better assault, unit count and firepower, which should more than make up for one unit with 4+RA. Like E&C pointed out, I have a feeling this could be overpowered.
That honestly seems to be more a problem with Razorbacks than with the Tactical prices. The ubiquity and awesomeness of Razorbacks is quite pronounced. I must ask - is this possibly because Razorbacks are too cheap?
Also, you can't buy 5 Razorbacks in this list. They're only available in pairs (to discourage the ablative ones).
Quote:
I'm not sure about Tarantulas. For the same price I can add a Razorback with equal armor, assault and firepower. It has 30cm move and transport capacity, while a Tarantula will bog down the formation with 10cm move. 10cm makes move/shoot/support a difficult maneuver even with something like a uge mob of Big Gunz in the Ork list. This list has extra firepower options but I doubt a garrison "stand and deliver" shooting strategy is functional.
Again, this feels more like "the Razorback's too cheap" than like "the Tarantula's too expensive" (though I suspect the truth is somewhere in between).
Quote:
There's a similar disconnect with Mole Mortars v Whirlwinds. 4BP of Mole Mortars is 350 points (from the Heavy Support detachment) while 4BP of Whirlwinds are 300. Disrupt just doesn't make up for 30cm move and the AV status of Whirlwinds + 50 points.
I'll likely just subsume them into "Space Marine artillery". Easier than trying to deal with a non-25 cost. And I don't like them enough to try and defend a list of 10-costs.
Quote:
I think you'll end up tweaking points so it will likely change, but editorially, I'm not sure why you would have the split between Tarantulas and Fire Support. The "upgrading and upgrade" seems a bit fiddly and there's only one formation that doesn't have both options. Is it worth it to do all that just to stop one formation from taking Thudd Guns when you could just make it one clean upgrade?
Because Hena suggested it since the original version was very cluttered. :lol: He had a distinct point. If I merge the two types of artillery, I'd likely recombine the options.
