Simulated Knave wrote:
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?
Razorbacks are arguably the most cost-effective units in the SM list. They are one of the primary factors I point to when people say you cannot build a good ground-pounder army with the Codex list. I almost never use Devastators in an SM list because I'd rather have Tacs + Razorbacks for a fire support formation.
Quote:
Also, you can't buy 5 Razorbacks in this list. They're only available in pairs (to discourage the ablative ones).
I missed that. If your goal is to make a good mech infantry list, I think this is a bad idea.
Because of their lightly armored transports, there are basically 2 ways for mechanized SMs to stay mobile. They can have extra transport capacity or they can have enough LRs for transport that the 4+RA nearly guarantees they will lose infantry as fast or faster than transport capacity. As far as current functional SM mech infantry lists, Scions use multiple Land Raiders. Salamanders combine both excess transport capacity and 4+RA. The odd-Razorback gives a little bit of extra capacity but not much and still with only 5+ armor, so it's really borderline.
Without one of those mechanisms you've basically disabled the ability to field a functional mech infantry list.
So ... I think the big thing is deciding whether you want this to be both mech and line infantry list or if you want it to be primarily line infantry.
==
I'd say with line infantry you're basically looking at a more well-rounded (tougher, better in assault, better C&C) version of the Imperial Guard, offset by lower firepower and fewer numbers. My guess is the firepower should just a touch cheaper and/or more competent to make that happen. If this is supposed to be shortly post-Heresy then an increased reliance on field guns would seem reasonable and that would also seem to me to apply to a siege-oriented Astartes force like the Imperial Fists, which has been talked about extensively but which no one has ever put sustained effort into.
Field guns can easily be justified at 15cm move, whether that's self propelled guns or gun servitors or whatever. That would help.
I still think they are just a touch too expensive. I'd say either assume there is a substantial crew force and improve the general ability (SMs and servitors for better armor, assault values) or use them in greater volume which will help tweak the values a bit. For example, 4 Tarantulas for 75 points instead of 25 points each compares to the Devastator Demi-company upgrade - +4 shots each, weaker stats but more unit count, strong AT instead of more flexible AP/AT option, but cannot transport. At the same points, I think I'd take the Devs but at 25 points less the Tarantulas look strong. Basically at that point, my thoughts on choice would be garrison = Tarantulas, mech infantry = Devs.
For a point of comparison, an IG infantry company + fire support is about the same price. The IG have 15 shots and 17 units. The SMs have 10 and 10 but are considerably more durable (better armor, TSKNF). They IG are better in FF on the defense (due to cover saves) and the SMs on offense (due to lack of cover saves). The IG are better in support but that's a modest concern since 15cm move infantry are not often in position to support unless the enemy allows it, and the IG have a substantial weakness against CC which the SMs don't. The SMs have superior Initiative and Strategy.
That's a rough comparison, but it looks to be in the same ballpark to me.
===
Edit: Since that post is rambling all over the place ... I support the idea of a line infantry SM force with lots of Servitor/Field gun options. I also think it would be relatively easy to get the mech side to work so that you could have a hybrid force. However, the mech side is probably not important as a stand-alone option because both Salamanders and Scions good options in that respect.
). 
.