In regards to the whole artillery thing:
It's possible artillery pieces should be Light Vehicles (fits with how they're used in 40K). Possibly they should be mounted infantry.
What I
do know is that every other artillery piece I can find is an infantry unit (and clausewitz's list seems rather exhaustive), so the Tarantula and the Thunderfire and the Field Guns are infantry units, too. When you can't be right, be consistent.
If we want to talk about revising all the artillery pieces, I'm game. But otherwise, they can be infantry.
* * *
E&C:
Quote:
Thunderfire Cannons and Tarantulas both have the same armour rating as a Sentinel in 40k, I believe, not a toughness stat.
So they're in the LV category.
Except that artillery pieces in Epic seem to be considered Infantry - note Eldar Weapons platforms, for example, and the various Siegemaster artillery pieces. I'd agree that it doesn't make complete sense, but that does seem to be the standard.
Quote:
And Tarantulas are not mobile....
In every version of an Epic-scale game I can find where they've had rules, they've been mobile. And always for the same reason.
Codex Titanicus (1989) - gravitic base which allows it to traverse rough terrain easily
Armies of the Imperium (1991) - 10cm move on charge. Gravitic reaction motors
Squat Tarantula in Ork and Squat Warlords (1992) - 10cm move on charge. Possesses gravitic reaction motors. EDIT: Epic 40,000 Armies - Support weapons (which encompasses Tarantulas) have a 10cm move - the same as basic SM Infantry. :EDIT
It was man-portable in Space Crusade, as well. Furthermore, I'm not clear on how two or three Space Marines and Servitors couldn't manhandle a weapon system around if necessary in any case.
If you think it should be slower, I'm open to that. 15cm does feel a little quick for an artillery piece, even a somewhat mobile one. But there's plenty of precedent for them to be mobile.
* * *
zombocom:
Quote:
Again, why does this list represent some things as they were 20 years ago mixed with some brand new things.
For a variety of reasons.
First, because I (and some others, apparently) like it.
Second, because it lets the list represent either or both of those things if necessary, thus making it more useful.
Third, because both the new things and the old things make sense as things Space Marine Chapters would use in the circumstances the list is ostensibly representing.
Fourth, because the old things in question have models, and there are few enough Epic units with models as it is.
Fifth, because willing things in and out of existence based on whatever's currently legal in 40K is unnecessary (and, indeed, isn't even done in official Epic lists - look at the Siegemasters).
If you're referring only to the Tarantula - because that's the last time I can find it represented in Epic, and it seemed just as good to use an old depiction as to use the modern depiction and still end up in nearly the same place, since on the larger scale of Epic even the immobile Tarantula would be somewhat mobile.
* * *
clausewitz:
Quote:
All in all I would say that the balance is likely to be a slightly less powerful list than the codex marine list (which is exactly where a variant list should be IMO).
That's the sort-of-hoped-for intent.
Quote:
I clicked on the links in your signature SK. And what you have there is exactly what this list is missing. It needs a nice IA to explain why the chapter operates as the list intends. Why do they deviate from the codex by declining the use of troop-insertion THawks? (Are they all BA Baracus-types? "I pity the fool that tries to get me on a ThunderHawk!"
)
Tempting. I could use the Ice Lords or the Steel Dogs for this, I suppose. Of course, I'd need to
write the Steel Dogs IA, but that's not necessarily a downside.
Hmmm. I shall ponder this.
Razorbacks and a few other things changed as well. Nothing too earth-shaking. 
