dptdexys:



Though I'm not 100% certain, I think you'd find that Drop Pod - pickup lists and recycle lists would end up balancing out more or less. How you use the Thunderhawk matters less than the ratio of Thunderhawks to units that ride in them.

In regards to the Thunderhawk bomber list...tell me, would you listen to assertions that Razorbacks should be cheaper because some people don't use their transport option sometimes? Or that Devastators should be cheaper because some people never use their missile shot? Especially if coupled with the assertion that the costs of those abilities should be transferred to other units with which they work in synergy? The Thunderhawk bombing list is a list which relies inherently on ignoring a hefty chunk of its core unit's capabilities - Thunderhawks in the C:A list are transports.

You may say that not air assaulting with infantry units is the same thing, to which I would point out that infantry units come with Rhinos (or teleporting, or really-big-move-distances), strongly implying that Thunderhawking should not be the first and only use of them. I don't see the Thunderhawk with an option to remove the transport capability.

The Thunderhawk bombing list uses the Thunderhawk in a fashion that is inherently inefficient, by using only a portion of the Thunderhawk's capabilities. Subsidizing this through charging other units a premium for riding in the Thunderhawk (regardless of if they are actually doing so) in order to make that list viable is neither desirable, necessary, or particularly logical.



Gosh. If only some crazy devil had such a thing. If only he had a link to it in the second line of his signature.

Ah well. Some day such dreams may come.

* * *
nealhunt:



True. But I don't think this is that point.

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

So propose changes. Or an alternate list if you prefer (like putting Thawks back into Apocrypha).

At the risk of stating the obvious, adding an LR to a formation restricts the deployment options. Effectively you can either arrive in a Landing Craft or in the deployment zone. IMHO, these restrictions justify dropping the upgrade to 75pts.

I might add that even at this price, I cannot recollect many people considering them as upgrades in the UK tournament scene, precisely because of the restrictions.

I did have fun with the LR formation at 350pts in Britcon when I fielded an air-dropped marine army, using 2x Landing craft in a 4000 pts army. However the point is that by putting the LRs in the LC, you find other constraints creeping in:- do you risk adding other formations? If so, how to deploy such a high value collection of formations etc.

IMHO it is these additioinal considerations which end up 'shaping' the way that you use the army, and why I consider the current transport costs are spot on.

Wrong thread, Ginger.

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

It's relevant to both threads.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The point I was trying to make was that there are a lot of inter-related elements here that often seem to be ignored. As Dptdexys says, it is not just a case of tweaking the stats on a single formation because of the impacts on the army and play-style as a whole.

--------

That, and I did put it in the wrong thread

Everyone's right! It's like kindergarten all over again.

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

Ha! Did you see what happened last time I brought up the idea of the possibility that Marines shouldn't constantly be air assaulting? The thread's only on page 3. Suffice to say there was some significant and virulent outcry against the concept that Marines not be zipping about in the air.

There was significant and violent outcry for the concept, too, of course. But I think changing the basic list may just end up upsetting those people as much (or more) as their opposites are currently irked.



I'm rather torn on what to do, actually. My views vary from putting them back in (and taking other stuff out), putting them back in as-is, or doing another list which is basically "Codex, somewhat recosted and with the CAS Thunderhawk thrown in" and letting the Apocrypha keep wandering off in their "mechanized infantry" direction.

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

I am quite content with the Codex and the Apocrypha lists as they are. I don't really see the issue. I mean, Marines ARE described primarily as a rapid insertion/surgical strike force.

True, they also sometime get dragged into longer engagements and conflicts, but I have no issues using a different list for that, be it apocrypha or even any other SM list really.

No, I didn't see "significant and virulent outcry" opposing the idea of a ground marine list. I already said that:

You keep referencing this as if it is a given, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Please point it out to me.

I am totally mystified as to how you've come to the conclusion that there is a grand wall of opposition.

The two are actually separate - one is "don't change the current list", the other is "don't duplicate the current list". The first was in evidence in the ground-pounding marine thread, though.

Fortis weighs in asking why marines on the ground have to be a competitive choice.

Rug "disagrees with the basic premise"

Hena claims variously that such lists work just fine and that thus the list is fine.

dptdexys objects because it will make bomber lists unviable.

You claim that the existing C:A list can make lists that work on the ground.

Mephiston claims that a ground list with marines can be done, but will be hard and unforgiving (and thus implicitly claims that that's OK).

Honda agrees with Rug.

There's a few people who are kind of neutral about the whole thing (TRC and Frogbear), whether through not feeling the need is quite pressing (though agreeing it's there), through not being sure either way, or through feeling the best way to deal with it is variants. And there's a few in favor (E&C, GlynG and Morgan Vening spring to mind). But there wasn't the sort of support for the idea that would seem necessary to change the basic SM list. Indeed, there's a not-insignificant number of those above who claimed that the idea of a ground-based Space Marine army was wrong on the face of it.



Honestly, I'm having a hard time remembering why I felt that way (at least the "don't duplicate the existing list" one. I'm quite sure that there's a significant chunk of people who don't think Marines should ever not Air Assault).

Maybe I just gave your comment: "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." way, way too much weight in my mind.

Hey, at least I evidently took your opinion seriously.

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

To be fiar to SN, the two interrelated debates (Air assaults vs Groundounders, and list contents) do come up fairly regularly, and have ultimately resulted in the variant marine codex lists produced recently.

I do not think there has been a 'wall of opposition', rather a concern to try to balance some of the less used units (eg Vindicator) and make them more viable. The thinking here is not that the Air-assault is overpowered, but rather that the brittle nature of the AV formations and their slightly underpowered weaponry (by comparison internally and externally) make the 'Ground-pounder' lists slightly sub-optimal.

Addressing the Predator (and possibly Rhino) in some acceptable way would IMHO make the 'Ground-pounder' lists more viable. However this is likely to be very hard to achieve, not least because of the restrictions imposed by the game mechanics (why should marine armour be the equivalent of Predator armour?). I have long argued for the introduction of variable armour for exactly this reason, it would allow us to adress some of these more quirky aspects of the stats, though I do recognise the 'wall of opposition' to that proposition

Depending on the formations receiving a points drop the cost of a heavy drop pod list would come down. 3 or 4 podding formations + a ground based BTS and only 1 T/Hawk to come in at the end of the turn to pick up the least damaged formation for Air Insertion next turn (if they all received a 25 point discount and the T/Hawk a 25 point rise) would drop the cost considerably.
The Re-Cycle Air Assault list would go up in cost as 2 T/hawks are used per assault group as opposed to just 1.


No one wants them cheaper ! but you cannot change lists to suit/balance certain styles of play against each other and ignore other variants of playing styles that are used wether those styles are sub-optimal or not.

Then carry on developing that list into what you believe is a viable ground based list. Hena has done a great job with the Scions list and the Apocrypha of Skaros list should work just as well.

I thought proposals along these lines generally charged a 25pt surcharge for Drop Pods?
Or raised the cost of spacecraft somewhat.


The Imperial Fists list may also shape up into being a good ground-based list, in time.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter