I don't think anyone would get behind a price drop for Devestator or Assault formations though.

Thunderhawks are of similar effectiveness and are priced similarly to other WE air transports; if they're somehow deemed to be too effective then that would be more to do with their cargo than the unit itself.

I'd be in favor of stabilising what other potential changes are thought to be needed (Predator/LR/scout changes etc) first, then seeing if Thunderhawks are still deemed to be too good.

It would be good if any changes did not step on the variant lists areas.

As an example;
cheaper tank/INF formations may step on the realm of the Scions of Iron or even the White Scars
further 'ground-pounder' options may make such lists as the Imperial Fists and the Apocrypha of Skaros irrelevant

I have not really compared any proposed changes to how they would affect the variant lists as yet, however I feel that there could very well be some 'creep' into other lists where the sub-champs have spent hours (if not months or years) getting it to that point.

Would it not be best to leave alone what is not broken and spend the time in making allowances and cost reductions in the other lists to account for the fact that they all appear (I think) to differ from what the codex marine list is (an air insertion list)? I would rather see 4-6 variant Marine lists all with their own flavour, rather than one Marine list that does it all. In doing so, I feel it will just suffer the 'kitchen sink' syndrome. Not sure if others agree, however these are just my honest thoughts.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I heartily disagree. Artificially restraining the possibility of the core list so as to make room for variants is what results in compendium taking 3 years to complete, utter confusion about what list to use for any new or returning player, and imply that 95% of game support and development is actually arguing about lists.

If you want some stuff specific to an air assault, I think the right way to do it is to write a scenario.

The more flexible the core list is, the better. If variants become uneeded, so be it.
A better core list is more choice for the player, more freedom to theme your army and your gameplay without having to read 5 or whatever number of list, better focus from the development side, I can only see advantages.

Of course, since half the taccomers have their own variant list somewhere, I don't expect many people to agree. But the more specific a list forces you to play, the worse game design it is.

Or simply fix it once and for all, make it the "Air assault of the 2nd company of Ultramarine on Hades Hive, Armageddon war", with a preselected list that is fair for tournament play, and be done with it.

Variant lists should be about new units, formations, and rules, none of which is going to get stepped on if we make the core vindicator formation worth it's points cost.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Is that done with a beer or a sherry?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I heartily agree .

I really wish I hadn't used the example of vindicators...
It was just meant to be an example of a weakness in the core list. Core lists MUST have weaknesses. It has been said many times (by people in this conversation I believe) that a list is as much defined by what it can't do as what it can.

These discussions are trying to make the core list be able to efficiently play all styles and that is not what is meant to happen (although as has been mentioned by experienced Marine players, it can be done as it is now).
That is why Variant lists exist for just about every army/race in the game.

The Codex Marine list is most efficiently used as an air insertion list. That is not a problem or wrong. It's just what the list is best at and represents the Marine fluff very well.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

*Edit - I keep getting the too many uses online warning again...
Sorry for the double post

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

theres a difference between "weaknesses in the list" and "useless units"

and a codex list should be able to make a viable play at whatever playstyle. a skaros list should do armoured phalanxs better, a white scars should do a bike assault better, and imperial fists should do seige assaults better. but the core list should be able to make a go of them all. it shouldnt just be "air assaults" a pure air assault list should be one of the variants.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

I certainly agree. A thing marines lists shouldn't do is, for example, given the background "win by attrition".

It's not "not field vindicators". They actually are the only list that should do so !

Since I am of the opposite view about the "kitchen sink syndrome", and I was prompted to start a discussion about list design in general where I argue that the kitchen sink syndrome is a good thing (by the Activation limit" discussion), here's a link to it.


And I will definitely not add the "h" I missed in there. I didn't see my mistake at first, sorry for the bad treatment I give to English language. At least there it had a funny result

The present list can play in different styles.
For example:

It would be sad to see the core list become a jack of all trades and master of none.
Right now, it can do a bit of everything but it has a bias towards air assaults. It is a very good air assault list which reflects the background of the marines at this scale. That doesn't neccessarily belong in a variant list at all.

For me, Guard do the ground pounding - Marines cut the head off the snake.
The present list does this well.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I wonder why they come pre-packaged with tracked transport that they are not supposed to use, then.

*edit to split the edit out of this post since onyx answered in the meantime

They also come pre-packaged with drop pods

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I don't understand how having more options makes you a jack of all trades, master of none. Giving marines the option to use tanks would not make them play like guards.

There are enough difference, between special rules, strat and init rating, statlines and whatever that you don't need to make the list feel different by pricing.

The only thing that should affect pricing is balance. Inciting players to do this or that by pricing is basically a useless constraint that forbid the player to imagine something outside of a predefined box and reveal a design flaw, that the stats, rules and whatever define a unit or the army is not enough to give it a distinct feel. If so, this is a design fail*

The only reason for point cost to be is to allow for quick game setup and tournament play. If you want a more official point of view and argument about that, I suggest the reading of the "point costs are the work of the devil" text by Jervis Johnson, I'll try to dig it out if it has disappeared from the web.



*please note that I think that we are not in this fail scenario : I think the stats and rules of the armies do a pretty good job of giving a distinct feel to the armies. I don't think anyone would pretend that an IG, an eldar, a marine and an ork Air assault list would feel the same. Why pretend a ground one would ? So, why not giving some consideration to the idea of playing the marines differently ?

I think the same amount the Thunderhawk increases in price the formations it can transport should drop in price.
Thunderhawks could even stay at 200pts if they don't start the game loaded.
For example you could buy an Assault Detachment for 150pts. Then add the "Independend Transport" Upgrade (= Thunderhawk, which still will operate as an independend WE Formation)) to it which will cost 225pts.
If you buy the Thunderhawk as Thunderhawk Detachment and not as an Upgrade it will cost only 200pts. Heck you could even disallow that it could transport anything, or restrict it to a "Saturation Bombing" configuration withaout any transport capacity, etc.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

@dobbsy how many games should we play with the space marine thunderhawk at 225 points how many games have you played with it at this price this is one of two armys i own and i want to know what is the best way to help test it so we can get this right my friends are just starting to play and it feels weird to switch things up on them already