Agreed. This is the first step, IMO. Then we can see if the ground units still need rejiggering.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Except we know the ground units will need rejiggering, because it is generally agreed that a list with little or no air assault is at least harder to work with than one with some. So if you weaken Air Assault, you will weaken the Space Marine list, which is externally more-or-less balanced right now.

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

I think if all the air is stuffed into the 1/3 limit, the most likely outcomes are:

a) Fewer warhounds, probably one to none.
b) Fewer, but not zero, THawks.

It's still perfectly possible to fit a Warhound, two THawks, and two TBolt squadrons into 1000pt. Or three Thawks and two TBolts. The air assault list that has been so popular and somewhat dominant in the UK scene would have it's wings clipped, and then we could see how the list performs from there.

I just don't want to see a Pylon situation where anything that affects this particular build is shot down (no pun intended). Space Marines are mastes of all types of asymmetric warfare, not just air insertions, and to have a list that is generally considered superior to any other Marine build, then make all the ground formations just as good, is dangerous in the extreme, IMO.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I cannot believe that massive changes on a list that has no major balance issues seems to be being considered at this stage.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

I think you’re coming at this with more of an Epic-UK approach to rebalancing, which (as a rough broad-brush characterisation) seems geared more towards external balance and minimising changes. In comparison here we’re relatively a bit more concerned with internal balance and more willing to try adjustments and new units. That’s not intended as a criticism - I see big advantages to both approaches and some advantages to there being the two different systems/approaches.

Ultimately if you should find whatever the settled on test changes too much you could always stick to the older version of the list or use the Epic-UK SM list? (which as a UK tournament regular I guess you may use for most or all your games anyway?).

Agreed. I would guess/hope we will end up settling on a mix of both negative and positive changes on units in the list to test.

Note: I'm one of those "themed" players that takes a Strike Cruiser, Landing Craft, and sometimes Thunderhawks. I drop/teleport/air lift as much as I can. It's how I like to play my SM win or lose.

As a long time SM player, I'm a little concerned that what appear to be major changes are being considered for a list that isn't broken, just difficult to play in some configurations. That's not a list failure.

Are all the units in the SM list internally optimized? No, but if tuning is really necessary, focus on things that aren't working, not things that are. You don't get a better list if all you do is make all the sharp knives dull.

Also, keep in mind that tweaking 25 pts here and there, up and down, isn't worth the effort and argument on an already working list as until the changes result in an up or down count on formations, then you really haven't accomplished anything. It's activity, not productivity. There's a huge difference in the two.

Other points:

1. As has been posted, the SM lists are not overwhelming their opponents. In general at tournaments, there seems to be a couple generally similar builds that include air assault units as well as effective land units. For some reason that is bothering some of you. I'm not sure why.

2. SM do not play like other lists. We should avoid trying to make them produce results like the others. If the intention is to tweak some of the ground formations (vindicators and land raiders were mentioned), by all means, make them more cost effective. Give people a reason to consider them.

3. As was mentioned in Vraks, yes, an armored formation was used as part of the campaign. What was omitted is that air assault elements were used for another critical attack and at the end when the Angels of Absolution were introduced to the fray, they opted to lead off their assault with a drop assault from orbit, followed up by an armored column. Each type of attack is supported by the current list, though perhaps not necessarily the way that some might want it to.

4. It should be noted that there seem to be an equivalent number of people on both sides of the change question. That should be a consideration in whatever action gets taken, i.e. drastic changes are probably not required.

5. You (Dobbsy) are not in an enviable position. Getting consensus on any changes will be difficult. I think baby steps are in order.

My two yen.

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I disagree that the list has no balance issues. Vindicators, dreadnoughts, predator D's, Land Raiders, Commanders, all are not worth taking. Dobbsy's list of changes is barely more than EUK's list of changes, really.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Its not those changes that I disagree with (bar the Commander change as Captain are fine above 3k) as they are focused on boosting problematic units but the push to completely alter the structure of the list and its external balnce by moving thawks and LC to the 3rd allocation.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

The latest EpicUK changes specifically address internal balance in the SM lists - these changes seem to be more focused on unecessarily and wrongly changing the theme of the list. I suppose if it doesn't happen you could just restrict the lists you use to choosing only up to a third of titans, air +thawks

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Shifting to a 1/3 allocation for Thunderhawks is not a list-destroying step, though. The main effect is simply that players stop defaulting to "Air Assault + Singular Warhounds," and start using either Thunderhawks and non-allied units (Increasing the "Space Marine-ness" of the list), or Warhounds and Armored Vehicles (Increasing the "Ground assault" feel of the list.) It's not even as if players will be unable to take Thunderbolts, Thunderhawks and Warhounds together; they just won't be able to spend half of their points on them anymore.

I would like to see the Captain (= Captain plus Command Squad) as an actual additional unit which is purchased as an Upgrade to give him the superiour CC role he should be capable of.

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

Well said Honda (and Steve) :- this part of the list is definately *not* 'broken' and does not need fixing!

To add to Hondas excellent points, the rational behind the arguments for change are flawed!
The "Ground-pounding" list is not weaker when compared with other races. Equally the "Airmobile" list is not overpowered when compared with other lists (indeed an "all-airmobile" marine force is actually rather weaker than an "all-ground-pounding" force!)
But combining ellements of both Ground and air allows the Space Marines greater focus and flexibility (which is the hallmark of the marines).

Combining these two elements is also the weakness of the list for many players as poor timing or positioning allows opponents to concentrate on the scattered marines and destroy them individually.

I totally agree with Steve, Ginger and Honda (and others).
Almost all of the changes being pushed by various members here are not really worthy of consideration to the core list.

Another good example of Marines at war is the book Courage and Honour.
Marines and Guard try the ground pounding style but really are only able to hold the line (just). Marines realise they will lose if they keep fighting this way. Marines take off up to the Strike Cruiser and leave the Guard to do the ground ponding. Marines drop pod onto the enemy command center and win the war.
It's just what they do.

They can do all these things with the present list.
There seem to be too many agendas at work here.

_________________
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.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't there something wrong with the list? It seems that threads keep popping up about the warhounds and it's been floated to raise their price to keep them from being no brainer choices in the marine list. It would seem that making the choice to include them a bit tougher would be a welcome thing especially if it turns players attention back to marine tanks as alternatives.

But I agree, baby steps is always best so you can more fully see the effect of a change.

_________________
-Vaaish

This is probably opening up another can of worms, but if we are going to effect major structural changes, I do think that it ought to be in regards to the amount of Titan support (if any) that the core list gets.

<just tossing a pebble in the pond>

What if:

1. The core list didn't have access to Titan Legion assets?
2. What if the "tanks" had to be drastically reduced to compensate?
3. What if purpose built ground lists (e.g. Scions/Skaros) were the only lists that could get Titans?

Not that I expect anyone to pick up this flag and run with it, but would that get people to focus on what seems to be bothering the other side?

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment