Well I can only go by what I've seen played, not necessarily in tournaments. The plain fact is I've seen Chaos LRs more than SM LRs.


Well that only really makes me feel that the SM LR can go down in price, as it seems the Chaos variant is over priced too.


Well I agree they very well may be under costed but given resistance to change so far I'm not sure people will like that change if it's made. Even Neal Hunt says it's dubious so it's unlikely.

From my perspective, at 300 the Warhound will still be taken over a 325-350 point LR formation. As I mentioned previously, if the LR is 300 it is more attractive to take as its firepower output is then better than the Warhound in terms of AT and it takes only 1 less hit/kill to destroy a LR formation. Sure they will never have a MW shot or move as quickly but if it's pointed similarly they may just get some more use. I myself can't justify 350 points in my lists when I can get better from a Warhound.


This is my point. Different lists have their own nuances. Just because it's costed at X in one list doesn't mean an entirely different list can't be costed differently too.


And how many times do Landing Craft get used at tournaments? Are they a common sight? I've seen very few myself as the points costs generally put people off when you pack it with troops and get it shot down with a crit and planetfalling that same group adds 200 to the cost.

Warhounds,
I agree that a price increase per se is probably out of the question, but the fact remains that titans are generally better than other WE, and on a DC basis, better than the equivalent number of AV. At 500 the pair, Warhounds are generally agreed to be correctly costed - but they are very rarely fielded for a number of reasons (extra activation, they are a weak BTS etc)

Land Raiders
The better comparison is against Leman Russ, though that has been repeated ad nauseum - hence Neal's remarks. While LRs were dramatically over-priced at 400 for a formation (or 100 each), ~85 each is much closer the correct price within a formation. The +75 upgrade seems to be working well, not because it is cheaper than the LR formation, but rather because of the limited number of such upgrades that the average SM list can bear. Like the Eldar, the Marines need at least to maintain activation parity (which in the UK tournaments seems to be ~10-11 activations in a 3K game) and this imposes the necessary constraint by forcing the player to make hard choices as to which upgrade he takes.

Landing Craft
Landing Craft are becoming a regular feature in the UK tournaments (provided you have enough cash to buy one ). There is nearly always at least one in the 10-20 lists of each tournament, and I nearly always put one in my SM lists.
However, I rarely take Warhounds and am also known for my slightly 'unusual' lists (which is why I can comment on various tactics mentioned as I have tried them with reasonable success - when my dice don't let me down of course )

Ironically their weakness relates to one of their strengths; their transport capacity. Landing craft can carry up to four formations, the combined value of which can be almost half the value of the 3K tournament list. This poses two problems; Flying them in as an assault dramatically reduces the number of activations available to the SM player; and if the opponent gets lucky and criticals a fully laden LC during its approach, everyone on board dies. While this is statistically rare it does happen, and can really ruin your day when it does

The answer is to planetfall the LC, both because they cannot be shot down, and because the LC and all the formations carried each get an activation.

Count me in on the conservative side of this discussion.

I don't think the list "needs" tweaking and for all the proposals so far, the 10 pt bump here, the 25 pt bump there really aren't going to have that much of an overall impact on the list. As stated in another thread, when you start adding activations or dropping activations is when you're really effecting change.

So then ask yourself:

1. Does the SM list have too many activations? I haven't heard that one yet
2. Does it have too few? Not heard that either, though I'm sure regular SM players would like another one or two

Does that mean then that you are going to make point changes enough to move the list one way or the other based on 1 or 2?

If not, then you're probably pretty close to as balanced a list as you are going to get. Could you tweak the points of various formations one way or another? Sure. However, will dropping the cost of Vindicators mean the difference between getting another tactical or scout fm? How about Thunderbolts? Is one more Pred on an armor formation going to make that significant a difference to the community at large?

See, from a holistic perspective, I think that is an indication that the points aren't the issue. Note this has nothing to do with play style. I understand that some think that the "ground" list isn't as capable without air assault assets. In my mind, that's like saying the IG aren't as effective if you don't take artillery. Ok, what is it then that you are trying to prove?

The current list was built the way it was because it is supposed to operate in a particular way, as designed. That is not a failure in the list. If you are not willing to use all the tools at your disposal, then you should be surprised if you give up effectiveness.

What I am fairly convinced of is that the list works as advertised. It's not a list for beginners, but it does do what it is intended to, which is apply blunt force trauma with a high degree of precision.

Something I could support is re-evaluating whether or not Titan assets are necessary and in exchange, potentially strengthening Strike Cruisers, pin point attacks would be nice as well as a slight bump to transport) or even more radically, give the SM a +1 to the arrival of the Battle Barge.

But then that would torque off all the grounders, so I don't expect that to get anywhere.

My two yen.

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

If the points changes won't make any difference, it doesn't matter if they are made.

If they will make a difference, they should be made.

Also, while I'm not saying the Space Marines should be a list for beginners, just maybe having the most widely available force be one of the harder ones to use...isn't entirely a good idea.

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

But even these 'minor' points changes do make a difference! For example this allows a "Free" Razorback or two. A few more and I get a "free" Hunter or even a few characters etc. While not apparently significant, the additional units improve the resilience of formations, the characters strengthen assault resolution, shooting or cohesion.
The point is that these changes may boost the list in intended ways.

I think they do, too. However, since you will be required to take currently underperforming formations in order to realize these benefits, that sounds pretty much like the intended result...

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

Do we really want to boost the list in unintended ways?

To get back to Honda's excellent approach, why can't we stop diving into the detail, and try to figure out what is actually *wrong* with the whole list (if anything). My problem with all of this is that many of the questions raised seem to query the design intentions behind the list as Honda points out. The other potential issue may stem from different interpretations of the rules around the way air assaults work and the measures that can be taken to counter them, specifically the fairly recent debates on assaulting in relation to ZoC, and what is allowed or not.

So what is the actual problem here?

• Certain list styles are *overpowered* - if so, which lists, and why are they *over-powered*
• Certain formations are *under-powered* - if so what is the problem?

SM lists containing Navy and Titan allies are currently overpowered and over-used compared to SM lists choosing not to take any.

The usage numbers from what the 93 codex marine army lists on the EPiC-UK site have chosen to take is indicative:
85% have Titan allies
78% have Navy allies
98% have allies of one or both kind

Going by the background Titans in particular should be a rare addition to a SM force, certainly not seen 85% of the time! SM are an autonomous fighting force who often attack a planet on their own. The epic SM list would be better and more variable to play with and against if it is adjusted so that a pure SM list is a more viable option, without relying so much on the crutch of allied units to do well.

GlynG

That said, that paradigm is not necessarily over-powered externally (the win-loss rate seems acceptable). So it's more that the other configurations are under-powered.

* * *

Ginger



I doubt it. But you haven't exactly explained how discounting formations nobody takes will somehow imbalance the list.

Yes, the formations will be cheaper, and that lets people take other stuff. That's the point. That's the goal. That's the intention.



It's not that a particular list is over-powered. It's that there appears to be one successful paradigm for a Space Marine list (Problem 1) and (Problem 2) it doesn't look that much like an actual Space Marine force (few or no Tacticals, Predators, or Land Raiders, but Scouts, Terminators, Warhounds and/or Thunderbolts are ubiquitous).

So the problem is two-fold: other list configurations appear to be much less successful for whatever reason (I find it suspicious that ground-focused lists are apparently perfectly practical but no one in the UK seems to do well with them at tournaments...) and the successful options aren't very Space-Mariney.

Making less commonly used formations cheaper is an attempt to redress both at the same time - if the options are cheaper, the ground lists can take more stuff, making them more effective, and if the options are cheaper they may also be viable replacements to parts of the current paradigm (LRs or Preds instead of Warhounds, as one example).

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

I bet the stats are similar for IG

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

And since the IG are routinely supported by other forces (especially the Navy) that's not as unreasonable. The Guard can't get aircraft without taking Allies, for that matter.

Just using the 2011 and 2010 lists:

2011
Titans: 5/8 = 63%
Navy: 8/8 = 100%
Both: 5/8 = 63%
Either: 8/8 = 100%

2010
Titans: 9/16 = 57%
Navy: 16/16 = 100%
Both: 9/16 = 57%
Either: 16/16 = 100%

Total for 2010 & 2011:
Titans: 14/24 = 58%
Navy: 24/24 = 100%
Both: 14/24 = 58%
Either: 16/16 = 58%

So Titans are less common (which I think would support an argument that they are too common with Marines), while the Navy is more common (which since Guard have no other Aircraft options isn't that surprising).

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

You could also make the argument that Space Marines always have external support when they go beyond lightning strike operations on enemy command structure. A chapter is a thousand guys, you need a bit more to invade a planet properly, even if they are all armored supermen. Back in e40k there is no Space Marine list, only the Imperial Armies list.

Except they don't. C:SM 3e with the White Panthers, and that's just off the top of my head. Or the DA at Vraks.

Besides, even a lightning strike on an enemy command structure can be represented servicably by an Epic game.

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

I see nothing wrong with titans being heavily featured. The front cover of the rulebook is a Marine army with Titan support!
Indeed I'd like to see a 50pt points drop on the Warlord Titan so that it might actually be worth taking with Marine armies.


The Honda who failed to complete the Tau list, and has been doing the same with the Elysian list since 2005?

I'm not convinced his approach works all that well.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

There's "heavily featured" and there's "omnipresent".

EDIT: 60-70% is heavily featured. Over that is getting excessive, IMO. Especially when it's the exact same Titans...

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