You can't put a siren on a post-man van and call it a police car. Even if actualpolice men are sitting in it i is just wrong.

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

I'm not putting a siren on a post-van and calling it a police car.... I'm putting a label on the side of a blank production car, either postal service or police.... I just happen to be starting with the postal service car, because it already has the label on it.....

if the list, instead of thunderbolts, had an entry titled 'stormtalon' with thunderbolt stats, and no mention of imperial navy anywhere, with a 1/3 restriction in place, that wouldn't satisfy you, even if the weapons were re-named (but statted the same)?

how about if there were a generic 'interceptor' or 'fighter-bomber' entry, with one set of stats, then people were free to use their own plane models to represent them?

my personal opinion is that it doesn't add anything to the game, you'll still have an intercept/ground attack craft in the marine list, which performs roughly the same role, why is it so important that it needs its own slightly different set of rules as well as a new model?

I think this is fixing something which isn't broken..... add fleets of them to variant lists as you please, but before adding it to the codex marine list, ask if it's something that the list really needs.... I don't think it does, others may well disagree

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Because gradual drift will eventually leave the Epic list looking nothing like the contemporary 40k list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

personally I'm not bothered by this whatsoever, BUT I do take your point and understand that there are people who are....

I just don't see why we can't add new units when they add something genuinely new to a list, and rely on counts-as when it doesn't?

I'm not opposed to adding stuff to the list, I just think that in this specific case it adds very little

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Epic40k tried this and failed miserably.

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

I disagree. Unless GW decides to invalidate years of fluff, the Codex Astartes list will always look distinctively Marine. It has the five basic troop types represented (Tac, Dev, Assault, Scout, Termie). It has the iconic Marine transports (Rhino, Razorback, Raider) and armor (Predator, Raider, Whirlwind). It has both Bike units and Land Speeders. It has Drop Pods and Thunderhawks. Everything that makes Marines Marines is represented.

Not having all the new toys GW has made doesn't mean it doesn't look anything like the current 40k list. It's not like Tyranids where the units have largely been rewritten since the last official Epic list was released.

Even more importantly, from my point of view, is that Codex Astartes is a finished list. It is NetEA Approved. It is confusing enough for new players who download the GW material to adjust to the fact that others are using a list that has different point values. Let's not make the list completely different.

Should GW do something really drastic to the Space Marines in Sixth, the material they have online will continue to be Fourth edition based. We have the ability to make a "modern" list just like the Onachus/Leviathan split, but new players should be able to look at the NetEA Astartes list and see a refined version of the rulebook list, not an entirely different list. A different list entirely would (IMO) put new players off the project as they would see 'fanlist' instead of a group who are trying to carry on GW's vision. Let all the stuff go into the variant lists new players would discover after seeing the core lists that convince them of our goal.

_________________
SG

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

This is a pretty cast iron fact at this point - from this point forwards, the Rhino and the Land Raider and the Thunderhawk have been joined by a fourth iconic Space Marine vehicle hull : The Stormtalon.


Fine, at the absolute minimum this is an utter necessity.

Don't know what you'd call the list - Ultramarines, I suppose.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

and GW would never do that again, as i'm sure they've gotten it out of their system with it after the atleast two times in the last year...

i wonder if there are people still gnashing their teeth at the fact that their imperial guard can no longer use rhinoes and have to use chimera...

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

Sarcasm noted, as is the out of context quote. However I bet those teeth gnashers are more common then you'd imagine. I'm not one of them; I don't go back that far.

To be more specific about context:





Iconic? Something GW just made up/released is hardly 'iconic'. While I understand what you're getting at, in the context of Imperials an iconic hull has several variants which are readily tied to a faction. In the case of the Rhino, the hull is iconic to multiple factions, but nonetheless. I'd argue that the Land Speeder is the fourth iconic hull; until more info on the Stormtato is released it's hard to say how ubiquitous it is, let alone iconic.



Utter neccessity? I can't speak to the 6th Ed Codex, but the units in the 5th Ed Codex that aren't in the list and would be appropriate to add at Epic scale are: Thunderfire Cannon, Land Speeder Storm, Land Raider Crusader, Land Raider Redeemer, Storm Raven, and Storm Talon. Many have perfectly good alternatives; in fact, the only one that fits an unoccupied niche is the Thunderfire.

Why is adding the new toys so neccessary? There are no models widely available, and they generally sit in niches that are occupied. The Astartes list tends to do well in a competative environment. Where is the utter neccessity in a list that adds a handful of toys the Space Marines don't need in terms of internal or external balance?

_________________
SG

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

Just to be clear, I assume that no one is expecting the Stormtalon to replace the TB and so eliminate the 1/3 Allies allotment for aircraft? I doubt that will happen, for obvious reasons. If the aircraft is put in the list it will still be slotted directly into a 1/3 situation.

So from that point of view, right now, and given there's no huge difference between the aircraft weaponry, I don't really see a reason to replace the TB in the Codex list. Other than for fluff and aesthetics purposes there'll still be a similar outcome regardless of model (weaponry isn't a huge difference). At least with the TBs people have them readily available.
All this said, if the majority want it in the Codex then we can look at it further.

Personally, I'll be getting some if they ever get made and using them as TBs until further notice.

The land raiders are just gun variants (Epic doesn't do that).
Storm Raven isn't even in the codex list.

There are two there that would get added to the Codex list if EA were released anew today: The transport land speeder, and the Thunderfire cannon.

Those two are, however, going to be far less prominent in the future than Stormtalons, which are quite clearly going to appear in the majority of gamer's armies henceforth.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Correct. From now on the iconic Space Marine aircrafts are the Thunderhawk and the Storm Talon.
Even the Storm Raven is just a toy some variant Chapters use.

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

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

A suggestion - apparently Matt Hudson commented in a recent White Dwarf that the Skyhammer missiles would be making the Storm Talon a better interceptor. This suggests the rules may be updated/still in flux.

Might be best to just wait and see for a while.

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

Fair enough and I will say good discussion and debate on the topic. I expected a more positive reaction to a dedicated marine aerospace fighter but it is a bit more contentious than I anticipated. And while I feel that E&C has a point that in short order these will be iconic vehicles (look no further than the popularity of their "spiritual progenitor", the Storm Raven for evidence), as of today they are not. When/If that happens then let us convene and discuss again. Model or no model, list or no list, what I would love then to see is a bit more conversation on BL's proposed stats for those that wish to indulge in friendly play.

In fact that being said what I think would be awesome would be an alternative or meta document that could be used to easily find and see proposed stats for various units that would never be found in an established list. Examples of personal desires would be the Leman Russ Punisher or Annihilator which are never going to be official. There's plenty of units across the hobby where this would be the case as well (new Eldar air units from IA11 spring to mind). Normally people have to hunt this out on the board, find the appropriate post, and then copy or remember where they found it. I guess this would be something along the lines of "Unit Champions" liike a mini-AC role. This would allow people that care to take it upon themselves to collate feedback and update for friendly play only. Would such a document be of benefit to the hobby?

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!