Whilst I agree with dropping the Navy elements, dropping the Titans seems excessive... it's EPIC, after all.

It would be a good opportunity to update the Reaver Titan, mind you.
The Epic "Standard Config." Reaver Titan hasn't been a legal configuration in the background for 5+ years now, and never will be again now that there's a 40k model.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

My reasons for dropping Titans is twofold, the first is that I think that if Space Marines and the AMTL are cooperating it's as part of a bigger operation. Which very likely means that the Navy is also present and handles air operations.

The second is to give the two lists more unique features than simply "old" and "new". Codex Astartes Armageddon is for Space Marines operating as a part of a larger war, Codex Newshiny (placeholder!) is for Space Marines operating independently.

It's arguable what you end up with is "old" and "new but kinda crippled" ?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Part of the mission would be to make a list that works without titans, wouldn't it. My idea is that Thunderhawk Close Air Support/Saturation Bombing could help, but I've never played with those units so I can't be sure.

It's EPIC ; Dropping Titans would disinterest me.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I agree with some of the earlier comments about a pool of units that are around only for friendly games, this makes it easier to play with new units without having to create and test new lists. The units then get some testing in the context of otherwise balanced lists.

I can just see the conversation:

Player A: "I've just got these shiny new models, I'd like to proxy them as Storm Talons, using the Experimental Stats"

Player B: "Fair enough, they look reasonable"

This compares favourably (imho) to

Player A: "I want to use Storm Talons, so I've written this Rainbow Warriors Marine list that I'll be using, I thought while I was at it I'd add x and y too, so we're going to be testing all of those things today"

In time (once the general consensus is good) perhaps a new list can be created featuring the units, or an existing (perhaps underperforming) list can have it added.

I think this keeps Tournament style games balanced, and makes it easier to add a little variety to the game (and keep new players interested, whilst explaining that some units are optional as they are being tested for balance).

That said, when an army has been completely ripped to bits by GW then it's probably easier to start with a brand new list.

But what would you drop then? Is the new list simply going to be, replace a couple of units with similar types (upgrades in case of LS Storms) and add a handful of new ones? If the Codex Astartes list is in fact balanced, how will this not be overpowered?

A Marine list without Navy/Titan support is going to have to differentiate itself from the Black Templars list to justify itself.
If this can be done, then it should be worth the effort.

_________________
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.

Epic's balance isn't as razor tight as to be unduly bent out of shape by the odd new unit here and there.

And it's only really the removal of Warhounds that'll affect the Marine list in any case, since Reavers and Warlords aren't crutches in the same way... so why not consider 300pt Warhounds instead of just removing them entirely...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

But if you do that it's simply an update to the Codex Astartes list. That's fair and all, but then we're back at dumping the old list and replacing it with a new list with the new units. That's not what I had in mind, but is an option.

As for Black Templars: They have mixed formations of Neophytes and Initiates, the Emperor's Champion, Land Raider Crusaders and no Devastators. That's plenty enough for me to differentiate it from a Codex list without Navy/Titans. Just compare it to the Biel-Tan/Alaitoc/Ulthwé lists, it would actually have more differences.

While I love using titans, I've never not used my beloved warhounds, surely the rationale behind including the storm talon, "space marines are self sufficient forces" equally applies to the inclusion of titans?

I would assume a 'pure' space marine army wouldn't include titans either?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

There are some of us who generally shun Warhounds on principle - you can play with a 'purist' army now, albeit at a slight disadvantage because the 'hounds are so good at what they do.

And that is part of the discussion here; creating variant lists that force people to adopt a different style of play by exluding certain staples is just as valid as creating lists to include new 'toys'.

For example, has anyone thought of creating a 'light recon' force based on the scouts rather than the marines?

I see the problem when somebody wants to use both new units and Titans together. I just don't think there is an optimal solution here. Making the "new units" list the "independent operations" list solves a couple of problems, but not without cost. I think the cost is worth it, but some obviously disagree.

If there is a better way to do it it would be great.

Indeed. Get your stompy robots out of my army, you damn dirty AdMech!

There are many who say marines without Warhounds are crippled.

1) I've not seen this personally. It is common knowledge enough to make this hard to prove though: Everyone 'knows' you need Warhounds to win with Space Marines, so all the best players take them. Thus, the Armies with Warhounds do well. They add to the list for sure, but I don't believe Space Marines can't do without them.

2) Isn't this a big red flag? Do we keep raising the price until they are no longer viable, or do we try to make them no longer neccessary? This, however, is a discussion for another thread.

I am fully behind making any modern Marine list self sufficient, with no allies at all.

_________________
SG

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

Is Epic lagging behind? It is a matter of perspective. If you think access to the Land Speeder Storm is critical in making an army Space Marines, then it probably is. Personally, I don't think that's the case. Not that Epic shouldn't include Storms in lists, just that a list doesn't need them to represent Space Marines - even "modern" ones.

I have never understood the view that second edition, third edition, fourth edition and fifth are incompatible with each other. There are aspects that are, yes, but there's no reason Squats can't fight Tau. As new stuff appears, it should be added to the game. Frankly, most armies that existed in second edition haven't become unrecognizable since then. Guard are Guard, Marines are Marines, Orks are Orks. The fact that the current Codex Astartes list is based on Marines as they were in third edition doesn't mean it no longer is capable of representing Space Marines altogether. It means it lacks certain aspects of modern Marines. It also lacks stuff from second edition, and revamping the entire list to accomodate that isn't exactly a pressing goal.

Personally, I think including new stuff in lists is reasonable in theory. However, I also think any benefit of accessibility to new players from offering a Storm Talon is going to be cancelled by the way they have to convert one or proxy it with another model. If accessibility is the goal, then forcing new units that lack models into established lists is going to be a mixed success at best. Putting the Land Raider Crusader or a Thunderhawk variant into the Codex Marine list would be one thing. Putting in the Storm Talon, which has untested rules and lacks a model, simply to accomodate new players because of an as-yet unestablished "iconicness" is another.

On top of this, 40K is currently producing a lot of new models - we used to see one Imperial Armour a year. Now we see two, plus a fair amount of new 40K stuff. And there's a lot of overlap in some of it with both existing Epic stuff and existing 40K stuff. Trying to fit it all in would be a lot of work to little gain.

What I would do is create experimental formations that are independent of a particular list (print them at the end of the compendium). Experimental formations would never be tournament legal, but should be suitable for friendly games. So if we stat up the Spartan, we should also create a more-or-less standard Spartan formation, note that it is an experimental formation for use in friendly games in lists that don't have access to it, then forget about it until someone uses it in a list. Avoids too much meddling with fairly stable lists, and still lets people take new shiny toys with established lists.

EDIT: A new/up-to-date Codex Astartes list wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, of course. I just don't think Storm Talons, Land Speeder Storms and Thunderfire Cannons are quite enough to hold together a list.

E&C


Er...Assault Terminators and Scout Bikes both existed when the current list was created.

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