Go on...




I'd do a single VS and simply trade DC for it. The critical would be interesting to play with.



Obligatory post => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_2nM1GEllg&t=1m46s

_________________
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!

Ha

An example of a more dynamic approach is to ditch all the siege special rules (different saves, magic bm's, first strike etc) and say IF garrisons may before or after all other units.

Fluff text - Imperial Fist defences are legendary for both their lethality and intricate nature, confusing and misdirecting attacking enemy forces. All too often heretics and traitors have massed to take a position, only to find nothing but decoys, or rank after rank of reinforced defenders, or even worse entirely absent sallying forth to attack the weak spot in their own defence.

So sequence - objectives, fortifications, spaceships, put aside off table forces, any IF formations that wish to deploy, enemy garrisons, alternating units, remaining IF garrisons.

Suff like Bastions moving about is explained by those decoys that fooled them, or the unmanned shells not yet active etc. Then have a bunch of scouts, tacs with dreds and aa, weapons, etc and away you go.

Oh and are rapiers and thudd guns etc crewed by marines? Mine are (model wise), surely they would have better CC/FF stats than human ones?

Another possible change is replacing Devs with crew served weapons. So rather than a dev formation you get one of mole mortars, thudd guns and rapiers... Some armies already use those as dev proxies. Static defence so the devs get out the really big guns.
Go from 2 rhinos and 4 devs to say 2/3 of each weapon for 250/300.

And going back to the list - is it compulsory to use the special rule for bunkers? I would much rather a thudd gun or rapier got a 3+ as they would if they occupied an enemy bunker...

as I said earlier, the siegers are a very different beast, they can take masses of troops and activations which makes grinding through them sat in fortifications something of a chore.... the IF don't have this, they'll end up with 10 activations most likely, several of which will either be immobile (platforms, bastion), or very slow (thunderfires, bunkered formations)

having played the list with old style fortifications, it was far too easy to beat the marines in engagements, just prep + outnumber (which isn't hard) and you're starting +4 up, it's easy to soak up a few OW shots with your prep+support unit, leaving a clean engaging formation to get stuck in, no bunker protects against hackdowns



and it is.... I've had decent results using the list in exactly that way, using bastions and turrets to defend objectives and then having waves of marines to push forwards on the ground, the fortifications are there in the same way as they are in the krieg list, not intended to be the main focus of the list, but there if you want them, they needed a boost as they don't benefit marines in the same way as they benefit guard



nobody gets first strike in bunkers..... to clean the rules up, I've made it a static war engine which troops can fire out of and use their FF in engagements



I haven't put them in cover yet, might be worth a try, just limits their shooting

also as far as I'm aware, you can't use 15cm coherency like that, as the tarantulas only have 5cm coherency you can't sit them 15cm away..... it's why marine scouts have to stick 5cm from the rhinos (ask dptdexys for clarification)



fair enough




yes they are, they're not to everyone's tastes either, but they're in the list now, from the fluff the IF make heavy use of centurions, and this way you have an option to make use if you've converted some, you may hate the models/fluff, I do too, but this isn't my list, and after all, opinions are like arseholes....



nice idea, although having played the list many times, I can say that you just wouldn't want to use fortifications as they are.....



got a link to this fluff? I'd like to read it



the bastion is a war engine so can deploy as it wishes, it doesn't *need* to garrison, so it's more "mobile" at the start of the game....



yeah, a single marine, which at the 'squad-per-base' level of epic isn't going to make enough of a difference to the stats, he's just one guy after all....



well, we already have thunderfire cannon batteries for the same cost as a dev formation.... I'd rather add the support weapons to boost the formation size of devs than replace them, you also get better defensive FF and save in that situation



I don't see why it would be compulsory if you wanted to use the 3+ save.... I can add a note to the list, what are other people's thoughts on the matter?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

EpicUk siege armies have around 12-14 activations, but they are all rubbish. I would cheefully switch many of the same pointed unit you have for the sieger ones...

But regardless, what happened in their development is that they were strentghened so much in defence it became a rather easy army to play.



Marines are a high activation army though - I don't think this list changes that? Witht he units you have getting an unbm'd formation in to hit the marines would be hard - and if they are hitting say a tactical formation you are taking three hits as you go in, reducing you return fire.



Given all you need is part of your base in cover - not that much. Could even have it behind you. I couldn't imagine deploying them in the open...



Everything has to be within its coherency. So in a scout formation, a Rhino has to be within 5cm and a scout within whatever the scout coherency is.
Scout <15cm> Scout <15cm> Rhino <5cm> Rhino <15cm> Scout <15cm> Scout
That means everyone is in coherency. So here if the tarantulas are within 5cm of another tarantula, the bastion can be 15cm away.




Well, it is They replicate dreadnaughts, accept they are more killy to correspond with GW model creep, oh and get to be transported like everyone has wanted of dreds for ages. Maybe say it is a IF list from the 31st millinium, so not centurions yet



Could I decide then before each shot? Say for scouts I would prefer 3+, but 5+ if I am getitng hit by MW... Seems a little complex. Maybe accept that IF fortifications are only built for power amoured marines and everything else doesn't fit as well?

I think you are better off creating a new bunker type. Call it a redoubt or whatever the fortified term is. Fortification - holds 2 inf stands, acts as bunker, gives any troops inside RA. Means great for your guys, bad for most enemy.

Then you have options in what you get between emplacements (for vehicles), bunkers (for guns and scouts etc) and redoubts or whatever you call them for power armoured marines.

I think at this point you need to play a game with the fortifications Chris and show they're too good.

I personally don't really like the special first strike and BM rules but I've not used the list and am unlikely to now so haven't really felt the right to comment Certainly you shouldn't be able to pick and choose which save to use. I'd probably just leave forts exactly as they were and encourage the play style by points breaks, incorporating static units into formations etc. 3+ is still better than 4+, who cares if it's better for a guardsman than a marine? Thems the rules, and it's as expected. Guardsmen -should- get more benefit from them.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Appreciate the feedback, would have been really helpful 6+ months ago.... as it was I went with the (small) community's wishes and suggestions to toughen up the marines in siege mode (which is what the community voted for)

Those of us who have actually played the list haven't had any issues either game balance or fluff wise, I would be more than happy if TRC or anyone else would do their utmost to break it and show how gamey and dull it is to face....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I was busy saving Albinos in Tanzania 6 months ago

Not so much a matter of balance, just the various special rules just look gamey. If marines are that amassing in fortifications, why so poor in buildings say. Sure power armour can dig a trench in no time - why can't my garrisons in the other lists spend 15 minutes digging themselves in to get first strike? And so on.

List wise, no idea offhand what I would take – couple of tacs, couples of bastions, couple of terminators, couple of fighters, couple of scouts couple of tarantula and couple of hyperios etc. About 500 points left for another formation or two and some upgrade and fortifcations.

so the IF can have all kinds of 'masters of siege' type rules reflected in their crazy defence skills and deployment, but they can't apply that to the fortifications themselves? booby traps, early warning systems, automated defences, bolt holes, structural reinforcements could all be added by the siege-savvy marines very quickly, they could also be self-destructed on withdrawal surely?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

And wouldn't you want all that supported by your thunder hawks, war hounds and everything else you normally have? If you can build a self healing first striking trench and bunch of bastions you can make an armoured hanger for a thunder hawk.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

The theme isn't Thunderhawks and air assault though TRC it's the ground defences/plod list. Thunderhawk Bombers perhaps. Scouting Warhounds when you're defending also just seems to be wanting everything in one basket.

as stated in post #1 of this thread, AND the quickref sheet

Statement of Theme

• This list is intended to represent a marine chapter defending in a siege-setting as exemplified by the Imperial Fists
• To this end, many of the deep-striking and attacking options have been removed, such as Thunderhawks and spacecraft
• The list is envisioned to play either as a full-blown siege defence setup, with large amounts of fortifications, or alternatively as a planetary task force type approach using turrets and bastions to hold ground and deny territory, while the marines carry out a ground-based assault

Marines don't work in your standard siegemasters-style trenches+bunkers approach, they don't have the numbers, nor are they made three times as resilient by the fortifications

I left the fortifications in at the request of community members who felt that siege-marines were a worthy inclusion, personally I prefer to play a style of list which denies area using turrets, and I've had some really fun games, win and lose, using the list in this fashion

marines give up a lot of stuff by taking bunkers, it's effectively a handicap for them and that's not how it should be in my book, I'd be happy renaming bunkers to 'redoubt' or 'firebase' and making it a flat 4+ reinforced armour save, however that benefits the opponent even more if they manage to capture said fortifications

I really really hate it when army champions say 'playtest or be ignored' but seriously, this hole-poking would be so much more useful if you had actually played some games with the list and were speaking from actual experience... I've played a bunch of games and found the list fun to use, Steve54 and dptdexys haven't found it to be siegemasters V2, I've had feedback from the NEAT crew in the US, as well as Jimmyzimms and I've tried to work with what they've given me... I'm sorry if it doesn't fit your vision of how a siege-defence marine list should be, but I can't please all of the people all of the time.....

now would be a good time for the community to step forward and say they agree with TRC, I'm open to changing the list if the majority want it, but honestly I don't think I'm doing that bad a job of it....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Yes coming in with big lists of criticisms is going to make people defensive. Kyuss I wouldn't worry too much about the general "I would do it like this" stuff where it's more down to personal ideas of theme, but objections to a perceived gameyness ought not to be dismissed out of hand - you don't need to have played any games at all to have a valid perspective on that. In fact you might say having played with the list (thus being invested into making it perform well) could be a disadvantage.

As far as I recall you played a couple of games with fortifications, didn't enjoy them and so rejigged the list as an "area denial" list. Have you actually played with the new fortifications that Chris objects to? If so and you can remember some batreps and give me a rough pointer I can have a look for them as I'd like to have another look (maybe I missed them).

As for specific feedback, I think it would be better to have as few special rules as possible (preferably none), and try to make it work with standard list design, points, formation makeup etc first. If you lost too much with standard fortifications, maybe the points break for losing rhinos wasn't big enough? I get that you feel it is somehow "unfair" that guard benefit more from fortifications than marines do, but IMO that is exactly what should happen. Marines are already far better than guardsmen, it's not unfair to give the same boost to both just because marines were better in the first place. To use an analogy, if you've got 5 oranges and Chris has only got 1, giving you each an extra orange means you both get the same - it isn't necessarily unfair just because I didn't give you another 5 oranges.

You can rationalise it all you like ("guardsmen wouldn't be as able to make good tactical use of the bunker") but it's stretching it IMO. The way cover works in epic just doesn't do what is needed in this situation (basically it should be an additional save) so IMO we just have to live with it.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

coming in with big lists of criticisms is perfectly fine in my book, Glyn did it back in the early development of the list and a lot of good stuff came out of it, however coming in and questioning every decision I've made with the list, having seemingly not read any of the discussion or playtest results that have led up to where the list is right now, is pretty infuriating, then making sweeping generalisations like 'I think you are in danger of doing what happened to the siegers' with absolutely nothing to back it up is going to get me riled up for sure....

also I'm not in any way saying that it's 'unfair' that marines don't get as big of a boost as guard do from bunkers or trenches.... my point is that because the marines don't get much of a benefit, it's pointless taking the fortifications, unless you gave them such a points break that you were able to spam devs in bunkers left right and centre and then you very definitely are getting into siegemasters territory

I don't like adding special rules either, but there is only so much you can do with points balancing, marines especially are constrained by being individually very good and with high SR, Int and ATSKNF which means you can only make them so cheap before things start getting broken, messing with formation sizes will have all the fluffophiles gnashing their teeth

the other option would be to remove all fortifications except for minefields and use bastions and turrets for area denial.... which you can already do...

I played a game against Steve54 last thursday and wrote it up, I believe you actually commented on it, the only time where the bunkers were actually used was when steve ground attacked my devs with his hellblades, he scored 4 hits and I only made 1 save, the other rolls were a 1 and two 2's (so the regular bunker save would have been ineffective) fortunately I rolled 3 saves on the re-roll

that turned out to be crucial as if he had broken them, Steve could have pushed a second formation to my blitz and nabbed the objective, giving him a win

I played a couple of games with the old style fortifications, which were one-sided drubbings, like 4-0 on turn 3 drubbings....and coupled with feedback from CaptPiett and Berzerkmonkey with similar experiences, came to the conclusion that marines in fortifications are too weak and needed some kind of boost

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I will be getting to play this list soon but want to get some more games with normal marines under my belt first (and finish putting them all together)

Looing at the list the fortifications to me are not an appealing part of the list and to me that is fine, I like several other parts of the list and do see it as more of a static, reactive denial list which I find (on paper at least) to be quite differnet and appealing in its own right.