Ah you used bunkers in that game, now I remember you mentioning the reroll. All I could think of was the bastions which my impression is youve used a lot more.

On the forts, well you -have- brought up guardsmen several times as a comparison when discussing the fortifications, that's the only reason I mention it. It's fair enough if you think they simply aren't good enough a boost, I can take your word for it, i just figure the two things are tangential issues. TBH I don't mind the 4+ RA so much, that's very easily justified as "marine bunkers are better". If it's necessary and you can't do it via formation size etc (I'm afraid I don't know what those fluff restrictions are, I was thinking stuff like adding dreadnoughts) it seems fine. The first strike and blast marker bits are the ones that are a bit jarring, it's hard to explain but they just seem a bit of a stretch. SMs already do so well with blast markers too. Again though, I haven't used the list so this is just to explain where I'm coming from as a neutral third party. And anyway, it's nowhere near as hard to swallow as some of the other lists' special rules.

Overall I think it's going pretty well. Sure there are things I wouldn't use myself or wouldn't have bothered to represent but you have to expect that, and you clearly know more about IF than I do!

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

First strike represents troops hiding in trenches and ambusing the enemy, it was a tactic widely used in WW1 and is a staple of trench warfare, trench networks let you move and remain hidden, I felt first strike was an elegant way of representing this, there were all kinds of discussions about hidden deployment which would have been far more complex

removing blast markers could be dropped, I figured when the marines are in their element, they're more likely to show a resolute side, it helps model the IF refusal to withdraw even against overwhelming odds I feel,

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I have read pages of discussion on fists, just perhaps not far back enough...

Sorry, not trying to get at you personally. The warning about what happened with the siegers stands though, I wouldn't know if you are doing it, indeed I wouldn't know until I get a chance to play with the list a bit, which I would hope too, probably on vassal. It was just that a process to make them do well in their key role took things too far. Sorry if you didn't like how I expressed it, just used to using the language we use at work for such discussions and was supposed to differentiate from having gone too far, which would be unknowable without some testing.

I admit I don't like special rules in general if the effect can be simplified or turned into a unit stat. So for example, you could clear up issues around normal bunkers and marine bunkers with a new fortification type and change the bm removal with a cheap leader option

And yes I don't like some of the internal logic relating to the special rules. If Fists are so good at building defenses that help them shed bm's and strike first, with fighter and teleporter support, asking for an armoured silo for thunderhawks makes internal sense. It can't be hard for marines to entrench themselves either, so why wouldn't first striking trenches be standard for IF in the field no matter how they were operating.

I fully understand you aren't supposed to have air assault in the list, but it would be better having a visible rational. Saying this is a defensive set up for a contested world where there is no air presence or fleet support, which leads to reinforced bunkers that can survive orbital bombardment and no air units tells for me a better story. Yes I would love fighters and thunderhawks as well, but now I have a reason why I can't. A list making that encourages the suspension of disbelief and being balanced are two different things.

Bunker save wise I would recommend making a separate unit called a redoubt or something that holds 2 infantry and gives a 4+RA save. No worries about differing effect on units, whether it is best to be a normal bunker or not and lets you space things out more than the 3 strong bunker. Also allows cunning wording for transport as they can basically replace rhinos 1 for 1. Yes the enemy can get them, but good. There should be consequences for losing your positions and a reason to have IC guns to take them back...

Maybe change the marine transport rule to be
Rhino guff
Or... add enough 'redoubts' to hold all infantry in the formation and enough emplacements for any attached AVs and x amount of minefield.
Yes this means you could get an emplaced razorback or land raider, but I think most would use this for a couple of dreds and a hunter. Putting this in the transports rule means you can have forward emplaced tough scouts, then more traditional dev and tactical castles.

Bastion wise I can see why you could have problems with survivability. They should always aim to go in cover for the additional -1 and also not be standing with no sides shielded from incoming fire - with the additional garrisoning range from the expendable units you can get them touching cover enough to claim it. A quick read of the fluff says they are ultra hard, so two options would be void shields or a 3+RA TRA save. Weapons wise it seems to be covered in heavy bolters, so why not give it 2x30cmAP5+? Further upgunning could include the 'Aegis' line so an AA whateveritiscalled lascannon with 45cm AT5+/AA5+? And does it come with what is essentially a Hydra quad fit rather than a hyperion thingy? Super hard, more guns, different points - would this be the lists Warhound equivalent? Giving it its own minefield as well would help things.

I am not being critical because I don't like the fists, I had a stab at them ages back that didn't go anywhere so good for you getting them this far!

Will never like crusaders though!

Oh, and forgot to ask - did you consider allowing the other formations to include fortifications? So thunderfires, vindicator formations etc. Give s aboost tot he armour as it kicks off from its baseline in terms of surviving alpha strikes and would represent the reserves held behind the front lines.

You can then make the fortification upgrade the minefield upgrade and just get a load of wire and minefields to scatter everywhere.

That would certainly be my take on things - bastions and redoubts with more leaders forward, backed up with minefields and reserves held in cover ready to race up and reinforce. With those sorts of boosts I think you wouldn't need your fortifications special rule and the first strike one.

If they were an IF unit that had a move of 0 and transport 2 that had the note that allows units inside to FF/CC then the enemy couldn't take them over and problem solved. If you added expendable then you can leave them behind without effect and if lost, shouldn't count against the assault resolution. They're fundamentally an ablative layer to the formation in an assault and if you leave them behind it's not crazy to think of some denial charge / system in place to wreck them.

_________________
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!

But that wouldn't be crazy for any army with fortifications, not just marines and not be a high tech requirement...
As units they would be a liability to be in as presumably they would be taken out with at fire killing those inside rather than making those inside harder to hit?

Really the enemy taking them over isn't a real problem with siege and they have a nightmare time trying to get them back. It also takes away an important area of interaction between the players as taking someone's fortifications after have a devil of a job getting him out is quite satisfying!

_________________
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

I got you that in reality that would be the case but that ship has already sailed considering the book and plenty of lists already work in a certain way AND in retrospect, it provides a very clean way to differentiate the higher abilities of marines in that scenario without resulting in Army Special rues. I think that beautifully reflects the way of the marine siege. You encounter cunning hidden traps, redoubts, strong defenses that once you over come them at great cost you realize are just distractions that whittled down your army for little gain while the Marines sally forth to attack from another position.

But yeah, that's my personal take on it. Ultimately this is all Kyuss' show and let's test it up.

What's your take on stressing the list as is? I'm especially concerned about the Bastion

_________________
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!

Perhaps with Air support include the non transport thunderhawk variants from Scions as a 0-1? that way they have that air support but no air assault.

I no air support and relying on aa speeders and ground AA would be more consistent... There should be a reason you can't have it. Currently the question is if fighters why not thunderhawks?

Oh and don't know if I typed this anywhere, but would you consider missile silos instead of the deathstrike warlord? Marines do seem to like those missiles (look at what happened to the Crimson Fists of course) and if this much effort has gone into the positions why not have a couple of nukes? Either the krieg WE silo or the lighter 2 silos in emplacements with one deathstrike each (MV0, AV6+, CC-, FF6+, one shot Deathstrike, hvy bolter)? Fixed positions are very vulnerable to WE and this gives an option of lessening it a bit.

having taken a day to read and digest all the discussion, I thought it would be a good idea to explain my thought processes with the list, most of which are based on actual gaming data...

I started from the POV of a planetary taskforce approach, but several people who have shown an interest wanted more siegeworks to represent the marines being fully dug in

After playtesting standard fortifications against Black Legion, Tau and Eldar, it was a severe penalty for the marines to give up the rhinos and mobility for a slight bonus to their save, my thinking here was that if we wanted to keep the fortifications in the list, it would be hard to drop the price of the formation due to marines being inherently expensive (and the risk of spamming formations) I also wanted to keep the fluff nuts happy so didn't want to buff formation sizes or anything like that

my solution was to improve the fortifications to give the marines a worthwhile benefit, giving them RA in bunkers was a nice boost, it also is pretty simple to implement and is generally easy to justify, marines have better bunkers or make use of them more effectively, in the same way, it was discussed how to give the trenches a boost and make them worthwhile. As trenches were historically a way to safely and covertly move troop formations around, it seemed that representing this somehow was a good idea, a few people suggested hidden deployment, but I felt that having first strike would be a good option, it’s a rule that exists in the game already, and fits well with the idea that troops rush a fortification only to find it full of decoys and suddenly they are counterattacked from a hidden angle

Neither of these additions are really ‘special rules’ they use established game mechanics to give an easily justifiable boost to the marines who are meant to be the ‘masters of siege’

The way I see it, is that there are 3 options open to us at this stage:

1.) Remove the special rules and just have fortifications work as they already do, remove them as an option for transport upgrade and just have them purchased from the army list section, or perhaps just one free set per tactical/dev formation
2.) Replace the standard fortifications with marine specific ones, so bunkers become firebases that bestow a 4+ RA save on any infantry unit (friend or foe) inside, trenches become bulwarks that bestow first strike on any infantry unit (friend or foe) inside
3.) Remove the bunkers and trenches, let the marines use minefields, Tarantulas/Hyperios and bastions to hold ground while they push forwards

I can put this to a poll if people think it’s required, I am happy to remove the blast marker effect, although I feel that marines have just as hard a time shedding blast markers as anyone else, especially when you pay 50 points for a leader character, my preferred options are #2 and #3, either is fine with me, and they’re not mutually exclusive, you don’t have to take fortifications if you don’t want to

On the aircraft situation, Thunderhawks were removed to preserve theme and also limit tactical options, if they were left in, the list was in danger of becoming codex marines with lots of shiny new toys…

I view it as the situation where the Thunderhawks have dropped the marines off to hold a strongpoint while they go and extract valuable cargo or support an assault somewhere, air support is provided by storm talons which are more numerous and able to redeploy more rapidly, this is the same rationale for the removal of spacecraft, and the inclusion of more land raider variants and the Fellblade, this is a heavily-supported ground mission, not a tactical airstrike

I don’t want to include missile silos at this point, I just don’t see them being used by marines, adding more immobile stuff to the list further encourages the static defensive play that we’re trying not to promote…. the Deathstrike warlord was included because I just wanted to add something different and felt it would be a good fit for the list, the power fist means it can handle itself when the fighting gets up close and dirty and the deathstrike gives a long range shot at enemy war engines such as decimators which can really mess up a marine force

On the lists, I think 3+ RA on the bastion makes it a bit tough against much shooting while still not helping against pinpoints and TK, I’d rather keep 4+ RA for now and add a void shield, 2x Heavy bolters would be a consideration too, could justify upping the firefight to 5+ in that case… the other option would be the techmarine upgrade, like an ork oddboy, maybe a techmarine character upgrade could add a void shield to a bastion unit?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Kyuss, I think before we do any of these changes



we give the current list a period of play time to see if it can be broken. Steve54's been one of your main opponents and feels they're fine so at this point just roll on and come back to this if required.

I'm happy to do that

on the table to test out:

Hyperios - are they too short ranged?
Bastions - resilience, how easily abused are they?
Devastator Centurion FF value, is 3+ too good with EA+1?
Fortification heavy builds - are they boring/too strong/too weak?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Showing whether something is broken or not is fine - but it is also a question of feel, presentation, theme etc. Most of my points have been from that angle. You can balance most things in Epic, but it doesn't mean you have balanced the right thing...

If it came to a vote on those options I would certainly prefer option 2. (Especially since in the original testing theory unit stats and racial rules were for all types of play, army specific special rules were for that list in a tournament setting. Yes it is a small leap for most players to give their marines x benifits, but it was how the whole testing structure was originally envisaged.)

On the bastion I would be quite happy to test an up-gunned version with 2 void shields and an emplacement (so it gets -1 to hit without the hassle of stringing out tarantuala to get into cover if the opposition is being unsporting) for say 225 points as a start. Though the void shields should replace the ablative expendable units. It could have the option of support weapons and the like to make the formation larger, though of course you would stick them inside...

tbh option 2 is probably the cleanest way of doing it and removing a swathe of army specific rules, it would be a minimal change to the list functionality

also @ TRC you said you hate 'crusaders' did you mean 'centurions' or do you hate the land raider crusader as well?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

okay, list situation discussed, let's test it as-is for a few games, paying attention to the list of units above

we can then upversion the list and adopt the changes

I'm quite keen on the bastion having the heavy bolters, I also think we can tweak the fortification names and rules easily enough, but the developmental version has had a single playtest so far so let's get some games in!

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator