Marines are elite special forces, that launch lightning strikes against key targets. They're flexible about how they do it though – sometimes they go in by air, but there are plenty of examples in the background of SM mechanised and/or armour assaults. The Dark Angels attack on Vraks is one example – roughly half the chapter (500 marines) carried out a 200km mechanised assault to attack and destroy a starport.

The core list should definitely allow a range of potential playstyles. Originally is was too biased towards air assault and historically mechanised and/or armour SM lists did poorly but the various adjustments in the 2012 update have already corrected this and have made mech/armour lists just as competitive as air assault ones (in my opinion anyway).

I think that's a better move, and without wanting to divert the thread, 4xMW4+ at 60cm is still a damn sight better than 2xMW2+ at 45cm, especially as the former is not slow firing but anyway, that's off topic...



fair enough, I think 250 for a typhoon formation is a much more reasonable price than 325 though!



also agree, having a single stand is too granular for SM



disagree here, the warhound synergises in totally different ways with the marine list than the guard, the warhound benefits from SR5 in the marine list, making it a much more viable alpha-strike option, it's also supported by more reliable int1+ troops which means it's less often isolated when its support fails to activate....



if you're dead set on not having 10 point upgrades maybe, and 5 for 50?



I think 225 with 75 to add two more tanks works quite well, it's been playtested in the IF list and is far from broken....



destructors with a points drop to 225 then add annihilators 2 for 25 maybe? it works in the EUK list.... just sayin'

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

+1 to everything kyuss said

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

Yes, Kuyss makes excellent points.

I think Warhounds should be 0-1 in Singeltons.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Interesting discusion, will keep an eye on it

To answer the original question, I tend to agree with Steve and others that the list does not need significant changes.

That said, the minor tweaks I would consider are 0-1 singleton warhounds, and revising "sniper" to equip the entire scout formation rather than a single unit. I would also like to find ways to align the NetEA and EUK versions - for example the 275 point Tacs does seem a good option.

I do agree that Power creep is becoming a significant issue with the increased use of RA and Fearless in other lists - the cure is to test / correct those lists against the Codex Marines rather than the current practice of using newer (and less tested) 'popular' lists.

The other significant issue is the differences in the way people use and play terrain, which colours people's perspectives on lists / armies. Finding ways to ensure consistent size and use of terrain would do much to assist list development as a whole.

This is an interesting topic and one I've been watching for a little while.

In response to some of the topics brought up:

Balance wise I think the list is ok, though at times I do feel a bit of a power creep occurring in the later lists, however some of these I put down to unfamiliarity with lists that have a distinctly different play style. Eg our group started with Marine, IG and Orks as the main armies in use. As eldar, then chaos and lately necrons and speed freaks have become available, each army has done well until we learn its weakness & strengths and subsequent counters. Long term I would like to see and upgrade/review of the list to add it some new units and tweak some points costs...

Scout Snipers - very much in favor of the +50pts to make all scouts sniper.

Typhoon - I'm confident these are the premium speeder variant, but I rarely take more than 1 in a formation, one for cost and two because they die just as easy so a 325pt unit of 5 LV seems a large risk and I tend to use speeders fairly aggressively. I think 10-15pt each is probably on the money, eslewhere in the list I can get a 45cm AT4+ attack and spare transport slot for 25pts, where as this only gives a +15cm range and 3+ vs 5+AP attack. But how to fit that into the ideal 25Pt increments? As stated earlier perhaps a 0-2 costs 25pts and 3-5 cost 50pts would be the way forward?

Warhounds:
I've been forcing myself to play SM without warhounds and air assault elements for the last year or so to see how effective marines are in our AS meta. I would say now that they can still perform ok, but you have to be very conservative with your forces and rely on good terrain to allow you to close without getting shot to pieces. I also find its forced me to play somewhat less agressive in many instances and almost play defensive in the first 1-2 turns before hopefully setting up some decisive engagements late turn two and again in turn 3/4. Where as an air assult / titan force can potentially get on the front foot from turn 1.

Do I feel warhounds are too cheap - No.
Do I feel the SM list relies on them too much.. a little, they offer so much its hard to look past them.
As an example, earlier in the year I took a warlord in a 3k Codex list to a tournament. He probably didn't ever make his points back but he scared the crap out of every opponent - even an AMTL list to some extent, and allowed the other 2k of marines to dictate terms.
I find this shaping effect on the opponents game is almost impossible to achieve with any ground based SM formation, and I think why titans are so common in marine lists. Cal has consistently run reavers and warhounds in many of his SM lists for the same reasons. They bring good, long ranged, fairly mobile firepower and they have a fantastic shaping effect on your opponent. When I play against armies with a capable air assault element or two I find I'm on guard more than I would be against ground pounding inf, mech inf or tank formations.

In summary, I don't think the warhounds need a points increase or further restriction but rather the standard marines need to find a formation or means of doing what warhounds and to some extent, any of the titans do. A Landing craft is probably going to have similar effect, and force an opponent to be conservative with their troop deployments - but I think the limited availability of the actual model prevents many people from employing the LC. Thunderhawks are fairly common in our games, though they tend to only be effective once in a 3 turn game, and then revert to harrassment of infantry and LV formations - or alternatively the air assault elm and thawk are killed in a "retribution" attack.

I'm developing a new love for predator annihilators, I never used to take predators but forced myself to paint a formation for a recent tournament. These guys are proving quite effective by activating late in the turn, then doubling or advancing into a good posn to put out some shots on a key enemy formation. Then in the next turn sustain firing or even better, using scouts or speeders to setup crossfire before sustaining early in the next turn before the target activates. Essentially getting two attacks in, to do some disproportionate damage by a 250pt unit against enemy armour and titans. The trick has been keeping them safe till late turn 1 and providing protection against reprisal into turn 2/3, but then never be afraid to just drive away back behind cover, safe for turn 3.

Lastly, I know we discussed this years ago, but consider the benefit of making the vindicator a MW4+ Ignore cover veh. It could have a different weapon name such as thunderer or whatever, but if there was ever a common item in the SM list that firstly needed an excuse to be taken more, and had justification for a MW attack, it is the vindicator IMHO.

I think marines are hard to play well in epic, and a less forgiving force than they are in say 40k but similarly they're not incapable of fighting without titan support, its just harder again. Anyhow rant complete...

Oh whatever happened to the idea of giving the predator destructor a 60cm range gun (making it one of the long barreled autocannon that I think forgeworld use).

You might be thinking of the predator cannon that FW have on their horus heresy predators? That effectively has twice the fire power of a standard auto cannon. The long barrel variant was on the lightning fighter and maybe the hydra?

FYI fattdex has it as a 45cm AP5 / AT5 in his heresy list

Nah it wasn't an exisiting unit, it was an idea ages back to recognise the long barrel on the predator (which would give more kinetic energy to the shot) and give it 60cm range liek the longer ranges FW autocannon they had on a few units.

What are people's thoughts on making two small changes - it would improve the versatility of marines by making some of their support choices cheaper/more viable.
So the first one - Whilrwinds go from 45cm standard shot to a 90cm shot that goes to 180cm indirect. Not sure if people know much about rockets - but they go further than guns.
And dropping hunters to 50 points.
Thoughts?

Have you considered adopting the 'Superior Tactics' special rule the Epic-UK SM lists have Dobbsy? It allows SMs to choose their free transport options (Rhinos versus Drop Pods) at the start of a game after seeing the opposing army (as opposed to when writing you list). It's a nice touch that gives SM a bit more strategic ability compared to other armies and seems appropriate. The Epic-UK SM lists have always had the rule, so it's been thoroughly tested having been an option in a thousand or so tournament games.

Jim and Glyn, I like both of those ideas guys.

What do the general populous think though...?

Matt,

I concur with JimXII. The issue with Marines is a lack of reach early in the game forcing you to become defensive to ensure you have enough units to complete your assaults in turn two and three. The lack of TK and small amount of MW options means you rely on certain units to get the job done.

The Whirlwind is a unit I dropped years ago as it was a nothing unit until turn two in games. It is a massive under performer in games and at 300 points isn't worth the other options. There is no logic behind the short range nature of the weapon system. Projectile based artillery has shorter range and only gets out to a good range when RA (rocket assist) is in the title.

Hunters are another garbage unit. I have heard the arguments before and thats all they are opinion based arguments. Game data says they are shit. They rarely do the damage they need to kill the unit they are firing at. In such small numbers they are always a turn one target for opponents. 75 points in a waste for a single shot unit. At 50 points a Hydra has two shots in Flak, can engage both AP and AT targets and has a HB. ATSKNF is worthless in the air argument.

Maybe another idea is to change the Attack Bikes HB to a MM the same as the SW list has. It sill meets the assault nature of marines but would give them another option to deal with the RA nightmare on the other side of the table.

Cheers
Aaron

I agree the hunter is maybe over costed and the whirlwind "realistically" under ranged. However the synergy with the air assault would make those proposals very significant - imagine thunderhawks coming in under an even further improved 60cm AA bubble onto an opponent which has had to spread out massively to avoid a couple of whirlwind detachments alpha striking from their deployment zone and prepping whichever target they choose... Game over man, game over !

multimelta on an attack bike does sound more useful than the HB.

RA on dreadnaughts anyone...?