I didn't realize WWs were an issue until today...

Honestly though, SM are not IG. They aren't known for their artillery. If you want to take a bunch of WW go crazy but you're not playing to SM strengths as much. Support is important yes, and WW aren't a complete loss, but SM should be focused on precise and devastating assaults both fluff and game wise.

Plus, giving WW range on par with other factions only starts to homogenize lists and probably creates balance issues of its own. Not every list should have ALL of the best tools available to them. It actually limits diversity and hurts the game as a whole. And even then, it's not like SM are completely lacking in that type of tool, it's just not the best tool.

Also, hunter seems fine as is as well. It can go into just about any formation. Lots of options, and if you spend a slight premium for it, I default to my previous arguments. They work, don't need a price increase, and were never meant to be used as an impenetrable air screen.

I'm not trying to undermine what was said earlier, but I feel like there are plenty of other things to focus on than WW/hunter, which seems to have set the thread on a bit of a tangent.

And as has been said before... ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ABSTRACT. And even then, missiles/rockets/artillery all have different ranges IRL.

My $0.02

Yep no worries redgeran, this is basically a catch-all thread, so anything can be discussed.


Yep and Epic ranges are very abstract.

Jim (If it bothers you) range discrepancy can be explained by importance to the army strategy - After all max range is not important, accurate range is. IG put great stock in artillery and support them appropriately using spotters, radar, orbital targeting etc. Marines rely on mobility/assaults - whirlwinds may be *capable* of firing further but they don't assign their elite resources to assisting them for long range bombardment as that's not their strategy.

But feel free to play test - but I think you'll find those playtest games don't last long !

These kind of discussions have an implicit assumption that all other factors are equal - terrain usage / definition and especially Strategy and Tactics. The effect of a formation / unit varies dramatically depending on how it is used and on 'force multipliers' like the THawk and Landing Craft (and to some extent the Space Cruiser). A trite example might be Terminators, which without any transport or Teleport become much less usefull . . .

Much earlier in the thread, I agreed with several people who suggested that the Marine list is reasonable as it is now. Some formations / units are less popular but that does not mean their stats / costs are wrong. IMO this is true for the WW as they are now for the general list. If they receive boosts in range, reduced costs or additional units, then other weaknesses need to be added in compensation - as in the Iron Hands quoted by Jimmy.

As such I definitely agree with Blip - by all means try out some changes, make sure you try spamming etc. and see what happens; and I also agree these trials are likely to be short lived.

I can live with the WW at 45cm, and I regularly just run a single formation with hunter. For 375 I don't think they're a great investment but I keep them in because I have little else to deal with hordes or sneaky eldar.

If we were to look at a boost or tweak to the WW I'd prefer to see a disrupt or ignore cover gain. This is also somewhat supported by GW fluff in that WW have, or have had, the option to take mine bomblet or incendiary warheads.

Like the thunderfire cannon is to the thud gun, marine weapons are the next generation in imperial tech over what the IG typically use, and as such have access to more advanced munitions.

Just my 2c on WW.

Personally I'd prefer MW on the vindicator.

2 cents about Space Marines.

When you look first at the Space Marines, you will see
Initiative 1
Strategie 5
Shall Know No Fear
Higher activation count
Highly Mobile
Well armoured

Despite this I think the SMs are probably the most balanced army in the game.
You can have different variants of „balanced“, ranged, CC or Drop/Air Assault lists and be successful with all.

This only is about the SMs not the Navy or Titans.

How can n army that starts out with such a list of great features be balanced ?
This is possible because the list has some inherent restrictions:

No special in game rules, besides „Shall know no fear“.
Formations with low unit count.
No TK weapons
No Macro weapons above 15cm range.
No long ranged weapons. I.e. ordinary range up to 45cm - indirect up to 90.
Expensive characters.

When you change any of these you will „ruin“ the balance.

The WW is the perfect weapon for the SM army.
It will offer a way to counter hordes of infantry. It fits the no-special, short ranged, mobile flair.
It gives you 4BP every turn, a feature that is balanced by the possibility for the opponent to reduce it easily to three, because of it’s „short range“ and 5+ save.

You do not see it very often, because of it’s „short“ range it is an „specialist“ weapon. It’s not for block heads, who can’t think farther than standing on the base line and pound the opponent’s deployment zone.
The WW does not win a game for you - it’s a support weapon, it only helps other formation to win the game for you.
Right know you have to decide when to shoot and when to move to be at the right place next turn and where that might be.
Even more important especially in the first turn you have to decide when to activate.
Is there a thread to them or any other unit, you must counter. I.e. Deathstrike against you Titan. You might activate it early race it to the front and use it as an „assault“ gun.
Do you shoot at some garrison early or postpone until some more juicy targets appears.
Do you fire them early foregoing some potentially more interesting targets to delay activation of something more inportant.
It’s also rewarded if you deploy them well.
If you think them important you will have to protect them by striking early against your opponents long ranged threads.

If you increase the WW’s range to 60cm you take most out of it. You change an interesting capable (if handled correctly) weapon system to a no-brainer,

We have enough armies, you can play without thinking, so please don’t change it.

I loathe armies that do not give your opponent an even chance to fight, so when I think what increasing the range does for a Thunderhawk/Drop list I start to faint.

Regarding Hunters.
They are too expansive for what they do. Give me a Hydra or even better a Firestorm for 50 each and sack the hunter.
AA is not „mainly“ about Blast Markers. It’s about getting rid of a thread by killing or making a counter thread.
When you send in your Marauders you do not care about the single Blastmarker some 6+ AA might give you. You will fulfil your goal and attack the target. And you will do it again. So you ignore the OrK Flakwaggon, but you will not ignore a Firestorm.
The same is true for ground assaults. If the single point for „Not having blast markers“ makes a difference than you rolled badly or choose a risky target.
Having your Thunderhawk killed, not being able to deliver the assault troops or having it killed preventing it to contest objectives or having it killed to prevent it to redeploy troops is what counts. Blast Markers are nice, and may make a difference, especially against high initiative opponents, but a kill is much more important (and it gives another BM )

I think most formations/upgrades are priced right in the NetEA list.

The Vindicator is too expensive. I use it sometimes because I like the models. It should compete with Bikes and Landspeeders for a slot, so I would reduce the cost to 200 - which would also fit with the cost for a Vindicator bought as upgrade.

The Predator Annihilator is too cheap and the Destructor is too expensive . A split of the cost as in the UK list makes sense. On the other hand the Annihilator is useless against infantry only/heavy lists, so if the cost stays as it is I do not see it as a major problem.

The Thunderhawk is too cheap. It costs as much as an Ork lander. or an Vampire Raider, but is better at what it does.

Also the Thunderhawk should count against the Navy/Titan limit as the air transport choices in other armies do.

The cost of Dreadnoughts is not that relevant. Mainly because of the SM cost structure. Whatever „extra“ you buy will cost you an activation or at least makes you change an activation for something „less“.
IMHO this is good. Looking at the cost of comparable units 50 pts seems to be ok, if not even a bit on the cheap side.


So my take would be
Split the cost for the Annihilators 225/275.
Reduce the cost for Vindicators to 200.
Reduce the cost for Hunters to 50.
Increase the cost for Thunderhawks to 225 or even 250 - Or make the other armies’ choices cheaper.
Move the Thunderhawk to Navy/Titan.

Or just leave it alone It has some really minor Quirks, but is very balanced overall.

I would really love the EpicUK and NetEA lists to come together, but it would seem there are too many minor points of dissagreement...

I'd love to find some way to make marine armor formations equally as attractive as a Warhound, so taking a Warhound (or 2) wasn't such an obvious choice. Does anyone think 4 Predator Annihilators are worth the same as a warhound? If not, then how many? 5?

Can't we just make a giant space marine in a space marine in a space marine and give him warhound stats? Can just use a 40k model for him

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! Grandma Wendy might hear you. You know they'll do it if they can force it down the schmucks throats in a new Codex!

_________________
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!

On the first look you'd think the Warhound is always the better choice, but I find it mainly circumstantial.

On the plus side the Warhound gives is very good against Infantry and good against tanks. Another advantage is that it can make use of cover without risking too much. And it's decent in assaults.
On the minus side, three pings will break it, the antitank capability suffers heavily and the anti-infantry capability suffers some every other turn. And while it is decent in an assault it will still die easily.

The Annihilators are crap in an Assault, and useless against infantry, but they deal out lots of anti-tank fire and they can keep it up, making them especially deadly against opponents with low strategic values. They are also better suited against numerous opponents with 5+ or worse armour. And they complement Whirlwinds very well.

I find the the Warhound being the better solist, but the Annihilators playing better with the band.
Taking a more holistic approach to army design, I usually prefer Annihilators over the Warhound, despite the Warhound being "simpler" and more flexible to use.

I wish we could say the same for all other lists and this is my personal view and why I asked how others felt because I (and perhaps others) don`t seem to see what the majority see.


Preds - There`s no need to change the Preds costings. I put them at the same price because you either get good firepower or you get good assault - you need to make the decision of which it is you want. I think they`re pretty balanced that way.

Vindicators - not an altogether bad idea. Would like to hear other people`s thoughts. I think they hold their own but suffer from `better units out there` syndrome.

Hunters - Again, not a bad idea but I doubt that 50 is going to be accepted by the majority. Trial it if you like though and report back. Not likely to change I would imagine.

Thunderhawk - there won`t be a price increase and there won`t be a move to an Allies section - The first effects the list`s only true win-power ability and the second does not make sense from the pov that they aren`t Allies. The TH is 225 in the Space Wolves list due to the increase in assault stats in infantry. I would still prefer it to be 200 but there`s a balance there.

That's a very unsettling statement.

I don't think so. I'm not saying its the only win ability here but change the effect of Marine air power and it's not doing the list any favours.

But that's no choice... You can have an AT shooting unit with synergies with the hunter, unique in the army, or an ok assault option in an assault army...

Vindicators - yes I would take them at 200 for 4. But they would be a bigger competitor to destructors. Actually thinking about it they wouldn't fit that well into the lists I use that well, other marine lists yes, just not the codex one. I suppose I might experiment with 6 and a hunter if that was an option.

Hunters - Marine players would love it. You have basically freed up 100 points in most 'winning' lists to get chaplains/more terminators, etc. Are you doing poorly with marines that they need a boost to those formations?

And Dobbsy is pretty much correct about the thunderhawk, the list was partially designed around it (and it took stats different to 40k to accommodate 40k sized detachments). Stuff like the cost of infantry is set assuming they are being air inserted as the most efficient method.