Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Epic UK list amendments

 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:26 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 98
Steve54 wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:
What would happen if all aircraft could not contest objectives?

Then objectives couldn't be contested by any aircraft


I think this is a pretty legitimate option, doesn't stop the list but it would hammer whoever used it. I don't think it would impact too greatly on other races with landing aircraft either as they generally aren't as survivable, reliable late game, or benefiting from ATSKNF (semi-fearless!). Could be implemented as a rules update, or perhaps better, as a EUK Tournament Senario specific rule.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:39 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4134
RugII wrote:
Steve54 wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:
What would happen if all aircraft could not contest objectives?

Then objectives couldn't be contested by any aircraft


I think this is a pretty legitimate option, doesn't stop the list but it would hammer whoever used it. I don't think it would impact too greatly on other races with landing aircraft either as they generally aren't as survivable, reliable late game, or benefiting from ATSKNF (semi-fearless!). Could be implemented as a rules update, or perhaps better, as a EUK Tournament Senario specific rule.

In the GT scenario I'd be hesitant to carry out such a large rules change without a lot of testing. Also I like the idea of different scenarios at tournaments but not sure about changing a rule like this specially for any scenario when its a question that still comes up from time to time as a general rule

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5340
Location: London, UK
Steve54 wrote:
Ginger wrote:
Not actually a great difference. Dan's list from memory sports Termies, 2x Assaults and 2x scouts precisely so that they can grab objectives on turn three rather than having to land Tbricks a turn earlier. And he still had 11 aircraft buzzing around. . . . :(

Do you understand how the list operates? Thawks not being able to contest changes it massively

Hmm, I have a rough idea yes ;) ,though not a precise one, since I have never seen it in action.
Personally, I would possibly try a list like this.

1200 for 6x THawks
900 for 6x Tbolts
250 for Bikes + Chaplain (BTS)
350 for 2x Assaults
300 for 2x Scouts

Or even swap one of the TBolts for a Marauder formation for extra firepower and shuffle the ground points a bit.

Either way this gives you two turns of 12 air activations, a further 7 on the third turn ending with five THawks containing formations that can contest / assault the key objectives in the last activations.
Since these can be virtually anywhere on the table, the marines are able to choose which to assault and which to merely contest at the last minute. Given 19 air attacks, (unless I am throwing the dice ;) ) the opponent is going to have suffered losses, possibly a significant number, and hopefully a lot of broken formations, depending on the opponent's army make up and deployment. And Five formations in THawks used carefully during the early stages of the game should be enough to contest / claim carefully positioned objectives in turn three

Some armies especially those with fearless RA troops (TS?) will fare much better than others (Orks), and those with more unsupressed AA will perhaps be able to cause one or two TBolts to fail their actions, changing the balance of the game against the marines.

As a consequence of the above, I am not convinced that changing the rule on air-transports contesting objectives does enough to deter people from using this build, even though I agree that it is not a foregone conclusion, and it is evidently a very different style of game. However, it is also very much in the style of the original Siegemasters games - a series of virtually unstoppable attacks for 2.5 turns with last minute 'excitement' to decide the game; a variation on the 3rd turn drop list, that is arguably less of a gamble. The problem is that it is also little fun for the 'target' and requires relatively little skill from either player, compared with the more usual tournament games.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 2218
Location: Cornwall
Wouldn’t disallowing aircraft to contest be quite a nerf to “normal” sm lists too?


Sent using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 2218
Location: Cornwall
Any news on inclusion of a list for Sisters? Got a new local player who would be pleased.

And are Imperial Fists making the cut next year?


Sent using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 4897
Location: Bristol
There was a printed out draft of the sisters list at the GT, though I have no idea if it was the final version or one being playtested. Generally it seemed good and I like the prayer action, though removing the giant WE cathedrals from the list for some reason killed most of my interest in the list personally. Epic should allow armies to bring along appropriate giant support units, not just include everything that can be fielded in 40k.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:32 pm
Posts: 252
Blip wrote:
Wouldn’t disallowing aircraft to contest be quite a nerf to “normal” sm lists too?


Sent using Tapatalk
The answer to that would be would you still take a Thunderhawk in an SM list if they could not contest? I would take at least one, maybe two. But I would not take 3 or more. Sounds perfect. The question for me is why are other marine units such as Tactical Squads, Vindicators, and Land Raiders not less points?!?!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5340
Location: London, UK
While we are discussing options, the 3k list is bad, but the 4K variant becomes truly scary since you could get

1800 for 9x THawks,
1200 for 8x Tbolts,
450 for 2x assaults with Chaplains
300 for 2x scouts
250 for bikes + Chaplain (BTS)

Basically the same five ground formations, but more air-power, giving 17 air formations. That provides 34 air attacks over two turns, and a further 12 attacks on turn three before the last 5x activations are used to claim or contest objectives.

And with 9x long range sniping attacks each turn to take care of ground AA, with extra fighters to intercept any enemy fighters, the build becomes more formidable as the army size increases.

I hope that illustrates the issue better, even if the build or tactics are not optimal. The issue is not the ability for air-transports to contest objectives, but rather the additional number of WE aircraft that the marine list can generate and the large number of air attacks that result.

But the obvious solution of placing the transports, or even just the THawks in the Aerospace section is not the solution IMO, since as others have pointed out, it invalidates past lists and cramps the flexibility of the list. Ideally some other limitation is needed.

I have suggested imposing an additional limit of 5 a/c in 3k because it is does several things
  • Obviously it does stop the problematic list dead in its tracks, without having to resort to any other changes. So, apart from adding the relevant clause to the various codex marine sheets, this approach causes no changes to any other lists (or more importantly, to the way they play).
  • This approach does not invalidate any past list, nor does it really impact the flexibility of the marine list, except in the number of aircraft available.
  • This does not impact the existing space / titans utility; you can still have a full set of titans supported by planetfalling transports if that really rocks your boat :D (but no TBolts)
    Equally you can still have any of the more usual admixtures of Spacecraft, titans, Transports and TBolt formations
  • A limit of 5x aircraft is also a subtle way of introducing a virtual cost of 175 on the TBolt, while not actually imposing it, if that is deemed desirable and appropriate (a long running debate elsewhere.)
  • The actual wording is 1 aircraft per x points.
    At 600 points, the TBolt is relatively more expensive in the 4K list, reducing slightly the number of A/c available. At 500 points the TBolt reverts to its current cost of 150 across the board and more A/c become available.


I leave the wording up to you, obviously this needs to be validated, but I would recommend not going much higher than 7-8 aircraft per 3k because it strays back into the same realms as this discussion.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 2218
Location: Cornwall
Monkeyboy wrote:
Blip wrote:
Wouldn’t disallowing aircraft to contest be quite a nerf to “normal” sm lists too?


Sent using Tapatalk
The answer to that would be would you still take a Thunderhawk in an SM list if they could not contest? I would take at least one, maybe two. But I would not take 3 or more. Sounds perfect. The question for me is why are other marine units such as Tactical Squads, Vindicators, and Land Raiders not less points?!?!


You’re preaching to the choir here. Personally (after discussions with several players put off by the air heavy codex marines) i’d prefer to see the battle-Co marine units as “core” then a separate “Support” section including thawks/terminators/titans being unlocked on a 1:1 or 1:2 basis. Would also reduce the 8/10 of the First Co turning up to every scrap.

But as the codex list’s competitiveness is supported on the twin crutches of thunderhawks and terminators, any restriction would make the list as a whole very uncompetitive imho. In a crunch turn 3 marines need the option to drop a thawk on a key objective to deny TSNP and/or TaH at a stroke, otherwise they will loose a lot of tight games. Therefore the core units would need a buff to keep the list where it is in the rankings. Personally i would prefer to buff rather than drop points on the core units as the low numbers is an interesting and fluffy defining feature that they got right about marines in EA.

But i appreciate that major changes to the core list isn’t going to happen. Thats why it would be good to see the Imperial Fists added to EUK so players have the option of a decent ground marine list.


Sent using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5340
Location: London, UK
And ^this^ neatly illustrates the problems of many other options IMO.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:26 pm
Posts: 48
As the bleary and beaten person Dans airlist was tested on for the last year and a half, personally, one thunderhawk per 1000 points isn't a bad option. It only messes with an air list, and not other builds or rules. I feel all of the other changes suggested affect marines in other ways, which to my mind is uneccesary.

I've tried orks, titans, nerons, 1k sons, guard, nids, marines and eldar against this list. Easily the worst list to go is necrons (even with 3 pylons), with marines and feral orks as the best (unbreakable AA with great CC). Its still very hard to win, and very boring to play against (hats of to Dan tho).

GIving someone 0 for sportsmanship is another option to my mind...

That said, I'm a huge fan of trying new tournament scenarios, I found the special scenario in Exeter works for me way better than the standard scenario. We would certainly be introducing a new scenario to McPocalypse if there weren't the newish players coming along.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:38 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Toronto, Canada
Some of the issues that I have seen with dominant lists is an over specialization/spam (ie taking lots of the same or similar units). This focus has benefits and drawbacks but in a tournament setting should be moderated to a certain degree. One soft option to consider to reduce spamming and encourage a more diverse game and selection of formations is to impose an additional list restriction to tournament games (and tournament games only).
The restriction proposed should be something like:

"no tournament list may have more then 1 of the same formation type* (as per the army list) selected per 1000 points. (so in a 3000 point tournament same formation type could only be selected 3 time, 4000 pts = 4 times, 2000pts = 2 times)"

an argument can be made for 1 of the same formation type per 1000pts plus 1 (ie 3000pts = 4 of the same formation, 4000ps = 5 of the same formation)

The effect:
- more inter-list diversity
- more list diversity
- more combined arms play
- more fun
- put a natural damper on some spam lists such as Speed Freaks, Feral Orks, Space Marine Tunderhawk spam, scout spam...
- might have some detrimental effects on some lists, tyranids come to mind...

* when I say formation type I mean per the formation entry on the army list. so that would mean that an ork Kult of Speed whether normal, big or uge would be considered the same "formation type". Similarly a Tactical Marine formation with or without any upgrades would still be considered the same "formation type"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:38 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Toronto, Canada
sorry double post


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:23 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Newcastle, UK
johnjcole wrote:
As the bleary and beaten person Dans airlist was tested on for the last year and a half


You have my utmost respect for your stoicism John, I only had to face the list once and found it a pretty frustrating experience so hats off to you dude. I hope Dan's bought you many-a drink for your services :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK list amendments
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:25 pm
Posts: 100
It's nice to see so many people talking about me outside of Tinder.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net