The Specialist Arms Forum

Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 01:39:57 AM

Title: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 01:39:57 AM
Just downloaded the SM stuff from here:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8ZWIzNWYzMDEtMTY2Ny00Yjk5LTljYTMtNmM4Mjk5OTQ1Nzdk&hl=en&pli=1 (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8ZWIzNWYzMDEtMTY2Ny00Yjk5LTljYTMtNmM4Mjk5OTQ1Nzdk&hl=en&pli=1)

First things first. Why the heck is the SO available? And if it is available, why is it so easily taken? And if it is easily taken, why is it only priced at 425 points only same as a regular BB? Why would anyone take a regular BB now? Unless there's a rule which says one must take a regular BB before a VBB, no one is going to be using regular BBs anymore. They'll automatically go for the SO before choosing any other BB.

Next, lances being allowed seem to be the direction where the HA are going. However, SC getting Str 2 lances for no additional cost? So who in their right mind would be taking the regular SCs now? I sure as heck wouldn't. BCs are problematic to use with WBs. The SM are now being retrofitted into hardier IN ships. An SC fleet can now more reliably take on the IN fleet and have good chances of winning. I think that's the wrong direction.

Has the HA really playtested this before throwing out this bone to us or are they just doing theorygothic?

Lastly to offer a counter suggestion, I would say the SM BBs and SCs just need another shield. I've always been an advocate of this. They are the best light cruisers in the Imperial arsenal point for point but they can also easily die like flies esp to a lance heavy fleet. Adding another shield increases their survivability without increasing their anti-ship weaponry which should be maintained. They should have the best defensive oriented fleet but not have the best in offensive weaponry. As it is, the are at par now with the IN weaponry with this list.

I'll still add some more after I finish the whole article.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 24, 2010, 03:04:30 AM
Quote
SC getting Str 2 lances for no additional cost? So who in their right mind would be taking the regular SCs now?

you forgot to add to that the dominion fleet lets you take the strike cruisers for 120 points with the lance retrofit. Yeah you loose +1 to HR and a few other things, but you have access to the thunderhawk bomber to replace it.

let me quote my post from when this travesty first appeared:

Quote
I do not like or want the marine fleet rules posted in those drafts. You are reversing a core Marine mechanic of limited availability of lances by allowing strike cruisers to take S2 lances in the forward arc for the same cost as a normal Strike Cruiser. Second, you are allowing the Seditio Opprimere which again goes contrary to the core mechanic of marine fleets having limited access to lances.  Third, I see no reason to ever use a list outside of the Dominion list. You loose boarding torpedoes and HR benefits, but you gain resilient bombers, 120 point strike cruisers with 2 lances on the front arc (dauntless speed with 6+ armor, 2 turrets and bombers? yes, please), and cheap battle barges.

This means that the test fleet I've been thinking of using would suddenly have a squadron of 4 strike cruisers carrying 8 lances and, if I wanted, I could swap out the battlebarge for the Seditio Opprimere bumping that up to 12 lances. While marines might need a bit of a boost to be more competitive, this just strikes me as bad in a number of ways. I'm not even sure why this is being made either, are you planning a combined IN fleet PDF with 1:1 battlecruisers to cruisers, non scattering NC, and 45CM WB standard too?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 24, 2010, 04:07:26 AM
Good show. :)

I agreed with Vaaish in that thread. Travesty is a good word. I even think it is too nice for Strike Cruisers with lances for 120pts.

My ideas regarding Space Marines:
- teleport attacks allowed when on special orders.
- Strike Cruiser with a 2nd shield (if that means testing shows the vessel should be 150-155pts so be it).
- assault variant for Strike Cruisers

Regardng bomberdment:
In FAQ2010 it is apparant these fire simultanous with weapon batteries so no intervening blastmarkers.
-
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 04:21:38 AM
I haven't re-read the proposed FAQ2010 but the WB/BC interaction with no BMs sounds like a thorny issue. Which rolls would be which which takes down the shields? Nope, keep the current mechanic.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 24, 2010, 04:48:39 AM
Admiral, if they both fire at the same time, it doesn't matter which drops shields. Most people will end up rolling the WB first and then the BC anyway. If they are rolled together, I'm pretty positive that WB hits will be selected first as dropping the shields no different than rolling WB and lances together for the sake of speed. So long as it is obvious which dice represent which weapons system, there isn't any confusion.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 04:54:07 AM
There is an issue since BCs do crits on 4+ (and Orks Heavy Gunz do double damage). I would prefer my BCs doing the damaging than my WBs.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding things since I have not re-read the FAQ2010 from the first time I read it. Do you mean that regardless of which weapon is fired first that the second battery type fired from one ship (or squadron) will not be affected by the resulting BMs fired from the first battery type? If so, then I will withdraw my complaint.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 24, 2010, 05:15:39 AM
What you said is correct. it only relates to the same ship or squadron.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 24, 2010, 05:29:07 AM
Long time lurker here.  I  would like to also voice an extreme dislike of anything more than the rare lance in a space marine fleet.
It is the weaknesses as well as the strengths of a fleet that give them their enjoyable character.
Make the marines the best at what they do, and just what they do. 

Also, what changed in the errata for 2010?  I cant find it.  In my heart, I feel a ship should not obscure its own batteries with its other guns,
as they should all fire about the same time.  Aka, a ship is not effected by blast markers it creates in that turn for purposes of column shift
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 24, 2010, 06:44:04 AM
Spartacus, that is basically what the clarification in the draft FAQ says.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 24, 2010, 06:54:04 AM
Last S.
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1612.0

FAQ2010 wip PDF

(I mean the title says it all....) ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on September 24, 2010, 09:27:07 AM
The only changes SM needs are:
+1 shields to strike cruisers
Allow escorts to make 1 teleport attacks
Increase teleport attacks for barge and strike cruisers to three
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 09:31:44 AM
Battle Barge should also get 1 more shield. It's a battleship. It's a rare enough ship at 0-3. Fluff-wise it should be a tough target to take down.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 24, 2010, 09:38:21 AM
True enough.

So we all agree on:
* 2nd shield for Strike Cruisers.

Varied ideas about Teleport Attacks:
* allowed on special orders;
* 1 per escort - 3 per capital ship

On the list:
* fourth shield Barge
* fourth turret Barge

Variants:
* Should Marines have variant pattern cruisers?
* Keep Venerable Battle Barges? ( I like them).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 09:48:35 AM
I like the VBBs. I do not like the SO.

I don't like the variant pattern SCs either. Let's assume we keep the SC as it is. In a Dominion fleet list, i can now take 140 point SCs with 2 shields and 2 lances. Squadron them in groups of threes and I have one helluva strike force which will have a hard time being taken down. So I can just take two squadrons of three SCs priced a 840 points in a 1k game. Get a MotF so that's 890. I can then take three Cobra RSV or two Nova or Firestorm RSV. Just for the SCs alone, that's a total of six 25 cm, two shield, 6+ armor light cruisers with two turrets which have a total firepower of 24 WBs per side arc and Str 12 lances in the front arc and which BTW also has 12 THs for anti-ordnance role. That's just broken.

Oh, and while we're adding the second shield on the SC lower the TH it can chuck out by 1. That's what's making things difficult for it. I mean how the heck can that dinky ship carry 2 squadrons worth while the BB only brings 3 squadrons. Also if we convert the normal SC TH allotment to regular IN craft, that's an equivalent of 4 squadrons of AC in a ship the size of a Dauntless. I mean DOH!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 24, 2010, 09:59:27 AM
on variants for cruisers I mean:
* The Assault variant
* Devestator variant

not this lance blasphemy. Or S.O. blasphemy.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 10:02:42 AM
Oh those variants. I have to try and remember what stats they are. Can ya post em up? Is the Assault variant the one I used for the Space Wolves? The Devastator is for the BTs right?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 24, 2010, 10:03:24 AM
Am i the only one having doubts about SCs with 2 shields? I mean compare the stats it already has with other Light Cruisers, it is already a great ship.

Horizon you dont want a 2nd shield on a Emissary who has less Armor and less Hitpoints but you want it on a strike cruiser whos only weakness are lances?

I think against anything else but lances the SC performs great with 2 Turrets and 6 Armor. After a 2nd shield would we see anything else but strike cruisers in a SM flieet? (maybe a a few Escorts for lances)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on September 24, 2010, 10:49:59 AM
Fine with 2 thawks for barge to differentiate
3 strikecruisers should play very different
SC should not be a 1/3 barge
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 24, 2010, 01:39:37 PM
Heya,

You also have to see things in the whole fleet approach. As it stands the Strike Cruiser is really an underperformer. The Emissary in current variants as well. The Emissary can see its fix with speed & turns. The Emissary has a warship in a "Protector-ing" role. The Strike Cruiser does not.

I don't think we would see soley Strike Cruisers, and as said, if points need to be upped I'll go along as well.

I play Tau and face Space Marines ;)


Assault Strike Cruiser 170pts - Space Wolves
hits 6
speed 25cm
turns 90*
armour 6+
shields 1
Turrets 2

prow bombardment - 30cm - str.3 - LFR
prow launch bay - Thawk 25cm - 2 - NA
port launch bay - Thawk 25cm - 1 - NA
starboard launch bay - Thawk 25cm - 1 - NA

options:
6 torps for bomberdment for free
3 assault points on planet assault.


Devestator 160 pts - Black Templars
hits 6
speed 25cm
turns 90*
armour 6+
shields 1
Turrets 1

Prow bombardment - 30cm - str.3 - LFR
Prow Torpedoes - 30cm - str.6 - F
Prow Launch bay - Thawks 25cm - 3 - NA
Port Battery - 30cm - str.4 - L
Starboard Battery - 30cm - str.4 - R
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 02:06:13 PM
Not fine with 2 THs to the Barge. The Barge is bigger. The Barge should be able to take more THs. SCs are not much bigger than a Dauntless. Hence they should only have 1 TH squadron. In lieu of this they should get the extra Shield and get their points upped to 155. SC should only be 1/3rd of a Barge in performance. Again it's a light cruiser sized ship.

The Assault SC I now see should only have Str 1 TH in the prow, then price at 165 points.

The Dev really has all those weapons in the prow? FP3 bombards, Str 3(!) TH as well as Str 6 torps? I wouldn't agree to that.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 24, 2010, 04:51:14 PM
Also, besides being a clunky operating light cruiser, two things.
Its already been pointed out that even weapon batteries pose a serious threat in numbers to a cruiser with a shield and 6 hits.

Also, this is space marines.  The Strike Cruiser is the only cruiser option they have, so it should be above average, though not likely to win in a stand off fight against another mainline cruiser.  Or hell, maybe.  Its an armed/armored to the teeth vessel crewed by space marines, just smaller and more purpose oriented than a cruiser.  Give it a fighting chance.  Make strike cruisers something you really want to take, because currently, and lets be honest, its a fleet with a battleship and a lot of escorts.

I am against any price increase to the SC or BB unless it is a pretty major change. 
Give the SC an extra shield for free, it will just make it a bit more appealing.  I wonder if those who are complaining against it have actually had any kind of problem with marine SC's raping their fleets?

Keep the  thunderhawks the way they are on the SC.  If anything, up the amount of TH on the battlebarge, its supposed to be a virtual floating fortress monastary.  Give it another shield and MAYBE  a turret.  Up its points.

Any other variants and options, as long as they are balanced, would be great.  The more the better, make a fleet with such limited ship options fun and varied to play.  Make it so two different marine fleets can feel like they aren't playing total mirror images.

Hell, give them mark-of-chaos-esque 'Combat Doctrines' or other chapter specific things.  Spice!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 24, 2010, 07:47:17 PM
On t-hawks:
allow annihilator variants or not? I am not a fan but 40k etc has them...

Not adding pts to a strike cruiser with additional shields is iffy. You do not want underpointed vessels. Playtesting always at a higher level then thought. So 155pts certainly.

The Barge should keep its T-Hawks at 3.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on September 24, 2010, 09:58:22 PM
True enough.

So we all agree on:
* 2nd shield for Strike Cruisers.

Varied ideas about Teleport Attacks:
* allowed on special orders;
* 1 per escort - 3 per capital ship

On the list:
* fourth shield Barge
* fourth turret Barge

Variants:
* Should Marines have variant pattern cruisers?
* Keep Venerable Battle Barges? ( I like them).


I can see that I posted my comments on the SM rules in the wrong place.  Generally I agree with Admiral and everyone on this thread.  Note: I play against SM a lot, but I don't play them.

Strike Cruisers:
- I'm okay with a 2nd shield, but there would have to be a point cost change.  I'd go a step farther and say that it could be an option.
- SC Varients ( not the lance ones) are okay.  I find the 2 posted above interesting.  At the very least I think SCs could use a t-hawk carrier variation and an all batteries variation
- I have no opinion on 1 or 2 t-hawks standard on an SC, but I've found that with so many t-hawks available at 1250 points some games I've played against SM has been more about AC and less about close range guns and boarding.  From a game balance stand point I haven't found 2 t-hawks per SC a big problem, but Admiral makes a decent argument of for 1 verse 2

Venerable BattleBarge:
- I'm okay with the idea that they can take one.  It gives a certain personalization to each SM player's fleet.  But I'm still confused why someone wouldn't always take a Despoiler BB for only 10 points more then a standard BB.  More t-hawks, better shields, better turrets and you get some lances
- I have no strong opinion on the SO BattleBarge other then the fact it detracts form the flavor of SM with all those lances ( same reason I don't feel that lances are a good idea on SM... you lose fleet flavor).  Honestly, I don't see the point of even having this ship available.  There are so many great vessels available with lances between Chaos and Imperial options, why give out another one?

Thunderhawk Annilators:
- Without playtest, I have no issues with these.  It gives more variety of AC to the SM player which can lead to a more enjoyable game, but it doesn't feel like it compromises the flavor or balance to much. ( Can someone please tell me how turret suppression is resolved with them though? I'd like to playtest them next game )

Barge 4 shields and/or 4 turrets
- No opinion

Teleport Stuff:
- No opinion
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 10:28:21 PM
THAs now that they're available should be allowed. It's why I am open to the SC's TH strength being lowered to 1. In the 6 SC list I mentioned, that's effectively 18 THs on the table doing anti ordnance duties on average with the current rules. I think it's too much. Reducing it to 1 still keeps it at a respectable and effective 9 fighter-whatever markers on the table.

So reducing the strength to 1 and adding 1 more shield in return, I think it can stick with the current 145 points as it is gaining and losing something in the exchange. Keeping the TH strength at 2, it would certainly warrant an increase to 155 esp if THAs are allowed.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on September 24, 2010, 10:52:45 PM
THAs now that they're available should be allowed. It's why I am open to the SC's TH strength being lowered to 1. In the 6 SC list I mentioned, that's effectively 18 THs on the table doing anti ordnance duties on average with the current rules. I think it's too much. Reducing it to 1 still keeps it at a respectable and effective 9 fighter-whatever markers on the table.

So reducing the strength to 1 and adding 1 more shield in return, I think it can stick with the current 145 points as it is gaining and losing something in the exchange. Keeping the TH strength at 2, it would certainly warrant an increase to 155 esp if THAs are allowed.

6 SCs have 12 THs not 18, but yes Having even 6 on the table in a 1000point game is certainly decent.

I think 1 T-hawk could work as a trade for 2 shields (not sure about point adjustment), especially if there is a carrier version like the Assault Variant available to SM so they can beef back up on T-hawks if that's the chosen style of the SM player.  Once again, a couple variants that stick to the flavor of SM would allow a player to further personalize the fleet to his strategy instead of every SM fleet being boiler plate.

Another thing I'm concerned about with torps and lances being allowed on SCs so easily is that it detracts from the need or desire to take escorts.  I always thought it was nice that the weapons were distributed such that it encourages a commander to round out his fleet.  With lances and torps on SCs they risk compromising the role of hunters and Nova's.

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 11:07:51 PM
Yes, I know they have 12 but with 4+ survival checks, half will live to do some more mayhem  which is why I said effectively 18 (or 12+6 for surviving).

Yup not happy about lance availability.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on September 24, 2010, 11:32:25 PM
I also just noticed that Strike Cruiser can now choose one refit from any of the 18 for +20 points.  Doesn't this completely go against the philosophy and reasoning for not allowing Tyranid re-fits?!  So it can already take a second shield or +2 hull for +20 points.  ( A lot of the others aren't even beneficial to take )

Give a SC a second shield by default and then purchase a 3rd for +20 points and you have a monster.

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 24, 2010, 11:41:06 PM
I wouldn't allow that rule. Forgot to include that. SM are fine on the offensive end esp with introduction of THA. Just need to make them tougher than usual. Let the refits remain as refits available only in campaigns.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 25, 2010, 03:02:13 AM
I consider myself an extreme purist when it comes to space marines. the fluff makes it clear that you should be looking to your escorts for ship cracking, and leave the boarding to your cruisers.

Strike cruisers are awesome they way  they are.  If they keep on getting krumped, maybe your using them wrong.

Allow me to make my point firm.

1. It says quite CLEARLY in the writeup that the space marines were systematically neutered in space after the Horus Heresy, and rightfully so to prevent it from ever happening again.  standard cruisers and lances outside of escorts are not allowed under any circumstance. (don't give me the black library garbage, we all know they pay zero attention to cannon)

2. It also says that strike capacity is restricted to escorts... if you hadn't noticed, their escorts are amazing. If your having problems with your fleet, take less strike cruisers and more escorts!

3. The most damning thing about the fleet composition is how it describes chapter variation... Some strike cruisers may look different, but on the whole, no chapter has any sort of special ships, technology or advantages over any other. All strike cruisers and barges are made to a standard kept strict by the Imperial Navy and the Inquisition.  Your precious ultramarines are just not that important in space, nor are space wolves, Dark angels or black templars.  If you want your fleet to represent your 40k army, build your fleet to match their style, and paint it in their schemes.  don't forget that at this scale, your armies are in the 3-4000 point rage per strike cruiser, and 10,000 point range for the battle barges... at that point there just isn't any difference in the damage they can dish out.

4. According to the rules, thunderhawks take up 2 ordnance slots instead of the normal 1 that a fighter, bomber or a-boat would use.  Every strike cruiser TECHNICALLY has launch capacity 4.  If you give a light cruiser the ability to launch 4 thunderhawks, you are giving it the same launch capacity as an Emperor battleship. PLEASE justify this insanity to me.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 25, 2010, 03:42:19 AM
Quote
It also says that strike capacity is restricted to escorts... if you hadn't noticed, their escorts are amazing. If your having problems with your fleet, take less strike cruisers and more escorts!

I think the issue with this lies in the marine fleet becoming rather one dimensional. Strike cruisers tend to be more all or nothing and I believe the end goal is to allow more variety in the marine builds by making the strike cruiser less of a liability in a mixed fleet.

In the end the marine fleet is no more susceptible to lance heavy fleets than any other, it's just that outside of battle barge (which is a nice solid platform) you basically have an all light cruiser fleet which has little staying power because most fleets still have adequate numbers of lances to threaten strike cruisers even if they don't tool up to take on 6+ armor. Perhaps all strike cruisers need is a points drop to allow either more escorts or more strike cruisers to be taken to make up for the susceptibility.

I do agree with your points on lances and thunderhawks. Escorts as strike capability is a nice idea on paper, and perhaps once the 4+ for a hit and run to kill an escort goes through it'll be more viable, but as it stands now escorts are just too flimsy to really hold the brunt of a fleets striking power.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 25, 2010, 03:54:03 AM
I don't deny this. I suggest to any space marine player to construct a blackship and use it as part of their fleet. It literally being a battlecruiser level space marine vessel.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 25, 2010, 04:01:26 AM
Unfortunately, that isn't an option at the moment since the black ship isn't official and the odds are better to adjust the marine fleet with tweaks to the list itself than adding a new ship that has no available model.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 25, 2010, 06:47:38 AM
I consider myself an extreme purist when it comes to space marines. the fluff makes it clear that you should be looking to your escorts for ship cracking, and leave the boarding to your cruisers.

Strike cruisers are awesome they way  they are.  If they keep on getting krumped, maybe your using them wrong.

It's not a matter of using them wrong. it's a matter of a 1 shield capital ship. 1 shield is relatively easy to take down even with WBs. The rest of the damage gets in real easy after that  esp against a fleet with lances.

Allow me to make my point firm.

1. It says quite CLEARLY in the writeup that the space marines were systematically neutered in space after the Horus Heresy, and rightfully so to prevent it from ever happening again.  standard cruisers and lances outside of escorts are not allowed under any circumstance. (don't give me the black library garbage, we all know they pay zero attention to cannon)

No denying that.

2. It also says that strike capacity is restricted to escorts... if you hadn't noticed, their escorts are amazing. If your having problems with your fleet, take less strike cruisers and more escorts!

It's not like their escorts are harder to kill than Strike Cruisers. While it may say that strike capacity is limited to escorts, I don't think they should be their only strike capacity. Fluff still says almost each Company of a Chapter has 1 Strike Cruiser.

3. The most damning thing about the fleet composition is how it describes chapter variation... Some strike cruisers may look different, but on the whole, no chapter has any sort of special ships, technology or advantages over any other. All strike cruisers and barges are made to a standard kept strict by the Imperial Navy and the Inquisition.  Your precious ultramarines are just not that important in space, nor are space wolves, Dark angels or black templars.  If you want your fleet to represent your 40k army, build your fleet to match their style, and paint it in their schemes.  don't forget that at this scale, your armies are in the 3-4000 point rage per strike cruiser, and 10,000 point range for the battle barges... at that point there just isn't any difference in the damage they can dish out.

Yes, the SM are not that good at space combat. It does not mean that all the Chapters are that generic. Dominion does do the UM flavor well. Space Wolves definitely have something different with their extensive use of non-standard SM ships and this is canon even beyond the Black Library.  BTs would have ships which might be tailored to their crusading ways. While the ship design should be generic, it doesn't mean that variants like the Assault strike cruiser cannot be made available (sorry but I can't agree to the Dev variant. Too powerful at a cheap cost). The Assault SC is actually tailored to the SM idea of planetary assault. It's designed to drop as many TH as they can at the expense of WBs. Surely that shouldn't be problematic tactics wise.

4. According to the rules, thunderhawks take up 2 ordnance slots instead of the normal 1 that a fighter, bomber or a-boat would use.  Every strike cruiser TECHNICALLY has launch capacity 4.  If you give a light cruiser the ability to launch 4 thunderhawks, you are giving it the same launch capacity as an Emperor battleship. PLEASE justify this insanity to me.

I did point this out earlier which is why I believe it should be reduced to 1. In exchange give it Shield 2. They should be able to approach a planet with excellent chances of surviving.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 25, 2010, 08:06:32 AM
Space Marines are ordered to do Planetary Assaults with or without Imperial Navy assistance.

Problem is that without IN assistance the Marine fleet horribly fails at doing planetary assaults.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 25, 2010, 04:33:51 PM
Not in my experience. All it takes is ONE strike cruiser to get to the planet table, and hang out near the surface to win the game. Since thunderhawks give 1 assault point, and the ship itself 2, the first round results in a victory for the space marines, and the second crushes the enemy flat.

I have done several space marine planetary assault missions. If you don't focus on fighting and focus on getting your ships in low orbit, you win almost every time.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on September 25, 2010, 05:40:30 PM
I think 2 variants of sc could work
A 2 shields 1 thunderhawk for crusade fleets
A 1 shield 2 thunderhawks for chapters working alongside IN
I think both should be 150pts with 2-3 teleport attack options
Thus keeping SC as SM delivery system

For a dominion fleet option allow them to upgrade any IN escorts to SM standards and restrict crusade and standard SM list to SM escorts
IMO maintaining a dominion means covering a greater area with patrols  and maintaining a presence rather than offensive capability with capital ships.

Btw, will ACs destroy SM escorts on a 5+ rather than a 4+?

I would also be fine with SM escorts getting 1 teleport attack per game
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 25, 2010, 07:22:23 PM
One Strike Cruiser is so easily surpressed it is a joke. I lost one battle vs Marines and that was my first when I had Tau attempting a breakthrough. A Barge, 2 SC and escorts stopped me. But not the SC. Only ship I destroyed.

After that I whipped Marines around with (mainly) Tau, but als Corsair Eldar, Craftworld Eldar and Chaos. My AdMech will also have an enjoyable time.

The SC first needs to get there... I wonder how you managed it Zelnik. Really.

@ Fracas, if the new assault boat rule is adopted, then yes, enemies will suffer the -1 penalty when attacking Marine escorts with assault boats, needing a 5+ to destroy them.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 25, 2010, 09:15:22 PM
hmmm... the escort change might actually help marines rather considerably since their escorts die on 5+ to enemy aboats and they can kill escorts on a 3+ with their own thawks.

Fixing escorts to be more resilient will only cause people to take more of them thus allowing marines better positioning. I don't think, though, it's quite enough of a boost on its own and I'd like to see the SC get an extra shield as well. The ships are supposed to be more automated and heavily armored anyway.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 25, 2010, 11:03:24 PM
Not in my experience. All it takes is ONE strike cruiser to get to the planet table, and hang out near the surface to win the game. Since thunderhawks give 1 assault point, and the ship itself 2, the first round results in a victory for the space marines, and the second crushes the enemy flat.

THs give 1 AP? I think not.

I have done several space marine planetary assault missions. If you don't focus on fighting and focus on getting your ships in low orbit, you win almost every time.

If only one SC manages to get on the planet and the rest of your fleet are destroyed, you also get -1 AP for every 500 points you lost. Somehow, I don't think the entire picture is being seen here. Aside from which, you can do nothing on your turn while assaulting. Means a ship sent after you into low orbit will be getting the pummeling of its life.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 26, 2010, 12:18:48 AM
Sorry, i misread the rules, allow me to revise my findings.

Not only do they earn 2 points for landing troops, they also earn two points for BOMBARDING THE PLANET.  so each cruiser can earn 4 assault points a round.

Also the Barge can be an exterminator without replacing it's prow weapons, and activates on a 3+

If you can't AAF with your fleet enough to get into low orbit with your superior armor and speed, maybe you should reconsider your tactics or fleet composition.

Also, in low orbit, it is a righteous pain in the ass to harm other ships, considering everyone suffers column shifts and some weapons simply can't be fired.  Bombardment cannons obliterate ground defenses something fierce (that whole "defense" status is a real killer). 

yes, for every 500 points you lose 1 ap.  When you are ranking up 4-16 a round, though, i don't see it as an issue. 



Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 26, 2010, 12:31:06 AM
Sorry, i misread the rules, allow me to revise my findings.

Not only do they earn 2 points for landing troops, they also earn two points for BOMBARDING THE PLANET.  so each cruiser can earn 4 assault points a round.

They earn 2 AP for every turn they land troops OR bombard the planet. Not 2 APs for landing troops and 2 APs for bombarding the planet. Dude, c'mon. SM just gain 2AP instead of the normal 1 in Planetary Assault scenarios.  No additional bonuses. Note also that the Planetary Assault scenario also specifies  that "a ship deploying troops or bombarding the planet may not do anything else that turn." The wording is similar to that of the SM text. The attacking ship is doing one or the other or both and they gain 1AP (for normal ships) or 2AP (for being SM or transports) when doing so.

Also the Barge can be an exterminator without replacing it's prow weapons, and activates on a 3+

Yep. As it should be. Which would be great if you are playing Exterminatus and not Planetary Assault.

If you can't AAF with your fleet enough to get into low orbit with your superior armor and speed, maybe you should reconsider your tactics or fleet composition.

It's not as if the opponent is not going to be blocking your way even if you AAF. You're opponent has a stake in winning the game too. If you're opponents are nice enough to give you a big, wide lane to get your SC in, well good for you and be thankful for such opponents.

Also, in low orbit, it is a righteous pain in the ass to harm other ships, considering everyone suffers column shifts and some weapons simply can't be fired.  Bombardment cannons obliterate ground defenses something fierce (that whole "defense" status is a real killer).

The only weapons one needs in low orbit are the WBs and Lances. It's still one dead SC which is doing nothing at the moment against the enemy ship(s) sent out to hunt it.  

yes, for every 500 points you lose 1 ap.  When you are ranking up 4-16 a round, though, i don't see it as an issue.  

4-16 a round? You really think you can get 4-16 APs a round. Re-read the rules again. More importantly, understand the rules. And get opponents who will actually prevent your ships from getting close to the planet. Maybe you'll change your mind after.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Horned Rat on September 26, 2010, 09:37:05 AM
How about an minute fix. Make bombardment cannon 45cm for SM.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 26, 2010, 02:27:48 PM
...NO? Bombardment cannons are one of the more frightening weapons in the game. 30cm is quite enough thanks!

Listen Admiral, we have clashed on this issue before. My argument is that they are just fine. No matter what your enemy can do, they can't stop you from getting to the planet unless they are absurdly lucky.  There are just too many strike cruisers and escorts. If your having problems getting enough assault points, land your escorts on the planet. They also earn 2 assault points and can't be shot at.

In low orbit, you suffer column shifts. against a 6+ armor, that's not ever a good thing.  Yes you can earn 4-16 a round, maybe you just need to adjust your tactics. The space marines don't deserve anything special. This is NOT 40k. They are SUPPOSED to be a challenging fleet. If you want an easy-win fleet, play Necrons.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Horned Rat on September 26, 2010, 03:14:32 PM
We'll being 30cm doesn't make it very scary. Even less when the poor space marine is braced from lances and tries to hit my abeam. I'd give him some slack.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 26, 2010, 10:24:35 PM
Listen Admiral, we have clashed on this issue before. My argument is that they are just fine. No matter what your enemy can do, they can't stop you from getting to the planet unless they are absurdly lucky.  There are just too many strike cruisers and escorts. If your having problems getting enough assault points, land your escorts on the planet. They also earn 2 assault points and can't be shot at.

Experience says otherwise. I don't know about the quality of your opponents but please do not impugn the quality  of play of others. There is no there are just too many SCs and Escorts. Nids and Orks can swarm you. Necrons are faster. Eldar are faster. Chaos just as fast and has access to lances. Tau can out ordnance you and they have they're fair amount of lances. Only IN can be said to be a bit of a problem. It's not having a hard time getting to the planet. It's that by that time, a lot of your ships will already be killed. Knowing the scenario is Planetary Assault, why would your opponent just let you get onto the planet easily?

In low orbit, you suffer column shifts. against a 6+ armor, that's not ever a good thing.  Yes you can earn 4-16 a round, maybe you just need to adjust your tactics. The space marines don't deserve anything special. This is NOT 40k. They are SUPPOSED to be a challenging fleet. If you want an easy-win fleet, play Necrons.

Who the heck said anything about an easy win for SM? See, this is where your problem is. You think we want SM to be the end all be all just like in 40k. We are not. If we wanted them to be so, we're be clamoring for the SO and lances. Did you see me wish for them? No, on the contrary in this very thread in my first post, I showed my disapproval. I'm even advocating LOWERING the TH strength of the SCs.

It does not mean, however, they can't get anything special. I advocate keeping their current setup and ships and just increasing their defensive qualities. Nothing wrong with that, is there? Fluff-wise, you have only a few of these elite SM. Do you really just want to put them in a ship that can easily be taken out?

Can you get that mindset out of here? No one in this thread is advocating SM become an easy win button nor be the faction they are in 40k but we do know they need a bit of help. They'll be strong in PA and Exterminatus scenarios (which should be the case) earning 2 APs for each ship in orbit disembarking troops but they sure will not be earning 4-16 APs a turn easily as you seem to think. On the other hand, they will continue to have a difficult time in the other scenarios.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 27, 2010, 04:09:19 AM
Signed or so.

I must say I think Fracas idea ain't bad. That the SC has the option to take an extra shield at +10pts.

However, this would clash with the admiral's idea to lower the launch bays with an extra shield.

hmmm

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 27, 2010, 07:54:27 AM
I approach the balance issues with these questions.

If I chose marines as my fleet, will I be able to consistently win with them?  Do they have the variety to keep me interested for more than a few games?

The answer comes up short for me, so thats why I'm ok with slightly undercosted ships than the norm, due to the extreme lack of options in mainline ships available to the SM. 

More options, more power.  Thats what I personally want for the SM.

What do people think of Battle Doctrines to diversify chapters?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 27, 2010, 08:01:35 AM
There are reasons why SM do not have options at the moment other than the BB and the SC and their escorts. However, I do advocate them getting some options as long as it is in line with their role as spearhead. They're not supposed to have an easy time in fleet actions. They should excel in Planetary Assault and Exterminatus scenarios.

Changes like an Assault BB and Assault SC variants (TH heavy ships) should be allowed. The Black Ship is kinda questionable for me. Thunderhawk Annihilators should also help while not making the overpowered. The new FAQ will improve their batteries eliminating the BM issue bet WBs and BCs. I think these are enough.

 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 27, 2010, 08:25:40 AM
I totally support keeping marines within fluff.  At the same time, I think they could still get a bit of a boost without losing any fluff.

Yes, its fluffy that Marines should be at a disadvantage to a space marine fleet, but not a huge one.  Necrons in BFG are fluffy, but that doesnt mean they are fun to play against.  Marines don't even dominate if they manage to get in close.  Orks and Nids both tend to outclass them at close range.

 Even more important to me, though, are more options.  And I think Admiral and I agree on that.  I love the idea of SC variants beyond simply changes to the prow weaponry (Like the torps, would never trade for a lance).
Assault variants would be very welcome.  Siegebreaker ships that trade out some things for more bombardment cannons, just throwing out ideas.

I'd like to see Doctrines you can buy, I would like to see some kind of representation of what gives SM fleets an edge over other short range slugging fleets, with their supreme skill and training.

I'd like to see more standard terminator rules, like Chaos has, with lasting benefits.
I'd like to see generally more defensible ships to protect their valued crew.
Extra shields and turrets for the cap ships, no fluff excuse for them not to be armored to the teeth.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 27, 2010, 10:18:01 AM
Doctrines are interesting but unlike 40k, I don't think there will a significant impact on how SM operate other than dome prefer to board more than others. The differences in tactics on the ground do not translate well to starship combat. No harm though if someone came up with something. I tried my best in my unofficial Space Wolf fleet list as well as Ray's Black Templar list.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 27, 2010, 12:54:17 PM
There has already been some suggestions to add the Blackship in as a cannon vessel.  I strongly suggest that the blackship be added to the fleet as a 0-1.

While it's true you only get 1, it is an extremely potent vessel with all of the benefits of being space marine. It not only fits in with the fluff, but with the fleet.

For those of you who don't know it's stats, here they are.

270 pts.
Cruiser/8 45 turn, armor 6+, 25cm speed, 2 shields, 3 turrets

Armament:
Prow st 6 torpedo
Launch capacity 2 thunderhawks OR 3 fighters/bombers/A-boats (if added to the fleet, i would suggest just having it T-hawks for continuity's sake, would reduce point cost by 20 points)
Dorsal st 6 Bombardment cannon FLR 30cm
Port st 8 battery, L 45cm
Starboard st 8 battery R 45cm

Special rules: may go AAF for free.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 27, 2010, 01:01:18 PM
On the BlackShip stats:
indeed: drop fighter/bomber/aboat option.
add T-Hawk annihilator option.

But fluff wise a BlackShip is a special (lol) ship to search, find and transport untrained psychic mutations, psykers, etc.
So in order I would find it cool that if this ship is taken a special sub plot must be used.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zhukov on September 27, 2010, 05:08:31 PM

How about the Seditio Opprimere is only available when playing Tyranids?

-Zhukov
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 27, 2010, 05:55:15 PM
NEVER EVER!
VETO!
INQUISITION!
HERETIC!

No really, batteries are better against Nids anyway.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 27, 2010, 06:48:28 PM
Well obviously he means for the fluff :p

Blackship is an interesting option, but just one in any major fleet battle...well, without a squadron if ships I find they die off quickly on their own.
But hey, an option is an option.  I'm fine with it, just say marines are escorting it or something, no subplot REALLY required  to excuse it being around at the time.  Attached to the fleet, whatever.

Doctrines could be very minor things that allow small bonuses for free, allow different fleet configs, and such.
Or they could cost points and be more major things.  Say, a khornate-esque Doctrine for things like Blood Angels or Space Wolves.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 27, 2010, 08:00:33 PM
I think the sub plot should be optional, but present. There are already rules that state it can't be squadroned with other cruisers, so that shows it's "one step outside" the rest of the fleet.

It really does "fit the bill" without any major changes, it's only one ship per fleet, and it doesn't really effect the feel of the fleet. It also happens to have all the benefits of a battlecruiser, battle barge, and strike cruiser with none of the negatives (45cm batteries, torpedos, 6 armor, t-hawks, 25cm speed, fast moving, great leadership, dorsal bombardment cannons)

One specific thing that needs to be done is a rules clarification that it gains the benefit for the space marine boarding 2+, though odds are the boarding will be done by Sisters of Battle :D

Space marines don't get lances, aside from the nova. Sorry. Bombardment cannons are JUST Fine.  


I agree with the others that Doctrines at this scale really don't effect battle in fleet formations.  Those are represented by the stellar LD that space marines get.  Again, Space marines are NOT special at this scale, this is NOT 40k, and this is NOT their natural realm of combat. There is ONLY ONE space marine chapter focused on  fighting in space, the Astral Knights, and they were nearly eradicated in a fight against the necrons.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 27, 2010, 08:27:14 PM
Thats an interesting bit of fluff of which I was not aware.  Source?

I'd like to restate that I feel marine Terminators should be exactly the same as chaos marines.

As it is, my terminators shooting out of my desolator class in boarding torps are much scarier than the one off versions.

It also makes me wonder why thunderhawks come in such pricy and expensive numbers.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 27, 2010, 08:48:01 PM
Sure. The "no lances, thanks" part is in the Armada book, page 25, under the Nova description. I will quote text.
As such, the Nova remains rare in most Space Marine fleets, a trend the
Imperial Navy, the Inquisition and other institutions perpetually concerned
by the balance of power would dearly love to see continue.


the "not their combat realm" is described earlier on page 20.

Instead, a compromise was reached which limited the
Space Marines to vessels whose primary role was
that of transport, delivery and suppression designed to facilitate planetary assault. Only the
smallest of vessels would be permitted to act
exclusively as gunships, with the larger
battlebarges and strike cruisers remaining
predominantly as aids to invasion, ensuring the
Space Marines would never present a threat to
the Imperial Navy proper


The Astral Knights can be found on the Lexicanum page here (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Astral_Knights)
I TRIED to make rules for these guys, but the idea was shot down by the same people i am arguing with here :D


Thunderhawks are rare and pricey because in reality, they ARE rare.  While in an atmosphere they tend to be nearly indestructible, and have plenty of staying power.  used in a space category, where ships use massive weapons that can obliterate them in a single pass, making their use a rather risky business. 

Don't forget your paying for more then just the thunderhawk, but the marines inside. They are larger then most bombers, and are only manned by space marines.  These things combined results in the "2 slots" rule.  Rarity, size and durability, the package they deliver (Space marines are supposed to be rare too, on the galactic scale :D)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 27, 2010, 10:00:18 PM
I don't remember shooting down the Astral Knights idea. Been a while. There might have been objections to what you are proposing they get.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 27, 2010, 10:44:01 PM
Mostly it was just "they don't exist anymore".
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 27, 2010, 11:05:10 PM
Wasn't me then. I never knew the background of the Astral Knights. But it would be true that if they don't exist anymore, kinda pointless to make their rules unless it's for one off games to recreate the killing of the destruction of the World Ender. Unless the rules are made for SM with similar doctrines as the Astral Knights. That would work. Much like UM and other SM are represented by the Dominion fleet or BT and other similar crusading SM represented by the BT fleet.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 27, 2010, 11:55:45 PM
It was mostly shot down on the basis of "does not exist anymore".

At the time i supported chapter specific battle barges, but that also was shot down.

Doctrines are simply a "no" in my book, they have amazing LD as it is, they don't need help in that department.

I will repeat my point: add the blackship to the list as 0-1.  It gives them a little more punch, staying power, and access to a battle cruiser.

I have tried to post a pic of my barge, but evidently the upload folder is full...
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 28, 2010, 12:36:09 AM
I wouldn't mind Chapter specific barges. I did that with my SW fleet. Most likely thought there wouldn't be that many variants for current day BB. The VBBs would be the way to go for Chapter specific BBs out of the current SM design.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 28, 2010, 01:18:53 AM
Yeah, i never, ever, EVER will support that idea.  I like how in the current Space marine book how they show two of the Ultramarines barges, they look unique, and are very impressive, but still BARGES!

The idea was drown out behind people who demanded chapter specific fleets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 28, 2010, 02:37:33 AM
You won't support what idea? Using VBBs as Chapter specific BBs? I don't mind but I also forgot to include that only the First and Second Founding Chapters should be able to use those VBBs. The later Chapters should be using the vanilla BB design and variants.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 28, 2010, 03:02:28 AM
the whole venerable battle barge idea. Put simply, all warships after the horus heresy, venerable or not, were removed from the hands of the space marines. The whole "find or capture" idea doesn't pan out, because the Navy would claim it and take it. While the Marines can argue with the Imperial Guard, the imperial navy has final say on any recovered ship, and are probably willing to maintain the check and balance on the marines with lethal intent.


I can see a vanilla barge customized and kitted out post aquisition, hence the chapter specific barges.  Venerable barges selected from the other battleships? Hell freakin' no.  Giving space marines access to lances, nova cannons, and huge launch capacity is just taking it a step too far for the rules, and for the fluff.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 28, 2010, 04:12:27 AM
Hmm thats a point.  What if there were rules to replace lances with bombard cannons?

While not retaining the same military weapons layout, I can see them using the hulls of old ships while in a pinch.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 28, 2010, 07:19:11 AM
 I've been thinking about the idea of SC variants.  I think dropping a TH for a shield would make the SC feel just like a SC should be.
I don't know about costing that, but if anything, I would drop them 5 points or so.

So, that is the standard SC, keep the variable prows offered, variety is good.

Two variant SC layouts.  Cost can be debated.

Assault Strike Cruiser:  replace port/starboard weapons batteries for a thunderhawk bay each.

Linebreaker Strike Cruiser: replace prow TH bay with str3 bombardment cannon

Any thoughts on an extra shield and turret on the Battlebarge?  I don't have a problem with the marines keeping themselves just as well protected as normal navy ships.

Also.  Make the Terminator's exactly like the chaos version.  I think the Honor Guard option isn't quite right, but more on that later.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 28, 2010, 09:21:22 AM
@Zelnik
You wont ever get more than one VBB so where is the problem? Its not that much compared the the overall fleet composition if one ship has lances. One Novacannon is almost useless if not supported by other long range weapons or luck, so i dont see a problem there as well.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 28, 2010, 09:54:36 AM
the whole venerable battle barge idea. Put simply, all warships after the horus heresy, venerable or not, were removed from the hands of the space marines. The whole "find or capture" idea doesn't pan out, because the Navy would claim it and take it. While the Marines can argue with the Imperial Guard, the imperial navy has final say on any recovered ship, and are probably willing to maintain the check and balance on the marines with lethal intent.

No, not true. Not all the existing battleships at the time of the Horus Heresy were removed. Especially those which the Emperor gave to favored Primarchs. Capturing is not out of the question as well. If you are referring to the Space Wolves list I made, it is also noted in their fluff, not just those of the Black Library, that they do capture ships from time to time. The IN can try to take it by force but then again the Logan would just tell them try to do so. But even he would most likely just give captured ships back to the IN if they ask nicely. No one would want to piss him off esp oin these times when they need every loyal SM they can get.

I can see a vanilla barge customized and kitted out post aquisition, hence the chapter specific barges.  Venerable barges selected from the other battleships? Hell freakin' no.  Giving space marines access to lances, nova cannons, and huge launch capacity is just taking it a step too far for the rules, and for the fluff.

Maybe that's the way to go. Limit the access to lance heavy battleships. The Despoiler and Desolator shouldn't be taken because there is a flaw in the design. The Apoc is out as well. The Emperor, Retribution and Oberon should be allowed if only because they are one off ships which should only be allowed in the First and Second Founding Chapters.

For the Grand Cruisers, limit it to the Vengeance, Exorcist, Retaliator and Avenger.

For the Battlecruisers, limit it to the Overlord (and maybe a torp version of the Mars).

For the Heavy Cruisers, Hades and Styx should be viable. The last 3 categories should again be limited only to the First and Second Founding Chapters.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 28, 2010, 10:12:59 AM
ok with me.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 28, 2010, 05:13:58 PM
in regards to the gifts given by the emprah, the chapters in question probably would never bring them into battle for fear of losing them.  (I personally think it's the result of extremely poor writing)

Also, they are extremely RARE. So rare that the odds of them appearing in a battle are SMALL.

I like the idea of chapter specific battle barges, kitted out slightly different from each other (for example, the Dark Angels barge had a st 9 torpedo and st 2 t-hawks to represent their love of hunters and torpedo combat) to show different tastes in space combat.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 28, 2010, 06:23:17 PM
Variable BB's would be good as well, as long as they were costed appropriately.  Hell, Seditio would be ok if he cost more than he currently does.
If in a faction, you gain something that is normally not there, you pay premium for it.  Thats how you balance.

Also, thoughts on variable SC's?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 28, 2010, 06:58:32 PM
SedO. No, not now, not ever, for any point value. It is totally contrary to the design philosophy and purpose of the Marine fleet and as such should never exist with the current load out.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 28, 2010, 07:08:27 PM
Well I at least understood the fluff of it and would be happy with it for 30+ points or so.  But if not, I don't care.  I don't plan on using it anyway.

I really hope the strike cruiser variants are liked.  I think it will go a long way in adding some variety to the SM's.

Maybe +15/20 points for the assault variant, +10 for the linebreaker?


Thoughts on standard terminator boarding parties?

It hasn't been brought up in a bit, but I do believe a teleport attack should be allowed standard by marines while on SO.

Its true you cant differentiate as much in space with marines, but there is I think some potential to be had.
Would it be fun if you had the option of purchasing Uncommon Doctrines for your fleet?  Double boarding value to represent chapters like the blood angels and space wolves, just like khornate chaos marines.  Allowing ships more teleport attacks to represent chapters like the imperial fists or rapid strike chapters like the raven guard.

Battlebarge alterations will go a long way in giving chapter definition as well, without the trouble of having multiple chapter fleet lists.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 28, 2010, 07:48:28 PM
Look, no one around this place will ever except the SO with current stats. Give it batteries, drop lances, all of them and we start talking again. ;)
This ship is just a thing, a heresy, on its own within BFG. And it is like a daemon hunting is every year now and then.
I still wish the original writer would join us and explain his Chaos tainted design. lol


Doctrines would be bad. Not really.

What one could do is have some varietes per sort of chapter. Dark Angels would use more rapid vessels and Hunters as fluff dictates opposed to another chapter like Black Templars who are crusaders. It would not affect their ability in space but the choice of vessels they have.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 28, 2010, 08:00:26 PM
Why would Doctrines be bad?  AKA how would they take away from the fleet list?


Thanks for the thoughts on the 'software' though.
Thoughts about the 'hardware' ideas?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 28, 2010, 08:10:20 PM
Quote
What one could do is have some varietes per sort of chapter. Dark Angels would use more rapid vessels and Hunters as fluff dictates opposed to another chapter like Black Templars who are crusaders. It would not affect their ability in space but the choice of vessels they have.

going a route like this begs the question, through, why not just use the regular fleet list? It's already more than capable of representing a wide range of fleet options including the use of faster vessels like in your example. This could easily be summed up in a small article entitled Marine chapters in BFG and discussing how to best represent the fleet preferences of the various chapters with the options available or discussing aesthetics preferred by chapters for conversions.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 28, 2010, 08:26:24 PM
I am more a mind similarly, to just give the marines options, and if you want to color a fleet a certain way, just take a certain kind of fleet layout.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 28, 2010, 08:30:34 PM
Quote
What one could do is have some varietes per sort of chapter. Dark Angels would use more rapid vessels and Hunters as fluff dictates opposed to another chapter like Black Templars who are crusaders. It would not affect their ability in space but the choice of vessels they have.

going a route like this begs the question, through, why not just use the regular fleet list? It's already more than capable of representing a wide range of fleet options including the use of faster vessels like in your example. This could easily be summed up in a small article entitled Marine chapters in BFG and discussing how to best represent the fleet preferences of the various chapters with the options available or discussing aesthetics preferred by chapters for conversions.

Yeah, I put it a bit wrong. 'Grasping' such fleet selections in rules is not the way. But they should be used as guidelines for the players wanting to 'fluff' their fleets.

A bit like the guidelines Ray Bell wrote for the Craftworlds (Warp Rift...ehm....12).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 28, 2010, 09:32:38 PM
On a strictly practical sense, thete will not be ven barges simply because there is not enough support and far too much resistance.

If you want to talk systemics, it is impossible to balance, and has basis in extremely questional fluff outside of the rulebook.

And get with the program. No. Doctrines.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 28, 2010, 09:35:10 PM
in regards to the gifts given by the emprah, the chapters in question probably would never bring them into battle for fear of losing them.  (I personally think it's the result of extremely poor writing)

Also, they are extremely RARE. So rare that the odds of them appearing in a battle are SMALL.

SM aren't sentimental. They WILL use them.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 28, 2010, 09:41:57 PM
The hell you say???

We are talking about hyper religious, xenophobic killing machines that eradicate entire planets to protect a secret or to reclaim artifacts.  Sentimentality is what they are known for.  Anyone would question the use of a gift from the emperor himself in the dangers of combat, or the use of potentially demon infested ships known to fall to the dark powers.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 28, 2010, 09:42:48 PM
On a strictly practical sense, thete will not be ven barges simply because there is not enough support and far too much resistance.

If you want to talk systemics, it is impossible to balance, and has basis in extremely questional fluff outside of the rulebook.

I haven't seen much resistance to VBBs. So far, you're the only one I've seen resisting the idea. People do support VBBs. If lances are the problem, the SM can just be denied access to the ones with lots of long range lances. A simple enough fix for balance. Questionable fluff? That's not as good a reason as balance issues. Still, again I would limit it to the First and Second Founding Chapters to satisfy your fluff question.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 28, 2010, 09:47:44 PM
The hell you say???

We are talking about hyper religious, xenophobic killing machines that eradicate entire planets to protect a secret or to reclaim artifacts.  Sentimentality is what they are known for.  Anyone would question the use of a gift from the emperor himself in the dangers of combat, or the use of potentially demon infested ships known to fall to the dark powers.

Hell yes I say!

The VBB is not an artifact. It's a weapon. It's to be used. You want artifacts, look at something like the Spear of Russ! THAT is an artifact! That is to be protected because legend has it that it will be reclaimed by Russ and used in the final battle. Logan Grimnar has a special weapon. That doesn't stop him form using it. Same witn Ragnar. He has a special weapon that came from or before the time of  the Emperor's rise. He uses it with gusto. So unless the VBB has a legend attached to it that Russ or whatever Primarch is coming back to use it, they WILL use it.

C'mon, stop justifying your dislike for VBBs with something so inane as it will not be used because it is a rare ship. They WILL use it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 28, 2010, 09:54:31 PM
Show me evidence in the 40 k rulebook, epic rulebook, space marine codex or the bfg rulebook armada or otherwise that they even exist. Those books are the only ones that matter.

You are letting your rampant fanboyism for space marines come before anything else. Also, vaaish also expressed his dislike for them.

Space marines are NOT important in this setting. If you desire to play with imperial navy ships, play imperial navy.  If you want to play with chaos ships, play chaos.   Stop trying to turn this game into 40k
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on September 28, 2010, 09:58:15 PM
i believe there should be another variant to the SC
but giving SM doctrines just gives them too much options, perhaps even more options than chaos and that just doesn't seem right.

1 barge
make it venerable by giving it Terminators

2 SCs, both with increase shields to 2
one has greater TH option
one has greater BombCan option (not 45cm)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 28, 2010, 10:16:22 PM
Quote
Show me evidence in the 40 k rulebook, epic rulebook, space marine codex or the bfg rulebook armada or otherwise that they even exist. Those books are the only ones that matter.

I can say that you have very slim odds of finding anything to that effect in any rulebook or codex because the only one that has focus on space combat is the BBB and Armada. Epic simply doesn't go into enough detail to be useful either proving or disproving them same as all the other rulebooks outside of armada. In any event, the best course of action would be to simply see WHAT is denoted as venerable and what that entails. For that, the only example we have officially is the Venerable dreadnought. Using that as a template, it's pretty clear that being venerable doesn't grant you anything except greater skill. Looking more closely, it has the venerable rule making it "hard to Kill" which, again, is supposed to be a reflection of the entombed pilots skill rather than the dreadnought itself.

Looking back over this, I would say that venerable is simply applied as a indicator of age rather than special characteristics of the equipment itself. As such, there is some possibility that an ancient battlebarge COULD be called venerable and, having been constructed at a time where more advanced technologies were available, might have minor improvements. Stuff like +1 leadership for better sensors or more skilled crew, better targeting arrays and turrets, or improved engines could be found on ancient vessels even if the pattern itself hasn't changed.

Quote
Also, vaaish also expressed his dislike for them

I'm not opposed to venerable barges in principle, just the SedO for it's blatant disregard for the marine rules and fluff.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 28, 2010, 10:54:10 PM
thanks for the clarification Vaaish.

I don't mind small benefits for having the title, however whats the point of giving leadership bonuses for a fleet that is already LD 8-9-10?

I could see things like, going on all ahead full for free, or lock on for free, but nothing so absurd as taking a battleship from another fleet. 

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 28, 2010, 11:03:20 PM
Show me evidence in the 40 k rulebook, epic rulebook, space marine codex or the bfg rulebook armada or otherwise that they even exist. Those books are the only ones that matter.

And as books have shown, SM can get stuff which come from the time of the Heresy. Ven Dreads as pointed out are one.

You are letting your rampant fanboyism for space marines come before anything else. Also, vaaish also expressed his dislike for them.

Vaaish has already disputed you. You're the ONLY ONE here opposed to ideas of a VBB which only comes in one per SM list, which I even prefer to limit to First and Second Founding Chapters, which I even prefer to limit to minimal Lance battleships (preferably with Launch Bays), which I wouldn't even mind being limited to 1 in 1,500 lists.

Fanboyism? If I am letting any fanboyism affect me, I would be fighting for the SO and this current proposed list. If you cannot even identify what fanboyism is, please DO NOT apply it to others when it is so BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that there is none. While I have played Space Wolves in 40k, I have also tried IG, DH and even Nids. I played Space Wolves because I like their fluff which is where I based most of my SW list from. Also, just to add further info for you, I was never heavily into 40k (as much as I am into Warmachine Hordes right now). I do read up on their fluff but as of this year, I can truly say I am 40k free since I traded off the last of my 40k stuff.

Space marines are NOT important in this setting. If you desire to play with imperial navy ships, play imperial navy.  If you want to play with chaos ships, play chaos.   Stop trying to turn this game into 40k

Again you accuse people of making this game into 40k. What makes you think we want to make this game into 40k? By adding the VBB? Are you that afraid of a VBB that you think it translates into an automatic win for SM? Really? Wow! If those battleships were that cool then I guess IN and Chaos ought to be really dominating every race since they have access to those wonderfully, uberpowerful battleships which can sweep the enemy fleet off the table and that by adding that one ship to an SM list, we have now turned the game into 40k where SM will start DESTROYING every list that goes up against it.

How scary. NOT!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 29, 2010, 12:03:15 AM
You are letting your rampant fanboyism for space marines come before anything else.
Space marines are NOT important in this setting.

I understand this.  I really do.  I hate 40k almost as passionately as I love BFG.  In part because of the obvious factional favoritism involved in it.  But this isnt 40k.
I would say that you are in equal part letting your hate of smurf-worship cloud your judgement :p
Believe me, I've been there.

But marines are important, as important as any fleet and no more so, in BFG.  They have their place.  And if we want to see more of them on the tabletop, we should try to make them as fun and balanced as any fleet, with their own weaknesses, and certainly their own strenghts.

I don't plan on using a VBB, maybe not a blackship either, when I get around to collecting my own marine fleet.
But I sure as hell would like them to be available if I do,
as long as they fit with space marines.

As to Doctrines, I have yet to hear an argument besides 'No!' to the idea.  Anybody?

I would also really like to hear more input on what you guys think about the rules specific stuff like ship variants and teleport rules we were talking about a few pages ago, before derailing into VBB talk.
Edit:  What if, for every lance on a VBB, it is replaced by str3 of WB?  Thats the exchange rate, right?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Don Gusto on September 29, 2010, 12:35:59 AM
I find it funny how everyone seems to call for more shields as soon as a list comes under review.
Can we please give the Ork Kill Kroozer another shield and call it even at 165 points? ;D

No seriously, the SM Strike Cruiser is a light cruiser (shown clearly by its 90į turn) and should only have 1 shield. It is also the best light cruiser I know and for 145 points it's a steal. Adding another shield for just +10 points is ... well ... a bad idea.

Regarding the proposed draft:
I'm mostly impartial to fluff heresy and my own interest in Space Marines is slim. Just a few questions and remarks from my part:

The pure SM list in Armada is quite limited and I think it's a good idea to give it more options. Imho diversity is good for BFG and theres nothing wrong with a more flexible independent marine fleet as long as it stays balanced.

Thunderhawk Annihilator
These will provide an SM fleet with a lot more firepower. It turns any group of SM capitals into a full blown carrier fleet. Maybe have them as an upgrade option with extra cost, similar to assault ships for the Emperor?
How would they work with turret suppression? Similar to Fighta Bommaz?

Venerable Battle Barge
Unique to a given fleet, +35 points and with worse armor it also gets a big 'lock me on'. Seems to me balanced enough.

Seditio Opprimere

Trades 12 wb's and 1 launch bay for 4 lances. 4 lances is like 12 wb's so its -1 launch bay. With the lances it gains more punch beyond 30cm but I don't think that makes it overpowered. It's still unique and can't be combined with another vbb.

Strike Cruiser Variants
Pick one refit for +20 points. That's an easy fix to provide more variety in Strike Cruisers but the same idea didn't work well with tyranids. It should be a bit more restricted.
Some ideas: No refit twice, only half the sc's can take a refit, choose category but roll for the refit or vice versa.
Lance variants: Personally I would never trade 3 bc's for 1 lance with the same range, it's a downgrade. The 2 lances are front only and can't be combined with the broadside batterys. 2 lances for 4wb+3bc? Not sure I would take that either.

Dominion Fleet List
Option for cheaper SM ships, ok. But I can buy them at full value anyway without penalty? Hm why would I not prefer this list? No Thunderhawk Annihilators or is that an oversight in the ordnance section?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 29, 2010, 01:00:24 AM
Well, yes, i think that adding the option to take battleships that were not meant for them WILL break the game, thanks for reading my mind.

Yes, you are guilty of fanboyism because you simply can't listen to reason when people post other suggestions that would make more sense, and trying to give them things they neither need nor deserve.  I don't even understand why your having problems with the fleet as it stands, I have a 3000 point grey knights fleet that has a very good win record, and the last tournament that i played in had a space marine player come in second place.

As far as i can tell, people just want more, more, more for space marines, not caring about genra or backstory.  

By the way, have you ever considered playing Segmentum Solar? you know, that giant fleet list that lets you take BOTH Space marine AND imperial navy ships? you can take an Emperor battleship with space marine strike cruisers legally! without changing any rules!

I support the idea of adding the blackship. It's a good fit for the fleet as it stands.  I have no problem with making "venerated" an upgrade to a NORMAL battle barge, so long as it isn't game breaking.  I have a huge problem with people landing Retributions, Oberon, Emperor and Despoiler battleships and saying "lolmarines" on top of it. I also have a huge problem with doctrines because they were already factored in with their incredible leadership.  

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on September 29, 2010, 01:03:10 AM
Adding another shield for just +10 points is ... well ... a bad idea.

This is based on what?  I play a SM player all the time and he can't beat me.  We talk strategy every game and he adjusts his tactics accordingly, but to no avail.  No other fleet in BFG is dependent on light cruisers and the SM fleet proves that light cruisers can't hold the line (in my experience).  Thus, they are an exception so I don't think it's a stretch to give them another shield.  Their are plenty of other ships in BFG breaking from the conventional rule set.

Strike Cruiser Variants
Pick one refit for +20 points. That's an easy fix to provide more variety in Strike Cruisers but the same idea didn't work well with tyranids. It should be a bit more restricted.
Some ideas: No refit twice, only half the sc's can take a refit, choose category but roll for the refit or vice versa.
Lance variants: Personally I would never trade 3 bc's for 1 lance with the same range, it's a downgrade. The 2 lances are front only and can't be combined with the broadside batterys. 2 lances for 4wb+3bc? Not sure I would take that either.

This is already in the proposed rules in the grey box at the bottom.  I don't see the point sense only a couple are worth taking, as the majority are LD bonuses that SM don't need so it would be a waste of points more often then naught.

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on September 29, 2010, 01:31:35 AM
its ok for light cruiser to have one shield because they are meant to complement standard cruisers

orks have 10 hull points for their 1 shield cruiser, so that also balance it out

whereas the strike cruiser's armor 6 doesn't balance out the 1 shield because armor doesn't mean a damn against lances or even bombardment cannon
and its the only cruiser SM has

in fact, when you get down to it, having 2 shields strike cruiser is really is the only change SM really needs
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 29, 2010, 03:00:54 AM
Quote
I don't mind small benefits for having the title, however whats the point of giving leadership bonuses for a fleet that is already LD 8-9-10?

not much, really. I was listing possible ways the venerable attribute could show up based on what reference we have and similar bonuses grated to ships like the Mars and Emperor. It would still have a small effect since it would counter the BM -1 penalty.


Quote
Quote
Well, yes, i think that adding the option to take battleships that were not meant for them WILL break the game, thanks for reading my mind.
Quote
I have a huge problem with people landing Retributions, Oberon, Emperor and Despoiler battleships and saying "lolmarines" on top of it.
Quote
By the way, have you ever considered playing Segmentum Solar? you know, that giant fleet list that lets you take BOTH Space marine AND imperial navy ships? you can take an Emperor battleship with space marine strike cruisers legally! without changing any rules!

Zelnik, You can't argue both ways. Having the option to take an emperor or apocalypse or oberon BB in a marine fleet is already here, as you mentioned, and it doesn't break the game. With the Emperor and Oberon you are looking at defacto ld9 or better anyway. All you are missing are the thunderhawks and boarding bonuses.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 29, 2010, 03:09:26 AM
Your right, in fact, it says that 'marine ships cannot be squadroned with navy ships"


However, the cost of fielding those two fleets together is the lack of those 2+ boarding bonuses, ld, and hit and run attacks in the entire fleet.  I will quote one of my favorite villains in saying "Now Krang, you can't have everything you see on TV".

IF you want lances in your marine fleet, and your impressive battleships, play segmentum solar.  If you want space marines alone, deal with the consequences of having none.  
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 29, 2010, 04:18:25 AM
Ahem,

Zelnik are you suggesting to have the Nova  Frigate and Firestorm RVS escorts removed from the Space Marine lists?

I see no problem with VBB's, if lance heavy ships are forbidden to be vbb that's cool.

And when coming to background, as much as every rules purist hates it, black library has become interwoven into the GW universe. They are as much canon as a rulebook. If you like it or not.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 29, 2010, 04:30:00 AM
Why not just have a WB changeout ratio?

I don't get the vitriol in this discussion.  No one is trying to make SM overpowered, just trying to help out what could be the most underpowered fleet in the game.  And, more importantly to me, make a fleet one can take and run something besides the same list every game.

Strike cruisers need 2 shields alot more than other light cruisers.  And it makes fluff sense, since they are all about protecting their valuable cargo.
Think of a strike cruiser as a fast, underweight cruiser.  I could accept a 1 shield SC though, but I also have come to agree that 1 TH makes a whole lot more sense on an SC, so I would like to see that happen and a points drop.  That, and if it goes down to one TH, it will be easier to make variants.

Orks have an extra 2 hits, and for the record tend to pwn marines in close quarters too, which is sad.

If done properly and balanced, what is the fundamental dislike of Doctrine options?  

What thoughts of the battlebarge?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 29, 2010, 04:42:04 AM
Overlooked page 7 ...

Don Gusto: you dislike the 2nd shield but approve of the S.O.? That's weird.

Also: shields cost 10pts per point of shield. Yes.

Orks can get more shields on kroozers.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 29, 2010, 04:52:34 AM
Quote
Your right, in fact, it says that 'marine ships cannot be squadroned with navy ships"

To be fair, we are talking about BB class vessels which wouldn't be allowed in a squadron with the cruiser anyhow. I guess there could be something said for an empy and BB in the same squadron, but I find it somewhat less likely.

Quote
the cost of fielding those two fleets together is the lack of those 2+ boarding bonuses, ld, and hit and run attacks in the entire fleet

This is incorrect. Nothing in the Segmentum solar list removes the space marine special rules from marine vessels. All marine vessels may still launch boarding torpedoes, get the boarding bonus, ld, and +1 to hit and run attacks because, despite being a combined fleet, they are still marine ships. Obviously, Navy vessels included in the fleet would not get these bonuses. However, that isn't the point of the discussion. The point is, you are still able to field a marine fleet that plays as a marine fleet, having all the benefits of a marine fleet with nearly all of the IN battleships.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 29, 2010, 04:56:39 AM
Well, yes, i think that adding the option to take battleships that were not meant for them WILL break the game, thanks for reading my mind.

Really? How so? A ship with 6+/5+ or even just 5+ armor, 4 shields and 4 turrets and focused mainly on WBs with 2-3 lances and/or AC/Torps will break the game? You exaggerate too much. I'm even willing to bet you haven't tried it. I have. Doesn't make much difference. It's still supported by powerful LCs. That's about it.SM still have a hard time in fleet actions.

Yes, you are guilty of fanboyism because you simply can't listen to reason when people post other suggestions that would make more sense, and trying to give them things they neither need nor deserve.  I don't even understand why your having problems with the fleet as it stands, I have a 3000 point grey knights fleet that has a very good win record, and the last tournament that i played in had a space marine player come in second place.

I have been listening to other people and their suggestions, unlike you who I have only seen insist on maintaining the status quo or adding an unofficial ship which is not even SM or IN. I shoot down any suggestions to give them easy access to multiple long ranged and short ranged lances. I would give them something fluffy within limits. I would give them more protection than norm since they can't have as much variety as the other races.

Really? They don't need or deserve any modifications? Tell that to the many disappointed with SM. Harping on your own wins or another players win doesn't really mean they don't need it. It just either means:

a. You're a very good player (as well as the second place winner) or
b. Your opponent's play leave much to be desired or
c. A combination of both.

In any case, it is not good proof that a fleet does not need fixes and mainly just representative of your area's meta. Note I am not trying to diss your opponent's. I don't know how you people play. I'm just saying those are the possible reasons why you are having a good record. If you're opponents are good, then it means you must be really good.

SM has been complained about ever since they came out. Sure, there is the good player who can make them work but the problem is he is the exception to the rule. Most of the time, people find them lacking. I and a few others are then trying to find ways to balance them out. I'm even willing to limit them to the Emperor and Oberon if your objection is against any ship with more than 2 lances to one side, thus removing the Retribution from the list.

Definitely I am against SM having ready access to ship killing lances in anything more than 3 to one side but I am willing to go down to 2. I only added the Retribution because it is the only battleship with torps which the SM can make use of. Hell, I even remembered just now there was a suggestion before to replace the long ranged lances with BCs. We can do that as well and lower the cost a bit instead of adding 35 points, we can add 20-25 points.

As far as i can tell, people just want more, more, more for space marines, not caring about genra or backstory.  

Yes, some people will want more and I would shoot them down if they didn't care about genre or back story. It doesn't mean I totally shut off any way of improving SM within the game to the point where people want to play them.

By the way, have you ever considered playing Segmentum Solar? you know, that giant fleet list that lets you take BOTH Space marine AND imperial navy ships? you can take an Emperor battleship with space marine strike cruisers legally! without changing any rules!

Of course I have. Not everyone, however, wants a mix of IN and SM ships. Some want to be purist.

I support the idea of adding the blackship. It's a good fit for the fleet as it stands.  I have no problem with making "venerated" an upgrade to a NORMAL battle barge, so long as it isn't game breaking.  I have a huge problem with people landing Retributions, Oberon, Emperor and Despoiler battleships and saying "lolmarines" on top of it. I also have a huge problem with doctrines because they were already factored in with their incredible leadership.  

I fail to understand why you don't like SM to have access to the Emperor when it only has FP16 WBs at most to one side and FP11 to both and total of 4 THs. Retribution only has FP12 WBs+3 lances to one side or FP12+split of lances to both sides and torp support. Oberon has FP16+2 lances to one side or FP11+2 lances to one side and 2 TH support. Compare this to the FP10 WBs and FP8 BCs to one side or FP10 WBs +FP4 BCs to both sides plus torp and TH support esp if the WB+BC fix is introduced. The BB would still own in ranges 30 cm and below and all those IN type battleships have weaker armor compared to the regular Battle Barge and so are just as vulnerable.

Sure the others have farther range. Won't really kill a cruiser beyond 30 cm unless one gets lucky on the rolls much less hurt a battleship one on one. How is this game breaking again?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 29, 2010, 05:01:14 AM
I find it funny how everyone seems to call for more shields as soon as a list comes under review.
Can we please give the Ork Kill Kroozer another shield and call it even at 165 points? ;D

No seriously, the SM Strike Cruiser is a light cruiser (shown clearly by its 90į turn) and should only have 1 shield. It is also the best light cruiser I know and for 145 points it's a steal. Adding another shield for just +10 points is ... well ... a bad idea.

Not really when you consider that they only have 6 hit points. They should be armored and shielded well enough that said 6 HP ship can get near the planet to begin their drop and/or bombardment. 1 shield isn't enough for 6 HP ships even with 6+ armor in a game with lances which hit at 4+.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 29, 2010, 05:55:06 AM
Seconded.

Although I would much rather see it be traded for a TH than get a points increase.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 29, 2010, 08:35:34 AM
Yes, I do think SC with 1 less TH but 1 more shield would be fair at 145 points. Less offensive punch esp now that it looks like SM will have access to the THA. That really balances things a bit because I am leery of Str 2 THAs coming out of 1 LC sized ship. On the other hand the WB/BC interaction looks like will be fixed as well so there is some improvement on that armament combo. I think it's fair.

Strike Cruiser
HP/Type: 6/Cruiser
Arm: 6+
Shield: 2
Turret: 2
Turns: 90'
Speed: 25 cm

Armament:
Port/Starboard Weapon Batteries: FP4 Rng 30 cm
Prow Bombardment Cannons:FP3 Rng 30 cm
Prow Launch Bays: Str 1 Thunderhawk/Thunderhawk Annihilator

I'm even comfortable with putting it at flat 150 points.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 29, 2010, 09:34:24 AM
Ya know, I guess it would be best to discuss to death one aspect at a time.  Strike Cruisers!

Fine at 145.  I have never been terribly impressed with TH of any variety, but they are seemingly valued and costly, moreso than a standard bay, so I'd say that a TH bay is actually worth more than a shield.

Now, how many points should variants be?  The SC switches out weapons, but I figure there should be some kidn of price hike, to encourage the more bland and numerous SC brand.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 29, 2010, 12:15:35 PM
Horizon posted the Assault SC I made for the Space Wolves before. Loses out on the WBs and retaind the BCs and adds TH bays. However, I think now that it should have only 1 TH in the prow instead of 2 and add 1 shield and be priced at 165 points.

Revised Assault Strike Cruiser 165 pts - Space Wolves
hits 6
speed 25cm
turns 90*
armour 6+
shields 2
Turrets 2

prow bombardment - 30cm - str.3 - LFR
prow launch bay - Thawk 25cm - 1 - NA (or THA)
port launch bay - Thawk 25cm - 1 - NA (or THA)
starboard launch bay - Thawk 25cm - 1 - NA (or THA)

options:
6 torps for bomberdment for free
3 assault points on planet assault.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 29, 2010, 12:19:15 PM
Onq quibble with the design: when crippled or braced or braced & cripple the maximum launch capacity is still intact.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 29, 2010, 12:33:15 PM
True but that assumes you successfully reloaded and did not launch during the owning player's last turn. If the owning player launched everything and it BFIs during the opponent's turn, then pretty much the ship is screwed come the owning player's next turn as it cannot Reload Ordnance.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 29, 2010, 06:06:38 PM
Love it.  20 point increase seems pretty steep since the ship is balanced by losing its broadsides.  However, Horizon brings up a point I wouldn't have considered.  There could always be a special rule stating that the Assault variant treated its bays as one grouping, but it would probably just be better as it is, with a 20 point increase after all.

My only other thing is the option to trade out the bombardment cannons for torps.  I would instead give the option to trade out the prow bay for torps.  No other ship has only ordnance, as cool as that would be.  It needs some point weaponry to defend itself with.
Replacing the front TH with torps though would be cool.

Edit:  I hope you do not mean that you can only take it if you say you have a space wolf fleet.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 29, 2010, 07:02:40 PM
In return, I want thoughts on this fellow here.

Linebreaker Strike Cruiser - 155 points
hits 6
speed 25cm
turns 90*
armour 6+
shields 2
Turrets 2

prow bombardment str3 L/R/F
prow bombardment str4 F
port str4 weapons battery, 30cm
starboard str4 weapons battery, 30cm

options:
Lance options I guess, if that will still be allowed.




Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 29, 2010, 07:44:09 PM
Admiral, true on that reasoning. Though if many complaints come up one could consider a special rules as LS states.

On the linebreaker:
Devestator it would be called (per Black Templars).

I would actually give it same point cost as Assault variant. Even though Marine leadership is high the assault version depends on that special order to do something. The devestator/line breaker does not need such an order to be operational. Thus easier, less restricted in tactical use.

And:
Never ever lances. Just don't.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 29, 2010, 08:14:09 PM
Name is semantics, I just thought linebreaker or siegebreaker sounded cool, and devestator sounds too chaosy, as they already have like 3 or 4 cruisers starting with D something.  But whatever really.

I saw the tradeout of TH and bombard cannon as a fair trade, only raising the points to encourage the generic brand.  20 more points for the assault variant gives you a solid ordnance support ship, that provides much needed numbers to the fleet ordnance ability.
The linebreaker doesn't fill as much of a hole.  Its fun for more bombard cannons, but I don't think I could justify spending 20 points to trade a thunderhawk bay with a small B battery.  But thats just me.  I may be wrong.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 29, 2010, 10:20:36 PM
Here's an all BC variant I made before:

Revised Siege Strike Cruiser 160 pts (I don't remember the exact points but I think it was 160)
hits 6
speed 25cm
turns 90*
armour 6+
shields 2
Turrets 2

prow bombardment - 30cm - Str 3 - LFR
prow launch bay - Thawk 25cm - 1 - NA (or THA)
port  bombardment - 30cm - Str 2 - L
starboard bombardment - 30cm - Str 2 - R

Options:
6 torps for bomberdment for free

And yes, the variants I made can be useable with any SM. I put in a rule though that one must take a regular SC first before one can take any variant so that the SC would not be alienated.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on September 29, 2010, 10:41:30 PM
I'm a bit curious what's happened to the HA. We are going on 8 pages of discussion turning into development and no word or comment that I remember outside of posting the original doc. Any news around here?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Gron on September 29, 2010, 10:46:07 PM
Both the Linebreaker and Revised Siege Cruiser would end up close to 200pts each with Smothermann's formula. I know it's far from accurate but at least it gives a reasonable guideline to what stuff might cost.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 29, 2010, 11:10:55 PM
The vanilla SC itself costs 185 points based on the Smotherman formula. So just goes to show there's a problem. Assuming that 145 points is correct for the Vanilla SC, the Siege SC should add 25 points on top of the base cost for 170 points.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 30, 2010, 12:14:50 AM
I simply think it fits the role of siege/linebreaker better with forward mounted bombardment cannons, it feels more SM to me, not having to turn to bring your weapons to bear.

Also, it would make fluff sense, since the BC's are designed to rape defenses, as broadsides are more ship to ship fighting.  And of course it would be cheaper.

Smotherman is just a guideline for a reason, and should only be very generously applied to marines, as it was built mainly for IN an Chaos.  If you are paying 25 points for a weapons swap, not even an obvious advantage, you won't see the variants ever played in competative games.  You are already getting into the points range of cruisers that the SC can't compete with.

Like I said, I really do agree with the Assault getting a 20 point increase, because it fills somewhat of a weakness in the fleet.  Lets give the Linebreaker, or whatever we want to call it, a 10 point increase.  It definitly won't be unbalanced if you compare the variants.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 30, 2010, 01:22:20 AM
Boy am i glad these are not replacing the official rules, it has just gotten absurd. 

a strength 7 bombardment cannon? shit son. it's a light cruiser!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 30, 2010, 02:10:37 AM
Don't like the Linebreaker design (FP7 BCs would be OT. At best FP5) nor the Devastator (3 prow weapons? I don't think so). If one wanted a pure BC SC, then I think my design would be less of a problem. I made a mistake with the Siege. Should be only FP2 BCs. Stat revised.

BTW here was my designed Assault Barge from my SW article:

Space Marine Capital Ship Variants
Space Marine Assault Barge: 450 points
Type/Hits: Battleship/12
Speed: 20 cm
Turns: 45
Shields: 3
Armour: 6+
Turrets: 4

Armament | Range/Speed | Firepower/Str | Fire Arc
Port Launch Bays | Thunderhawk: 20cm | 2 squadrons | -
Starboard Launch Bays | Thunderhawk: 20cm | 2 squadrons | -
Prow Launch Bays | Thunderhawk: 20cm | 3 squadrons | -
Prow Bombardment Cannon | 30cm | 3 | Left/Front/Right
Dorsal Bombardment Cannon | 30cm | 8 | Left/Front/Right

Notes: The Assault Barge may replace its Prow Bombardment Cannons for Strength 6 torpedoes at no extra cost.

If the shieldf goes up to 4, then add another 15 points for 465 points total.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 30, 2010, 03:05:12 AM
Like I said, bring it down to str3 if it would be OT.

But not str2.  Remember it will never get close to the amount of shots that is the weapons strength.
Str3 bombard is a standard weapon slot for an SC. 
Can we compromise between 10 and 20 increase to 15?  I still just dont think its quite worth the assault variant.  15 points to switch out a TH bay for a str3 Bombard.  Sounds fair to me?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 30, 2010, 03:22:07 AM
Like I said, bring it down to str3 if it would be OT.

But not str2.  Remember it will never get close to the amount of shots that is the weapons strength.
Str3 bombard is a standard weapon slot for an SC. 
Can we compromise between 10 and 20 increase to 15?  I still just dont think its quite worth the assault variant.  15 points to switch out a TH bay for a str3 Bombard.  Sounds fair to me?

Even at FP3 BC replacing the TH it's still to high. That translates to FP4 WBs broadsides supported by FP6 BC to one side. One can even do FP4 WB broadsides plus FP3 BCs to each side. Sorry, even I wouldn't agree to that on what is an LC. Assume you squadron two such ships. That now translates to FP8 WBs and FP12 BCs to one side. Add another and it becomes FP12 WBs and FP18 BCs to one side. Those BCs start piling up fast.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 30, 2010, 03:37:30 AM
Admiral, the bombards that replace the TH are front fire only.  


Str6 is the forward arc's armament, no supporting WB.  Otherwise its SC as usual.

Edit:  The reason I had it at str4 was for a str7 in the front, which, assuming the opponent is smart and is abeam in his facing, would actually net you more than 2 measly shots for giving up your launch bay. str5 and str6 have exactly the same results, come to look at it, which makes me wonder what the point of it is. I guess for combined fire and halfing strengths.

Still against str4 replacement of TH bay if its only front firing?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on September 30, 2010, 04:05:41 AM
Boy am i glad these are not replacing the official rules, it has just gotten absurd. 

a strength 7 bombardment cannon? shit son. it's a light cruiser!
Typical zelnik remark. ;)
This is called development. Idea brought forward, idea shot down. (see, the admiral goes 5 bc max). Read ;)
Maybe you like the HA drafts more (lances on strike cruisers) but that's your call. ;)

This thread is seriously going in the right direction. Variants should be added and well considered of course.

@ Vaaish, I agree, the HA throws in the drafts, then nothing. I wished for some more interaction. The also fell silent on the Tau list.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 30, 2010, 07:38:57 AM
Admiral, the bombards that replace the TH are front fire only.  


Str6 is the forward arc's armament, no supporting WB.  Otherwise its SC as usual.

Edit:  The reason I had it at str4 was for a str7 in the front, which, assuming the opponent is smart and is abeam in his facing, would actually net you more than 2 measly shots for giving up your launch bay. str5 and str6 have exactly the same results, come to look at it, which makes me wonder what the point of it is. I guess for combined fire and halfing strengths.

Still against str4 replacement of TH bay if its only front firing?

Yes because 3 ships with FP7 front firing BCs still comes out to FP21 BC. With the penchant for SM fighting in ranges below 15 cm, one would roll around 18 dice vs 1 target. Hitting on a 4+ and critting on a 4+ will hurt. Also note that while the added BCs will only result in 2 additional measly shots, the TH doesn't really give out potentially 2 points of additional damage. THAs might but even then, they can be shot down and then will have their number of rolls reduced by the turrets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 30, 2010, 06:45:46 PM
I'm totally fine with str6.  When I said two measly shots, I meant that would be what the whole str6 will usually get.
I think its fine as the thing firing in the front arc, and losing the TH/THA, for a 15 point increase.  You trade a bay for what will usually translate to one extra bombard shot in the front arc and pay 15 points.  You find that to be OP?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on September 30, 2010, 07:41:48 PM
I am going to make the point, that as you give strength to the strike cruiser, you are literally stepping closer to the blackship.

No one has given me a good reason why this ship should not be incorporated.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on September 30, 2010, 08:12:45 PM
I definitly don't have a problem with there being one in the fleet.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on September 30, 2010, 10:34:06 PM
I am going to make the point, that as you give strength to the strike cruiser, you are literally stepping closer to the blackship.

No one has given me a good reason why this ship should not be incorporated.

Which design are you talking about?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 02, 2010, 12:11:57 AM
So in a mix of my thoughts and other's thoughts, thoughts on these thoughts? ;P  Wanting us all to agree on SC's before talking about the next thing.

Strike Cruiser - 145 points
6 hits, 6+ armor, 2 shields
Prow TH bay
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Port/Starboard str4 batteries

Linebreaker Strike Cruiser - 155 points
6 hits, 6+ armor, 2 shields
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Prow str3 Front Bombardment cannon
Port/Starboard str4 batteries

Assault Strike Cruiser - 165
Prow TH bay
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Port/Starbord TH bay
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 02, 2010, 03:48:47 AM
Assault Strike Cruiser - 165
Prow TH bay
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Port/Starbord TH bay

I could never agree with a Strike Cruiser that has all 3 thunderhawks distributed across different Bays.  Someone else already said it, but when the ship is crippled it would still have 3 T-hawks.  I could agree on an Assault version that has 3 T-hawks given the following stipulations:

1.) All 3 are on the Prow ( or any single launch bay )
2.) The base Strike Cruiser comes with only 1 by default
3.) There are fleet building limitations to such a vessel , like you must take 1 or 2 regular SCs for every Assault variant

Otherwise, I'm good with a 2 shield, 1 T-hawk base SC and a Bombardment, WB heavy variant ( not specifically agreeing on the ones you have listed, but the general idea I agree with )

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 02, 2010, 04:16:49 AM
Well, what if it was 3 in the prow, str2 battery on each side.  Or some such.

Or perhaps a special rule that simply says you treat the 3 bays as one grouping for purposes of special orders/crippling.

Honestly though, that Voss pattern ship has the same layout, though 2 instead of 3 bays.  I'm just saying less effects from crippling isnt the SC's problem alone.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 02, 2010, 05:43:58 AM
Well, what if it was 3 in the prow, str2 battery on each side.  Or some such.

Or perhaps a special rule that simply says you treat the 3 bays as one grouping for purposes of special orders/crippling.

No special rule.

Honestly though, that Voss pattern ship has the same layout, though 2 instead of 3 bays.  I'm just saying less effects from crippling isnt the SC's problem alone.

You got me there.  I forgot about the voss, but it needs all the help it can get!  It does not have +6 armor, 3 AC, or a proposed 2 shields. ;)

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 02, 2010, 06:05:27 AM
Assault Strike Cruiser - 165
Prow TH bay
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Port/Starbord TH bay

I could never agree with a Strike Cruiser that has all 3 thunderhawks distributed across different Bays.  Someone else already said it, but when the ship is crippled it would still have 3 T-hawks.  I could agree on an Assault version that has 3 T-hawks given the following stipulations:

1.) All 3 are on the Prow ( or any single launch bay )
2.) The base Strike Cruiser comes with only 1 by default
3.) There are fleet building limitations to such a vessel , like you must take 1 or 2 regular SCs for every Assault variant

Otherwise, I'm good with a 2 shield, 1 T-hawk base SC and a Bombardment, WB heavy variant ( not specifically agreeing on the ones you have listed, but the general idea I agree with )

Russ

And if the ship is on BFI it won't be launching anything now will it? It loses quite a lot when it has to go on SOs other than RO. Even LO messes it up severely.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 02, 2010, 06:41:10 AM
You mean because it cant reload its ordnance if it goes on another SO?

I assume so.  And I think its a good point that this guy will be doing hardly ANYTHING other than supplying and possibly failing to supply thunderhawks.  For 20 point hike over a normal more balanced SC I definitly wouldnt be opposed to playing against that :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 02, 2010, 06:45:39 AM
Yep. If you launched this round, next round you have to do the Reload Ordnance check. So if during your opponent's turn, you had to BFI your ship, byebye THs. If you decide to LO instead of RO, byebye THs. If you decide to AAF or BR or CTNH, byebye THs. Until the next round if you're not on BFI anyway.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 02, 2010, 08:37:03 AM
Actually this could/should be ammended in the fleest:

In order to field an Assault OR Devastator you need one regular strike cruiser.
Thus always a special variant on a 1:1 basis taken against the normal strike cruiser.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 02, 2010, 08:56:23 AM
Sounds reasonable.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 02, 2010, 09:15:05 AM
Yep. If you launched this round, next round you have to do the Reload Ordnance check. So if during your opponent's turn, you had to BFI your ship, byebye THs. If you decide to LO instead of RO, byebye THs. If you decide to AAF or BR or CTNH, byebye THs. Until the next round if you're not on BFI anyway.

I get your point, but I don't get how it relates to what I was concerned about.  Are you disagreeing, agreeing, or just throwing in something more to think about?  Are you suggesting it's okay to have all THs distributed on the Assault varient since BFI normally messes with a standard SC?

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 02, 2010, 09:27:24 AM
I'm saying the disadvantages far outweigh the problem of this ship still having a total of 3 LBs when it's crippled. All an opponent has to do is force the ship to BFI and one has effectively neutered the ship.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 02, 2010, 09:36:58 AM
I'm saying the disadvantages far outweigh the problem of this ship still having a total of 3 LBs when it's crippled. All an opponent has to do is force the ship to BFI and one has effectively neutered the ship.

A good point.  You have persuaded me from "they must be on the prow" to "I need to play test with them distributed".  I had overlooked the excessive problems SM have with BFI since all of their cruisers have ordnance and require squadroning.  I still feel that the existence of an Assault variant requires a fleet building rule like the Voss light cruisers and quite possibly the removal of 1 TH from the default SC (in favor of a shield of course).  With 3 distributed on an Assault variant and only 1 on the base, this now means that BFI and crippling will never affect the launch capacity of SCs...this is a pretty unique circumstance.

I shall encourage my SM mate to play with these variants on our next game and see if it improves the situation against Chaos.

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: commander on October 02, 2010, 09:46:31 AM
IMO, the problem comes from the 'small' platform that is used for the SC. It should be a fast cruiser.
Front: the torps; starboard & port: the gun batteries (S6, R30) & launchbays (1TH eack); dorsal: the bombardment cannons. Weapon batteries strength can be brought down to 4 to gain advanced thrusters. Clean & simple.
It breaks offcourse with the age-old fluff that the SC are LC's.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 02, 2010, 02:44:01 PM
BTW Tau have the same problem with ordnance on all their ships and they have worse leadership. I always found having 2TH on a small cruiser a pro instead of a contra. The ship is rather cheap for what it bringt to the field and its only weakness are lance attacks.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 02, 2010, 07:46:33 PM
But tau have much, much cheaper and more effective ordnance, and can stay the hell away.

I didn't even think of the repurcussions of BFI on squadrons, which you should always do for LC's.  Now that the Admiral has outlined all the Assault variant has going against it, I think it is a perfectly fine ship for its points, very balanced in the negatives against the pros.

And Russ, the prices and ships mentioned are 2 shields, and the normal SC did lose a bay for a shield.
Tell your friend to playtest the linebreaker idea as well, and 1:1 for special variants, plz.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 03, 2010, 03:18:38 AM
Boy am i glad these are not replacing the official rules, it has just gotten absurd. 

a strength 7 bombardment cannon? shit son. it's a light cruiser!
Typical zelnik remark. ;)
This is called development. Idea brought forward, idea shot down. (see, the admiral goes 5 bc max). Read ;)
Maybe you like the HA drafts more (lances on strike cruisers) but that's your call. ;)

This thread is seriously going in the right direction. Variants should be added and well considered of course.

@ Vaaish, I agree, the HA throws in the drafts, then nothing. I wished for some more interaction. The also fell silent on the Tau list.
Sorry about falling silent. Ray is still on travel, and both Bob and I are currently travelling as well. I did have the fortune of actually getting to meet with Bob in person for a few hours, and we spoke on a few BFG related items. We wiil be meeting at length later this month and hope to get a great number of things ironed out by then. In the meantime, we have taken on board a lot of the feedback concerning the current Space Marines rules. More to follow soon, but in a nutshell, we both agree that lances should be rare and expensive for the Space Marines to have, which also means the Dominion rules needed to be fixed as well. In the meantime, I have posted a v2 DRAFT of the Space Marines rules, which once again is an ADDITION TO and not a REPLACEMENT OF the rules in Armada.

In a nutshell, here's the DRAFT changes. It was pointed out the Dominion list made the ships too cheap so that was removed. Lances were made much more expensive, and a simple fleet restriction was put in place so that lances cannot become the predominant strike cruiser armament. This allows players who want to use lances to have them available without allowing it to become overpowering or change the flavor of the fleet. We also took on board some of the fan list suggestions to create a ďDevastatorĒ (?) strike cruiser, though we did not go with the one with larger launch bays because the SMís with their resilient ordnance is already an attack-craft heavy fleet. The Seditio Opprimere was included primarily because there are more fans that want it than those that hate it, regardless of how vocal the ones that hate it wish to be, how many statistics or references one wishes to make toward the contrary, whatever. We did however tone down the profile a LOT because frankly the original profile was grotesque. A fleet can only have one, having one replaces one of the three regular battle barges allowed in the fleet, and the Seditio Opprimere isnít even all that great a lance battleship. If one really wanted to be a lance hog, they can select an Apocalypse battleship as the venerable battlebarge for far less points and actually have a more powerful lance broadside. Once again, if you donít like it, donít use it. 

It was the intent of the game designers to create this expansion, which is what we tried to remain faithful to without incorporating what was broken. Please keep in mind that once again not everyone is going to be happy with what is here. Also keep in mind that THIS IS A GAME INTENDED FOR FUN. We're not trying to balance the budget or affect health-care with this rule set so please keep the vitriol and "I hate everything about this, the game designers and the color purple" to a minimum. Remember that since this is a game, one does NOT need to use these rules. Thanks!

The DRAFT update can be seen and downloaded here:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

Did I mention this is a DRAFT???
- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 03, 2010, 03:39:12 AM
Thanks for the update!


Thoughts on shield/bay switch on SC's?
 
I really have to disagree on SMs being an attack craft heavy fleet.

Other races easily produce resilient strike craft, without the decrease in the amount of bays that SM have, and for cheaper.
Tau and Eldar spring to mind as putting SM to shame by putting out more resilient ordnance for cheaper.

If the normal SC went to one TH, and you were limited in your special variant choices to 1:1, do you really see SM flooding the board with thunderhawks?  I know I wouldnt even want to, given all options.

And, str9 bombard cannons on the SC! Wow, and people thought I was being excessive ;)

Any other changes I missed?  Do you have any intentions of making terminators more permanent like chaos version?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 03, 2010, 08:59:26 AM
It was pointed out the Dominion list made the ships too cheap so that was removed.

Thank you for addressing this.  It looks much more tidy.  Can a dominion fleet not take Annilators?  Under the Crusade fleet it says "Any ship with launch bays carries Thunderhawks and Thunderhawk Annilators", but under the Dominion fleet it simply says "Any ship with launch bays carries Thunderhawks".  I just want to make sure this isn't an error.

We also took on board some of the fan list suggestions to create a ďDevastatorĒ (?) strike cruiser, though we did not go with the one with larger launch bays because the SMís with their resilient ordnance is already an attack-craft heavy fleet.

I'm glad you're seeing the value of suggestions with variants, but the bombardment configuration for "Replace launch bays" is completely unbalanced.  You can get a str9 bombardment Cannon shot in front arc for free!?  That's only 145 points for more Bombardment power then any Battle Barge.  2 SCs will get 6 dice in the worst aspect that need only +4 to hit and +4 to cause criticals.  In the best, they will have 13 dice!  Considering how maneuverable they are it won't be difficult to point the prow right at an enemy vessel.  Plus, the ship is now more effective because it isn't bogged down with RO special orders.  The bombardment variant should only get an additional str3 prow bombardment and I think even that warrants a price increase.

I believe the point of having a "carrier" version goes along with trading out a single TH for a shield on the basic SC model ( this is something that at least my SM playing mate would like to see).  The basic line cruiser would get much needed resilience to lances and the carrier variant would help fill the gap of lost TH.  Not to mention that would allow a bit more flexibility in fleet tactics customization.  People could build out a TH heavy fleet or a bombardment heavy fleet to personal taste.  Can you please share your thoughts on this point and why you don't see it as a valid trade and reason to include a carrier varient?  Don't go silent on this one! ;)

It should be noted that I do agree that SM don't need a access to a carrier variant if they keep 2 TH per basic cruiser.  So this variant is dependent on re-thinking the basic SC.

More to follow soon, but in a nutshell, we both agree that lances should be rare and expensive for the Space Marines to have, which also means the Dominion rules needed to be fixed as well....Lances were made much more expensive, and a simple fleet restriction was put in place so that lances cannot become the predominant strike cruiser armament. This allows players who want to use lances to have them available without allowing it to become overpowering or change the flavor of the fleet.

Basically I disagree with lances as your inherently changing the flavor of SM by unnecessarily making additional weapons available to them.  This fixes what issue?

The Seditio Opprimere was included primarily because there are more fans that want it than those that hate it, regardless of how vocal the ones that hate it wish to be, how many statistics or references one wishes to make toward the contrary, whatever. We did however tone down the profile a LOT because frankly the original profile was grotesque. A fleet can only have one, having one replaces one of the three regular battle barges allowed in the fleet, and the Seditio Opprimere isnít even all that great a lance battleship. If one really wanted to be a lance hog, they can select an Apocalypse battleship as the venerable battlebarge for far less points and actually have a more powerful lance broadside. Once again, if you donít like it, donít use it.

I'd love to see proof there are more fans who want it! :)  But as you said there are cheaper VBB to be had for lances.  Once again, whats the point of this offering if you can admit it's not even worth taking over another Imperial Battleship.

One Last Thing
Oh, please do away with the ability to take any refit for +20 points.  It has the same "issue" as Tyranid evolutions and more then half aren't really worth taking.  If you up the basic SC to 2 shields (and drop a TH) then that eliminates the real necessity to having access to the shield refit.  The only 2 remaining options that are really worth it would be the +2 hull points ( I'm not sure how I feel about a 165 point 8hp SC ) or Target Matrix...do you really think a bombardment versions with str9 in the front needs a left column shift?

Can't wait for draft 3,

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 03, 2010, 09:05:56 AM
Hi,
thanks for replying :)

i) I have never encountered someone who wants the Seditio. Everyone hates it. Okay, sometimes a player comes on and likes it, then you give all reasons why it is bad and everyone agrees.
I am really curious to the players you met (wanting the S.O., abusing overlapping (which no one else ever encountered), I guess bunch of cheesy powergamers, right? ;)
It is just a bad design as anti-tyranid. Give it batteries instead of lances and it'll be fine. Then it is fluffy and not out of character for Marines. win-win.

This seditio does not get seal approval.

ii) As expensive the lances and restricted they are I just do not want to see lances on strike cruisers. Period.

iii) Odd to see the devestator or similar over the assault.
edit: whoa... that's a lot of bombardment... I mean...9 is to much. Last Spartacus his variant got it at max 7 and people complained. iirc the discussion settled at 5, lets say 6 if the ship is restricted on the 1:1 basis.

iv) barges: take on the ammendmant that some ships like the Desolator are not available as a vbb

v) no second shield/dropped bay on the strike cruiser. Why?

v+iii) as said the assault is much more believable when the normal strike cruiser has 1 launch bay and the assault can only be taken on a 1:1 basis.

vi) agreed with russ on the campaign upgrades. Not needed for Marines OR nids in one-off games.

cheers!


ps on the fun remark at the end and such: well, take remarks above in that kind of light. I like this game, it is a fun game, I like expansions but I want the expansions to be fun and the best fun is if an expansion stays true to the background of the game and/or expands on it. Alas seditios and lance strike cruiser just do not fit with those criteria in my opinion. One may prove me wrong but so far no one succeeded. :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 03, 2010, 09:46:59 AM
str6 and 1:1 is the best and balanced, I've been presuaded to believe.


Any word on a shield and turret for the BB?  Still don't understand why they can't protect themselves like a normal b-ship.

As to lances, I think Novas prove, Horizon, that lances do not have zero place in marine fleets, but are controversial and very rare.
Therefore, lances on the odd SC or BB, at a points premium and not universally accessible, makes sense to me.
Not that it matters to me, as I will never make use of them.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 03, 2010, 02:20:17 PM
Lances were made much more expensive, and a simple fleet restriction was put in place so that lances cannot become the predominant strike cruiser armament. This allows players who want to use lances to have them available without allowing it to become overpowering or change the flavor of the fleet.

The very fact that lances are now included, even if expensive, in a fleet which virtually had none before IS changing the flavor. You're even deviating greatly from the fluff in Armada. And no matter how expensive you make it, 6+ armored ships with lances can easily result to overpowering.

We also took on board some of the fan list suggestions to create a ďDevastatorĒ (?) strike cruiser, though we did not go with the one with larger launch bays because the SMís with their resilient ordnance is already an attack-craft heavy fleet.

Easy enough to fix: lower the TH strength in what is essentially a Light Cruiser to Str 1.

You actually think an FP9 BC firing in the front arc is good? Really? Even assuming I take 2 regular SCs to 1 with FP9 BCs, that's a total of FP15 BCs hitting and critting on 4+. Right. Somehow, I find it very strange how you can agree to this and not agree to a carrier variant.

The Seditio Opprimere was included primarily because there are more fans that want it than those that hate it, regardless of how vocal the ones that hate it wish to be, how many statistics or references one wishes to make toward the contrary, whatever. We did however tone down the profile a LOT because frankly the original profile was grotesque. A fleet can only have one, having one replaces one of the three regular battle barges allowed in the fleet, and the Seditio Opprimere isnít even all that great a lance battleship. If one really wanted to be a lance hog, they can select an Apocalypse battleship as the venerable battlebarge for far less points and actually have a more powerful lance broadside. Once again, if you donít like it, donít use it.

I have never seen the situation where more fans want it than those who hate it. The SO was only one such ship if I am not mistaken and now every SM fleet can have one? Even if you did tone things down as you say. It's still as effective as a Desolator and cheaper to take in a fleet since one doesn't have the 3 cruiser:1 battleship requirement.

Again, who would take the vanilla Battlebarge instead of this ship, even toned down?

Even assuming my suggestion of limiting the VBB to non-lance heavy battleships, you actually think the Apocalypse is better? The Apoc is NOT a great lance battleship. It's a Spd 15 ship with Armor 5 in the rear. Put a BM on it and see it suffer. Then put some ships behind it and blast away accordingly. That's how problematic the Apocalypse can be compared to the SO. The Apoc is basically a 30 cm lance heavy battleship with the option to fire long but suffers if it does so. The Apoc comes out to 400 points. Just 50 points shy of the SO. Not that much different. The difference is an escort.

And much as you don't like the statistics, that's the only way we can justify not allowing this ship on the table.

Lastly, it's not a question of my not using it because I don't like it. It's a question of my opponent likes it and since you made it legal, will play with it, no matter how much I don't like it. Heck, I'd like it, much more than the Apocalypse even if it is 50 more points. Heck I get ordnance to boot.
 
It was the intent of the game designers to create this expansion, which is what we tried to remain faithful to without incorporating what was broken. Please keep in mind that once again not everyone is going to be happy with what is here. Also keep in mind that THIS IS A GAME INTENDED FOR FUN. We're not trying to balance the budget or affect health-care with this rule set so please keep the vitriol and "I hate everything about this, the game designers and the color purple" to a minimum. Remember that since this is a game, one does NOT need to use these rules. Thanks!

Not everyone is going to be happy with it but if you hadn't included the SO and lance armed SCs, more people will be happier. How are those inclusions being faithful? What is to stop me from making a list with the SO (450), 4 vanilla SCs (580) and 2 Str 2 lance armed SCs (330), 2 Firestorms (90) and Master of the Fleet (50) at 1500 points? I remove the SO and 1 Firestorm and I have a 1000 point 6 ship squadron and 1 Escort or 2 Re-rolls.

The DRAFT update can be seen and downloaded here:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

Did I mention this is a DRAFT???
- Nate


Yeah and we hope it stays that way, a Draft.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 03, 2010, 04:01:44 PM
This keeps getting more nuts. Look, if people want to have lances they SHOULDN'T PLAY MARINES! You do not have to give everyone the same gear just because they might want it. If that were the case, I know some chaos that would love to have cruiser mounted NCs! Marines already have the BC which hits on a 4+ like a lance, adding lances doesn't do anything except break fluff and ignore the gunnery table.

Marine capital ships should not have lances attached to them. period. Why are you so dead set determined to give marines something they shouldn't have? I know it's really easy to just say people you don't want to listen to are the vocal minority and move on, but these issues are things that go far outside of those of us posting here.

That said, no to the SedO. the profile is far out of line with the marine restrictions against lances.

SC should never get lances. Not for 20 points, not for 100 points.

SC variants are interesting, but ultimately have no chance of balance in the form you've posted. You've effectively said that one point of BC strength equals one point of torpedo strength. IIRC it's a common comparison to say one point of torpedo strength is equal to one point of WB strength. The BC is much better than a WB, so the same strength BC upgrade shouldn't be point the same as the same cost torpedoes. A much more fair comparison would be to equate the BC to lances (both hit on 4+ regardless of armor). The common rule with that is a point of lances equals three points of battery strength.  Going that route, the marines should be able to replace the LB for s2 bombardment cannons or s6 torpedoes.

Dominion fleet is much more useful now, though I don't know why I would use it over the armageddon list which basically lets me do the same thing without having to use reserve rules for it.

What this comes down to is that the rules will likely become official if you submit them. In the form they currently are, it doesn't balance and significantly boosts the marines capabilities. As such, it will become the lists used at tournament because it provides an advantage over other fleet lists.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 03, 2010, 07:15:50 PM
Look, Im never gonna use em, but for a premium points cost and few and far between, there is absolutely zero reason a marine player should not be able to take A lance, or two, on a cap ship.  The nova sets the standard that lances should be rare and costly in its fluff.

Dont use them if you dont want to, but if its no more than 1 lance on an SC or two on a BB, I dont see any fluff discrepency.  Alterations do happen, and the AdMech isnt going to go all extremis on a chapter for sporting a lance turret.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 03, 2010, 07:54:30 PM
No LS, allowing is opening a can. That can should never opened. Just don't.


I agree with Vaaish on the minority thing. Most of represent a few or more people in a gaming group etc.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: commander on October 03, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
The loadout of the SC is simply too heavy for a LC.
Launchbays for 2 THs and bombardment cannons, all in the prow?
Too much attempted on too small a chassis.
The battlebarge is also a bit overarmed in the prow with a launch bay for 3 THs (= the equivalent of 6 squadrons of fighters/bombers) and torpedoes. 8 bombardment cannons on the dorsal.
If one stays with the 'old' concept, things are not improving IMO.

For me, SM are all about planetary assaults an precision strikes. They cannot afford to lose time in conducting lenghty space battles. They need, aside heavy short ranged weaponry, fast heavy armoured and shielded vessels which they don't have.

I can be off with my perception, but this is the way I see them. For me, i would look at (regular) battleships to design battlebarges and at (regular) battlecruisers to design strike cruisers, all with 'downgraded' weaponry in favour for armour and speed.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: commander on October 03, 2010, 09:59:10 PM
Found my notes back.
A battle barge based upon the Retribution (point cost not yet determined).
Armour 6 all around. Other stats unchanged.
Weapons loadout:
prow: 9 torpedoes (also boarding torpedoes)
starboard: S4 bombardment cannons, 1 launch bay (S1 TH)
Port: S4 bombardment cannons, 1 launch bay (S1 TH)
dorsal: S3 bombardment cannons

notes: launch bays allow for double strength AC in play

It is not playtested yet but I think that this ship is very able to smash its way through to deliver the troops at the surface of the planet.
This ship represents how i 'feel' the SM.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 03, 2010, 10:42:25 PM
Look, Im never gonna use em, but for a premium points cost and few and far between, there is absolutely zero reason a marine player should not be able to take A lance, or two, on a cap ship.  The nova sets the standard that lances should be rare and costly in its fluff.

Dont use them if you dont want to, but if its no more than 1 lance on an SC or two on a BB, I dont see any fluff discrepency.  Alterations do happen, and the AdMech isnt going to go all extremis on a chapter for sporting a lance turret.

SM won't be able to do any such modifications to their ships. They do not have the facilities nor the technical expertise unlike the AdMechs.

And again, the problem is not that I don't like it and so will not play it. The problem is my opponents like it and so will play it against me. They can already get a lot of lances via the Nova or Firestorm if they need to. Cap ships should not have access to them except on a VBB and even then they shouldn't get the ones with a lot of lances.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 03, 2010, 11:10:43 PM
Honestly Admiral, a couple lances on an SC, from a competative perspective, is only a bit more scary to me than bombardment cannons.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 03, 2010, 11:16:24 PM
A couple of lances on one SC, sure. A couple of lances on a couple of SCs backed up by a battleship's 4? Not scary enough for you? The list I made not good enough: the SO (450), 4 vanilla SCs (580) and 2 Str 2 lance armed SCs (330), 2 Firestorms (90) and Master of the Fleet (50) at 1500 points? That's 14 lances in all. I'd be hiding the escorts behnid the bigger ships and let the cap ships do most of the work with the Firestorms as mopping up guys. Or I can I can drop 1 Vanilla SC and with the remaining points get another 3 Firestorms for additional 3 more lances to the total. Note the fleet I listed also has 14 TH support. Remove 1 SC and I still get 12 TH support.

In sub 1k games, I remove the SO, remove 1 Vanilla SC and I can have 4 Firestorms in there. That's 8 lances in 1k games plus 10 TH support.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 03, 2010, 11:33:36 PM
Not the scenario I was talking about.  Like I said.  Few lances, points premium.  Thats what I think.  Make it so you can only take em if you really want to but without it being a really good idea.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 03, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
The problem is it's not few and it's not points premium. Look at the list I made. That's with premium built in already. Multiple 6+ armored ships which have high speed and maneuverability. Get behind the enemy lines, sandwich the enemy between the SCs and the SO and they'll be in for a lot of hurt from the combination WB, BC, Lances and TH. Chaos' Alpha Strike Murders and Eldar Hemlocks have great chances against it but those are the exception.

That list I made is what  would bring in a competitive scenario. I'm fulfilling everything the rules require, premium (+20) and few (more Vanilla SCs than there is variant). What more do you need to see that there is a problem?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 04, 2010, 12:32:34 AM
Right, I never said, or didnt mean to imply, that I was talking about the way the draft currently is, just how I envision it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 04, 2010, 04:05:52 AM
Still, fitting with background they should not have lances even at premium prizes in this or any other draft.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 04, 2010, 04:57:59 AM
This keeps getting more nuts. Look, if people want to have lances they SHOULDN'T PLAY MARINES! You do not have to give everyone the same gear just because they might want it. If that were the case, I know some chaos that would love to have cruiser mounted NCs! Marines already have the BC which hits on a 4+ like a lance, adding lances doesn't do anything except break fluff and ignore the gunnery table.

Marine capital ships should not have lances attached to them. period. Why are you so dead set determined to give marines something they shouldn't have? I know it's really easy to just say people you don't want to listen to are the vocal minority and move on, but these issues are things that go far outside of those of us posting here.

That said, no to the SedO. the profile is far out of line with the marine restrictions against lances.

SC should never get lances. Not for 20 points, not for 100 points.

SC variants are interesting, but ultimately have no chance of balance in the form you've posted. You've effectively said that one point of BC strength equals one point of torpedo strength. IIRC it's a common comparison to say one point of torpedo strength is equal to one point of WB strength. The BC is much better than a WB, so the same strength BC upgrade shouldn't be point the same as the same cost torpedoes. A much more fair comparison would be to equate the BC to lances (both hit on 4+ regardless of armor). The common rule with that is a point of lances equals three points of battery strength.  Going that route, the marines should be able to replace the LB for s2 bombardment cannons or s6 torpedoes.

Dominion fleet is much more useful now, though I don't know why I would use it over the armageddon list which basically lets me do the same thing without having to use reserve rules for it.

What this comes down to is that the rules will likely become official if you submit them. In the form they currently are, it doesn't balance and significantly boosts the marines capabilities. As such, it will become the lists used at tournament because it provides an advantage over other fleet lists.

I understand the concerns from a purist standpoint, but using this argument, then the Nova and Firestorm should be dislallowed as well. What is preventing me from fielding a fleet of one battle barge, three strike cruisers and 14 Firestorms? That fleet has 14 lances and is less than 1500 points! Firestorms and Novas are not going away- Firestorms in particular have been part of the SM fleet for as long as there's BEEN an SM fleet!

Another point that is not being brought up in all the vitriol about SM lances is that except for the SO, not a single SM vessel has lances that exceed 30cm. Why spend that many points on SM strike cruisers with lances when for just a few more points and a different fleet list you can have a perfectly decent Lunar, or even a Gothic if one is truly a lance hog?  We're still tweaking this to make it right, but "SM's can't have lances" not a valid argument in and of itself, especially if we make them rare and expensive.

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 04, 2010, 06:34:13 AM

I understand the concerns from a purist standpoint, but using this argument, then the Nova and Firestorm should be dislallowed as well.
You don't understand it at all I think. Nova & Firestorms are escorts. Strike Cruisers capital ships. There is a difference. It is even given in the Nova entry that they are under scrutiny from the Inq/IN/AdMech.

I would ditch RSV's all the way.

Quote
What is preventing me from fielding a fleet of one battle barge, three strike cruisers and 14 Firestorms? That fleet has 14 lances and is less than 1500 points! Firestorms and Novas are not going away- Firestorms in particular have been part of the SM fleet for as long as there's BEEN an SM fleet!
Not really, in Armada the option was to take pure SM escorts or RSV's. That was the first Marine list. If you ditch the Firestorm RSV option people can use them as Nova's. Just like people could/can use Dauntless light cruisers, or FW strike cruisers as marine strike cruisers. Just painted appropriate.

But, yes, one can take a Barge and only escorts, yes. That is cheesy and not fluffy. But possible indeed.

As said, there is a difference between escorts and capitals.

Quote
Another point that is not being brought up in all the vitriol about SM lances is that except for the SO, not a single SM vessel has lances that exceed 30cm. Why spend that many points on SM strike cruisers with lances when for just a few more points and a different fleet list you can have a perfectly decent Lunar, or even a Gothic if one is truly a lance hog?  We're still tweaking this to make it right, but "SM's can't have lances" not a valid argument in and of itself, especially if we make them rare and expensive.

That's why it is a different fleet list (Armageddon).

Space Marines can't have lances is a perfect valid reason to dissalow lances to them.

It is background you know. Just like you mentioned about Tau should be in background (although we differ on how to use that background as well so I guess we have different backgrounds. ;) , must be it.).

Still we wait views on:
- the refit we don't like.
- the seditio opprimere which should be dropped or changed (weapon batteries) because no one likes the ship. There is no majority which likes it.
- the 2nd shield on strike cruisers minus 1 bay
- your draft 'devestator' with too many bombardments



Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 04, 2010, 06:45:07 AM
Linebreaker, becuase there are already WAY too many classes that start with D ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 04, 2010, 07:29:03 AM
I understand the concerns from a purist standpoint, but using this argument, then the Nova and Firestorm should be dislallowed as well. What is preventing me from fielding a fleet of one battle barge, three strike cruisers and 14 Firestorms? That fleet has 14 lances and is less than 1500 points! Firestorms and Novas are not going away- Firestorms in particular have been part of the SM fleet for as long as there's BEEN an SM fleet!

Fluff reason is enough to justify only escorts having the lances. And I quote: "Only the smallest of vessels would be permitted to act exclusively as gunships."

Nothing can stop you from using Firestorms or Novas. Then again, those small ships are quite easily taken out compared to a 6hp and 12 hp ship. Escorts would be in trouble from all the weapons of the game unlike cap ships which can weather the storm. And by my count that fleet is more than 1500 points and does not even include the Master. Firestorms 14x45 (630)+Vanilla SC 3x145 (435)+Vanilla Battlebarge (425) is 1490 without the MotF which makes it an illegal fleet so remove one Firestorm and add one MotF and you can get under 1500. Or remove one SC and use that for MoTF and add more Firestorms but that is reducing the durability of the list. That's not much of a problem fluff wise. Will it be cheesy? Sure. but it won't be broken cheesy.

Another point that is not being brought up in all the vitriol about SM lances is that except for the SO, not a single SM vessel has lances that exceed 30cm. Why spend that many points on SM strike cruisers with lances when for just a few more points and a different fleet list you can have a perfectly decent Lunar, or even a Gothic if one is truly a lance hog?  We're still tweaking this to make it right, but "SM's can't have lances" not a valid argument in and of itself, especially if we make them rare and expensive.

- Nate

The problem is they should never have anything which exceeds it in the first place except for WBs. As you and other people have pointed out, if you wanted a fleet with SM and short and long range lances, then go Armageddon. It's a different list, yes and so the requirments and benefits and disadvantages are different. But we are talking about a pure SM fleet here. As I pointed out above, only the smallest vessels should be permitted to act as gunships if only to forestall another Heresy. Sure SM have BCs which hit on a 4+ but which in turn is hampered by being a weapon battery type armament but even the BCs are limited to 3 cm.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 04, 2010, 04:31:59 PM
Quote
make it right, but "SM's can't have lances" not a valid argument in and of itself, especially if we make them rare and expensive.

Give us a perfectly valid reason why marines SHOULD have all the lances they want based on fluff, precedent, and game balance. That was your original aim, and that seems to be what you are still trying to do as the Admiral pointed out with his sample fleet using the "premium" cost lances. As other have said, fluff is a perfectly valid reason to disallow certain options. You are disregarding our arguments based on those things as invalid vitriol without presenting support or defense for your own decisions outside of vague and unsupported claims of majority rule. As has been pointed out, firestorms and novas are both easier to take down than a capital ship, they also fit with the fluff and I've only seen them appear rarely in marine fleets because there are better options available. That is how it should be. Beyond all that not having an option creates flavor between the races that make them interesting and challenging to play.

Let me just cut to the chase, this list is bad and the additions are bad. It is bad for fluff, it is bad for balance, and that makes it bad for the game as a whole. Instead of turning a blind eye and expecting applause when presenting a new list, listen to what we are saying. Giving marines greater access to lances does nothing to counter their weakness to lances. Stubbornly holding onto the stats for the SedO or insisting that a strike cruiser should mount lances or S9 BC is only undermining your credibility as a game designer. Brainstorming can be useful and good, but you have to accept that some ideas are bad and move on for the good of the game as a whole.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zhukov on October 04, 2010, 04:41:48 PM

Fluff is enough reason why this list is a bad idea. Lances in Space Marine pure fleets should be reserved to only the Novas and Firestorms. The SO could be restricted to just battles when Space Marine pure fleets fight Tyranids to keep with fluff.

-Zhukov
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 04, 2010, 08:21:03 PM
Zhukov, the Seditio does NOT fit fluff vs Tyranids! Weapon Batteries are much better against Tyranids then lances.

____


Hi Nate, Bob, Ray,

you may consider us online people a vocal minority. But that is simply not true. Most of us represent a group of players. Secondly we are vocal because we care about our and your Battlefleet Gothic. We care so much we go to lengthy discussions and debates. We try to improve the standard lists and sometimes we add funky-wacky houserules for fun.

We have presented, in this thread about by Space Marines, various well grounded reasons to not have lances on Strike Cruisers no matter the costs. We raised our concers with reason about the (hated) seditio opprimere. The most important reason of all might be the fact all these lances are against the lovely background setting 40k and Battlefleet Gothic gives us.

I, and I guess others as well, hope that you will listen and just remove anything lance related from any Space Marine list or document. Only Nova's and perhaps the Firestorm RSV should bring lances into the Marine fleets and the odd venerable battle barge (with restrictions).


Here are the suggestions that seem to go well by most (correct me if I am wrong):

* Strike Cruisers with 2 shields and 1 Thunderhawk bay. Cost at 150pts if needed.
* Assault variant and Siege variant (with 5-6 bombardment MAX). These variants can only be taken on a 1:1 basis againts regular strike cruisers.

Other ideas which go well:
* Barge with extra turret/shield
* Marines may make teleport attacks when on special orders.

okay:
* As far as I see Annihilators are good.
* Venerable battle barges but no Desolator or lance toading gunships.

anything else?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zelnik on October 04, 2010, 10:25:03 PM
OKay folks, I am going to post the wacky idea i had.
Observe.

As an upgrade to your battle barge.
Venerable: 75 points.  This is an alternative to terminator boarding parties, and has all the benefits of it, along with the added benefits of AAF for free, and double boarding value. can only be taken on a battle barge with the Master Of the Fleet.

New cruiser

Transport Cruiser (1:1 for every strike cruiser
(standard strike cruiser statline)
Armament: Prow bombardment cannons st 2 FLR 30cm
Prow launch bay: st 2 thunderhawks
Ventral transport bay

Special rules
The port and starboard batteries of this vessel have been removed to add extra space for more marines. this vessel has double boarding value.

this will address a lot of the issues brought up without utterly wrecking the game.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 05, 2010, 12:02:13 AM
Definitly don't raise the cost of the shield/TH switch, at all.


Teleport on lockons seems a must.  Chaos marines have so many more things going for them than loyalists.  There should at least be some representation of the loyalists showing complex tactics and the like. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 05, 2010, 02:13:11 AM

I understand the concerns from a purist standpoint, but using this argument, then the Nova and Firestorm should be dislallowed as well.
You don't understand it at all I think. Nova & Firestorms are escorts. Strike Cruisers capital ships. There is a difference. It is even given in the Nova entry that they are under scrutiny from the Inq/IN/AdMech.

I would ditch RSV's all the way.

No. RSV's were part of the ORIGINAL Space Marines list and is NOT going away. In fact, to REALLY be technical, lets talk about original game design. Before the Space Marines ever even got their own models, the intention was for the Emperor battleship and the torp version of the Dauntless to be Space Marine models before it was decided they would in fact get their own models after all. No, I'm not getting this from p.157 of the rulebook (the Space Marine models were not ready before the book went to press, as neither was the Repulsive GC). I'm not even getting that from the fact that the Emperor BB and the torp Dauntless CL have the SPACE MARINE symbol on their prows (as incidentally does the Sword escort).  I got that from conversations from the game designers themselves, actual conversations at length with the people that imparted on Ray, Bob and I THEIR vision for this game and its future, NOT ours! If you don't like it, don't play it.


Quote
Quote
What is preventing me from fielding a fleet of one battle barge, three strike cruisers and 14 Firestorms? That fleet has 14 lances and is less than 1500 points! Firestorms and Novas are not going away- Firestorms in particular have been part of the SM fleet for as long as there's BEEN an SM fleet!
Not really, in Armada the option was to take pure SM escorts or RSV's. That was the first Marine list. If you ditch the Firestorm RSV option people can use them as Nova's. Just like people could/can use Dauntless light cruisers, or FW strike cruisers as marine strike cruisers. Just painted appropriate.


But, yes, one can take a Barge and only escorts, yes. That is cheesy and not fluffy. But possible indeed.

As said, there is a difference between escorts and capitals.


On this I agree with you completely. Like you, if a cheese munchkin showed up with that kind of fleet, I would pack up my models and go home. That however does NOT make it illegal.

Quote
Quote
Another point that is not being brought up in all the vitriol about SM lances is that except for the SO, not a single SM vessel has lances that exceed 30cm. Why spend that many points on SM strike cruisers with lances when for just a few more points and a different fleet list you can have a perfectly decent Lunar, or even a Gothic if one is truly a lance hog?  We're still tweaking this to make it right, but "SM's can't have lances" not a valid argument in and of itself, especially if we make them rare and expensive.

That's why it is a different fleet list (Armageddon).

Space Marines can't have lances is a perfect valid reason to disallow lances to them.

No itís not. Orks can buy lances on a battleship, earn it as a refit, have it on a Space Hulk or buy it if using the Klanz rules. Itís rare and expensive, but they can still do it (up to 45cm and 60cm, no less!) What weíre saying is that for Space Marines, it should be rare and expensive, but not entirely absent. Obviously thereís a lot of passion about this so we are addressing it (again) with the v3 rules, which are still being hashed out. Admittedly we are spending a LOT more time getting and listening to fan input to try and make this right, but that does NOT mean we are going to let one or two really passionate fans hijack what we are intending to produce here. That also means we are not going to make everyone happy.



Quote
It is background you know. Just like you mentioned about Tau should be in background (although we differ on how to use that background as well so I guess we have different backgrounds. ;) , must be it.).
Our background is based on the materials we were given by Games Workshop. Believe it or not, contention doesnít only come form the fans. When the Tau were being designed, one of the designers wanted so badly for the Kroot Warsphere to be killed off, there was almost a shouting match over the matter. To this day he hates it, ignores it and wonít mention it in any materials he produces for the game.

Quote
Still we wait views on:
- the refit we don't like.
Okay. Gone.

Quote
- the seditio opprimere which should be dropped or changed (weapon batteries) because no one likes the ship. There is no majority which likes it.
Changing the Seditio Opprimere to WBís is pointless- it would be nothing more than a tweaked BB. We are however changing the SO to a short-range bruiser as opposed to a long-range sniper, which I agree the Space Marines should never be. On that note, three loud and passionate fans is NOT the same thing as ďnobody.Ē You donít see the e-mails I get, and Iím not sharing them nor debating this here.

Quote
- the 2nd shield on strike cruisers minus 1 bay
Good idea. In fact, this is such a good idea, weíre considering changing the ďbuy any refitĒ to ďbuy a shieldĒ and leaving the launch bays at 2. Once again, at least half the SCís in a fleet have to be plain-vanilla.

Quote
- your draft 'devestator' with too many bombardments
Youíre right, keeping in mind that these still behave as WBís against blast markers, AND this improvement both replaces all launch bays and only fires front. It also is NOT the same thing as torpedoes- torpedoes potentially have a much longer range than 30cm and are useful for tactics beyond merely shooting. Nonetheless, I agree the SC shouldnít be able to out-shoot a BB in any arc so this has been reduced. BTW- Iím sure you know I didnít call it ďDevastatorĒ in any official capacity; I just didnít know what else to call it and knew someone had tagged the variant as such.

How about that- we agree on more than you thought! Now how about we all smile, game on and enjoy!

-   Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 05, 2010, 04:25:23 AM
Hi Nate,
well thanks on the replies regarding refits, devestators, t-hawks/shields. We are getting somewhere. ;)

If we ammend an assault variant ( :) ) we can call the devestator Siege class.

But then... well I still smile, never stopped to be honest.

lances & so
Give me three good reasons why you want lances so badly on strike cruisers. Give me another three why the seditio oppr. should exist.

As far as I see giving marines lances on capital ships brakes EVERY bit of background given in the book of Armada or elsewhere regarding Space Marines. Directly from GW.

Of course you won't bring on the emails you get (privacy and all) but then please encourage those people who do to post on here (or yahoo or similar) why they want the S.O. You haven't seen my mailbox by the way ;). For us these mails don't exist and as long as I don't see other vocal people from other groups coming on here it remains the same: everyone hates the SO. :)

And I am getting offended by you constantly calling us three or two loud and passionate fans. Really, I have said times that we represent groups of players.

Space Marine symbols on the IN vessels, someone give me proof. ;)

(To be honest I am getting the feeling that GW itself is behind this lance nonsense. They just don't like it to see their flagship race Space Marines being a secondary force in BFG. They want to make them the best like in any other game. Right? Must be it :)  ).

As said. Reasons. :)

I'm smilin.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 05, 2010, 05:41:44 AM
Quote
Good idea. In fact, this is such a good idea, weíre considering changing the ďbuy any refitĒ to ďbuy a shieldĒ and leaving the launch bays at 2. Once again, at least half the SCís in a fleet have to be plain-vanilla.

I think this is a fairly good idea, but I do have a concern with some having 2 shields and some not having them. Since there isn't any particular way to model shields onto ships, it gives opportunity for less than honest players to move shields around or for honest mistakes on which ships have it and which don't. I think it might be better as perhaps a fleet wide thing just to eliminate the possibility completely. Perhaps even as part of the dominion fleet to give it some unique aspect from other marine fleets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 05, 2010, 07:18:43 AM
Orks aren't a good nor valid reason why SM should be allowed lances because Orks can use lances. It is just a difficult tech for them to master but that does not mean they can't have them.

SM, after what happened with the heresy, it was decided they would not have any capital ship with ship killing efficiency. This means lances. Until now Nate, you have not presented any valid reasons as to why the SM should now be allowed lances on their cap ship nor for the existence of the SO. It is becoming more of "because we say so" and that isn't really conducive to discussion especially since you won't share your sources such as emails. We can only give you the benefit of the doubt that you do have such support. However, just because fans support it doesn't mean the SM should get lances. I'm sure a lot of Chaos players support getting a Dauntless equivalent, 6+ armor and NCs but should it be done? Of course not for the sake of balance.

Armageddon list is not valid because it is an IN fleet list with SM support.

VBBs are still experimental at this stage and I would limit access to non-lanceheavy battleships and preferably with launch bays. Your examples are further proof that SM is limited to non-lance cap ships (Emperor and torp Dauntless).

Lastly, again to emphasize: it is not a case of we don't like it, we won't play it. It is a case of other people liking it and playing against us who don't like it. Sure we could decide we'd just pack up and not play them but that would leave things awkward for both sides to say the least. If however, the present restrictions are in play, then said situation wouldn't come up.

SM are already at a point where all they need is a bit of help to make them a viable and fun list. Why the insistence on lances? As you pointed out, SM already have access to a 4+ weapon. So why not build on that? Why not build on the Assault and Devastator class? Increase the shield and turret of the BB to 4 each. I am pretty sure that fleet will now become competitive and fun to play.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 05, 2010, 08:27:30 AM
Admiral, you really feel marines only need a bit of help to compete with the other fleets?  I feel like other fleets that excel in the same area, Orks and Nids, really have their way with Marines.


Also, where does it say specifically that it is the cap ships that marines are absolutely allowed no lances with?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 05, 2010, 08:58:32 AM
Hi,
Yes, Marines need only a little help/adjusting. Some extra flava added (assault/vbb/siege).
To some Marines need nothing (eg Zelnik).

It is written in Armada that Marines may only have small escorts acting as true gunships. Admiral d'Artagnan posted the exact quote few posts ago.

Also: due codex Marines may never rival Imperial Navy in space. Heresy Forbids.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: commander on October 05, 2010, 09:21:39 AM
Another source of irritation (with our small playing group) is that the capital ships themselves are a bit 'overarmed' and 'underprotected', a matter that should be resolved.
SC: light cruiser. A light cruiser has typical 3 'weapon hard points' to fill. What about the strike cruiser? 2TH and FP3 bombardment cannons in the prow, good for 3 weapon hard points. And then he has two more on port and starboard. That brings us to 5. 5 weapon hard points are to be found on cruisers.
I know we are 'stuck' with the current models, but can we at least give them stats that correspond with the look of things?
And also resolve the 'underprotected' thing?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 05, 2010, 09:27:12 AM
Hey Commander,
read any of our suggestions?

Strike Cruiser: add shield, drop 1 T-hawk.

Actually four hardpoints:

2x prow
1x port
1x starboard

No qualms about it. They are not overarmed. At all.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 05, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
I always think of SC's as undersized cruisers rather than oversized light cruisers.

Horizon, I'm well aware that the hardware in the fluff isnt allowed to be as good as IN.

I'm not sure, are  you saying that means they shouldn't be able to usually win against IN?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 05, 2010, 09:36:55 AM
Quote
I'm not sure, are  you saying that means they shouldn't be able to usually win against IN?
YES!

In a standard fleet engagement the IN should have easy win vs Space Marines. At least in 75:25 ratio I say. :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 05, 2010, 09:43:07 AM
I'd say you would probably be better off reading a BFG novel then, than trying to balance the BFG game :)

I have a new player who is interested in playing space marines.  I refuse to tell him that he will have to accept a high loss ratio against other fleets because a fun fluff blurb, and will houserule-balance towards a more competative SM fleet if need be, while keeping it fluffy of course.
Provide rules that let marines win by things other than their hardware, if need be.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: commander on October 05, 2010, 09:53:23 AM
I have read all of the proposals, yes  ;)
But given the fact that they have more hardpoints than a regular light cruiser (even the AM don't have that), why not make them fast cruisers all together? Enough hardpoints to fill with THs (no loss there) and short ranged fire power, more protection by having two shields standard. One hard point can be sacrificed to explain the high speed and eventualy advanced thrusters for AAF?

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: commander on October 05, 2010, 10:00:10 AM
I'd say you would probably be better off reading a BFG novel then, than trying to balance the BFG game :)

I have a new player who is interested in playing space marines.  I refuse to tell him that he will have to accept a high loss ratio against other fleets because a fun fluff blurb, and will houserule-balance towards a more competative SM fleet if need be, while keeping it fluffy of course.
Provide rules that let marines win by things other than their hardware, if need be.

Well, all fluff that I've read says that SM have little chance to win from IN in a ship to ship shoot out. They (should) excel at other things, planetary assault coming to mind (that's what they're are meant for, fleetwise) IMO.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 05, 2010, 11:21:16 AM
I'd say you would probably be better off reading a BFG novel then, than trying to balance the BFG game :)

I have a new player who is interested in playing space marines.  I refuse to tell him that he will have to accept a high loss ratio against other fleets because a fun fluff blurb, and will houserule-balance towards a more competative SM fleet if need be, while keeping it fluffy of course.
Provide rules that let marines win by things other than their hardware, if need be.

You are misunderstanding.

In a fleet engagement and maybe Escalating Engagement, SM should not have easy chances to win. In Planetary Assault and Exterminatus, they should excel. Cruiser Clash, Blockade Run and Convoy, 60-40. The Bait, Raiders and Surprise Attack, I'd say 50-50 playing either side.  

This is why I believe that they just need a bit of help. Even with Fleet Engagements, in the hands of a good player, they can win, which should be the case. They need help in the defensive side of things, being more survivable but not have enough weapons to win easily.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zhukov on October 05, 2010, 04:36:15 PM

Horizon,

Lances are better vs. Kraken. That's where I can see the Seditio being used. escpecially on flanking actions.

I have played in a large battle with Tyranids that featured MANY Kraken and I had three Firestorms and 3 Dauntless' that were lance armed. I attacked the flank of the Tyranid horde and cut through swaths of the enemy. Against the others, weapons batteries hold the advantage.

-Zhukov
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 05, 2010, 06:07:02 PM
Ok, thats a better design philosophy.  My misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 05, 2010, 07:13:23 PM
I exaggarated on the ratio, the admiral is closer to the truth. :)


@ Zhukov, we are talking a big ship killer, not a swarm killer.

Why didn't the Nids sent some ordnance at the Dauntless?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 12:04:42 AM
Zhukov, the Seditio does NOT fit fluff vs Tyranids! Weapon Batteries are much better against Tyranids then lances.


How are WBís better than lances against 5+armor and all the BMís Tyranids generate? I know many people think the Gothic is overrated, but as a fleet weapon, I just donít see how this makes sense. Iím not arguing the point, Iím just curious is all.

Quote
____


Hi Nate, Bob, Ray,


Hi! ;D

Quote

you may consider us online people a vocal minority. But that is simply not true. Most of us represent a group of players. Secondly we are vocal because we care about our and your Battlefleet Gothic. We care so much we go to lengthy discussions and debates. We try to improve the standard lists and sometimes we add funky-wacky houserules for fun.

We have presented, in this thread about by Space Marines, various well grounded reasons to not have lances on Strike Cruisers no matter the costs. We raised our concers with reason about the (hated) seditio opprimere. The most important reason of all might be the fact all these lances are against the lovely background setting 40k and Battlefleet Gothic gives us.

I, and I guess others as well, hope that you will listen and just remove anything lance related from any Space Marine list or document. Only Nova's and perhaps the Firestorm RSV should bring lances into the Marine fleets and the odd venerable battle barge (with restrictions).


We ARE listening- thatís why this debate is happening in the first place. It has not been nor will it be our intention to force unwanted rules down anyoneís throats. At the same time, we are trying to execute the intent of the designers that handed this to us, and as such we want to incorporate as much of their unfinished work as possible without fundamentally changing it or ďbreakingĒ anything already in place.

Quote
Here are the suggestions that seem to go well by most (correct me if I am wrong):

* Strike Cruisers with 2 shields and 1 Thunderhawk bay. Cost at 150pts if needed.

What weíre hashing for v3 right now is allowing any number of strike cruisers to buy a second shield (profile unchanged) for +15 points apiece. This fits the SM ďget in your faceĒ theme much better without creating yet another SC variant.

By the way: the ďbuy a refitĒ rule is gone. I notice the 2x prow lance version wasnít addressed here, but thatís gone as well.

Quote

* Assault variant and Siege variant (with 5-6 bombardment MAX). These variants can only be taken on a 1:1 basis againts regular strike cruisers.

We already made this change to an extent in v3.  Consider it done.

Quote

Other ideas which go well:
* Barge with extra turret/shield


Making this available for a price is worth discussing. Keep in mind this refit should be EXPENSIVE. While armor 6 does nothing against lances, it is a game changer against everything else: gunnery, torps and attack craft. The original designer intent by reducing the shields/turrets is that with the ship already being armor 6, it almost had the same effect as an extra turret/shield in and of itself during play-testing. When you roll some dice, you will see an armor-6 ship with 4 shields/turrets is almost like an Emperor with 5 shields and 6 turrets. Not exactly, but very close. 

We are discussing a variant of this, but I will address it separately

Quote


* Marines may make teleport attacks when on special orders.


This doesnít need to be addressed here. The soon to be released draft FAQ includes a ruling that Lock-On and Reload Ordnance doesnít effect teleport attacks for any fleet. The other special orders make too great a demand on a ship and crew to make Space Marines (and their smaller crews to start with) exempt from this. For example, Eldar may not be as tough as Space Marines, but their vessels are as efficient as any in space. Why wouldnít they be exempt? Donít get me started on Necrons- their tech is so good, even escorts have portals! See what I mean? Itís a door better left closed.

Quote

okay:
* As far as I see Annihilators are good.


Keep in mind that these are for Crusade fleets ONLY. Fleets that integrate with IN ships and ordnance donít also get dedicated T-Hawk bombers. Also, the quirky ďturrets hit on a 6Ē was not merely overlooked, it is gone.

Quote

* Venerable battle barges but no Desolator or lance toading gunships.


Hereís where the rubber meets the road. The game designers really REALLY wanted this left alone. There is fluff precedent for the founding Chapters in particular to have among their fleet truly ancient ships along with special dispensation from the Imperial Navy to keep them, if for no other reason that some of these vessels were involved with the saving and reformation of the Imperium itself during and immediately after the Horus Heresy. Venerable is what they are in actual intent, ships that are revered and literally worshipped in their own right as icons of the Chapter and the Imperium as a whole. Some of these will be Despoilers and Desolators in their original forms, vessels that their Primarchs and in some cases the Emperor himself walked aboard. Others will be ships captured by the Space Marines during great, storied battles over their long history and then through sheer recalcitrance retained instead of being turned over to the Adeptus Mechanicus or IN. The Space Wolvesí Emperor is a particular example, the fluff behind it being a nod to what the Space Marine battlebarge model almost was (thatís a different story).

Hereís the stark reality. The designers wanted this. More importantly, one single ship in an entire fleet is NOT going to change the flavor of the Space Marines (especially since carriers of ANY class have to take thunderhawks at 1/2 launch bays), nor does it suddenly make a fleet an insuperable adversary.

Quote

anything else?

Yes, there is.

We KNEW there was going to be some concerns about allowing Chaos battleships be Venerable BBís, but this is actually fluff true, intended by the game designers and not a broken rule so itís not being changed.

The intent of including the Sedditio Oppimiere was to provide an alternative VBB that would be more themeful to the Space Marines but retain the intent of the game designers. However, I am not arguing with anyone here that the original 6x60cm broadside lances the profile originally sported was a complete abortion. On the other hand, I have to tell you none of us expected the ďno never EVERĒ response weíve been getting with allowing the SO to exist even with severely dumbed-down lances. Our latest iteration has only 4x30cm lance broadsides with an extra shield and turret to make it a close-in gunship, but what I am seeing here is almost a Mommie Dearest ďno capital lances, EVER!Ē response.

Hereís a compromise to the ďI hate lancesĒ crowd. Before Forgeworld stopped making new models for BFG (the reason is beyond the scope of this post), the next project in the hopper was an orbital bombardment barge for the Space Marines. This was going to be a BB model with ONLY 30cm weapons, but with better turrets and shields to survive getting in range to do its job. It was decided by the designers when the model was scrapped that the idea had enough merit to see light, but there was no way to model it without custom bits so the SO was created instead. Granted the profile was an abortion, but the goal at the time (not by the HAís at this point) was to create a Space Marine Apocalypse without the quirky ďit blows a gasket beyond 30cmĒ rule.

Yes everyone, I know it was a bad idea- I get it. Here is Bobís and my vision for what the Sedditio Oppimiere could be were the bombardment barge resurrected:

Sedditio Oppimiere: 450 points
Battleship-12HP/ Speed=20cm/ Turns=45deg /Armor 6+/ Shields=4/ Turrets=4
Port Bombardment Cannon: 12x30cm
Stbd Bombardment Cannon: 12x30cm
Prow launch bays: 3 Thunderhawks
Prow torpedoes: str-6
Dorsal bombardment Cannon: 8x30cm L/F/R

Okay, I know someoneís going to hate this even though there isnít a lance or >30cm weapon anywhere on this thing! Thoughts?

 - Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 06, 2010, 02:55:41 AM
Quote
Sedditio Oppimiere: 450 points
Battleship-12HP/ Speed=20cm/ Turns=45deg /Armor 6+/ Shields=4/ Turrets=4
Port Bombardment Cannon: 12x30cm
Stbd Bombardment Cannon: 12x30cm
Prow launch bays: 3 Thunderhawks
Prow torpedoes: str-6
Dorsal bombardment Cannon: 8x30cm L/F/R

Okay, I know someoneís going to hate this even though there isnít a lance or >30cm weapon anywhere on this thing! Thoughts?

Well it's an improvement over all lances, but I think it may need some extra tweaking because of the 4+ to hit. In a worst case scenario against an untouched cruiser abeam to it, this thing will score around 3.5 hits which really isn't that bad. Locked on it will score around 5 hits which is hefty, but not too bad for a battleship. If it catches something closing (which is quite easy to pull off) that number jumps to seven hits regular and 10.5 hits locked on which is enough to kill a full health cruiser in a single salvo. Heaven help the poor souls who end up within 15cm.

I could accept if it was ALL the ship had. The problems start when you add in the thunderhawks and torpedoes. If this thing is allowed to take annihilators, the thawks should be able to finish of whatever the ship cripples and boarding torpedoes just add to the mess it makes. The second issue is that you get all of this for only 25 points more than a stock battlebarge (and it has improved defenses!).

Now this thing fires magma bombs in huge quantities, and I'd imagine those take up quite a bit of space on board. There has to be a downside for taking this, so perhaps reduced Thawk capacity or at the least remove the torpedos entirely with their magazines being used to store additional ammo for the bombardment cannons.

The final thing is, maybe bump the cost up to 475-500.

On VBB and chaos ships. Since those barges would be undeniably ancient, perhaps they should have an additional premium added for taking such ancient vessels.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 03:38:36 AM
Quote
Sedditio Oppimiere: 450 points
Battleship-12HP/ Speed=20cm/ Turns=45deg /Armor 6+/ Shields=4/ Turrets=4
Port Bombardment Cannon: 12x30cm
Stbd Bombardment Cannon: 12x30cm
Prow launch bays: 3 Thunderhawks
Prow torpedoes: str-6
Dorsal bombardment Cannon: 8x30cm L/F/R

Okay, I know someoneís going to hate this even though there isnít a lance or >30cm weapon anywhere on this thing! Thoughts?

Well it's an improvement over all lances, but I think it may need some extra tweaking because of the 4+ to hit. In a worst case scenario against an untouched cruiser abeam to it, this thing will score around 3.5 hits which really isn't that bad. Locked on it will score around 5 hits which is hefty, but not too bad for a battleship. If it catches something closing (which is quite easy to pull off) that number jumps to seven hits regular and 10.5 hits locked on which is enough to kill a full health cruiser in a single salvo. Heaven help the poor souls who end up within 15cm.

I could accept if it was ALL the ship had. The problems start when you add in the thunderhawks and torpedoes. If this thing is allowed to take annihilators, the thawks should be able to finish of whatever the ship cripples and boarding torpedoes just add to the mess it makes. The second issue is that you get all of this for only 25 points more than a stock battlebarge (and it has improved defenses!).




Okay, NOW weíre getting somewhere! Keep in mind a few things- this ship hits hard up close, but it only has 30cm weapons. EVERY OTHER battleship in the game can out-reach this thing. Even a regular BB has 45cm weapons. A Retribution has 12x60cm guns, 3x60cm dorsal lances and 9 prow torps, and that is the Impís bottom-rung battleship! Yes, I know B-cannon hit really hard, but this ship is going to take a lot of abuse before it ever gets in range to hit something. For another comparison, the Avenger for half the price is swinging 16x30cm batteries.

I know these comparisons are not entirely congruent. The fact of the matter is that for 450 points, this ship soaks up a lot of value for only having 30cm weapons.

 
Quote

Now this thing fires magma bombs in huge quantities, and I'd imagine those take up quite a bit of space on board. There has to be a downside for taking this, so perhaps reduced Thawk capacity or at the least remove the torpedos entirely with their magazines being used to store additional ammo for the bombardment cannons.

The final thing is, maybe bump the cost up to 475-500.



This was just a first-pass; thereís lots of room to move here. Dropping the launch bays to 2 makes perfect sense. I prefer that change to removing torpedoes- this vessel makes the perfect Exterminatus ship and should keep the torp tubes for its ďdoesnít need to modifyĒ rule. Also, thereís room to bump the price up a bit, but not too much, especially if it loses a T-Hawk bay. Once again, itís tough, but for its rock-hard fists, itís got some tiny arms!

Quote

On VBB and chaos ships. Since those barges would be undeniably ancient, perhaps they should have an additional premium added for taking such ancient vessels.


This sounds acceptable, and it should be related precisely to the fact that these are Venerable ships. For example, they can be worth 100% VPís if crippled and 150% VPís if destroyed. Thereís precedence for this type of mechanic, and it directly plays into the shock and dismay that would be faced by an entire Chapter should such a revered icon be lost in battle. 

Also remember the Sedditio Oppimiere is a VBB. People will be taking this ship OR a Chaos battleship, not AND. It also soaks up one of the three BB slots allowed in a fleet list.

This reminds me of another critical oversight a lot of players tend to make: in larger fleet battles or in campaigns, the Space Marines are bringing a LOT less capital ships to the big game as other fleets are, which is how it should be. It was the intent of  the Armageddon and Dominion fleet lists to provide the Space Marines with more ships for larger campaigns than they would otherwise have access to.

Iím really glad to see weíre closing the gap.

-   Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 06, 2010, 04:04:27 AM
Hey,
I like the new Sed.Opp. Maybe sort the points a little as Vaaish pointed out.
:)
Other items make me smile too ;)

Thanks.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
Hi Nate,
well thanks on the replies regarding refits, devestators, t-hawks/shields. We are getting somewhere. ;)


Hi Horizon! (say that three times fast!) Iím even happier about this than you are. Believe me, NONE of the HAís are trying to put out a crappy product to the fans.

Quote


If we ammend an assault variant ( :) ) we can call the devestator Siege class.

But then... well I still smile, never stopped to be honest.


To be honest, we wonít be calling any Strike Cruisers by individual class names. Fluff has always said SCís represent a broad range of ships with roughly congruent capabilities as opposed to a particular class.

Quote



lances & so
Give me three good reasons why you want lances so badly on strike cruisers. Give me another three why the seditio oppr. should exist.



1.   Itís cool and chicks dig it.
2.   Itís cool and chicks dig it.
3.   Itís cool and chicks dig it.

Oh come on, I know you thought that was funny!   :D

We got rid of the double-prow lance. The reason why some SCís should have a single L/F/R 30cm lance is because I can see how some Chapters would basically try to get away with it, which was foreseen by the designers as well. For instance, a Chapter of the hundreds in the galaxy got a shipyard to refit a salvaged Nova Lance on a Strike Cruiser after some battle where both are in the yards and the Nova is beyond repair, or make up your own reason. This is why it should be both rare and expensive.

The SO was always supposed to be a bruiser, and the designers wanted it to be a lance ship. Bob and I have discussed it, and weíve decided to submit to the lance-haters, as it gives us a good excuse to resurrect the orbital  bombardment barge Forgeworld promised us but never delivered.

Quote


As far as I see giving marines lances on capital ships brakes EVERY bit of background given in the book of Armada or elsewhere regarding Space Marines. Directly from GW.


In this you are correct. By design, the Imperial Navy does NOT like the idea of the Space Marines having expressly-designed anti-ship weapons. More importantly, you are right that by design the Space Marines were never supposed to have lances, precisely because of post-Heresy fears. Thatís why the Emperor has no lances and the torp Dauntless (no lances again!) were invented before it was decided the SMís would get dedicated models of their own.

Quote

Of course you won't bring on the emails you get (privacy and all) but then please encourage those people who do to post on here (or yahoo or similar) why they want the S.O. You haven't seen my mailbox by the way ;). For us these mails don't exist and as long as I don't see other vocal people from other groups coming on here it remains the same: everyone hates the SO. :)

And I am getting offended by you constantly calling us three or two loud and passionate fans. Really, I have said times that we represent groups of players.


Come on, admit it. Not EVERYONE hates the S.O.  That being said, I can see that what I said is a generalization, and you should be offended. Apologies.

Quote

Space Marine symbols on the IN vessels, someone give me proof. ;)




Now THIS is the fun part! Take a good look at the Emperorís prow. Where the Aquila should be, there is a winged skull! Ditto for the torp Dauntless, and again for the Sword (no lances again!) Way back in the beginning, the intent was BFG in general would have a much smaller range of models than it has today, and the SMís were never going to get dedicated models besides the Emperor, torp Dauntless and Sword. However, the decision was made late in development to expand the range, at which time it was decided the SMís should have a fleet with a distinctly different feel much more removed from simply saying they donít have lances. With the Firestorm and Nova, they were given an opportunity to have a few.

I promise you weíre not trying to come full-circle. Lances will still be rare: less than half of your strike cruisers can have one, they each only get ONE, its expensive, and they give up their b-cannon to do it. Even better, only ONE battle barge can have lances, and it will be REALLY expensive. Even better, the Sedditio Oppimiere is now a cool enough ship itís tempting to have instead of a Chaos VBB, and there is no longer a lance (or any long-range weapon for that matter) anywhere on the thing!

Quote

(To be honest I am getting the feeling that GW itself is behind this lance nonsense. They just don't like it to see their flagship race Space Marines being a secondary force in BFG. They want to make them the best like in any other game. Right? Must be it :)  ).

As said. Reasons. :)

I'm smilin.

Thatís actually not the case. The truth is unfortunately more sad and beyond the scope of this post. Keep your smile on though- youíre not the only one still around that really cares about this game!

-   Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 06, 2010, 04:17:29 AM
Chicks like Eldar. ;)
(I know from experience)

You keep on referring to the Designers, I guess you mean Andy, Matt and... Gav? who did the first Space Marine pdf with Dominion and all?
I still have that pdf but it makes no mention of lances on strike cruisers. So did they have working files unpublished or so?


Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 06, 2010, 04:21:06 AM
Love the idea of a bombardment barge, just makes me wish it had seen the light.

For the SO, My main problem is broadside bombardment cannons.  Its not a big thing, it just doesn't feel right, given the purpose of bombards.

What if the SO had a TH bay on each side, and, say, a str8 dorsal and str10 prow l/r/f bombards?

The idea of broadside bombards kind of bothers me I guess like lances do for other people.  Maybe its just me.

Edit: Im curious about the real sad reason, too.  BFG is my fave tabletop game, over all those that I play.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 05:12:53 AM
Okay folks, after many floggings, beat-downs and aspersions cast about my mother, here's version 3.1 of the Space Marines Draft!

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

All the documents on this page are published publicly so you shouldn't need a Google Docs account to see them. Please let me know if you have any problems with the documents here.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 06, 2010, 05:52:11 AM
Now that's a fluffy Battle Barge. I remember making one myself. I think mine had more WBs though. LOL!  ;D Now where did I put that design? Hmmm...

The design on the other page is seriously underpriced though.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 06, 2010, 06:25:13 AM
comments on the list:

I've already mentioned the SedO and my concerns there, but I think it's a huge step in the right direction. to answer your comments, I realize it is only 30cm weapons. It's been my experience that this will make little difference. Most of the long range battleships are only tossing out a couple of dice against 6+ armor regardless of facing and it's on equal footing with shields. The SedO will close and it will make a mess because it's shooting at optimal range where it won't suffer column shifts for range and will likely get left shifts at least once. I will concede on the points with the addition of the VP changes for VBB's.

Strike Cruisers:
I'm still not happy with the lance option available, but you have given a good bit on the rest and I'd rather have an overpriced useless lance that will never be taken and the other changes than previous offerings. (S1 lance or +1 shield.... not a hard choice)

I still think that it's too good of a deal to trade the thawk bays for s5 BC. This is far better than the torpedoes for the same price. It's just not an even trade. I'd take the BC over the torpedoes any day.

Crusade fleet
Interesting enough to give it a go for access to the venerable BB, fortress monastery, and thawk annihilators. Not really different from the vanilla marine list except for the lack of RSV's. This list would appear to surpass the armada marine list in all areas and will likely be the standard list used at tournaments.

Dominion fleet
I still don't see the purpose of this list. It really doesn't do anything better than the armageddon list except provide access to some of the new upgrades and variants. Captains are a nice touch, but it's not enough to make this worth using over the crusade list or the armageddon list if you want a mixed fleet.


and.....


the fortress monastery...

WHY does it have BC? Other than the BC is the iconic marine weapon here, 30cm seems a bit comical since nothing in it's right mind will be getting that close and it can't exactly move anywhere to get them in range... and it's not likely to be bombarding any of the planets it's in orbit around.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 06, 2010, 06:30:00 AM
Make it amror 6+ and it might be worth 1k points :)

Now THATS a fortress. ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 06, 2010, 06:45:37 AM
The bombardment str.5 for 2 thawks is indeed too much. I day lower it to str.3.

To give the vessel str.6 in total of bombardment.

6+ to the Monastry? Yeah! Finally a worthy space station.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 06, 2010, 07:30:12 AM
6+ armor makes more sense than Bombardment cannons, considering the purpose of those things.

Hell, if lances go anywhere on an SM fleet, I would think they would be allowed on a Monastary, as its not part of the fleet per se, and is purely for self defence.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 06, 2010, 09:44:45 AM
...here's version 3.1 of the Space Marines Draft!

This is a big step in the right direction.  

Strike Cruiser Lance Option
I can concede on the lances like Vaaish; they are completely pointless for that cost, but if it makes someone out there feel better because the option exists then okay.

Strike Cruiser Bombardment Option
I still agree that Strength 3 is the appropriate trade.  Not only do I feel it's more even with Str6 Torps, but you must factor in that even in this draft SCs need and will continue to squadron in packs of 2-3 to be effective.  With Str7 BCs that is some serious firepower.  3 SCs with the bombardment option will put out more then the new SO barge.

Seditio Opprimere
I really like what you've done, BUT am I the only one that thinks 12 BC is to much?  Seriously, that is more powerful then the 6 lance version that was first proposed!  Especially since the dorsal BC can now be combined with a broadside.  I think it should be toned down to, 10 BC to a broadside and even 10 is just barely shaving off a die or two.  I guess that might warrant a price decrease to the original SO value.

Shield Option
Nice, my SM buddy is going to love that.  My Chaos lances will not.  Although I'm not at odds with how a second shield is implemented into the draft.  I still favor re-configuring the basic cruiser to have a single T-hawk and the 2 shields come standard.  This then leaves the opening for making the "carrier" variant of an SC with 3 T-hawks as we were discussing earlier.

The reason I like this concept is two fold:

1.) It allows flexibility in fleet design which SM have very little of compared to other races.  Instead of a boiler plate cruiser fleet, a commander will now be able to tailor the fleet towards T-hawk heavy designs or bombardment heavy (or torp) design to better suit his playing style.  This also helps to alleviate the RO special order problems that SM always have and that is not addressed in the current draft design.

2.) I believe it will make it more fun for opponents, because they now have to make choices.  Right now, I simply pick the closest SC, since they are all the same, and either blow it up in 1 turn or cripple it to hinder his T-hawk output.  With T-hawk distribution being less even it will force not only the player to think about fleet and squad composition, but it will also force the opponent to make more tactical decisions.

Cruiser Varient Limitations
It's good that this does not apply to shield upgrades, but I thought we had been discussing a 1:1 ratio for the other variants?  With the current wording "More Strike Cruisers in the fleet must be of the basic profile above then all other variants combined",  it is not 1:1

Progress!

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 08:14:41 PM
6+ armor makes more sense than Bombardment cannons, considering the purpose of those things.

Hell, if lances go anywhere on an SM fleet, I would think they would be allowed on a Monastary, as its not part of the fleet per se, and is purely for self defence.

Okay everyone, is there a general consensus that 6+ armor and the regular Ramilies lance suite is consistent for a 1,000-point Fortress Monastery? I'm just getting a little tired of tweaking this thing, getting it past Bob, then getting my face peeled by the forum, rince, repeat....   (not to mention Ray STILL hasn't seen any of this yet)

You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.

No, we're STILL not re-inventing Eldar so stop asking!

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 06, 2010, 08:31:43 PM

Okay everyone, is there a general consensus that 6+ armor and the regular Ramilies lance suite is consistent for a 1,000-point Fortress Monastery? I'm just getting a little tired of tweaking this thing, getting it past Bob, then getting my face peeled by the forum, rince, repeat....   (not to mention Ray STILL hasn't seen any of this yet)

You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.
I sold my 12k points worth of 40k and jumped to Privateer Press for solely that reason :)
That is, fan service.


Quote
No, we're STILL not re-inventing Eldar so stop asking!

- Nate

Thats ok too, anybody thats anybody uses MMS ;)

What thoughts on forward or l/r/f firing bombards on the SO?  Broadside bombards just seems against the intent of what bombards do, don't you think?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 06, 2010, 08:46:17 PM
You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.

You just gained +10 Respect from me.  Customer service is extremely difficult and simply ignoring general consensus is a cop-out.  I'm glad you're showing a willingness to work with the most active members of the BFG community.  Although there is some truth in what those designers said, it really boils down to "you can not please every fan opinion".  In the end I understand that YOU have to make the final judgment call and that's exceedingly more difficult when you're making an honest attempt to listen to the community.

Along these lines I still believe that within this particular thread there is decent agreement on 2 more things not in the draft:

1.) The Bombardment option should be a Str3 not 5 or 6
2.) The basic SC should have 2 shields and 1 T-hawk ( perhaps allowing for a carrier/assault version, whatever people are calling it) , I've already given my reasons why this should be considered.

Please anyone feel free to disagree, but do so with constructive reasons! :)

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 06, 2010, 10:18:33 PM
Okay everyone, is there a general consensus that 6+ armor and the regular Ramilies lance suite is consistent for a 1,000-point Fortress Monastery? I'm just getting a little tired of tweaking this thing, getting it past Bob, then getting my face peeled by the forum, rince, repeat....   (not to mention Ray STILL hasn't seen any of this yet)

You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.

No, we're STILL not re-inventing Eldar so stop asking!

- Nate

The 3rd Draft is almost there. I would say pause for now and discuss with Ray and Bob this latest one as well as comments from the players. You will get things done. The designer who said that, with all due respect, is wrong. The ones giving you feedback at the moment are generally in agreement with how SM should be. Better to get a product which players can more or less agree upon with the overall design and just have disagreements on some points rather than have a product which will be polarizing.

I'm still unhappy with the SC lance availability as I see it as an opening for future insertions as well as fan designs with multiple lances in all arcs etc etc and justifying that by saying "but the SC already has been given a lance option". Why leave an opening for people to exploit?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 10:31:28 PM
comments on the list:

<snip>

I still think that it's too good of a deal to trade the thawk bays for s5 BC. This is far better than the torpedoes for the same price. It's just not an even trade. I'd take the BC over the torpedoes any day.


I agree! Keep in mind that even when used with the ďotherĒ prow BC, the total is only str-8, the same strength as a BBís dorsals, and they only go prow at that strength. Also, donít compare str-5 BCís to str-6 torps because thatís not whatís actually happening. For this refit it gives up its launch bays, and a SM capital ship losing its launch bays is not lightly dismissed. If you consider two T-Hawk bays (resilient fighters/a-boats that roll D6+1) are equivalent to four regular bays, the trade is not as disparate as it sounds. Itís not that str-5 BCís are a big step up from six torps, the real issue is that 6 torps are a big step down from two T-Hawks, especially when considering a single T-Hawk marker can wipe out all 6 torps and have a 50% chance of not even being removed in the bargain! Str-8 torps would be a more even trade for two T-Hawks, but there is NO WAY we could justify putting str-8 torps on a CL. I mean really!

As was mentioned about the str-1 L/F/R lance, torps will as well have to be something someone wants solely for tactical finesse or the fluff/coolness factor. I actually have one that I modeled for exactly that reason, which I use to tag-team cruisers when I want them to choose what to hit with turrets.

Quote


Crusade fleet
Interesting enough to give it a go for access to the venerable BB, fortress monastery, and thawk annihilators. Not really different from the vanilla marine list except for the lack of RSV's. This list would appear to surpass the armada marine list in all areas and will likely be the standard list used at tournaments.

Dominion fleet
I still don't see the purpose of this list. It really doesn't do anything better than the armageddon list except provide access to some of the new upgrades and variants. Captains are a nice touch, but it's not enough to make this worth using over the crusade list or the armageddon list if you want a mixed fleet.


The Crusade fleet is essentially a ďpureĒ SM fleet with the new rules grafted in, sort of a reboot of the original SM rule-set written when RSVís were the only escort models available.

The Dominion fleet is a more rounded fleet for much larger engagements where the SMís would be at a serious disadvantage were they limited to only thirteen capital ships with ten of them being light cruisers. Again, consider it a reboot of the Armageddon list.

In no way are these intended to replace the Armageddon and Astartes lists, but they are better as a byproduct of the improvements, and like you said, as such will likely be more popular.

Quote

and.....


the fortress monastery...

WHY does it have BC? Other than the BC is the iconic marine weapon here, 30cm seems a bit comical since nothing in it's right mind will be getting that close and it can't exactly move anywhere to get them in range... and it's not likely to be bombarding any of the planets it's in orbit around.


Agreed, but with all the complaints I was dealing with concerning VBBís and SC variants, the noise on the Fortress-Monastery was just about nil so it was left as-is. I have posted more on this separately.

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 06, 2010, 10:33:23 PM
Quote
You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.
That's a real bad game designer who told you that. This workout on Marines may be tedious but it'll be worth it in the end.
The MMS rules, from the obscure v1.0 to v1.9, have shown how valuable feedback is. Yes, I made calls on subject which did not please everyone but the set evolved from cumbersome into a ruleset that the people who dislike msm (official eldar rules) can pick up easily and use instead. For a lot of them it works fine and good.

The lance now has reached a point of being a gimmick. An option but something no one takes. I can live with it.


Yes, 6+ for 1000pts is suitable, lol.

I would sooner drop the optional prow bombardment on the strike cruiser to 3, then change how you applied the shield upgrade now.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 06, 2010, 10:40:39 PM
Quote
BCís to str-6 torps because thatís not whatís actually happening. For this refit it gives up its launch bays, and a SM capital ship losing its launch bays is not lightly dismissed. If you consider two T-Hawk bays (resilient fighters/a-boats that roll D6+1) are equivalent to four regular bays, the trade is not as disparate as it sounds. Itís not that str-5 BCís are a big step up from six torps, the real issue is that 6 torps are a big step down from two T-Hawks, especially when considering a single T-Hawk marker can wipe out all 6 torps and have a 50% chance of not even being removed in the bargain! Str-8 torps would be a more even trade for two T-Hawks, but there is NO WAY we could justify putting str-8 torps on a CL. I mean really!

While the upgrade is actually trading for the launch bays, the point is that you have two options to trade those launch bays for and one of those is far better than the other. While individually compared to the LB the trades might be closer, people will compare the options to each other as well. Given the choice those BC are far better than the torpedoes if you ere inclined to trade the bays.

Quote
In no way are these intended to replace the Armageddon and Astartes lists, but they are better as a byproduct of the improvements, and like you said, as such will likely be more popular.


I guess my point is, why do we need the dominion list? the crusade list is a nice addition but the dominion just feel like a list to be a list.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 06, 2010, 10:44:27 PM
Main point is that giving up the launch bay for torpedoes still means the ship needs a reload instead of LockOn, while the bombardment cannon upgrade make the ship much easier to use: no reload ordnance needed. That alone is worth points.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 06, 2010, 10:46:38 PM
I would sooner drop the optional prow bombardment on the strike cruiser to 3, then change how you applied the shield upgrade now.

If I had to take one or the other in a compromise, I would rather the Bombardment option be adjusted as well.  My primary concern is not what a single SC's prow Bombardment strength can be, but what the total firepower of a squad 2 to 3 brings to bear on the prow.  Who moves SCs in singles anyways, they are most effective in small squads and I think it's best looked at from that stand point.

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 10:52:41 PM
You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.

You just gained +10 Respect from me.  Customer service is extremely difficult and simply ignoring general consensus is a cop-out.  I'm glad you're showing a willingness to work with the most active members of the BFG community.  Although there is some truth in what those designers said, it really boils down to "you can not please every fan opinion".  In the end I understand that YOU have to make the final judgment call and that's exceedingly more difficult when you're making an honest attempt to listen to the community.


Thanks. Weíre trying. Really.

Quote


Along these lines I still believe that within this particular thread there is decent agreement on 2 more things not in the draft:

1.) The Bombardment option should be a Str3 not 5 or 6


Iím waiting for consensus on this. Some say str-5 is great, some (like you) say str-5 is too much. I have already commented that this should NOT be compared with str-6 torps, this should be compared to two T-Hawks, which are the equivalent to four regular launch bays, because thatís what you are actually giving up to get this. When you look at it like that, someone would be daft to give up two T-Hawks for a str-3 prow-only B-cannon, which in the all but the best of circumstances will only give you +1D6 to hit. Str-5 B-cannon will in most situations give you two more shooting dice instead of one, which is a much more equitable trade for two T-Hawks. Thoughts?


Quote


2.) The basic SC should have 2 shields and 1 T-hawk ( perhaps allowing for a carrier/assault version, whatever people are calling it) , I've already given my reasons why this should be considered.


Your argument is valid, but one of the guiding principles we were given when taking this assignment was ďwhenever possible, donít change any of the rulebook/Armada profiles.Ē (Iíll drop names this time- that came straight from Jervis). We will fix whatís broken, which is how the Styx, Retribution and Emperor got re-priced, but after nine years of use, there just isnít enough argument to say the SC is actually broken and needs its basic profile changed. Is it themeful for the SC to get a second shield? It sure is! Thatís why it can have one for +15 points for as many SCís as you want to put them on, regardless of what variant, and you even get to keep the two launch bays!

Hereís why we donít want to juggle launch bays around. Whatever variant you get should involve a hard choice by the SM player. Losing launch bays hurts for the SMís, so if you get a shootier variant, you better really know why you want it. Curing this by offering a carrier-heavy variant is not fluff-true, solves the tactical problem for the player and makes picking a fleet a no-brainer. As Patton said, great leaders win wars with what they have, not with what they wish they had.

Quote


Please anyone feel free to disagree, but do so with constructive reasons! :)

Russ

Russ, your input is appreciated, and I prefer to think I offered comments rather than criticism. :D

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 10:58:59 PM
Quote
You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.
That's a real bad game designer who told you that. This workout on Marines may be tedious but it'll be worth it in the end.
The MMS rules, from the obscure v1.0 to v1.9, have shown how valuable feedback is. Yes, I made calls on subject which did not please everyone but the set evolved from cumbersome into a ruleset that the people who dislike msm (official eldar rules) can pick up easily and use instead. For a lot of them it works fine and good.


Show me where I can find these. I would like to play-test them for myself. Why I say is that while we are not entertaining any change to the core Eldar rules, I myself like to play Move-Move, Shoot-Shoot instead of Move-Shoot, Move-Shoot. As you know, that simply doesn't work when playing Eldar. What I want to see is if or how your variant rules completely screw up (or doesn't) the Eldar theme of "run out, shoot hard, run away and hide." They really are too fragile to try and stick around and be shot at, especially if facing an opponent clever enough to stay in the sun.

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 11:01:53 PM
Quote

I would sooner drop the optional prow bombardment on the strike cruiser to 3, then change how you applied the shield upgrade now.

Please explain what you mean. For example...
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 06, 2010, 11:03:58 PM
Hi Nate,
on the bombardment cannons sometimes not all comments have been clear. For once I said that str.5-6 was enough on the Strike Cruiser. This could be read as the option to be 5 but I meant the total BC value should be 5-6.

Thus, standard the strike cruiser has 3 bc, then the option to replace the bays should be str2-3 bombardment cannons. For a total of 5-6.

I think that is the consesus as well. I would settle for 3+3. :)

Also read my last post on page 14 regarding special orders on thawks/torps vs BC only.

new warning..
I guess I
Keep in mind, that ever since admiral d'artagnan's Space Wolves list in Warp Rift 12 the assault variant has been a popular wish.

Your Patton remark is funny, we can apply it to lances as well. ;)

Top Link for Eldar MMS v1.9:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/geldarmms01.html
(Ray is familiar with these, Ray wants a form of MMS as well ;) )

Here is development thread:
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=208.0

The main crux on v1.9 is the holofield-shield thing. Still working and collecting ideas on it. Also note that for v2.0 armour will go to prow 5+/rest 4+.
Eldar are still faaast, turnable, and such but still hittable.

(Yes it has the name Sigoroth in it (worked along until v1.5), I know the past of you two, but read past it ;) ).

ps you don't play official bfg rules? tssk.
Simultaneous Rules from Warp Rift is also neat.

I guess I cleared your last question as well.

eg, the way you handled the shield upgrade is fine, the bc option needs toning down.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 06, 2010, 11:14:24 PM
Iím waiting for consensus on this. Some say str-5 is great, some (like you) say str-5 is too much. I have already commented that this should NOT be compared with str-6 torps, this should be compared to two T-Hawks, which are the equivalent to four regular launch bays, because thatís what you are actually giving up to get this. When you look at it like that, someone would be daft to give up two T-Hawks for a str-3 prow-only B-cannon, which in the all but the best of circumstances will only give you +1D6 to hit. Str-5 B-cannon will in most situations give you two more shooting dice instead of one, which is a much more equitable trade for two T-Hawks. Thoughts?

Your argument is valid, but one of the guiding principles we were given when taking this assignment was ďwhenever possible, donít change any of the rulebook/Armada profiles.Ē (Iíll drop names this time- that came straight from Jervis). We will fix whatís broken, which is how the Styx, Retribution and Emperor got re-priced, but after nine years of use, there just isnít enough argument to say the SC is actually broken and needs its basic profile changed. Is it themeful for the SC to get a second shield? It sure is! Thatís why it can have one for +15 points for as many SCís as you want to put them on, regardless of what variant, and you even get to keep the two launch bays!

Hereís why we donít want to juggle launch bays around. Whatever variant you get should involve a hard choice by the SM player. Losing launch bays hurts for the SMís, so if you get a shootier variant, you better really know why you want it. Curing this by offering a carrier-heavy variant is not fluff-true, solves the tactical problem for the player and makes picking a fleet a no-brainer. As Patton said, great leaders win wars with what they have, not with what they wish they had.


- Nate

That bolded part is your license to change stuff if things are warranted. You already know the 2 TH bay is equivalent to 4 regular bays. This on a LC chassis. With addition of 3 other weapon hardpoints. That's too much for one smallish ship. Really, it's not a hard and radical change. Just swap the stats of shield and TH bays. you don't even have to change the points since both are roughly the same value. You're losing offensive punch but gaining a defensive strength. That way, you can also lower the expectation of how much strength a BC should be if it replaces the TH bay. That's the problem at the moment because you're looking at the TH from a Str 2 point of view and then expecting to be using an almost equivalent amount in BC strength to replace it. FP6 BCs (FP3 base+FP3 replacement for the TH if it was at Str 1) is enough already. Even Chaos ships only have FP6 in their prow WBs.

I know the saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but as it is, the SC IS broken in the TH department and it is quite easy to invoke "change in policy" if the situation requires thus which is true in this case.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Don Gusto on October 06, 2010, 11:25:02 PM
Imho the shield upgrade option is too cheap. +1 shield for +15 points is basically a no-brainer. You might as well change the profile to 2 shields and set the cost at 160.
Personally I think 2 shields on a fast 6+ armor ship with 90į turns is WAY too tough but since I'm not in agreement with the rest of you guys my opinion probably doesn't count. ;D
Up the cost to +25 and it would actually become a choice the marine player has to make.

What thoughts on forward or l/r/f firing bombards on the SO?  Broadside bombards just seems against the intent of what bombards do, don't you think?
Quite to the contrary. For historical comparison (shore) bombardment has always been done by broadsides.
Also if you look at the 'low-orbit' rules you don't really want to enter a planets gravity well head-on with a ponderous battleship.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 11:27:39 PM
Quote
BCís to str-6 torps because thatís not whatís actually happening. For this refit it gives up its launch bays, and a SM capital ship losing its launch bays is not lightly dismissed. If you consider two T-Hawk bays (resilient fighters/a-boats that roll D6+1) are equivalent to four regular bays, the trade is not as disparate as it sounds. Itís not that str-5 BCís are a big step up from six torps, the real issue is that 6 torps are a big step down from two T-Hawks, especially when considering a single T-Hawk marker can wipe out all 6 torps and have a 50% chance of not even being removed in the bargain! Str-8 torps would be a more even trade for two T-Hawks, but there is NO WAY we could justify putting str-8 torps on a CL. I mean really!

While the upgrade is actually trading for the launch bays, the point is that you have two options to trade those launch bays for and one of those is far better than the other. While individually compared to the LB the trades might be closer, people will compare the options to each other as well. Given the choice those BC are far better than the torpedoes if you ere inclined to trade the bays.


You are absolutely RIGHT players will compare the options to each other as well, and you are also right one option is far better than the other, though you and I disagree how much better. A single SC with torpedoes has a lot more utility than simply not having T-Hawks or more b-cannon, but thatís more a tactics issue and not under discussion at the moment.

Will less experienced players wowed by the ďooohĒ factor of B-cannon pick these over torps? Yes, every time. However, more clever players will see the utility in having a single SC with torps in the fleet and may (or may not) decide to make one. People who make this choice arenít looking solely at raw firepower but tactical utility. Iím sure you yourself can see this, even if you donít agree with it. Even experienced players will pick b-cannon over torps because in a knife fight, str-5 B-cannon  is frankly a bigger knife. However, the option is there for players to pick something besides more b-cannon should that be what they want. I not only play-tested this, I actually use this in games. Trust me- its more fun than you think.

It's an option there for anyone who wants to take it. Once again, you are right that in many situations it's not as good as str-5 b-cannon, and players who don't want to downgrade to str-6 torps certainly don't have to. I'm sure you agree with me this shouldn't be any larger than str-6 torps!

Nate, so why the heck are you guys pushing this if it sucks?!? Okay, here's why. It was one of the options under discussion when Strike Cruisers were first developed as a stand-alone model, and even more importantly, it's what the torp Dauntless was supposed to be before the SM's got their own models. I have a soft, squishy place in my heart for what the torp Dauntless almost was. Once again, the option is there for anyone who wants it. Trust me, the thing is much more useful than you give it credit for!

Quote

Quote
In no way are these intended to replace the Armageddon and Astartes lists, but they are better as a byproduct of the improvements, and like you said, as such will likely be more popular.


I guess my point is, why do we need the dominion list? the crusade list is a nice addition but the dominion just feel like a list to be a list.

There are subtle differences between the Armageddon list and the Dominion list, not the least of which is fluff. Armageddon represents a fleet list of two uneasy allies drawn together by necessity, which is why you have to pick which fleet commander you get and where it goes. The Dominion fleet list represents a truly combined fleet where Space Marines can actually lead IN vessels, it introduces the Honor Guard to the fleet list, etc. Itís not the first example in the game of a fleet list that is a tweaked version of another list. People who want to use it can, those that donít are not required to. The list itself is little more than a different type of seasoning and doesnít impact how Space Marines behave, though like the Armageddon list it opens up their options in much larger games so they are not limited to their own thirteen max capital ships.

- Nate


Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 11:31:04 PM
Main point is that giving up the launch bay for torpedoes still means the ship needs a reload instead of LockOn, while the bombardment cannon upgrade make the ship much easier to use: no reload ordnance needed. That alone is worth points.

In a theoretical sence your argument has merit, but if we start applying point values to how ships can apply special orders, this entire game will become an unmanageable nightmare. It's hard enough getting these things balanced through play-testing. Sheesh!!  ;D

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 06, 2010, 11:33:34 PM
@ Don Gusto, the smotherman formula calculated the shield cost at 10pts per point of strength. So 15+ is on the good side.


__
The Torp Dauntless is a cool vessel the way it is, the lance one as well. :)



warnz.
heh heh heh. Perhaps I lacked clarity. The easier to apply special orders for the BC variant makes it more cost-worthwhile.
Ah, you know what I mean, the BC variant is less likely to fail in its purpose.

Playtesting only after the TheoryHammer has struck down. ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Don Gusto on October 06, 2010, 11:45:12 PM
@ Don Gusto, the smotherman formula calculated the shield cost at 10pts per point of strength. So 15+ is on the good side.
So I tag on 5 additional shields and that's balanced at 195 points? Gotta be kidding me. ::)
Sorry there's more to balanced design than adding up numbers.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 06, 2010, 11:48:40 PM
So you tag on 5 additional shields. On two SCs, 195+195=390 points for 2 6 HP ships. More than half of 500 points and a third of 1k points. Sure. Go ahead. Sooner or later they'll die to massed firepower anyway.

Aside from which the Smotherman is not an end all, be all formula. It's there to give a points approximation. Then one playtests to see if it really is the correct pointage.

In fairness though, the SC is undercosted if one follows the Smotherman formula.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 06, 2010, 11:52:47 PM
What?
A shield costs 10pts.
That's done.

Of course there is a cap. Large bases must have 3 for example. small based  cruisers are 2 mostly. 3 is rare, could be done but very rare.

There is a cap on the number of shields.

Everyone knows 5 (+50) would be wrong.

Bu this thread has given numerous reasons for Marines Strike cruisers to have a 2nd shield. 15 pts is past the no-brainer limit to me.


Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 11:54:03 PM
Iím waiting for consensus on this. Some say str-5 is great, some (like you) say str-5 is too much. I have already commented that this should NOT be compared with str-6 torps, this should be compared to two T-Hawks, which are the equivalent to four regular launch bays, because thatís what you are actually giving up to get this. When you look at it like that, someone would be daft to give up two T-Hawks for a str-3 prow-only B-cannon, which in the all but the best of circumstances will only give you +1D6 to hit. Str-5 B-cannon will in most situations give you two more shooting dice instead of one, which is a much more equitable trade for two T-Hawks. Thoughts?

Your argument is valid, but one of the guiding principles we were given when taking this assignment was ďwhenever possible, donít change any of the rulebook/Armada profiles.Ē (Iíll drop names this time- that came straight from Jervis). We will fix whatís broken, which is how the Styx, Retribution and Emperor got re-priced, but after nine years of use, there just isnít enough argument to say the SC is actually broken and needs its basic profile changed. Is it themeful for the SC to get a second shield? It sure is! Thatís why it can have one for +15 points for as many SCís as you want to put them on, regardless of what variant, and you even get to keep the two launch bays!

Hereís why we donít want to juggle launch bays around. Whatever variant you get should involve a hard choice by the SM player. Losing launch bays hurts for the SMís, so if you get a shootier variant, you better really know why you want it. Curing this by offering a carrier-heavy variant is not fluff-true, solves the tactical problem for the player and makes picking a fleet a no-brainer. As Patton said, great leaders win wars with what they have, not with what they wish they had.


- Nate

That bolded part is your license to change stuff if things are warranted. You already know the 2 TH bay is equivalent to 4 regular bays. This on a LC chassis. With addition of 3 other weapon hardpoints. That's too much for one smallish ship. Really, it's not a hard and radical change. Just swap the stats of shield and TH bays. you don't even have to change the points since both are roughly the same value. You're losing offensive punch but gaining a defensive strength. That way, you can also lower the expectation of how much strength a BC should be if it replaces the TH bay. That's the problem at the moment because you're looking at the TH from a Str 2 point of view and then expecting to be using an almost equivalent amount in BC strength to replace it. FP6 BCs (FP3 base+FP3 replacement for the TH if it was at Str 1) is enough already. Even Chaos ships only have FP6 in their prow WBs.

I know the saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but as it is, the SC IS broken in the TH department and it is quite easy to invoke "change in policy" if the situation requires thus which is true in this case.

This is not simply a matter of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." SMís in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but weíre talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SMís can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesnít sound like so much, even if they are resilient. Heck, even Eldar can get more than 40 launch bays for 3,000 points, and they HAVE resilient fighters!

Now letís look at making an SCís base profile 1 T-hawk for +1 shield. Now the maximum number of launch bays in a 3,000-point pure SM fleet is 19. You honestly believe thatís worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a ďcarrier SC,Ē but then all we did was break something and then create something to fix what we broke.

I understand why you feel how you do, but in nine years I have simply not seen enough interest or desire to change the basic profile of the strike cruiser to make this kind of leap. Even during all the debates here have been about how we were strapping things to the SCís, not about how they were broken in the first place. I am game for any opinion or request and will bring this to the other HAís (all three of us are members here), but I donít think Iíll be alone in feeling this way.

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 06, 2010, 11:59:13 PM
What?
A shield costs 10pts.
That's done.

Of course there is a cap. Large bases must have 3 for example. small based  cruisers are 2 mostly. 3 is rare, could be done but very rare.

There is a cap on the number of shields.

Everyone knows 5 (+50) would be wrong.

Bu this thread has given numerous reasons for Marines Strike cruisers to have a 2nd shield. 15 pts is past the no-brainer limit to me.




Yes, the intention was to make it reasonable because it's themeful, but it's still a choice because in smaller games +15 points per SC may be the make or break between getting another one or filling out the remaining available points with escorts. Once again, this allows us to add something that is popular and themeful without altering the basic profile in Armada.

Incidentally, the price wasn't arbitrary. In a campaign, earned refits cost +10%. That would be +15 points for a strike cruiser. Tada!!  ;D

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 07, 2010, 12:06:54 AM
This is not simply a matter of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." SMís in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but weíre talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SMís can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesnít sound like so much, even if they are resilient. Heck, even Eldar can get more than 40 launch bays for 3,000 points, and they HAVE resilient fighters!

Those 29 Launch Bays are in effect 43-44 Launch Bays since they are ALL resilient. Comparing SM, one of the weaker fleets in BFG to Eldar, the most broken one, is also a mistake. Sure Eldar could go 60 in effect by just launching all fighters but is that how one really wants an Eldar fleet to be? I know I would prefer Nightshades and Hemlocks to AC. Also that is another basis for revising the Eldar fleet in the first place. They just have too many goodies. You can do better than comparing a broken fleet to a broke fleet.

I also would not be looking at things from the 3000 points level. Not everyone plays that high a pointage. 1500 points is the one where I would be basing the game and any situation where design would come up.

Now letís look at making an SCís base profile 1 T-hawk for +1 shield. Now the maximum number of launch bays in a 3,000-point pure SM fleet is 19. You honestly believe thatís worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a ďcarrier SC,Ē but then all we did was break something and then create something to fix what we broke.

Yes, because they effectively have 28-29 fighters available to them since they are resilient fighters. Yes, it is worth the extra shield. Why? Because if the SC gets crippled or destroyed, which isn't hard on 1 shield and 6 HP, then those 29 launch bays you mention start going down quickly. Heck if they're forced to BFI those numbers would come down quickly. Having the second shield let's the SM player be a bit more aggressive in not going on BFI.

I understand why you feel how you do, but in nine years I have simply not seen enough interest or desire to change the basic profile of the strike cruiser to make this kind of leap. Even during all the debates here have been about how we were strapping things to the SCís, not about how they were broken in the first place. I am game for any opinion or request and will bring this to the other HAís (all three of us are members here), but I donít think Iíll be alone in feeling this way.

- Nate

People were commenting on how broken the SC was with all those goodies and armaments on what is essentially a Light Cruiser chassis. If you missed those comments, then I am telling you now they exist. People are accepting it because that is the only cruiser sized cap ship available to the SM and they need it to become competitive. In an Armageddon list, however, those SC are broken, providing excellent offensive punch in the TH and BCs while being supported by regular sized cruisers AND battlecruisers which will make the opponent make a hard choice between who to kill first, the IN ships or the SM.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on October 07, 2010, 01:35:46 AM
Nate

good job going thus far regarding the SM

once that is done
how about we revisit a light kroot sphere? ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 07, 2010, 01:37:39 AM
Quote
Will less experienced players wowed by the ďooohĒ factor of B-cannon pick these over torps? Yes, every time. However, more clever players will see the utility in having a single SC with torps in the fleet and may (or may not) decide to make one. People who make this choice arenít looking solely at raw firepower but tactical utility. Iím sure you yourself can see this, even if you donít agree with it. Even experienced players will pick b-cannon over torps because in a knife fight, str-5 B-cannon  is frankly a bigger knife.

I was basing my calculation on 1 torpedo being the rough equivalent in point value to 1 point of standard weapons battery strength. In that situation, the choice between 6wb and 6 torpedoes would be fairly even. Boosting the WB to BC nets you hitting on 4+ and crits on a 4+ which I felt was enough to warrant around 2 points of torpedo strength to one point of BC strength making 3BC on equal footing with 6 torpeodes.

I'm also looking at this from the tournament setting where the torpedoes would never be taken because they 1) force the ship between RO and LO, 2) can be stopped easily with a single fighter and 3) pale next to raw firepower.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 07, 2010, 02:44:40 AM
Thanks. Weíre trying. Really.

It' quite clear at this point.  Thank you!

Iím waiting for consensus on this. Some say str-5 is great, some (like you) say str-5 is too much. I have already commented that this should NOT be compared with str-6 torps, this should be compared to two T-Hawks, which are the equivalent to four regular launch bays, because thatís what you are actually giving up to get this. When you look at it like that, someone would be daft to give up two T-Hawks for a str-3 prow-only B-cannon, which in the all but the best of circumstances will only give you +1D6 to hit. Str-5 B-cannon will in most situations give you two more shooting dice instead of one, which is a much more equitable trade for two T-Hawks. Thoughts?

You're totally right comparing the BC trade to the t-hawk loss is the primary design consideration, but I believe it's important to analyze how this trade force multiples when applied to more then one SC that will most likely get squadroned.  Up until this point I admittedly was going with gut feeling, but now that we are deep into conversation, I just put theory to paper to see what the results of making the prow BC upgrade strength 3, 4 or 5 (in addition to the existing F/L/R 3 BC of course).  Without transcribing the chart of dice I just scratched on paper this is the summary:

Extra Dice and effects of Squadroning

Upgrade Str3 BC: +2 dice Closing, marginally better dice (+1 in abeam/Moving away).  The dice scale the most accurately between 1,2,or 3 SCs in a squad.  Meaning that it's pretty much 2 or 3 times as many dice.

Upgrade Str4 BC: good average improvement of dice across all aspects ~+2 dice, but no improvement to abeam from the str3 upgrade.  The interesting part about squadroning this configuration  is that closing dice scale accurately.  But, moving away is actually slightly unfavorable in trade for abeam being more favorable, meaning that squadroning yields slightly more then 2 or 3 times as many dice when firing at targets abeam

Upgrade Str5 BC: As Nate said, it pretty much guarantees +2 dice to even abeam, the overall average improvement is +3 dice.  Here is where it gets riddled with opportunity cost!  Squadroning ships actually has the least favorable scaling for prow bombardment fire with nearly all aspects in 2 and 3 squadron configurations getting less then 2 or 3 times as many dice respectively.


Thunderhawk verse Bombardment Dice
Lets compare the 2 Thunder hawks against a SINGLE Bombardment die roll in a generic situation:

2 Thunderhawks: must escape an average of 2 turrets(4+) giving them a 75% chance of doing at least a single critical (25% chance of doing 2) which each in return has a 1/6  chance of doing a point of damage meaning there is a 1/8 chance of doing at least a single point of damage with one of the criticals netting you 1damage+critical.  Very high odds of a minor critical with very small odds of doing actual damage.

1 Bombardment Cannon Die Roll: roll must hit(+4) giving it a 50% chance of doing 1 point of damage, then it might critical(4+) meaning that a die roll from a bombardment cannon has a 25% chance of doing at least 1 damage + a critical.  Fair odds of doing damage and the odds of doing damage and a critical are equal to 2 thunderhawks chance of doing 2 criticals and TWICE as high as 2 Thunderhawks doing 1 damage+a critical

Additionally, the critical from a BC is not restricted to the first 6 entries meaning it has a chance of actually doing another point of damage or something much more game changing to the enemy vessel!

So, in my eyes getting to roll an extra BC die is actually much better then a Thunderhawk since they are already being added to an existing dice pool.  Under an average situation 1 BC roll is potentially better then 2 thunderhawks, based on all of this I conclude that...

The Bombardment replacement for 2 T-hawks should be a Strength 3 BC.  The average dice improvement is really about 1.5, but this is slightly improved with squadroning making it more like 2 extra dice (but not guaranteed).  Because I believe a single BC die is much better then a single T-hawk I feel this is a good trade.  Still, I would be scared to be on the receiving end of a prow BC shot from 3 squadroned SCs!

My original anaylsis made me believe that BC4 was okay, but double checking has caused me to conclude that Str3 is probably a fair trade and Str4 is quite possibly better then 2 Thunderhawks from 30cm offensive position.  I could probably live with Str4 as a compromise...Look at that Nate, I almost agreed with you after taking a look! :)

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Don Gusto on October 07, 2010, 02:45:02 AM
Of course there is a cap. Large bases must have 3 for example. small based  cruisers are 2 mostly. 3 is rare, could be done but very rare.
No its the other way around. Any capital ship can have a large base. Ships with 3 shields must have a large base (as of FAQ2007). Strike Cruisers can have a large base.

There is a cap on the number of shields.

Everyone knows 5 (+50) would be wrong.
Exactly. Smotherman only works with further assumptions. Common sense is one of them. You can't just take a number out of it and throw it around as a valid argument. I can't think of a single ship that would be more balanced (as in game-balance) with +1shield for +10 points. It's ridiculous.
The number of shields on a ship are mostly set by class, Smotherman doesn't even define this (at least I can't find it in my copy - v205):
Escorts/Light Cruisers 1
Cruisers 2
Grand Cruisers 3
Battleships 4
There are few exceptions. No Light Cruiser has 2 shields, no Cruiser has 3.

Bu this thread has given numerous reasons for Marines Strike cruisers to have a 2nd shield.
Not so much. The main concern seems to be that the SC can't engage a lance-heavy fleet. I don't see that as its mission, at least I think its debatable.
More to the point. Imho the mission of the SC is not to engage but to deliver. To this end it is gifted with a good mix of basically everything. It's already good for its points and doesn't need a cheap boost.

Incidentally, the price wasn't arbitrary. In a campaign, earned refits cost +10%. That would be +15 points for a strike cruiser. Tada!!  ;D
Good point but even your previous versions had the refit priced at +20. Don't you agree that it's much different if you have to roll for the result? You can't tailor your fleet through refits in a campaign, you have to take what you get. The price goes up even if you don't want it.

Just one more general point I would like to make here.
You can't possibly make an upgrade option too expensive. If it's too high, people won't take it, game balance won't suffer. It will when the price is too low.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 07, 2010, 03:16:35 AM
Quote
Thunderhawk: must first escape turrets(4+) and then it must hit(4+) that's a 1/4 chance of doing a critical which in return has a 1/6  chance of doing a point of damage meaning there is only a 4% chance a T-hawk will do 1 damage+critical

Not sure how you are figuring this, the Thawk would only have to escape the turret fire before rolling the d6 for its hit and run attack. Against a capital ship, if the thunderhawk survives the turret fire, it has 100% odds of doing a critical because of the marine +1 to the die roll
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 07, 2010, 04:19:48 AM
Quote
Thunderhawk: must first escape turrets(4+) and then it must hit(4+) that's a 1/4 chance of doing a critical which in return has a 1/6  chance of doing a point of damage meaning there is only a 4% chance a T-hawk will do 1 damage+critical

Not sure how you are figuring this, the Thawk would only have to escape the turret fire before rolling the d6 for its hit and run attack. Against a capital ship, if the thunderhawk survives the turret fire, it has 100% odds of doing a critical because of the marine +1 to the die roll

Oh, crap...I got the proposed escort rules mixed in there against a cruiser.  That is wishful thinking!  Lets see, a single thunderhawk has a 58% chance of being removed by a 2 turret capital ship.  So that means it has a 42% chance of dealing a critical of which it has a 1/6 chance of that critical causing immediate damage which is just shy of 6% odds (.42x.16) of dealing a point of damage as it's critical.  2 Thawks have a 75% chance of doing at least 1 critical and 25% chance of doing 2 criticals against 2 turrets.  

I'll clean up the above comparison...having now looked at the odds again, I think Str3 is the best approximation (see changes above).  Only through playtesting could convince me to up it to Str4, but I feel pretty certian that is actually better then 2 Thawks.  5 is to much Nate.  it yields to many more dice that have amazing odds of hitting and causing criticals.

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 04:44:06 AM
Quote
Will less experienced players wowed by the ďooohĒ factor of B-cannon pick these over torps? Yes, every time. However, more clever players will see the utility in having a single SC with torps in the fleet and may (or may not) decide to make one. People who make this choice arenít looking solely at raw firepower but tactical utility. Iím sure you yourself can see this, even if you donít agree with it. Even experienced players will pick b-cannon over torps because in a knife fight, str-5 B-cannon  is frankly a bigger knife.

I was basing my calculation on 1 torpedo being the rough equivalent in point value to 1 point of standard weapons battery strength. In that situation, the choice between 6wb and 6 torpedoes would be fairly even. Boosting the WB to BC nets you hitting on 4+ and crits on a 4+ which I felt was enough to warrant around 2 points of torpedo strength to one point of BC strength making 3BC on equal footing with 6 torpeodes.

I'm also looking at this from the tournament setting where the torpedoes would never be taken because they 1) force the ship between RO and LO, 2) can be stopped easily with a single fighter and 3) pale next to raw firepower.

Hi Vaaish! I absolutely HATE quoting Smotherman's formula, only because it overly simplifies how ships should be properly priced. However, there's NO WAY torpedoes are the same thing as WB firepower. They both hit against armor, and that's where the similiarity ends. Torps don't rely on the gun chart, they are not limited in range, they ignore shields, they only have a one in six chance of being affected by BM's, and don't get me started on boarding torps!

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 07, 2010, 04:53:20 AM
Ok guys, you just dropped 3 pages of stuff on me in a day to read, anyone care to clarify?

Has anything been decided?  What are we talking about? :0
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 05:13:03 AM

Quote
Thunderhawk: must first escape turrets(4+) and then it must hit(4+) that's a 1/4 chance of doing a critical which in return has a 1/6  chance of doing a point of damage meaning there is only a 4% chance a T-hawk will do 1 damage+critical

Not sure how you are figuring this, the Thawk would only have to escape the turret fire before rolling the d6 for its hit and run attack. Against a capital ship, if the thunderhawk survives the turret fire, it has 100% odds of doing a critical because of the marine +1 to the die roll

Oh, crap...I got the proposed escort rules mixed in there against a cruiser.  That is wishful thinking!  Lets see, a single thunderhawk has a 58% chance of being removed by a 2 turret capital ship.  So that means it has a 42% chance of dealing a critical of which it has a 1/6 chance of that critical causing immediate damage which is just shy of 6% odds (.42x.16) of dealing a point of damage as it's critical.  2 Thawks have a 75% chance of doing at least 1 critical and 25% chance of doing 2 criticals against 2 turrets. 

I'll clean up the above comparison...having now looked at the odds again, I think Str3 is the best approximation (see changes above).  Only through playtesting could convince me to up it to Str4, but I feel pretty certian that is actually better then 2 Thawks.  5 is to much Nate.  it yields to many more dice that have amazing odds of hitting and causing criticals.

Russ


Hi Russ! Another factor you are not taking into consideration is the role of ordnance. SM's already have less ordnance than anyone else. Just because T-Hawks are resilient doesn't mean they can't be swamped. As soon as the ratio crosses 2:1, resiliency is completely negated every single ordnance phase.  If someone takes three b-cannon SC's, that means the fleet is decidedly ordnance-poor.  This presents a more complex tactical problem for the SM player besides having gobs of b-cannon to shoot with, especially when considering it has to be closing against the fleet it is shooting at (at 30cm) to get the kinds of effects you are talking about.

I understand you really hate this, but you are taking an overly simplistic view to how threatening this is, especially in a fleet setting. Everyone has known for years the maxim when facing Space Marines: bring lots of lances. These SC's you say will be doing so well will have to be closing against fleets that likely have lots of lances, better-range weapons and vastly superior ordnance numbers. If you toss in that each has +1 shield, that just bought the enemy another 45-point escort, which is probably sporting another lance to boot. Escorts are okay to have in this enemy fleet since your three BC-prow SCís have guaranteed the enemyís ordnance is negating all your T-Hawks.

This is why play-testing and rolling dice on the table always trumps theoretical arguments and slide-rule gaming when deciding new rules for ships. The Gauntlet scenario from Warp Storm is a perfect, quick and easy way to play-test new ship ideas, though for this example Cruiser Clash worked just as well when we played it. Take a squad of four SCís, each with extra shields, and face them off against three Devastations and a pair of Idolators. First do it all T-Hawks, then do it with all BCís, finally do it with two-squad pairs each BCís and T-hawks so one can lock-on while the other reloads. See which set of SCís fare better. Play each game more than once to account for dice foibles. Thatís how I determined str-5 BCís for the prow was the best fit.

-   Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 07, 2010, 05:27:40 AM
On further consideration, I guess you are correct. The closest comparison in the rulebooks I can find is the Lace dauntless and the torpedo dauntless which would point to S2 torpedoes equaling a S1 lance. Taking the murder as a further example you could extrapolate one lance equals 3 WB. So I guess a better comparison would be a s1 torpedo equals s1.5 WB.

Following that you'd have s6 torpedoes equaling s9 WB. Since BC are better than WB in damage and crits, I guess that S2 bc equals S3 WB which would leave us with S4.5 BC equals S6 torpedoes.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 07, 2010, 05:34:10 AM
I understand you really hate this, but you are taking an overly simplistic view to how threatening this is, especially in a fleet setting....

This is why play-testing and rolling dice on the table always trumps theoretical arguments and slide-rule gaming when deciding new rules for ships. The Gauntlet scenario from Warp Storm is a perfect, quick and easy way to play-test new ship ideas, though for this example Cruiser Clash worked just as well when we played it. Take a squad of four SCís, each with extra shields, and face them off against three Devastations and a pair of Idolators. First do it all T-Hawks, then do it with all BCís, finally do it with two-squad pairs each BCís and T-hawks so one can lock-on while the other reloads. See which set of SCís fare better. Play each game more than once to account for dice foibles. Thatís how I determined str-5 BCís for the prow was the best fit.

Hate what? :)  Theory only provides a starting point for playtesting, but I can see that you've already been playtesting.  I did not know this is how you arrived at str-5 BC.  The best thing is for all of us to playtest the specific setup you've suggested (and probably used) so we are all having a conversation with approximately the same experiences.  I admit I'm surprised, as I really thought the 4 would account for most of the "unknown" factors, but I shall playtest never the less to see where my opinion lies between 4 and 5.

I'm not sure I like your test composition though for Chaos.  2 Devastators and 2 slaughters would be more telling from my experience with Chaos.  Of course that would require an adjustment to SM as well to match the points.

Cheers,

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 05:51:21 AM
I understand you really hate this, but you are taking an overly simplistic view to how threatening this is, especially in a fleet setting....

This is why play-testing and rolling dice on the table always trumps theoretical arguments and slide-rule gaming when deciding new rules for ships. The Gauntlet scenario from Warp Storm is a perfect, quick and easy way to play-test new ship ideas, though for this example Cruiser Clash worked just as well when we played it. Take a squad of four SCís, each with extra shields, and face them off against three Devastations and a pair of Idolators. First do it all T-Hawks, then do it with all BCís, finally do it with two-squad pairs each BCís and T-hawks so one can lock-on while the other reloads. See which set of SCís fare better. Play each game more than once to account for dice foibles. Thatís how I determined str-5 BCís for the prow was the best fit.

Hate what? :)  Theory only provides a starting point for playtesting, but I can see that you've already been playtesting.  I did not know this is how you arrived at str-5 BC.  The best thing is for all of us to playtest the specific setup you've suggested (and probably used) so we are all having a conversation with approximately the same experiences.  I admit I'm surprised, as I really thought the 4 would account for most of the "unknown" factors, but I shall playtest never the less to see where my opinion lies between 4 and 5.

I'm not sure I like your test composition though for Chaos.  2 Devastators and 2 slaughters would be more telling from my experience with Chaos.  Of course that would require an adjustment to SM as well to match the points.

Cheers,

Russ


Admittedly your playtest example would probably have been a more accurate assessment which I didnít think of, but I wanted to play-test a worst-case scenario, and I also wanted to assess a points-parity game. My son is a mean Chaos player (Ray can attest to this), and if I gave him a 70-point advantage against a fleet I wasnít even sure was costed properly, I probably would have been stomped.

Why I brought out the Idolators was to test how he would use them when facing T-Hawks he wasnít too worried about. Like I thought he would, he CAPíed them with one Devís worth of fighters and pushed them in. I didnít want the Marines to rely on escorts for the test (to make up points) because with their a-boats and their ordnance superiority, I thought the escorts would have been wasted points even using the 4+ rule, though in retrospect I forgot that SMís (including their escorts) get a -1 modifier against enemy H&R attacks, meaning they technically need a 5+ to die! (Damn I wish I would have remembered that!)

Yeah, thatís right, I forgot a rule. What, you all think I walk around with a memorized BFG rolodex in my head?   ;)

-   Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 06:00:00 AM
I think we're really getting close to the finish line on this, so it's time to address the last major sticking point: the Fortress Monastery.

I just got with Bob, and he and I agree the 6+ armor is a good idea. Keep in mind that 1,000 points is only 125 points more than a stock Ramilies so let's carefully review the differences:

Fortress Monastery benefits: +1 armor (this is a biggie for this monstrosity), SM leadership, better boarding, Terminators, b-torps and Honor Guard.
Fortress Monastery drawbacks: less launch bays due to quirky rule with is fluff-true and so remaining in place, b-cannon instead of 60cm lances.

Here's what I recommend: We swap out the b-cannon for the same number of lances as a Ramilies but make them 45cm instead of 60cm. The cost and all the other rules remain in place, but armor is improved to 6+. Thoughts? this is completely open to discussion so bring it!  :D

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 07, 2010, 06:25:43 AM
Woo!  Glad I contributed something lasting. :)

Ok. 
Why would the FM have terminators, honorguard, and be worried about boarding?

I'm not a fan of dropping the lances to 45cm.  I agree a FM has every right to have lances for defence on it, but to differentiate a bit between
the ramilies and the FM, what if you dropped the 5 lances to 3, and added more strength to the weapons battery?

I can see an FM throwing out a veritable wall of shells in defence of the heart of the chapter.


Finally, I really don't understand why Terminators are one use, and why they cant be like chaos terminators?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 07, 2010, 06:29:52 AM
I like most of the changes except for the lances. My beef this time isn't the fortress monastery having them it's more that it's not much more than a re-branded ramilles. While the Marine special rules, benefits, and the armor boost do help differentiate it, at the core there isn't much different from the stock ramilles. I think it might be interesting to explore the possibility of an all 60cm WB or granting it the targeting array (these things ARE ancient, especially if you plan to use it to represent the Dark Angles monastery) Perhaps even allow it to purchase or include in the cost several defense monitors or weapons satellites. Perhaps even let it slave the targeting arrays of orbital defenses to act in concert rather than as individuals.

I'm just running with ideas here, nothing really solid outside of the possibility of all batteries and perhaps something similar to the admech AWR.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 07, 2010, 07:06:50 AM
Spammerds.

At least is seems it is thrillin down.

What is the outcome on the BC for the SC?


Smotherman is good for basics when starting off. In addition with comparing to other vessels and testing it works nicely.

Rough one should always go by:

1 lance = 3 batteries
1 launch bay = 3 batteries
1 torpedo = 1,5 batteries
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 07, 2010, 07:10:24 AM
I'd like it if it weren't quite 5 per side, Vaaish, but there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be lances on a FM, from fluff reasons, don't you think? 

The thing is, the Ramilies is pretty damn hardcore as it is, so you can't differentiate from it too much.  I would like to see +6 battery power per side and -2 lances, though. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 07, 2010, 08:32:02 AM
@ Don Gusto,

In the Rogue Trader draft you like:

* The Cruiser can take an extra shield for 15pts.
* The Light Cruiser can take an extra shield for 15pts.
* An escort can take an extra shield for 5pts.

You do like that draft ;)


Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Don Gusto on October 07, 2010, 12:46:48 PM
Yes indeed I like it. I also stated there that I'm not sure it's balanced.

For +5/15 Points you have to roll on the Xenotech table. If you want a shield you have to pick it for an extra +5 points. So thats +20 points for an extra shield on the cruisers and +10 points for the escorts.

The escorts have further limitations in all the Rogue Trader fleet lists. You cannot spam them freely.

The cruisers also have a big limitation in 2 of the lists. Only the Exploration fleet list allows them freely. But more importantly neither of the RT cruisers comes close to the SC in utility. You want to compare the Endeavour to it? Seriously?
At 205 points with 3 shields and 3 turrets the RT cruiser is indeed intimidating. But a fleet fielding mostly RT cruisers would lack flexibility and raw firepower. Imho it doesn't compare easily to the SM fleet lists.

Lets see, a single thunderhawk has a 58% chance of being removed by a 2 turret capital ship.
How do you come by that number? The chance of a single attack craft surviving 2 turrets is 25% (0.5x0.5). T-Hawks don't get a save versus turrets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 07, 2010, 12:59:52 PM
lol, I was looking at an older RT draft (no +5pts needed to select). But semantics aside. We could go in the RT thread, only I am able to start discussing on them medio 2011. :) Not a week earlier afaik.

Almost everyone here agrees Space Marines should get a second shield per profile or at least per upgrade. 15pts is perfectly reasonable.

The Marines need it, exactly just to deliver payloads. One shield is flimsy versus lances foremost and batteries as well. They don't cut the job at the moment.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 07, 2010, 01:15:29 PM
Not so much. The main concern seems to be that the SC can't engage a lance-heavy fleet. I don't see that as its mission, at least I think its debatable.
More to the point. Imho the mission of the SC is not to engage but to deliver. To this end it is gifted with a good mix of basically everything. It's already good for its points and doesn't need a cheap boost.

Who said anything about engaging? My main point was surviving a lance heavy fleet. How can you deliver if you're being destroyed left and right by lance heavy fleets?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 07, 2010, 02:30:24 PM
Quote
I'd like it if it weren't quite 5 per side, Vaaish, but there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be lances on a FM, from fluff reasons, don't you think? 


My post said there wasn't any reason it shouldn't have it, but I would like to see them possibly change to batteries to make the FM seem less like a re-branded ramilles and more its own unique thing.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 07, 2010, 03:28:50 PM
Alrighty then, just a heads up that I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread. I skipped to the end after the first 5. Ok, to start off with some general thoughts, I'd like to see the 2 shield 1 TH SC as standard at no points change. I wouldn't mind seeing a 3 TH SC variant (dropping the broadside WBs) at a small price increase (155-160 pts). Definately +1 shield for the BB for no extra cost (take or leave the +1 turret ). A torp variant SC is fine too.

However, the thing that I really wanted to post about is the "simultaneous" fire idea. This should not not NOT happen. There are only 2 races that the sequential fire system "disadvantages". Space Marines and Orks. I argue that the inefficiency produced by the BM interference is extremely characterful in both cases. In the case of the Space Marines, they are supposed to be inefficient in fleet engagements. If you believe that they should be allowed to fire simultaneously then this is tantamount to simply saying that they should be allowed to have lances. It is the inefficiency of the two competing weapon systems that limits SM power, not the inability to hit on a 4+ (because BCs already do this). The Imperial Navy warships do not suffer this inefficiency because lances do not suffer from previous WB fire. So this is why SMs can't have lances.

Now, what are SMs supposed to do? Assault planets right? Well, you would only need a space taxi to get to a planet. So it isn't just assaulting planets, it's also breaking defences. In particular, static defences (since they're specifically forbidden from being able to compete with warfleets). As it happens, even with the extra column shift, the combination of WBs and BCs against defences is stronger than WBs + equivalent strength lances. It's worse against non-defences, better against defences. Isn't that the perfect combination for SMs? As for balance issues, the other changes listed seem good to me. No need to change this mechanic. Particularly as it isn't clear whether it would be WB hits or BC hits that take down the enemy shields.

As for Orks, it is extremely characterful that their shooting isn't terribly efficient. Changing this mechanic would serve only to remove character from both the SMs and Orks. However, some people argue that Orks are too weak and need this boost. This isn't true. They're too weak and need A boost. This could be easily achieved by simply increasing their firepower! Moar shooty! Very Orky.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Zhukov on October 07, 2010, 04:59:16 PM
^amen! Agree completely.

-Zhukov
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 05:13:13 PM
Woo!  Glad I contributed something lasting. :)

Ok. 
Why would the FM have terminators, honorguard, and be worried about boarding?

I'm not a fan of dropping the lances to 45cm.  I agree a FM has every right to have lances for defence on it, but to differentiate a bit between
the ramilies and the FM, what if you dropped the 5 lances to 3, and added more strength to the weapons battery?

I can see an FM throwing out a veritable wall of shells in defence of the heart of the chapter.


Finally, I really don't understand why Terminators are one use, and why they cant be like chaos terminators?

I like most of the changes except for the lances. My beef this time isn't the fortress monastery having them it's more that it's not much more than a re-branded ramilles. While the Marine special rules, benefits, and the armor boost do help differentiate it, at the core there isn't much different from the stock ramilles. I think it might be interesting to explore the possibility of an all 60cm WB or granting it the targeting array (these things ARE ancient, especially if you plan to use it to represent the Dark Angles monastery) Perhaps even allow it to purchase or include in the cost several defense monitors or weapons satellites. Perhaps even let it slave the targeting arrays of orbital defenses to act in concert rather than as individuals.

I'm just running with ideas here, nothing really solid outside of the possibility of all batteries and perhaps something similar to the admech AWR.

Hi all! This is directed primarily at Lastspartacus and Vaaish, but I want to hear everyoneís input on this. One suggestion is to trade some lances for more 60cm WBís, another is to trade ALL lances for even more 60cm WBís. I also donít have an issue with incorporating some kind of gunnery modifier if we go this route, and itís true that this is rather fluff-true for SMís, keeping in mind that both the Ultramarines and Space Wolves (which admittedly are planet-based Chapters) describe defending their Fortress-Monastaeries with lances. Here are our choices:

1.   6+ armor Ramilies clone with reduced-range lances
2.   6+ armor Ramilies with less lances but more guns
3.   6+ armor Ramilies with ONLY (lots of!) 60cm guns and a targeting matrix
4.   Some combination of the above (no, not all of the above!)

Keep in mind I havenít spoken to Bob about any of this yet, but there we are. I donít know if itís a good idea to go with the Tau-flavor tracking systems refit, since there is no precedent for it anywhere in the Imperium, but I will bring it up. Which route do we want to take? Thoughts?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 07, 2010, 05:40:16 PM
Nate, I don't dislike any of those options. I'm simply looking to make the FM as different as possible from the weapons load out on the ramilles in order to make it a more unique asset. If you do remove lances, I think it will become fairly useless to have them if the number of lances drops to two per quadrant.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 06:51:55 PM
Nate, I don't dislike any of those options. I'm simply looking to make the FM as different as possible from the weapons load out on the ramilles in order to make it a more unique asset. If you do remove lances, I think it will become fairly useless to have them if the number of lances drops to two per quadrant.

Vaaish, this is where your opinion really matters. I think it's great you don't dislike any of these. Now, which one do you LIKE?

That question applies to everyone, by the way. Caveats:

1. HP, Shields and turrets are not changing
2. The rules for how the basilica works, its weapons and other rules specific to the Ramilies are not changing.
3. The crit chart isn't changing, except obviously rolls 2 & 3 if we decide to get rid of lances entirely.
4. Terminators and Honor Guard will still be part of its point cost, along with specific rules for Space marines.
5. No odd weapon gimmics!

That's it- everything else is fair game. You hate the current Fortress Monastery? It's not going away, but here's your chance to change it.

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 07, 2010, 06:54:44 PM
Admittedly your playtest example would probably have been a more accurate assessment which I didnít think of, but I wanted to play-test a worst-case scenario, and I also wanted to assess a points-parity game. My son is a mean Chaos player (Ray can attest to this), and if I gave him a 70-point advantage against a fleet I wasnít even sure was costed properly, I probably would have been stomped.

Nate, why not try 3 Slaughters against 3 160 point SCs?  I realize there isn't ordnance for Chaos, but this is less about the ordnance meta game to me.  The point spread is only a 15 point difference in favor of chaos and this clash would be highly representative of what goes on at my table.  Additionally, both vessels are prime at 30cm and both are quite fast and maneuverable.  Any objections to BC data collection from such a match up?

Alternative: Styx+Slaughter vs. 3 SCs, 1@145pts, 2@160pts (15 points in favor of SM)

Probably running both of these would paint the most accurate picture, rather then one or the other.  Thoughts?

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 07:13:22 PM
Admittedly your playtest example would probably have been a more accurate assessment which I didnít think of, but I wanted to play-test a worst-case scenario, and I also wanted to assess a points-parity game. My son is a mean Chaos player (Ray can attest to this), and if I gave him a 70-point advantage against a fleet I wasnít even sure was costed properly, I probably would have been stomped.

Nate, why not try 3 Slaughters against 3 160 point SCs?  I realize there isn't ordnance for Chaos, but this is less about the ordnance meta game to me.  The point spread is only a 15 point difference in favor of chaos and this clash would be highly representative of what goes on at my table.  Additionally, both vessels are prime at 30cm and both are quite fast and maneuverable.  Any objections to BC data collection from such a match up?

Alternative: Styx+Slaughter vs. 3 SCs, 1@145pts, 2@160pts (15 points in favor of SM)

Probably running both of these would paint the most accurate picture, rather then one or the other.  Thoughts?

Russ

I don't have a problem with any of this- I can even do it this weekend. Heck, PLEASE feel free to do it yourself as well so we can compare notes, BatReps, etc.

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 07, 2010, 07:14:22 PM
Nate, if I had to pick, I'd go with all WB and a targeting matrix. To make the thing significantly different from the Ramilles you'd have to drop it down to two lances per quadrant which seems more of an afterthought than a reasoned purpose for the lances. BC aren't really effective here that leaves more WB. Being ancient, I think that it's reasonable for it to get no column shift penalty for firing beyond 30cm and even if the targeters aren't that advanced it's big enough to mount plenty of them to justify increased accuracy.

another option would be to go all WB (what would that be ~s30 batteries per quardrant to keep the Ramilles FP level?) and replace the basillica batteries with higher strength torpedoes.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 07:15:45 PM
Alrighty then, just a heads up that I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread. I skipped to the end after the first 5. Ok, to start off with some general thoughts, I'd like to see the 2 shield 1 TH SC as standard at no points change. I wouldn't mind seeing a 3 TH SC variant (dropping the broadside WBs) at a small price increase (155-160 pts). Definately +1 shield for the BB for no extra cost (take or leave the +1 turret ). A torp variant SC is fine too.

However, the thing that I really wanted to post about is the "simultaneous" fire idea. This should not not NOT happen. There are only 2 races that the sequential fire system "disadvantages". Space Marines and Orks. I argue that the inefficiency produced by the BM interference is extremely characterful in both cases. In the case of the Space Marines, they are supposed to be inefficient in fleet engagements. If you believe that they should be allowed to fire simultaneously then this is tantamount to simply saying that they should be allowed to have lances. It is the inefficiency of the two competing weapon systems that limits SM power, not the inability to hit on a 4+ (because BCs already do this). The Imperial Navy warships do not suffer this inefficiency because lances do not suffer from previous WB fire. So this is why SMs can't have lances.

Now, what are SMs supposed to do? Assault planets right? Well, you would only need a space taxi to get to a planet. So it isn't just assaulting planets, it's also breaking defences. In particular, static defences (since they're specifically forbidden from being able to compete with warfleets). As it happens, even with the extra column shift, the combination of WBs and BCs against defences is stronger than WBs + equivalent strength lances. It's worse against non-defences, better against defences. Isn't that the perfect combination for SMs? As for balance issues, the other changes listed seem good to me. No need to change this mechanic. Particularly as it isn't clear whether it would be WB hits or BC hits that take down the enemy shields.

As for Orks, it is extremely characterful that their shooting isn't terribly efficient. Changing this mechanic would serve only to remove character from both the SMs and Orks. However, some people argue that Orks are too weak and need this boost. This isn't true. They're too weak and need A boost. This could be easily achieved by simply increasing their firepower! Moar shooty! Very Orky.

Hi Sigoroth! I already posted separately why the 1TH +1Shield rule for all SCís is a bad idea. Hereís a direct paste of that response:

Quote
This is not simply a matter of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." SMís in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but weíre talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SMís can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesnít sound like so much, even if they are resilient. Heck, even Eldar can get more than 40 launch bays for 3,000 points, and they HAVE resilient fighters!

Now letís look at making an SCís base profile 1 T-hawk for +1 shield. Now the maximum number of launch bays in a 3,000-point pure SM fleet is 19. You honestly believe thatís worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a ďcarrier SC,Ē but then all we did was break something and then create something to fix what we broke.

You disagree they should be allowed to combine firepower. Itís okay that you disagree, and I do understand why you feel how you do. However, in my opinion I donít think your solution set is viable. I donít believe the entire SM fleet as-is should be relegated to assaulting planets and breaking defenses. Nobody is ever going to play with a fleet that canít reasonably fight any other fleet. I also donít believe the fix for this should be ďjust give Orks and Space Marines more firepower.Ē Just because itís shooty, we by direction cannot and will not arbitrarily take the profiles for every Ork and Space Marine ship in the game back to the drawing board when the much simpler fix is to simply allow these fleets to combine fire.

I am all about making the ships and fleets as fluff-true as possible, but we will not break their playability or re-write the profiles of entire fleets people have been using for almost a decade merely for the sake of how fluff is interpreted.

-   Nate




Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 07:18:05 PM
Nate, if I had to pick, I'd go with all WB and a targeting matrix. To make the thing significantly different from the Ramilles you'd have to drop it down to two lances per quadrant which seems more of an afterthought than a reasoned purpose for the lances. BC aren't really effective here that leaves more WB. Being ancient, I think that it's reasonable for it to get no column shift penalty for firing beyond 30cm and even if the targeters aren't that advanced it's big enough to mount plenty of them to justify increased accuracy.

another option would be to go all WB (what would that be ~s30 batteries per quardrant to keep the Ramilles FP level?) and replace the basillica batteries with higher strength torpedoes.

Sounds good. Anyone else? We'll let this question dwell over the weekend and see what we get. I'll also post it to the BFG-List so everyone is looking at it.

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 07, 2010, 07:24:23 PM
(Out of curiosity) are there any plans to tweak other fleets like Admech?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 07, 2010, 07:29:17 PM
Hi,
the Ramilies. either all wb or web and reduced lances. These ancient behemots won't suddenly drop the lances if they turn up in Marine Chapter.

@ Sigoroth, I disagree with you on the Orks. They are good at shooting. Lotsa dakka dakka. So the simultaneous change is a real good one in my opinion.

@ Nate, I am not convinced on your reasoning against the 1 THawk, 2 shield strike cruiser per standard.

@ Vaaish, seperate thread on what we would like to see changed/adressed/tweaked? Nate, up for it...?

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 07:37:23 PM
(Out of curiosity) are there any plans to tweak other fleets like Admech?

We (the HA's) are trying to concentrate on the materials that never made it into the "official" pile before Specialist Games imploded. Because the AM's already have their rules on the GW website, we have that on hold for now. We have a docket of materials we are trying to push through, and as soon as we get the Space M arines stapled shut, I promise there's a whole new gernade I have primed to toss at the list!

Is there something extremely pertinent (as in broken) that needs to be addressed? We can make simple fixes with the upcoming FAQ until we can finally get everything repaired.

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 07, 2010, 07:42:53 PM
Not particular, It's just been my experience that the fleet is a little random which makes it difficult to remember what upgrade you had and for your opponent to keep track of what's what so as not to get blindsided. It also seemed a bit weak overall in my experience. I was curious if it was going to come back around for review or if it was locked.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 07, 2010, 07:46:54 PM
Yes!

*Voss Prow Light Cruisers (Endeavour, Endurance, Defiant) should get a 6+ prow at no extra cost. These vessels are never used as they are. They die (I experienced and tried...).

* Overlord, see thread in exp.subforum.

* Retribution, gun upgrade

* Despoiler statistic change (PROW LAUNCH BAYS :) ).

* Devestation down to 45cm lances

* Necron Tombship downtuning (vessel generates to much hate, many won't play it).

* Tau Armada fleet needs complete re-design

* Nids could use some streamlining imo


But, most 'broken' the voss prows.

AdMech, it is not weak. I am getting used on it. But some ships excel more then others. The Retribution with AWR (though Magos) upgrade is a beast and finally a worthy gunship.
The fleet can survive with very few launch bays.

That is perhaps the only problem, the random upgrades. These are to varying in use. The AWR is worth at least 25pts, while Fleet Defence Turrets are worth a lot less.

I would have liked more tech upgrades opposed to the basic upgrades we now get.

The dorsal lance is something opponents can moan about: crippled, braced, it always works, never down in strength.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: commander on October 07, 2010, 07:54:36 PM
Defences
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 07, 2010, 08:37:32 PM
My personal FM pick would be 6 more batt fp per side and 3 lances.

Did you ever answer on the Terminators?  Why is it only one use per game?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on October 07, 2010, 09:01:04 PM
More Kroot sphere options please
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 07, 2010, 09:54:25 PM
I donít believe the entire SM fleet as-is should be relegated to assaulting planets and breaking defenses. Nobody is ever going to play with a fleet that canít reasonably fight any other fleet.

-   Nate

You'd be wrong Nate. People are still playing the SM fleet even though at the moment it IS only good enough for assaulting planets and breaking defenses. THs are not that much of a problem though now one can have access to THAs if the PDF becomes official. Still, it's not just fluff reasoning. Also design reasoning. 6 HP ship. That's all I will point out. It should not have Str 2 TH.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 11:19:04 PM
My personal FM pick would be 6 more batt fp per side and 3 lances.

Did you ever answer on the Terminators?  Why is it only one use per game?

Here's a dumb answer: It was because nobody complained about it. You know what's worse? Everyone I ever talked to and played with (including both Bob and my son, who is a Chaos Deamon Prince in his own right) simply assumed it worked the same way for Chaos. I read the rules on p.45 of Armada again very closely. I always knew they were cheaper for Chaos than they were for Imps, but only when I re-read it today did I realize there's no restriction keeping Chaos from using it every turn!


I've played people from all over the United States and at least two other countries, and this has never come up before! I can assure you this was never intended by the designers, but Bob and I hashed it out- he was as surprised as I was! We have not yet spoken to Ray (another Chaos demigod if there ever was one), and we don't think the price should change, which means it will still be cheaper for Chaos to have them. However, we don't object to Imps getting to use it every turn as well. How does the List here feel about that?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 07, 2010, 11:38:28 PM
More Kroot sphere options please

Here's the problem with the Kroot- fluff describes them as a mostly feral race with a grasp of technology based more on rote and tradition than any real understanding. This is only bound to get worse as WH40k continues to evolve- even among the designers, just giving the Kroot their own spacecraft, not to mention it being an enormous flying city that can lift its titanic bulk right off the ground, was probably one of the most contentious things that ever happened when the Tau were first developed. Some of the design team hate the Warsphere's very existence, and as the game evolves on the WH40k side, the Kroot are likely to become even more feral rather than less, especially with Vespids now on the scene.

What does that mean? Well, warspheres aren't going to get any more complex than they are now. We tried to impart some flexibility by allowing a player to purchase improvements in shields, turrets, battery range and HP, so that the curerent enormous model can represent the high-end, 18HP version with an extra shield, turret and more, longer-range WB's. This way scratch-built, smaller robot-balls (or even the same model with the outer shell left off) can represent the smaller, stock profile and point cost. That's probably all the variety the Kroot are ever going to get- they will never have lances, ordnance, etc. In fact, if this rule for the Kroot ever gets tweaked further, it will probably be tweaked down rather than up.

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 08, 2010, 12:15:05 AM
My personal FM pick would be 6 more batt fp per side and 3 lances.

Did you ever answer on the Terminators?  Why is it only one use per game?

Here's a dumb answer: It was because nobody complained about it. You know what's worse? Everyone I ever talked to and played with (including both Bob and my son, who is a Chaos Deamon Prince in his own right) simply assumed it worked the same way for Chaos. I read the rules on p.45 of Armada again very closely. I always knew they were cheaper for Chaos than they were for Imps, but only when I re-read it today did I realize there's no restriction keeping Chaos from using it every turn!


I've played people from all over the United States and at least two other countries, and this has never come up before! I can assure you this was never intended by the designers, but Bob and I hashed it out- he was as surprised as I was! We have not yet spoken to Ray (another Chaos demigod if there ever was one), and we don't think the price should change, which means it will still be cheaper for Chaos to have them. However, we don't object to Imps getting to use it every turn as well. How does the List here feel about that?

So it was a big typo?  Chaos terminators were meant to be once per game only?  Why not just make the marine terminators exactly the same as Chaos currently is, officially?  It only even effects hit and run attacks, which don't come up too terribly often.  IIRC, it just lets you roll two dice and pick the highest for your HnR attack, in chaos, rather than, IIRC, the current extra one that marines get.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 08, 2010, 01:09:20 AM
My personal FM pick would be 6 more batt fp per side and 3 lances.

Did you ever answer on the Terminators?  Why is it only one use per game?

Here's a dumb answer: It was because nobody complained about it. You know what's worse? Everyone I ever talked to and played with (including both Bob and my son, who is a Chaos Deamon Prince in his own right) simply assumed it worked the same way for Chaos. I read the rules on p.45 of Armada again very closely. I always knew they were cheaper for Chaos than they were for Imps, but only when I re-read it today did I realize there's no restriction keeping Chaos from using it every turn!


I've played people from all over the United States and at least two other countries, and this has never come up before! I can assure you this was never intended by the designers, but Bob and I hashed it out- he was as surprised as I was! We have not yet spoken to Ray (another Chaos demigod if there ever was one), and we don't think the price should change, which means it will still be cheaper for Chaos to have them. However, we don't object to Imps getting to use it every turn as well. How does the List here feel about that?

So it was a big typo?  Chaos terminators were meant to be once per game only?  Why not just make the marine terminators exactly the same as Chaos currently is, officially?  It only even effects hit and run attacks, which don't come up too terribly often.  IIRC, it just lets you roll two dice and pick the highest for your HnR attack, in chaos, rather than, IIRC, the current extra one that marines get.

Yep- a big typo, one we missed when getting the Armada second edition through the press. We're not going to change either one, we're going to leave the Imp one as-is at 50 points, which is more expensive than the Chaos one but works a bit better and can't be used by as many ships, except that now it can be used every turn. At least, that's the proposal.

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on October 08, 2010, 01:28:09 AM
I like the upgrade options posted for the warsphere thus
And I agree with much of what you said that is why I am looking for "downgrade" options for 4-6hp spheres
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 08, 2010, 01:56:41 AM
I like the upgrade options posted for the warsphere thus
And I agree with much of what you said that is why I am looking for "downgrade" options for 4-6hp spheres

It makes sense, but one of the guiding principles we were given was "no new ship designs that can't be modeled right out the box." That gives us the green light for things like the Titan from the Nemesis Fleet from Warp Rift, but the red light for things like the Govenor grand cruiser that has a profile that can't be anything but scratch-built.

A downgraded Warsphere makes complete fluff sense. Heck, Ray in particular wants a downgraded Warsphere so bad, he can taste it! He and I tried to get GW to sell a model using the current kit but leaving out the outer ring shell, but there was no way for them to do it economically without making a new mold, which was out of the question. Because there's no kit for it, it HAS to be scratchbuilt, and we can't make legal a model that only experienced model builders can make.

"What about Roks and Space Hulks!" Yes, I know these are official models that can only be scratchbuilt. However, in all honestly my daughter can grab a pebble off the street, smear glue on it, drop it in my bitz bin, pull it out and call it a Rok. A Warsphere is nowhere near that simple to make and you know it!    :D   Nonetheless, I will bring it up with the HA's. I know Ray will like the idea a lot.

I am re-posting this in the Tau thread.

- Nate

 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 08, 2010, 02:04:54 AM
It makes sense, but one of the guiding principles we were given was "no new ship designs that can't be modeled right out the box." That gives us the green light for things like the Titan from the Nemesis Fleet from Warp Rift, but the red light for things like the Govenor grand cruiser that has a profile that can't be anything but scratch-built.

- Nate

 

No new ship designs which can't be modelled right out of the box and yet you can't fix the TH-Shield issue on the SC which doesn't even need remodelling, just a change of stats.

I find that ironic.  ;D

P.S. What Titan?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 08, 2010, 02:37:14 AM
It makes sense, but one of the guiding principles we were given was "no new ship designs that can't be modeled right out the box." That gives us the green light for things like the Titan from the Nemesis Fleet from Warp Rift, but the red light for things like the Govenor grand cruiser that has a profile that can't be anything but scratch-built.

- Nate

 

No new ship designs which can't be modelled right out of the box and yet you can't fix the TH-Shield issue on the SC which doesn't even need remodelling, just a change of stats.

I find that ironic.  ;D

Admiral, PLEASE playtest this. Put bluntly, your idea will create a SM fleet that will get smashed by Chaos or Tau. Donít think to yourself ďfair and balancedĒ Chaos or Tau. Think ďbeardy munchkin 16-year old with deep pockets and no personality using all carriers and lances because itís legalĒ Chaos or Tau. Your fix for this is to create a SC carrier. How about we do neither, thus we donít break the SC and then fix it with yet another SC.   ;D

The ďtoo many hardpointsĒ issue is not enough in and of itself to revise a baseline profile that has existed for nine years.

Quote

P.S. What Titan?
 

Warp Rift came out with a Nemesis fleet list that was pretty cool. A LOT of the ships on that list are cool but require some detailed scratchbuilding, but if I recall correctly, the Titan was merely an amped Gothic battlecruiser. Iím not saying ďletís make it official!Ē Iím merely saying that were we to do so, the model itself wouldnít be an issue because any novice modeler could make one right out the box.

-   Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 08, 2010, 03:38:29 AM
Admiral, PLEASE playtest this. Put bluntly, your idea will create a SM fleet that will get smashed by Chaos or Tau. Donít think to yourself ďfair and balancedĒ Chaos or Tau. Think ďbeardy munchkin 16-year old with deep pockets and no personality using all carriers and lances because itís legalĒ Chaos or Tau. Your fix for this is to create a SC carrier. How about we do neither, thus we donít break the SC and then fix it with yet another SC.   ;D

To put it bluntly as you say, SM ARE already getting smashed by Chaos and Tau with the existing SC set-up. This game is not about ordnance. This game is about direct fire weapons and 1 shield ain't enough against those two fleets you mention. I don't need ordnance with Chaos. Why? Chaos already has the lances to smash through SM's pitiful 1 shield stat.

I run this typical 1,500 point Chaos list:

1 Hades
3 Murders
1 Styx
2 Devs.

Yes, Lots of ordnance which mostly I point out are just doing anti-ordnance role. It's the lances which KILL however. 10 lances at 60 cm on Lock On with my Hades and Murders. Tell me the SC isn't going to brace against that much firepower? The lances of the Styx and Devs just doing support role and killing off the cripples. That's in existence NOW, Nate. I punish my opponent's SCs severely everytime with this list.

Now, while I have limited experience with Tau, the fact isTau already has enough ordnace to ignore shields that upping the SC's shields to 2 won't matter. While the SM will lose out a bit on the TH, the fact is they're still resilient fighters and the armor of the SM ships will help a lot in blunting the Tau ordnance attacks. The increase in Shields will matter against the tau's Direct Fire weapons however which are themselves dangerous.

Are you really playing the same SM fleet that everyone is playing? What's a vanilla TH going to do? Why crit an opponent. How is that helpful? Most of my TH go to anti-ordnance roles which they do quite well, thank you but THs themselves do not directly help an SM fleet survive direct fire.

Secondly, what's wrong with the carrier fix? It's fluffy. It's easy to model right out of the box. Either:
a. You use the TONS of IN Launch Bays lying around BFG players bits box or
b. You just drill out the WB bays.

Either are not hard conversions to do.

The ďtoo many hardpointsĒ issue is not enough in and of itself to revise a baseline profile that has existed for nine years.

Again, what's so hard about invoking a change in policy especially when one does not have to come out with a new model? Will GW or SG suffer a hit on their profits if you change the baseline stat? Will the players suddenly throw out their SCs because they are suddenly worthless (how adding one shield in exchange for a TH point makes the SC poorer is beyond me)?

The baseline profile has existed for 9 years and guess what? People are finding it lackluster.


Warp Rift came out with a Nemesis fleet list that was pretty cool. A LOT of the ships on that list are cool but require some detailed scratchbuilding, but if I recall correctly, the Titan was merely an amped Gothic battlecruiser. Iím not saying ďletís make it official!Ē Iím merely saying that were we to do so, the model itself wouldnít be an issue because any novice modeler could make one right out the box.

-   Nate


Oh, that Titan. Just to give credit where credit is due, that design originally came from the defunct Blackstone Outpost site. Logical design but extremely overpowered. Much as an IN player, i would like to have it in my fleets, I'm afraid I'll have to say no to allowing it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 08, 2010, 04:23:00 AM
Here's another question I would like to ask: where did this idea that SM are supposed to be ordnance heavy come from anyway? Granted they should have more resilient ordnace. Why should they have enough ordnance to rival Tau (much less Chaos)?

Here's a more or less balanced list at 1,500 points.

Master of the Fleet
1 Battle Barge
7 Strike Cruisers.

Other players will add more escorts in lieu of 1 or 2 SCs most likely. But let's say the above is true. That fleet has 17 Thunderhawks effectively giving them 24-26 THs on the table. Meanwhile, my Chaos list only has 14 non-resilient ordnance. Even if we assume the THs are not resilient, how can SM be actually taking more attack craft ordnance than Chaos? Note that my Chaos list is balanced in terms of armament.

Of course, people can go with all Devs and/or Styx to increase the ordnance on the table. Say 7 Devs for 28 AC or 2 Styx' and 5 devs for 32. Then again, it's not going to be killing that much ships.  Such a fleet design for Chaos is not making use of it's main strength which is firepower. Also, the SM fleet can be comprised of 10 SCs and a Master of the Fleet and have 20 THs on the table for an effective 30.

A typical SM chapter only has 1000 men divided further into Companies of 100 mean and these Companies normally have escorts attending to them though some DO have SCs per Company. That's fine. The question is, Do they really need all those THs to drop those 100 mean into battle? Note that aside from THs, the SCs and BBs and most likely escorts also have drop pods. It just does not make sense fluff wise and design wise.

Now assuming we change the stats to 1 TH per SC. The same list will then have 10 THs available which is effectively having 15. That now would be more balanced against the balanced Chaos fleet I made. Against an ordnance heavy Chaos fleet, will be more problematic but since they can absorb the direct fire weapons more, then much more ships can go on the attack against the Chaos carriers.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 08, 2010, 05:12:44 AM
Kraken is another model that can't be bought :)


Nate:  Why not just make the Terminators exactly like the current chaos ones?  I find it balanced, even more so in pure SM than in chaos.
Much simpler than an extra, special H&R.  Just an extra dice on teleport H&R attacks, pick the highest, 10 points.
Sounds perfect to me.  Restrict it to battlebarges if need be, though I wouldn't pay the points on an SC anyway, so I would leave it open.

Edit: With the change to H&R on reload ordnance and lockon, by that logic is there any hope for necron solar pulses not being effected by those?
It is afterall a weapon, though perhaps not one that would be rerolled.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 08, 2010, 07:08:44 AM
Hi Sigoroth! I already posted separately why the 1TH +1Shield rule for all SCís is a bad idea. Hereís a direct paste of that response:

Quote
This is not simply a matter of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." SMís in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but weíre talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SMís can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesnít sound like so much, even if they are resilient. Heck, even Eldar can get more than 40 launch bays for 3,000 points, and they HAVE resilient fighters!

Now letís look at making an SCís base profile 1 T-hawk for +1 shield. Now the maximum number of launch bays in a 3,000-point pure SM fleet is 19. You honestly believe thatís worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a ďcarrier SC,Ē but then all we did was break something and then create something to fix what we broke.

The reason why the SC should be reduced to a 1 TH bay is not for balance reasons, it is for model reasons. When converting regular launch bays to be able to fit Thunderhawks (such as for chaos marines with THs or a SM VBB) we have the 2 regular AC = 1 TH conversion formula. I don't believe this to be accurate of course, but I do believe 1 TH (with SM rules) is worth more than than 1 regular AC, roughly 1.5 I'd say. So I don't think that the prow of the SC is worth 3 regular AC in size. Similarly, I don't think that it is worth two thirds of the battlebarge's bay either. So this should be reduced to fit the SM models better (particularly if you're using the FW strike cruiser). Having said that, there is no reason why SMs shouldn't have access to more AC, as you've pointed out. This is where the launch bay variant comes in.

Now, you call this breaking something and then fixing it. I call it giving parity between models and rules. You think that this is unnecessary, I think that this would not only solve an annoying problem of representation, but it would also solve another problem of the SM fleet. One of variety. Having a launch bay variant and a torpedo variant would give SM admirals the customisation they have always desired.

Quite apart from this is the issue of the 2nd shield. The SC just needs one, flat out. They get slaughtered in all shooting contests. Consider an 8 hit 2 shield cruiser that takes 3 damage a turn vs a 6 hit 1 shield SC that receives the same. Massive difference. So this is a separate issue to reducing the TH capacity and should be implemented regardless of whether or not the latter comes to pass. Of course, an extra shield will increase the cost of the SC. Losing a TH will decrease the cost. If they both occur at the same time then the cost of the base SC can remain the same.

So, what do SM players want? 1) a more competitive and survivable fleet and 2) some variety while 3) remaining true to the background. The proposal I and others have put forward checks all these boxes. WITHOUT breaking a core mechanic of the game no less.

You disagree they should be allowed to combine firepower. Itís okay that you disagree, and I do understand why you feel how you do. However, in my opinion I donít think your solution set is viable. I donít believe the entire SM fleet as-is should be relegated to assaulting planets and breaking defenses. Nobody is ever going to play with a fleet that canít reasonably fight any other fleet. I also donít believe the fix for this should be ďjust give Orks and Space Marines more firepower.Ē Just because itís shooty, we by direction cannot and will not arbitrarily take the profiles for every Ork and Space Marine ship in the game back to the drawing board when the much simpler fix is to simply allow these fleets to combine fire.

I am all about making the ships and fleets as fluff-true as possible, but we will not break their playability or re-write the profiles of entire fleets people have been using for almost a decade merely for the sake of how fluff is interpreted.

-   Nate

You CAN change the profiles of a fleet that people have been playing for a decade. In fact you SHOULD. They should not have been allowed to go this long without change in the first place, and saying that they've remained the same this long is no reason not to change them now. Furthermore, you should NOT make changes that are contrary to the fluff, such as introducing lances to the SMs and improving gunnery efficiency of the Orks, least of all when to do so would be to change a core mechanic of the game! I also take issue with the idea that these changes to profiles would be "arbitrary". In fact, it is far more arbitrary to allow simultaneous fire, since this is an abstract change that comes at the expense of character. A tangible and characterful increase in firepower for the Orks is anything but arbitrary.

If you have the least bit of concern for the fluff then you should implement the proposed changes that I and others have suggested in draft format and see if this appeals to SM players and their opponents. Only if the fluffy fix is indescribably insufficient should you even think about considering to contemplate the possibility of deliberating on a non-fluffy fix.  
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 08, 2010, 07:12:38 AM
@ Sigoroth, I disagree with you on the Orks. They are good at shooting. Lotsa dakka dakka. So the simultaneous change is a real good one in my opinion.

No, they're not good at it, they just do a lot of it. So when making a change to improve their overall gunnery should they be more efficient (ie, increased ballistic skill) or have more firepower (ie, more dakka)?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 08, 2010, 08:12:37 AM
Sig, are you arguing at simul fire on a ship, or a squadron?  I'm a bit confused, got lost in the pages I miss between posts.

Edit:  I of course am in the 'marines should be able to compete against other fleets' camp.  Sure, let em be better at certain scenarios than others, and not quite on par point for point with an Imperial ship, before you factor in the crew bonuses.  But space marine ships actually have alot of responsibilities to accomplish on their own besides battering aside defence emplacements. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 08, 2010, 08:19:14 AM
Quote
No, they're not good at it, they just do a lot of it. So when making a change to improve their overall gunnery should they be more efficient (ie, increased ballistic skill) or have more firepower (ie, more dakka)?
Hey Sigoroth,
I think you approach this the wrong way. Neither Heavy Gunz or Weapon Batteries are improved on the Orks. It is just a case of : which button does an Ork push first: 'battery or heavy'? The answer is: "at the same moment".

Also, upgunning heavy gunz and getting a right shift through blastmarkers or no upgunning and no right shift. In the end the same result.


I agree on your Space Marine view. And the Admiral's view.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 08, 2010, 08:23:24 AM
What exactly are you saying about heavy gunz horizon?  From what I understand, they are much maligned for their no-column-shift.
They need something, it seems, as at that range, Ork thinking is usually 'why not just board'?
Orks suffer from a conflict of interests, as a fleet.  Lots of close range options.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 08, 2010, 10:07:48 PM
We should create another thread for Orks.  ;D In the meantime, let's stick to SM here. The Orks concern is another issue with me. To answer here though, Orks should have more dakka but not very good at hitting. Lots and lots and lots of dakka. That's my personal view. Now let's back to the regular SM station.  :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 09, 2010, 01:54:50 AM
Quote
No, they're not good at it, they just do a lot of it. So when making a change to improve their overall gunnery should they be more efficient (ie, increased ballistic skill) or have more firepower (ie, more dakka)?
Hey Sigoroth,
I think you approach this the wrong way. Neither Heavy Gunz or Weapon Batteries are improved on the Orks. It is just a case of : which button does an Ork push first: 'battery or heavy'? The answer is: "at the same moment".

Also, upgunning heavy gunz and getting a right shift through blastmarkers or no upgunning and no right shift. In the end the same result.


I agree on your Space Marine view. And the Admiral's view.

In BFG there is no simultaneity between weapon systems. You have to choose your order of attack. This has implications for the number of brace opportunities the target has and the ability of the firing ship to redirect fire. This, combined with line of fire BM interference, provides the best tactical arrangement. This core mechanic should not be broken. You could put up an argument for simultaneity of fire, but then again, you could do so for simultaneity of movement or, indeed, of player turns. Of course, I think that it is reasonable to assume that different weapon systems that operate in radically different ways would require different firing solutions and therefore could not just be fired at the same time. The simple fact of the matter is that the 2 fleets most affected by the sequential nature of fire are SMs and Orks, making their fire inefficient. This is characterful in both cases.

So changing a core mechanic of the game to make SM and Ork fire more efficient is a terrible idea. Core mechanic change = bad. Unfluffy balance fix = bad. Therefore proposed change = bad. Fixing SM balance issues by giving more variety and making them tougher = good. Fixing Ork balance problems with more firepower = characterful = good.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 09, 2010, 02:21:32 AM
Quote
This has implications for the number of brace opportunities the target has


it should not have any affect on the brace opportunities. The rules are clear that you may only attempt brace once per ship, squadron, or ordnance wave. This means you can't attempt to brace when a lunar fires it's lances if you failed to brace when the lunar fired it's WB.

Quote
the ability of the firing ship to redirect fire
Again, why would it affect this? the firing ship may still split it's firepower however it desires. There is no requirement for the ship to use both weapons on the same target. In fact, this makes it MORE capable to redirect fire since one could fire the batteries and see if the ship was destroyed before firing the BC. (In such a situation, I think the BC should take the BM penlty since they are obviously not firing simultaneously)

Quote
I think that it is reasonable to assume that different weapon systems that operate in radically different ways would require different firing solutions and therefore could not just be fired at the same time.


By the same token, it's just as reasonable to assume that the ship would hold fire until both systems find a solution or, in fact, that battery weapons use similar targeting systems or could use the same targeting data. The point here is that you can make up whatever you want to support your view and it makes it no more valid than what I say. HA has decided to address the issue by means of allowing gunnery table weapons to be fired simultaneously, which I find a simple and elegant solution that requires no change in profiles to produce the desired result.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 09, 2010, 03:42:59 AM
Sig, is there something special about the Marines, or are you saying in general you are against simul fire as clarified/established in the errata?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 09, 2010, 04:26:54 AM
it should not have any affect on the brace opportunities. The rules are clear that you may only attempt brace once per ship, squadron, or ordnance wave. This means you can't attempt to brace when a lunar fires it's lances if you failed to brace when the lunar fired it's WB.

A poorly thought out and unnecessary rule change made by the HA. In the original rules someone could brace against each individual weapon system. This is how it should be.


Quote
Again, why would it affect this? the firing ship may still split it's firepower however it desires.

A Lunar can fire its WBs, see if the target braces and then redirect its lances to another ship. If it doesn't brace, or fails to brace, it can instead keep shooting at the same target. A Dominator can't fire 6WBs at a target, wait to see if it braces and then decide to put the remaining 6WBs into it afterwards. If it splits it must target 2 different ships. This is why ships should get a brace attempt against different weapon systems.

Quote
There is no requirement for the ship to use both weapons on the same target. In fact, this makes it MORE capable to redirect fire since one could fire the batteries and see if the ship was destroyed before firing the BC. (In such a situation, I think the BC should take the BM penlty since they are obviously not firing simultaneously)

This is my point. Separate weapon systems makes it possible to redirect fire. That is their advantage. They are able to be fired sequentially. The balancing factor being that they must be fired sequentially. If you're going to allow different weapon systems to fire simultaneously then you should make it so that ALL shooting from a ship/squadron is simultaneous. So targets must be declared before any dice are rolled and any excess fire is wasted. Then the travesty of 1 brace attempt per ship/squadron regardless of number of weapon systems would make sense. Of course, it would take a lot of the tactics out of the game.

Quote
By the same token, it's just as reasonable to assume that the ship would hold fire until both systems find a solution or, in fact, that battery weapons use similar targeting systems or could use the same targeting data. The point here is that you can make up whatever you want to support your view and it makes it no more valid than what I say. HA has decided to address the issue by means of allowing gunnery table weapons to be fired simultaneously, which I find a simple and elegant solution that requires no change in profiles to produce the desired result.

I don't know how reasonable that assumption is, but it is known that weapons have different speeds, so firing your WBs and lances simultaneously would mean that the lances will hit first. If that's the case then why wouldn't the target adjust its trajectory slightly before the WB fire gets there? That'd throw the WB firing solution off. But either way, that isn't the point. My original point was that there are plenty of justifications for non-simultaneous fire, and arguing for it from a "realistic" point of view is absurd given that it could be argued against "realistically" and that the rest of the game is no more realistic in terms of the sequential nature of the game (movement, shooting, ordnance for player 1, then repeat for player 2, etc).

As for the HAs decision to allow simultaneous fire, yes, I'll agree that it is simple. It is, however, far from elegant. The primary beneficiary of the change is SM and Ork, who both needed a boost to be sure. However, the boost makes their firing more efficient which is not characterful in either case. This change also upsets the balance in terms of mixed versus dedicated weaponry, such that now it's far more beneficial to have mixed, since it provides simply more tactical options for no downside. Further, in the case of the SMs this boost does not address their problem of low survivability, which they're not supposed to have. So this is a decidedly inelegant solution. To qualify as elegant it would have to resolve a lot of problems, not make more internal fleet balance problems for other fleets.

So, in summation, drop the simultaneous fire idea, return brace attempts to each new source of incoming damage and return BM interference to line of fire only. These base rules provide the most tactical options. Then fix the balance issues of the SMs and Orks as each of those fleets require.

Also, I'm not sure why you say "require no change in profiles" as if that's a good thing. Surely it is much preferable to change a few lacklustre profiles than to muck about with the core rules? Changes to which will no doubt have knock on effects to other fleets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 09, 2010, 04:30:08 AM
Sig, is there something special about the Marines, or are you saying in general you are against simul fire as clarified/established in the errata?

Simultaneous fire should not be allowed to different weapon systems. The game is purely sequential in nature, with the only variance at any one time being the strength of the incoming weapon (hell, just look at the ordnance phase, absolutely no simultaneity there). This core mechanic should not be changed just to throw a quick fix to Orks and SM, particularly as the nature of that fix is inappropriate and there are definite knock-on effects of this change to other fleets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 09, 2010, 06:39:37 AM
Quote
A poorly thought out and unnecessary rule change made by the HA. In the original rules someone could brace against each individual weapon system. This is how it should be.

Perhaps in your opinion, but it's been per ship etc. for quite some time without cause for alarm or balance issues. There is no reason to believe it will change and since it is this way it is irrelevant to support an argument with a point that is contrary to the official rules.

Quote
A Lunar can fire its WBs, see if the target braces and then redirect its lances to another ship. If it doesn't brace, or fails to brace, it can instead keep shooting at the same target. A Dominator can't fire 6WBs at a target, wait to see if it braces and then decide to put the remaining 6WBs into it afterwards. If it splits it must target 2 different ships. This is why ships should get a brace attempt against different weapon systems.

I'm not following your logic on this one. You seem to be saying that because a ship can split its fire targets should be able to brace per weapons system? I don't see how this translates into a problem. It gives better utility to ships with multiple weapons systems, but, by nature of splitting their firepower, greatly reduces the likelihood of any significant impact that would warrant bracing under most circumstances.

Quote
This change also upsets the balance in terms of mixed versus dedicated weaponry, such that now it's far more beneficial to have mixed, since it provides simply more tactical options for no downside.

This is untrue. IN, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, DE, Necrons, and Nids have always had mixed weapons. They don't suddenly have more tactical options with this change, they've always had it with lances ignoring BM! They even get the benefit of ignoring BM when firing any lance even if it didn't come from the same ship or squadron! With this change the BC are still taking a column shift from BM after that first ship or squadron fires.

Quote
Further, in the case of the SMs this boost does not address their problem of low survivability, which they're not supposed to have. So this is a decidedly inelegant solution.

No, but there are other things in play to deal with that... which is kinda the point of this thread.

Quote
Also, I'm not sure why you say "require no change in profiles" as if that's a good thing. Surely it is much preferable to change a few lacklustre profiles than to muck about with the core rules? Changes to which will no doubt have knock on effects to other fleets.

I mentioned it because that seems to be the mindset of the HA in regard to fixing these issues based on what Nate has mentioned a time or two.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 09, 2010, 06:44:27 AM
Quote
You CAN change the profiles of a fleet that people have been playing for a decade. In fact you SHOULD. They should not have been allowed to go this long without change in the first place, and saying that they've remained the same this long is no reason not to change them now. Furthermore, you should NOT make changes that are contrary to the fluff, such as introducing lances to the SMs and improving gunnery efficiency of the Orks, least of all when to do so would be to change a core mechanic of the game! I also take issue with the idea that these changes to profiles would be "arbitrary". In fact, it is far more arbitrary to allow simultaneous fire, since this is an abstract change that comes at the expense of character. A tangible and characterful increase in firepower for the Orks is anything but arbitrary.

If you have the least bit of concern for the fluff then you should implement the proposed changes that I and others have suggested in draft format and see if this appeals to SM players and their opponents. Only if the fluffy fix is indescribably insufficient should you even think about considering to contemplate the possibility of deliberating on a non-fluffy fix.  

Hi Sigoroth! Okay, hereís what the HAís are proposing: Give an SC two shields for +15 points, which solves your biggest problem, and itís already in the v3.1 draft. This option leaves the two bays in place, which solves the ordnance problem WITHOUT requiring an SC carrier, which is NOT a fluff-based ship. If your biggest objection is the second shield, whatís wrong with paying +15 points for it? A fleet of six strike cruisers can have it for a total of +90 points, which is ten points cheaper than two Novas, or the price of two Idolators, which is all your Chaos opponent would get in trade.

IF the objection is about surviving against enemy firepower, then whatís the big debate about stripping T-Hawks from an SC just to create an SC carrier option? What does that have to do with surviving against enemy firepower at all? What you are proposing is that solely for the sake of fluff, we re-write a profile players have been using for nine years, then create another profile to counterbalance what we just broke. 

Fluff aside, the 2-bay SC is functional in a fleet setting. You are right that game play has identified the SC needs to be made a little more survivable in a firefight. Fine- it now gets a second shield for +15 points. Fluff is great, but since this is a GAME, playtest balance will ALWAYS supersede fluff, period. Fluff will always be modified to support game balance, not vice versa, and that guidance came to the HA's straight from the designers.

By design, the Space Marines have always had more stuffed into their prows than Imps and Chaos, which is why the models are made with huge, blocky prows. Thatís why the battlebarge is the only ship in the game that launches torps and attack craft out the same prow. By design, Space Marine capital ships are best envisaged as having broadsides in three quadrants, with one in the prow, an idea that was expanded upon when the Demiurg were designed. It is an intentional design aspect of this fleet, and we are not changing it.

-   Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 09, 2010, 06:57:38 AM
Woo!  Glad I contributed something lasting. :)

Ok. 
Why would the FM have terminators, honorguard, and be worried about boarding?

I'm not a fan of dropping the lances to 45cm.  I agree a FM has every right to have lances for defence on it, but to differentiate a bit between
the ramilies and the FM, what if you dropped the 5 lances to 3, and added more strength to the weapons battery?

I can see an FM throwing out a veritable wall of shells in defence of the heart of the chapter.


Finally, I really don't understand why Terminators are one use, and why they cant be like chaos terminators?

I like most of the changes except for the lances. My beef this time isn't the fortress monastery having them it's more that it's not much more than a re-branded ramilles. While the Marine special rules, benefits, and the armor boost do help differentiate it, at the core there isn't much different from the stock ramilles. I think it might be interesting to explore the possibility of an all 60cm WB or granting it the targeting array (these things ARE ancient, especially if you plan to use it to represent the Dark Angles monastery) Perhaps even allow it to purchase or include in the cost several defense monitors or weapons satellites. Perhaps even let it slave the targeting arrays of orbital defenses to act in concert rather than as individuals.

I'm just running with ideas here, nothing really solid outside of the possibility of all batteries and perhaps something similar to the admech AWR.

Hi all! This is directed primarily at Lastspartacus and Vaaish, but I want to hear everyoneís input on this. One suggestion is to trade some lances for more 60cm WBís, another is to trade ALL lances for even more 60cm WBís. I also donít have an issue with incorporating some kind of gunnery modifier if we go this route, and itís true that this is rather fluff-true for SMís, keeping in mind that both the Ultramarines and Space Wolves (which admittedly are planet-based Chapters) describe defending their Fortress-Monastaeries with lances. Here are our choices:

1.   6+ armor Ramilies clone with reduced-range lances
2.   6+ armor Ramilies with less lances but more guns
3.   6+ armor Ramilies with ONLY (lots of!) 60cm guns and a targeting matrix
4.   Some combination of the above (no, not all of the above!)

Keep in mind I havenít spoken to Bob about any of this yet, but there we are. I donít know if itís a good idea to go with the Tau-flavor tracking systems refit, since there is no precedent for it anywhere in the Imperium, but I will bring it up. Which route do we want to take? Thoughts?



Bob likes the 6+ Armor Fortress- Monastery. Did we ever come to a consensus as to what we want the Fortress Monastery to look like?

- Nate


Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 09, 2010, 07:55:31 AM
+6 WB strength and -2 lances over the normal Ram, and 6+, sounds like a damn good FM to me, would be my vote.
Maybe something different with the Basilica, I dunno.  But thats good for me.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 09, 2010, 08:12:39 AM
The fact that a ship can only brace once against a Lunar for example is pretty old and well used.

I agree with Vaaish on the matter if anyone cared. :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 09, 2010, 09:30:14 AM
Sorry Nate but if you feel a carrier SC is unfluffy, I do not see how you or the HA can see that the 2 TH SC is fluffy itself.

Why do I prefer a lowered strength? Because I don't want an expensive ship. Adding 15 points is not cheap.

And what's this issue about playtesting? We already know SCs need the extra shield because precisely actual gameplay shows they need the second shield. Have you playtested a 1 TH 2 Shield SC? Why not try it. I'll even propose a counter here: why not keep the 2 shields as standard and add the 2nd TH at +15 points at the expense of the BCs?

Until now you have not given a proper explanation on why the SC can fit a 2nd TH. While your explanation is that it can fit more weapons in the prow, that is not the issue. Following your logic, the BB should have Str 4 TH in the prow because it's a much bigger prow. That it only has 3 means ther's a serious issue.

I ask again: how do you justify the SC getting 2 TH when the BB only has 3 ESP when the SC's prow obviously can't fit a lot?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 09, 2010, 10:13:09 AM
Fluff is great, but since this is a GAME, playtest balance will ALWAYS supersede fluff, period. Fluff will always be modified to support game balance, not vice versa, and that guidance came to the HA's straight from the designers.

Whew!  I'm glad to finally hear someone say that and it's all the sweeter coming from HA! :)

Concerning the 2 shield 1 T-hawk SC and 3 T-hawk SC:

I agree with doing this, but I don't think you've heard me arguing anything "fluffy", as I'm not qualified to do so.  My argument is grounded in the intention of making the SM fleet a little more dynamic with fleet building and to make them more enjoyable to play against in any scenario.  Please forgive me if I'm being a broken record...

I don't view the 3 T-hawk SC as a "fix" for something I've just broken with a 1 T-hawk base.  I view it as a re-distribution of T-hawks so they are not so evenly spread.  I believe that this actually promotes MORE thought on the side of both players in the game.  For the Commander to choose where he needs the most T-hawks on the table, how he will protect his T-hawk nest egg, and it creates a more enjoyable experience for the opponent because he must work to attack the SCs most relevant to his threat (i.e. the t-hawk carrier, the up-gunned SC, or the vanilla).

I don't even think it's a "no brainer" to take a 3 t-hawk SC to fill the gap.  I believe, like the BC prow option, that it's an opportunity cost of points and not taking either of the other 2 better gunned vessels.  The whole point in my mind is to give a SM commander an option to tactically depend on T-hawks in his fleet or bombardment cannons, or some combination of the two ( whatever fits his/her style of play).  Currently SCs are a "no brainer".  You get one choice that is a jack of all trades, but a master of none.  The BC option is a great addition to what I'm talking about accomplishing!

Now, the entire conversation about the BC prow upgrade is to ensure the best possible trade for t-hawks, meaning that a commander should be able to have a competitive fleet with fewer Thunderhawks on the table if he so chooses to depend on getting stuck in with BCs and torps (after all BCs remove ordnance waves on +4 right? ).  So, I don't see the necessity of always picking a carrier just to get those t-hawks back, because that could deny me more BCs on the table!

A think this is a different angle then others are taking on it, but I hope you'll see the validity of the design suggestion.  Side note: I understand your desire to not touch the base SC, but maybe give it another consideration ;)

Ah, and I have not play tested this yet in fairness.  I still have to run through the BC stuff on Monday and Tuesday!

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 09, 2010, 10:48:15 AM
Perhaps in your opinion

Which should be enough to get you to sit up and listen rather than to dismiss it out of hand.

There are 3 core rules which should return to the basic/remain untouched. 1) Blast marker line of fire obstruction, 2) BFI against individual weapon systems and 3) sequential firing. Leave these 3 core rules as they were originally and we greatly improve tactical options for all fleets, particularly those using gunnery systems.

Quote
I'm not following your logic on this one. You seem to be saying that because a ship can split its fire targets should be able to brace per weapons system? I don't see how this translates into a problem. It gives better utility to ships with multiple weapons systems, but, by nature of splitting their firepower, greatly reduces the likelihood of any significant impact that would warrant bracing under most circumstances.

You're right, you're not following my logic.

Quote
This is untrue. IN, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, DE, Necrons, and Nids have always had mixed weapons. They don't suddenly have more tactical options with this change, they've always had it with lances ignoring BM! They even get the benefit of ignoring BM when firing any lance even if it didn't come from the same ship or squadron!

Le sigh. As a matter of fact it is true. Compare a Lunar, which has mixed weaponry to a Dominator or Gothic, which had dedicated weaponry. Now, let's say you have a couple of Scythes in range and arc and have locked on. A Necron player will typically not brace against the WBs of the Lunar because they're not such a threat given their armour. Sure, bracing does increase survivability against WBs for Scythes, particularly if locked on, but the downsides of bracing are too high. Against lances however, there a much better cost/benefit ratio to brace. So, does the Necron player decide to brace against the WBs knowing that the lances are to come and he'll be braced anyway or not? If he decides to brace, but fails, the IN player can then fire the lances into that ship knowing that he can't brace against them. If he successfully braces then the IN player can then switch his lances to the other Scythe, effectively making the Necron player brace 2 ships. Neither a Dominator nor a Gothic could do this. Sure, a Gothic could split its firepower to try to make the 2 of them brace, but 2 lances are nowhere near as good against a braced Necron as 6WBs.

The point is that mixed weaponry ships/squadrons get the choice to split fire just like dedicated weaponry ships/squadrons, but they get to see the results of the opponents decisions and the dice rolls before making the decision. Fixed weapon ships have to decide whether to split before seeing the results.

Quote
With this change the BC are still taking a column shift from BM after that first ship or squadron fires.

Right, so why advocate a change that breaks a core mechanic of the game, has unintended knock-on effects, mostly benefits a couple of fleets in specifically uncharacteristic ways and affects only the secondary weapon system of the first ship that targets a vessel each turn? Oh, and not to mention that it is unclear as to whether the normal WB hits get wasted on the shield hits or the 4+ crit hits of the BC. Bad, bad, bad rule.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 09, 2010, 11:16:38 AM
Okay, hereís what the HAís are proposing: Give an SC two shields for +15 points, which solves your biggest problem, and itís already in the v3.1 draft.

Very good. Now can I drop a TH for -15 pts?

Quote
This option leaves the two bays in place, which solves the ordnance problem WITHOUT requiring an SC carrier, which is NOT a fluff-based ship. If your biggest objection is the second shield, whatís wrong with paying +15 points for it? A fleet of six strike cruisers can have it for a total of +90 points, which is ten points cheaper than two Novas, or the price of two Idolators, which is all your Chaos opponent would get in trade.

My biggest objection is the shield. If that was the only change then I'd endeavour to find the points in the list to upgrade them all to add the shield.

As far as the 1 TH SC is concerned, I don't think the model supports the notion, particularly compared to the BB prow. I also don't like the idea of paying so many points (160) for my CL.

Further, there's the issue of fleet variety. Let's assume that there was a carrier SC. Taking a "normal" 1 TH SC and a carrier SC would give me a total of 4 TH, the same as taking 2 current THs. However, this variety would allow people to not take carrier SCs, giving them cheaper gun SCs. Or to take more carriers, giving them more THs (maybe even THA's) at the cost of guns and points. So this would mainly give fleet variety. If the idea of having so much AC is perturbing then some sort of carrier limit can be imposed.

I think that with SCs having 2 prow THs then a carrier SC becomes out of the question. It would mean 4 AC on a relatively cheap hull which when combined with the preponderance of AC already available would be just wrong.

So dropping the SC down to 1 TH gives the ability for a fairly cool and easily converted variant as well as maintaining a cheaper base SC.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 09, 2010, 01:54:29 PM
Hi Sigoroth,

Quote
Le sigh. As a matter of fact it is true. Compare a Lunar, which has mixed weaponry to a Dominator or Gothic, which had dedicated weaponry. Now, let's say you have a couple of Scythes in range and arc and have locked on. A Necron player will typically not brace against the WBs of the Lunar because they're not such a threat given their armour. Sure, bracing does increase survivability against WBs for Scythes, particularly if locked on, but the downsides of bracing are too high. Against lances however, there a much better cost/benefit ratio to brace. So, does the Necron player decide to brace against the WBs knowing that the lances are to come and he'll be braced anyway or not? If he decides to brace, but fails, the IN player can then fire the lances into that ship knowing that he can't brace against them. If he successfully braces then the IN player can then switch his lances to the other Scythe, effectively making the Necron player brace 2 ships. Neither a Dominator nor a Gothic could do this. Sure, a Gothic could split its firepower to try to make the 2 of them brace, but 2 lances are nowhere near as good against a braced Necron as 6WBs.
Unless I am mistaken the Lunar may still switch its lances towards another target. As it stands the simultaneos approach is majorily written for Heavy Gunz/Bombardment. The player can decide weather to do simultaneuous or switch targets.

The the Lunar tactic you describe is still viable.

And the shooting player may choose which shots hit on the shields, batteries or heavy gunz/bc. So, written out.


ps I don't think 1 Thawk is worth 15pts. So lets get a round number 145+15-10 = 150 :)



I do mighty agree with you on reinstalling the original blastmarkers rules to enhance tactical gameplay.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 09, 2010, 02:36:10 PM
Unless I am mistaken the Lunar may still switch its lances towards another target. As it stands the simultaneos approach is majorily written for Heavy Gunz/Bombardment. The player can decide weather to do simultaneuous or switch targets.

The the Lunar tactic you describe is still viable.

No, I know that Lunars can still do this. The point is that they can do it. Ships with dedicated weaponry can't choose to switch. Mixed weaponry ships can. On the other hand mixed weaponry ships never used to shoot all at once, while dedicated weaponry ships could. Advantages and disadvantages for both, particularly as it applies to BFI attempts. With simultaneous fire mixed weaponry ships will have a flat advantage.

Quote
And the shooting player may choose which shots hit on the shields, batteries or heavy gunz/bc. So, written out.

Well that just bites. If they're getting simultaneous fire the target should choose.

Quote
ps I don't think 1 Thawk is worth 15pts. So lets get a round number 145+15-10 = 150 :)

Meh, I don't think that 1 shield is worth 15 points either, but since SMs don't have a 2 shield ship of the line ...

Quote
I do mighty agree with you on reinstalling the original blastmarkers rules to enhance tactical gameplay.

Well this is by far the most beneficial of the 3 listed core mechanics that should go back to the original form. The tactical benefit from doing so is beneficial to all fleets, but more so for those that focus on gunnery chart weapons. Slip some ships behind or to the side of the targets to bring down the shields and let the rest of your fleet fire without impediment. However, the sequential nature of the game shouldn't be messed with, in terms of brace opportunities or blast marker interference.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 09, 2010, 04:24:41 PM
Quote
Which should be enough to get you to sit up and listen rather than to dismiss it out of hand.

There are 3 core rules which should return to the basic/remain untouched. 1) Blast marker line of fire obstruction, 2) BFI against individual weapon systems and 3) sequential firing. Leave these 3 core rules as they were originally and we greatly improve tactical options for all fleets, particularly those using gunnery systems.

Don't base arguments on what you think rules should be rather than what they are and I will pay more attention. Your opinion is still just your opinion and has no authority over what the HA decide. I would agree with you on the BM rule change though.

Quote
Now, let's say you have a couple of Scythes in range and arc and have locked on... If he successfully braces then the IN player can then switch his lances to the other Scythe, effectively making the Necron player brace 2 ships. Neither a Dominator nor a Gothic could do this. Sure, a Gothic could split its firepower to try to make the 2 of them brace, but 2 lances are nowhere near as good against a braced Necron as 6WB
Why are you arguing bracing rules? And for that matter why are you arguing for a BOOST in the defensive options of arguably the most broken fleet? In any event, it's still the necron players prerogative if he decides to brace or not. Nothing is requiring him to do so. So what if neither the dominator or gothic could do this? They are different ship with different options available to them.

What we are discussing is how letting WB and BC or Gunz and heavy Gunz fire simultaneously affects the tactical options. You've made a point that allowing this change suddenly opens greater tactical options and makes mixed weapons far more beneficial. You haven't provided support for this and insist on arguing about how you think brace rules should operate. I'm arguing that the change to simultaneous fire of gunnery weapons does nothing of the sort precisely because nearly every other fleet already has mixed weapons that are far more efficient at doing what the marines gain from firing WB and BC simultaneously.


Nate, on the FM, there hasn't been a whole lot of chatter. I'd still go with all WB and a targeting matrix because it makes the thing much different from the ramilles and I think that dropping to 2-3 lances seems to just make the thing a ramilles variant rather than a new unit.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 09, 2010, 06:29:14 PM
Forgive my ignorance, what exactly is being argued here?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 09, 2010, 07:58:45 PM
lol,
1) simultaneous firing heavy gunz/bombardment cannons with weapon batteries (check FAQ 2010).
2) The effect of that with BFI and such
3) Sigoroth's view on how he wishes the game to be and how Vaaish says that is another story, one has to focus on current rules
4) That Vaaish, Sigoroth and I agree that the original (first version) blastmarker rules should be installed (eg does not count as allround, thus only intervening on side from which fire came. Makes for better tactics). Actually, no one understood why they got changed in the first place.
edit: In our group we still use the original rules.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 09, 2010, 08:04:32 PM
Sparticus, I think Sigoroth is arguing that SM shouldn't be able to fire WB and BC simultaneously based on the idea it's unfluffy because marines should be inefficient at space combat but he keeps bringing up how he thinks BFI should revert. On shooting, I believe this is incorrect. The lack of lances alone makes Marines inefficient at space combat and since the simultaneous fire only affects the first ship or squadron firing on a target it doesn't greatly change anything beyond providing a reason to keep ships in larger squadrons although there are significant drawbacks to doing this.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 09, 2010, 10:57:43 PM
See, marines may not be allowed lances, but that doesnt mean they would be any worse than normal humans at space combat.  It doesnt translate as well on the scale of massive space ships, and they do their best work on the ground, but each marine has an advanced and efficient mind.  They are experts at every method of transportation and weapon under their command.  Thus the +1 LD in space.

I think weapons should simul fire, but if so perhaps the entire fire sequence and who is fired apon should be declared before dice are rolled, for bfi purposes.

As to the old blast marker rules, I can see why they changed, but i can also see the blasts effecting that part of the ship. 

If someone wants them to go back to the old way, I would definitly be interested in hearing the logic behind it, becaue it sounds doable.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 10, 2010, 04:45:28 AM
Sparticus, I think Sigoroth is arguing that SM shouldn't be able to fire WB and BC simultaneously based on the idea it's unfluffy because marines should be inefficient at space combat but he keeps bringing up how he thinks BFI should revert. On shooting, I believe this is incorrect. The lack of lances alone makes Marines inefficient at space combat and since the simultaneous fire only affects the first ship or squadron firing on a target it doesn't greatly change anything beyond providing a reason to keep ships in larger squadrons although there are significant drawbacks to doing this.

Look, the BFI thing should be changed back to normal because the game is fundamentally sequential in nature. This shouldn't be messed with. A squadron of 4 Lunars could fire their 24 WBs at a target, see the results of the brace attempt, damage, crits, etc and then choose whether to fire their 8 lances at the same target or switch to another target. This is beneficial because the brace attempt may have succeeded and the rest of the firepower may be better spent elsewhere. Otherwise, if the brace attempt failed you could press on against the original target. In the old rules this would provide another brace opportunity. In the new rules you could press on with impunity. A squadron of 4 Dominators or 4 Gothics would be unable to wait before deciding. So the tactical flexibility of mixed weaponry was offset by the extra opportunity to brace. All fleets have mixed weaponry, yes. That isn't the point. Mixed weaponry squadrons shouldn't be that much more effective than their equally pointed and balanced pure weapon counterparts. Note that this is different from versatility. You could have a squadron of 4 Doms and one of 4 Gothics, giving fleet versatility, but this would not be as good as 2 squadrons of 4 Lunars, or 2 of 2/2 Goth/Dom. Surely that is just idiotic.

If only 1 brace attempt per squadron is allowed then ALL fire from that squadron should be declared before brace decisions are made. Then you could have your simultaneous fire. Of course, this would still be an insufficient balance fix to both Orks and SM as well as being completely uncharacteristic for both fleets, break core game mechanics and reduce tactical options. But apart from those I can't think of a single reason not to do it. Brilliant plan.

4) That Vaaish, Sigoroth and I agree that the original (first version) blastmarker rules should be installed (eg does not count as allround, thus only intervening on side from which fire came. Makes for better tactics). Actually, no one understood why they got changed in the first place.
edit: In our group we still use the original rules.

The BM rules were changed in response to BM placement manipulation after the introduction of massed turret rules. Those rules allowed ships in base contact to provide their counterparts +1 turret against ordnance. A balance to this new rule was that ships in base contact that came under direct fire shared shield hits, such that the blast marker was physically moved to touch both bases. This lead to people moving the BM out of LoF for subsequent ships shooting at the primary target. Hence the introduction of the stupid all-round BM rule.

This manipulation could have been fixed in a couple of different ways, both of which were better than the all-round BM rule. They could've ditched the shared shield hits idea for one, that would have been better. Or they could have had extra BMs placed in contact with the ships in base contact with the target, on a line from the shooting ship. Either of those would've done the trick.


Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 10, 2010, 05:05:17 AM
Quote
If only 1 brace attempt per squadron is allowed then ALL fire from that squadron should be declared before brace decisions are made.

This I agree with. Actually, this is how things end up 90% of the time when we play anyway though we usually split it resolving the weapons fire in one arc before moving to another. I do, however, think you are attempting to make an issue of something that really isn't causing any problems. There are plenty of disadvantages to having large squadrons or taking mixed weapons: Loss of efficiency, lower strength of each type weapon than dedicated ships, squadron wide bracing, etc. Things like that balance it out and make this simply not an issue.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 10, 2010, 05:30:24 AM
This I agree with. Actually, this is how things end up 90% of the time when we play anyway though we usually split it resolving the weapons fire in one arc before moving to another. I do, however, think you are attempting to make an issue of something that really isn't causing any problems. There are plenty of disadvantages to having large squadrons or taking mixed weapons: Loss of efficiency, lower strength of each type weapon than dedicated ships, squadron wide bracing, etc. Things like that balance it out and make this simply not an issue.

If you don't think that it's an issue then you haven't played against very good opponents or with or against Necrons. Nevertheless, even if it were not an issue, as you claim, you have provided no reason whatsoever as to why we should break a core mechanic of the game. Presumably it is to provide SMs and Orks with a boost. Firstly, this is not a good enough boost. This will not solve the problems of those fleets. Secondly, the type of improvement (more efficient gunnery) goes against the grain for both these fleets. And thirdly, assuming that the discrepancies in the rules get sorted such that ships are forced to fire their weaponry simultaneously, rather than sequentially, then a balanced tactical arrangement will be removed from the game. If they aren't forced to fire simultaneously then the discrepancies will remain.

So, why the f*ck are we contemplating this stupid rule change again? Drop this idea, return bracing to each new incoming attack and, to give gunnery fleets a tactics based boost, return BM interference to LoF only. Give SMs the extra shield and some fleet variety. Give Orks more firepower. All sorted. All fluffy. Use of tactics encouraged. Why the hell are we messing around with stupid short-cut attempts when it could just be done right.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 10, 2010, 06:18:03 AM
Quote
If you don't think that it's an issue then you haven't played against very good opponents or with or against Necrons. Nevertheless, even if it were not an issue, as you claim, you have provided no reason whatsoever as to why we should break a core mechanic of the game.

Dude, seriously. The fact that this is how the official, printed rulebook and online living rulebook state the BFI rule to be is reason enough that, despite what you may believe, it is the way this core mechanic now works and therefore we cannot be breaking it by playing as rulebook depicts.

Quote
Presumably it is to provide SMs and Orks with a boost. Firstly, this is not a good enough boost. This will not solve the problems of those fleets.
No one is expecting the change to gunnery weapons to solve the problems with SM, that is why we have this thread about the new Marine fleet lists that DOES deal with these problems (or at least attempts to).

Quote
Secondly, the type of improvement (more efficient gunnery) goes against the grain for both these fleets.

Ok, I'll entertain this for a moment. Why does it go against the grain for Marines? Please explain it clearly.

Quote
So, why the f*ck are we contemplating this stupid rule change again? Drop this idea, return bracing to each new incoming attack and...

I'll gather that this is in reference to the BFI rules? We aren't contemplating it, you keep ranting as if the current, official BFI rules have just been proposed.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 10, 2010, 06:49:36 AM
/Of course everyone can use their own variations upon the official rules. But in the interest of discussing a current rule I think it is better to focus upon the current official rules.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 10, 2010, 07:04:43 AM
My personal opinion is simul fire should be allowed, but you should know what all is coming at you from a ship/squadron before you decide to brace, by the same logic.  But just let me know how to officially do it, whenever this discussion ends.  Gotten too confusing for me to keep up with :p

I just want normal space marine terminators at this point, and certain things with the SC.

Oh, and horizon.  What is your reasoning for going back to the old blast marker rules.  I'm not against the idea, I just want to know your thoughts on the logic/playability of it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: KivArn on October 10, 2010, 08:13:59 AM
With the BFI Issues,

I thought that the ship had a chance to brace before each weapon system fired, but only 1 chance total vs each ship/sqaudron. ie,

1 lunar fires weapons battery
2 target may try to brace
3 resolve weapons battery
4 lunar fires lances
5 if target braced or attempted to brace in 2, target may not brace otherwise target my attempt to brace
6 resolve lances

This limits the chances you can brace, but not the opportunities.?

Or have i missed something?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 10, 2010, 09:07:04 AM
Dude, seriously. The fact that this is how the official, printed rulebook and online living rulebook state the BFI rule to be is reason enough that, despite what you may believe, it is the way this core mechanic now works and therefore we cannot be breaking it by playing as rulebook depicts.

Sequential nature of game = core mechanic. Offensive player declares fire at target, defensive player chooses whether to brace = core mechanic. Allowing one player to declare some of his fire without giving the defending player an opportunity to brace breaks this mechanic. The fact that a good rule was changed to a bad rule does not in any way make it any less of a bad rule that broke the core mechanics of the game when it was introduced. The fact that it is being brought up in this context is due to the interrelatedness of this rule to the issue of simultaneous fire.

The point is that you can have the "brace against ship/squadron once" rule so long as all fire from that squadron is simultaneous or at least all declared before bracing is declared. You can have the sequential fire system whereby you're allowed to declare one system at a time only if you're allowed to brace against each new incoming wave of fire. These two rules are linked. So, you want to bring in the simultaneous fire idea. I massively dislike this idea, as it's pointless, unfluffy and breaks core mechanics. So, to bring the rules back into line I'd want the brace save changed back to every new incoming wave of fire. I find this method the most consistent with core game mechanics (no simultaneity at all) and the most balanced (mixed vs dedicated fire ships/squadrons). This is why I bring this rule up. Because it and the rule for which change is being proposed are linked.

So, for soooo many reasons (internal balance, core mechanics, fluff and motive for change) I don't want simultaneous fire. For consistency sake, and common sense, I want the brace rule changed back to how it was.


Quote
No one is expecting the change to gunnery weapons to solve the problems with SM, that is why we have this thread about the new Marine fleet lists that DOES deal with these problems (or at least attempts to).

Then why do it at all?

Quote
Ok, I'll entertain this for a moment. Why does it go against the grain for Marines? Please explain it clearly.

Serious? You not paid attention at all? The entire reason for the SMs to have 2 gunnery weapons instead of lances is BECAUSE THEY INTERFERE WITH EACH OTHER! Why on earth would they not be allowed lances otherwise!? God knows it isn't to deny them a weapon that hits on 4+, since they already have that.

WBs + BCs are worse than WBs + Lances OR BCs + Lances when shooting against ships. However, when shooting at anything that counts as a defence then the WB/BC combination is better than either of the lance options. This is what SM ships were built for. So they have a combination of weapon systems that work worse (than the alternatives) against warfleets but better (than alternatives) against defences. Why would we want to change that?

Also to be considered is the impact of this rule on the other race with dual gunnery weapon system; the Orks. Sure, they need a boost. However, again instituting this rule would make their fire more efficient. This is un-Orky. When trying to increase the effectiveness of their firepower in 40k we wouldn't be increasing their weapon skill would we? That's what we'd be doing here. More hits from the same amount of guns. No, what we'd do there, and what we should do here is simply give them more gunz. Waaaaagh!

Quote
I'll gather that this is in reference to the BFI rules? We aren't contemplating it, you keep ranting as if the current, official BFI rules have just been proposed.

Er, no, it's in reference to this stupid simultaneous fire rule ...
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 10, 2010, 09:17:16 AM
While we're considering simultaneous fire, why stop at the one ship? Why not the entire fleet? Surely they could all calculate a firing solution to shoot all at the one time if a single ship can do this for its disparate weaponry? Then the entire fleet could ignore BMs placed by shield impacts! Of course I don't believe that this is how it should be, but I don't get why we even want to consider this option.

It's just so contrary to the entire nature of the game. It does nothing but take away from the game, all in the name of a quick fix for some crap fleets. Jeez, just fix the crap fleets, don't d!ck around with the core rules.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 10, 2010, 11:23:34 AM


Then why do it at all?

Quote
Ok, I'll entertain this for a moment. Why does it go against the grain for Marines? Please explain it clearly.

Serious? You not paid attention at all? The entire reason for the SMs to have 2 gunnery weapons instead of lances is BECAUSE THEY INTERFERE WITH EACH OTHER! Why on earth would they not be allowed lances otherwise!? God knows it isn't to deny them a weapon that hits on 4+, since they already have that.

WBs + BCs are worse than WBs + Lances OR BCs + Lances when shooting against ships. However, when shooting at anything that counts as a defence then the WB/BC combination is better than either of the lance options. This is what SM ships were built for. So they have a combination of weapon systems that work worse (than the alternatives) against warfleets but better (than alternatives) against defences. Why would we want to change that?

Also to be considered is the impact of this rule on the other race with dual gunnery weapon system; the Orks. Sure, they need a boost. However, again instituting this rule would make their fire more efficient. This is un-Orky. When trying to increase the effectiveness of their firepower in 40k we wouldn't be increasing their weapon skill would we? That's what we'd be doing here. More hits from the same amount of guns. No, what we'd do there, and what we should do here is simply give them more gunz. Waaaaagh!



Sigoroth, I understand why you feel the way you do, but in this one instance, you are wrong. They were absolutely NOT designed specifically to interfere with each other. The designers wanted the Space Marines to have a cool, unique weapon that was fluff-related to their job (planetary bombardment) and hit even harder than lances but used the weapon battery table to even itself out. It was an unintentional side effect that the Space Marines were forced to pick between one and the other, one not easy to fix by simply saying it ignored blast markers (which was one proposal) because doing so would have made it's attachment to the gunnery table pointless.

I know in a lot of occassions you think otherwise, but I assure you the HA's don't just sit around thinking of ways to break BFG.

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 10, 2010, 12:34:56 PM
Sigoroth, I understand why you feel the way you do, but in this one instance, you are wrong. They were absolutely NOT designed specifically to interfere with each other. The designers wanted the Space Marines to have a cool, unique weapon that was fluff-related to their job (planetary bombardment) and hit even harder than lances but used the weapon battery table to even itself out. It was an unintentional side effect that the Space Marines were forced to pick between one and the other, one not easy to fix by simply saying it ignored blast markers (which was one proposal) because doing so would have made it's attachment to the gunnery table pointless.

So you're saying the initial framers of the SM rules were so incompetent that they couldn't foresee the conflict? Well, if so I'll stipulate to this and go one further and say that their intentions were just as incompetent. A good thing they stuffed up their stupid intentions. Seriously, if that's what they intended they should've just given them lances.

Quote
I know in a lot of occassions you think otherwise, but I assure you the HA's don't just sit around thinking of ways to break BFG.

So it's a talent rather than a skill?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 10, 2010, 01:29:10 PM
Thanks for keeping an open mind, Sigoroth.  ;D

In any case, sleep is for squares! After marathon BFG on the brain, I uploaded three files to the BFG repository
Link: http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Space Marines v3.2
Only difference here form v3.1 is the updated Fortress Monastery, minor spelling and other errors, etc.

Rogue Traders v1.7
Only difference here from  v1.6 is expanded Rogue Trader cruiser choices, minor spelling and other errors, etc.

Tau Commerce Protection Fleet v2.0
This one's a biggie. No big changes, but a whole bunch of small changes and adjustments all over the place like Easter eggs.

I'll let the fans digest this for a few days. As for me, I'm going to bed.

- Nate


Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 10, 2010, 04:27:19 PM
Quote
Then why do it at all?
I think Nate already answered this.

Quote
WBs + BCs are worse than WBs + Lances OR BCs + Lances when shooting against ships. However, when shooting at anything that counts as a defence then the WB/BC combination is better than either of the lance options. This is what SM ships were built for. So they have a combination of weapon systems that work worse (than the alternatives) against warfleets but better (than alternatives) against defences. Why would we want to change that?

I don't see how this rule changes that in any significant way. After that first ship or squadron fires on a target you are taking the column shift just like before. WB+Lace is still far more efficient that WB+BC. In any event I see no reason to continue this discussion. You are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Quote
Er, no, it's in reference to this stupid simultaneous fire rule ...
My apologies. The flow of the sentence seemed to emphasize the BGI rules.


Nate,
Any thoughts about extending the basilica weapons to 60cm and boosting the battery strength a bit more? It won't be hard to present an abeam aspect to the FM and with the heavier focus on batteries and the drop of the Lances to 45cm it seems a little lacking after the column shifts. An abeam capital ship anywhere outside of 30cm is only getting 4 dice from the batteries regardless of the support from the basilica batteries.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 10, 2010, 04:33:42 PM
Wow do you really think the Srike Cruiser Variants work?

I mean a STR 8 Bombardment Cannon (combined) is suddenly more then twice the firepower, this monster with 2 Shields and Armor 6 for only 160 Points. I dont know... and i play SM myself.
The biggest disadvantage for SCs was the versatile weaponry (even if they have good Leaderships unlike the Tau with the same Problem) with the new version this is sorted out and pure firepower.

BTW its unclear to me if the Armageddon list can use the strike cruiser variants.

The rest seems to look fine.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 10, 2010, 05:25:21 PM
Would 'one brace attempt against a ship/squadron, ship/squadrons must declare all fire against a certain target before firing'  work for everyone?

And cool Fortress Monostary.  45cm lances is meh but I  guess it differentiates the FM, but I do like the idea of increasing the basilica batteries to compensate a quadrant's fire.  Altogether, no real complaints.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 10, 2010, 07:59:17 PM
Hi,

the last points -
Thunderhawk Annihilators are fighter-bombers but do not work like Ork bombers? Pity. I would apply same attack rules plus resilience.

the bombardment swap on the strike cruiser (str5) still feels to high. Drop to str.3.

Even without those changes I advice you Nate and the HA to stop development on this list. Make it official. And just install a yearly or two-yearly revision of the rules. Since the pdf's are living and not sold an easy feature to do.
Perhaps not ideal for everyone but a good enough improvement to the Marines on an overall level.

cheers, and thanks for listening to our rants, advices, curses and ideas. :)
horizon
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 10, 2010, 08:12:48 PM
I know this is mostly finished, but some thoughts popped in the old noggin.

1. Any word on what thawks will be counting as in bombing runs?

2. Are thawks really twice as good as normal bombers?  I noticed recently that chaos could convert SM governed ships with half TH bays.  Why would I ever do this?

3. Random thought, any thought ever put towards a 5cm speed increase to barge or strike cruiser?  Any way to add a shield or turret to a normal barge, or reason why I shouldn't let my SM player not pay for more?

4. I STILL have not gotten a decent argument to why a couple doctrines cant be thrown in.  There are marines that could perform differently even in space.  Have it so every cap ship must have it if used, whatever the points it would cost.  Long range or two teleport attacks for imperial fist-esque chapters, who utilize much and powerful teleport tech.
Or double boarding value like mark of Khorne for space wolves/blood angels/black templars. 
Is that unreasonable, or unfluffy?  Don't want my black templars pwned by khorne so easily.

5.  After thinking about it, why was the decision made to allow teleport attacks on reload and lockon?  For the latter especially you are just diverting the needed power to weapons rather than engines.  It also gives some bonus to NOT locking on, at least.  Marines should be allowed to lockon despite SO not because of their tech, but simply their skill with targeting and special designated reactors to power the teleport.

6.  Any thought on changing the current way teleport attacks work?  I can understand a modifier to attacking larger ships, but just not allowing it seems strange, as there is no reason there would be more troops per square inch on a larger ship to better prevent teleports.
Escorts should be both immune and unable to do teleport attacks, as they are too small and underpowered to have the required facilities, and are too small and fast to accurately lock onto.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on October 11, 2010, 01:07:58 AM
...And just install a yearly or two-yearly revision of the rules. Since the pdf's are living and not sold an easy feature to do.
Perhaps not ideal for everyone but a good enough improvement to the Marines on an overall level.


Could you put a revision number on the front in small numbers so one can easily identify what version they have printed at a glance.  Maybe it should be in the footer of every page, but it can be very small.

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 11, 2010, 02:56:16 AM
...And just install a yearly or two-yearly revision of the rules. Since the pdf's are living and not sold an easy feature to do.
Perhaps not ideal for everyone but a good enough improvement to the Marines on an overall level.


Could you put a revision number on the front in small numbers so one can easily identify what version they have printed at a glance.  Maybe it should be in the footer of every page, but it can be very small.

Russ

Horizon, THANKS- approval form the really dedicated (and picky!) fans like you, Russ, Vaaish, Sigoroth and many others means a lot to us. In the end, we're trying to make the game better for everyone, and the really picky, dedicated fans are the ones doing the most to keep us honest. We'll let it sit in the repository as drafts until about next Wednesday or so before calling them Final, just in case someone else finds a cut and paste screw-up I missed. I was up almost 30 hours before I pushed that stuff to the website so undoubtedly some other small errors may have snuck through.

Russ, yes, when we cement these down as Final documents, we can place small date and version stamps at the bottom of every page. That's easy enough.

Next up- putting up a draft of the FAQ (which should go up later tonight), then it's on to the Orks!

About the Orks- gve me some breathing room, by the way. We've already pushed all the models around over the last few months, but it's going to take me the better part of a week before I have something to even get past the rest of the HA's, much less show any of you guys!


- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 15, 2010, 03:18:11 AM
I dont know what happened.  I posted today and it moved it back to a 10-10 slot.  So wierd.  Anyway, please scroll up a couple posts to my thoughts.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 15, 2010, 04:13:32 AM
Hi LS,

1) upto now: as bombers
2) Yes
3) No
4) Space is to Vast. Doctrines are too small
5) Because it is a good idea.
6) Your scared if they teleport back ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 15, 2010, 04:20:57 AM
Hi LS,

1) upto now: as bombers
2) Yes
3) No
4) Space is to Vast. Doctrines are too small
5) Because it is a good idea.
6) Your scared if they teleport back ;)


1. so you cant have them count as fighters if you want?
2. if you say so :)
3.  ok
4. maybe doctrines is the wrong word.  is there any reason why marine ships shouldnt be able to pay points to double boarding value? 
Chaose can do it, and chaos has many times more versatility and options.
5. Why?  Besides not making sense, how does it enhance gameplay?  I can see it going off on RO, maybe.
6. Do you see anything inherantly broken with allowing teleport attacks against larger vessels, or do you just not like the idea.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 15, 2010, 04:33:43 AM
1) sry, fighter and bomber, not fighter-bombers which I want them to be.
4) 10 Marines on a ship hardly do a thing. A 5km long Murder filled with crazy Khorne adepts will ;)
5) Yes, enhances play
6) I dunno. Perhaps a -3 modifier.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 15, 2010, 04:47:33 AM
4.  10 marines?  A strike cruiser holds around 100 marines.  I'd say thats proportional to whatever is on a cruiser.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 15, 2010, 04:50:02 AM
Reread all that again in the books. Yes, a Strike Cruiser can carry a whole company. But that is rare I suppose. I mean, Marines are precious warriors, all that geneseed in one basket....?

If I count all the Strike Cruisers I have destroyed in the past years the Imperium would've lost a chapter or three allready. ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 16, 2010, 09:47:24 PM
well by that logic, the boarding torps would be empty after the first go :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 16, 2010, 10:14:01 PM
I rarely use Boarding Torps anyway. Much better to just use regular torps and blast the target away.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 17, 2010, 01:44:33 AM
i disagree when it comes to bships. and you cant brace against it
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 17, 2010, 01:58:20 AM
Actually torps are good vs battleships. Important though that you attack said battleship with both AC and torps. That way turrets are forced to shoot at either AC or torps but not both.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 17, 2010, 04:27:01 AM
Oh right, i forgot about that rule.  I really have for a long time.  Why does that rule exist?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 17, 2010, 07:11:14 AM
For balance.
And you can brace vs hit&run.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 17, 2010, 07:57:09 AM
Reread all that again in the books. Yes, a Strike Cruiser can carry a whole company. But that is rare I suppose. I mean, Marines are precious warriors, all that geneseed in one basket....?

If I count all the Strike Cruisers I have destroyed in the past years the Imperium would've lost a chapter or three allready. ;)

Hey, you know what would be cool? A Space Marines pirate fleet! I think I'll work on adding this to the Astartes document right now!! ;D :D ;D

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 17, 2010, 11:01:44 AM
braces work against hit and run attacks, say, from assault boats?

How is it any more balanced to be hit by torps and bombers and not get to roll against one, than be hit by 2 waves of bombers?

Edit:  As theres no place for me to put this, so im going to plug shamelessly.  Go read my necron rules update in the exp. feedback, and comment please.  I need feedback!  Also.  Where is Goya's Masterpiece?  I'm looking for a more in depth and balanced system than that in the book, and i heard that was teh thing to look for.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 17, 2010, 07:33:16 PM
BFI works against all hit&run attacks: assault boats, teleports & boarding torpedoes.

Port Maw is down. Will be back soon.

Necrons is not on my to do list at the moment. Sorry ;)

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on October 18, 2010, 03:37:58 AM
Hey, you know what would be cool? A Space Marines pirate fleet! I think I'll work on adding this to the Astartes document right now!! ;D :D ;D

- Nate

why would you need rules for this?
just play a space marine list as is
play an armageddon list

oooh, what about allowing a CSM list to take a strike cruiser or barge as "allies"?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 20, 2010, 03:10:10 PM
Hey, you know what would be cool? A Space Marines pirate fleet! I think I'll work on adding this to the Astartes document right now!! ;D :D ;D

- Nate

why would you need rules for this?
just play a space marine list as is
play an armageddon list

oooh, what about allowing a CSM list to take a strike cruiser or barge as "allies"?


For the record, this was a joke. We are NOT building an official SM pirate fleet list.   ;D  Sorry about the confusion.

Don't worry Horizon. There's a big difference between what I produce for new game rules and what I scribble off to WR.  :)

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 23, 2010, 08:46:27 AM
Hi everyone!! Okay, the latest Rogue Traders Draft Rules and Tau Kor'or'vesh draft rules are on the street. Please review, comment and complain.

These are DRAFTS so make your complaints known of something is really broken. Rogue Traders in particular has a LOT of good easter eggs in it!  Make your comments known!

I also posted the Space Marines final in the same place. They can be seen here:

http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Now I'm going to bed!   8)

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 23, 2010, 10:43:39 AM
Except the option to give the Strike Cruiser 5 Bombardments instead of 2 THawks it is fine to me.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 23, 2010, 10:24:07 PM
Marines seems alright, but I agree that s8 bombardment cannons seem a bit much. you don't get the benefit of firing WB to knock out shields when using them which might help, but I think that the hitting on 4+ will help make up for that.

I also find the fortress monestary a bit odd with the s18 batteries. Could that be boosted up slightly to 20? I think it adds one or two extra dice under most circumstances but it makes it a little nicer to add in the basilica strength since you an just look at the firepower 20 line and the 8 line.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on October 24, 2010, 02:03:04 AM
Should this remain the case?
'Modeling the Seditio Opprimere
The Seditio Opprimere represents a venerable battle    barge as-is and does not need to pay +35 points for having Space Marines. It can easily be modeled by constructing a Space marine battle barge normally but substituting two lance batteries from the Imperial plastic cruiser sprue on each side instead of the gun decks that come with the model."

firstly, "lance batteries" seems a bit confusing
secondly, are we sure we want to use lance platforms?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 24, 2010, 02:36:28 AM
well, lance platforms do provide a nice turret housing for the BC. All you really need to do is snip off the barrels for the lance turrets and glue on some plastic rod.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 24, 2010, 07:56:12 AM
Hi Fracas,
well the model has been build in the past by some heretics. I used the Desolator's lance guns on my Venerable Battle Barge to represent Bombardment Cannons (dorsal).

So I say leave as is for the 'old' conversions.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 24, 2010, 10:55:04 AM
I wonder if there will be any SC without the 2. shield and the 5BC maxed out in fleets as those two options are just too good to not use them. 2shields + 6+armor all around could turn out as beeing too strong but we will see.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 24, 2010, 12:32:51 PM
Still insistent on Str 2 TH eh? Really just too overpowered for me.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on October 24, 2010, 12:52:09 PM
The PDF still refers to rules listed in armadcan those space marine rules be ported so the PDF function as a freestanding doc for space marine ?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 24, 2010, 02:14:35 PM
I dont think 2TH are overpowered, if you compare the ship costs to other carriers you ont get a lot of ordnance by using SCs.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 24, 2010, 02:42:09 PM
Again, if you switch out the TH for regular stuff, it means it can transport 4 squadrons of regular AC. On a ship the size of a light cruiser with one other prow weapon. 1 squadron of TH is more than enough to transport the minimal Marines on a ship that size as well as their supporting equipment. Yes it is overpowered, providing the SM with a lot of ordnance when there is no proof that they should be an AC heavy fleet.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: fracas on October 24, 2010, 03:00:36 PM
Btw as written the planet killer can be taken as a venerable barge?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 24, 2010, 06:13:45 PM
Again, if you switch out the TH for regular stuff, it means it can transport 4 squadrons of regular AC. On a ship the size of a light cruiser with one other prow weapon. 1 squadron of TH is more than enough to transport the minimal Marines on a ship that size as well as their supporting equipment. Yes it is overpowered, providing the SM with a lot of ordnance when there is no proof that they should be an AC heavy fleet.

Though I agree with you in terms of space (it's too small), necessity (1 TH should be enough), justification (no fluff need for it) and preference (reducing it gives better options to the fleet) I do disagree slightly on one point and significantly on another. Firstly, I don't think that 1TH = 2AC in either value or size terms.

THs are large, but other AC squadrons are more numerous. I think that TH bays are worth maybe 1.5 times the value of normal bays (including SM rules) but it is not represented this way in the rules because it's almost impossible to divide the small numbers on most ships by 2/3. If you divide bays by 2/3 and rounded up then an Emperor or Despoiler would get 4 x 2/3 = 2.67 = 3 each side. This seems fair. However, if you're rounding up then a Mars, for example, would get 4 THs (2 p/s x 2/3 = 1.33 each side, rounded up back to 2 each side), which is no reduction at all.

If you rounded down instead then you'd get absolutely no change compared to the current rule. On the BBs 2.66 rounding down = 2 each side, which is the same as halving. On Mars sized carriers you get 1.33 each side rounded down = 1 each side, which is again the same as halving. The Styx will give the same number of THs whether you halve rounding up or go by 2/3. So, while the TH is probably worth around 1.5 times normal AC this can't be represented in any real way because of 4 AC carriers. So the rules imply they're worth twice as much. Mind you, I'd rather they said 2/3 rounding down so that people would value them at +50% more than regular AC, instead of +100% more, but the halving method is easier for people to work out.

In terms of space on board, the only reasoning I can suggest for being able to launch less THs than other AC is bay configuration not being the best at storing the larger THs. They may not quite fit so well. In a purpose built vessel like the SC this might not be a problem, since you'd imagine the bay would be built to accommodate the THs. Maybe another reason is extra space needed for queueing troops about to embark on the THs ... who knows.

While I think I've covered all angles to the TH issue, this is, to me, a minor objection to your point. It's fair to say that THs are worth more than normal AC, and a cruiser this size probably shouldn't have that sort of capability in its prow hardpoint which also has space dedicated to other weaponry.

The other objection I have is one of balance. I don't think that it's overpowered for the SC to have the extra TH. SMs are not overpowered and their lack of a dedicated carrier option means that their diffused fleetwide THs have been fairly necessary in the past.

However, I would very much like to see the SC drop down to 1 TH prow bay. For both consistency in comparison to the much larger battlebarge and for the other size related reason mentioned above. But also I would like to see the SC become cheaper, namely to be able to take the second shield without them costing so damn much. Further, with such a reduction I could see a (more expensive and somewhat limited) carrier version being possible. Replacing broadside weaponry with a TH each side. So people could choose to take carriers giving probably up to the same amount AC as at present or they could choose more guns. This would help in giving SMs some more versatility without violating fluff. Speaking of which ...

... the lance option. That should just be flat out removed. Firstly, it is very very weak. The 3 BC that a SC comes with will never drop below 1 dice (which hits on a 4+ anyway and gives a 4+ crit) and should quite often do better. In squadrons where the firepower is combined with other SC's BCs it is possible to get worse firepower than 1 lance each if you're particularly retarded (25cm, 90į ship with LFR fire arcs and you can't do better than worst case scenario?). So it's very weak and very very expensive (+20 pts to replace the BC!). Since there's no balance reason for the change the only reason someone would take this option is if they happen to want lances on their SMs (for variety or because they like the idea). Since this is specifically disallowed by IN enforced codex restrictions, this option should be immediately removed. There is no reason to validate through an official ruleset a specifically non-canonical (heretical!) construct. The whole reason the Seditio Opprimere was so reviled was because of lances, not just its strength. So now that that ship has been changed you (HA) make the same blunder on the SC!?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 24, 2010, 06:28:42 PM
Since I started critiquing the SC variants by abusing the option of a lance above I thought I ought to continue on the topic of SC variants in general and the proposed ones specifically.

First up, obviously, remove the lance option altogether. SMs should never, not ever have lances on their purpose built cap ships.

Torp variant: while I don't mind the idea of a torpedo variant, my objection in this case lies in the amount of torpedoes. Even the empowered Endeavour CL (which I would still prefer to see as 25cm/90į with 6+ prow instead) cannot fit that many torps/guns in its (substantial) front end. The Dauntless can't either. I do see the option as being on a par with the number of THs being given up, and it's not overpowered compared to the ship's cost, it's just that the SC shouldn't be able to carry that much in its prow; of either torps or THs.

Recommended fix: Drop the prow TH of the standard SC down to 1 and drop the cost down by 15 points. This allows an option to swap the TH for str 3 torps at no cost.

Dropping the number of THs on standard SCs reduces the maximum potential AC in the fleet. To make up for the loss of potential I suggest including a carrier variant (1/1/1 prow/prt/strbrd) at +20 pts (dropping broadside guns). Limit the carriers to no more than half the SCs in the fleet. This would keep the maximum potential AC the same if someone wanted to go AC heavy, but also give them the option of not going AC heavy.

I would also make the second shield a forced upgrade bringing the base cost back up to 145 pts (so a carrier is 165 pts).

So if someone took one normal SC and 1 carrier SC then it'd cost 310 pts, they'd have 4 THs, 6 BC, 2 shields each and 4WB L+R. Currently, 2 normal SCs with extra shields would cost 320 pts and give the same except +4 more WBs L+R. Losing all 4 THs they could get 12 torps, whereas with the proposed version you could only swap 2 THs for 6 torps total.

This would give 4 different variants: Guns + TH, Guns + Torps, THs + TH, THs + Torps.

As for the prow BC option, I too find it too powerful. 8 BCs are worth much much more than the 3 lances of a Dauntless. Of course, this discrepancy again comes about due to the prow heavy armament of the SC. Trading the compulsory shield upgrade for the reduced TH makes it possible to swap the remaining TH for a more reasonable alternative. Although, in this case I think that there is no swap for BC that wouldn't be too powerful. A gunnery weapon that hits like lances and is 3 times more likely to crit is just too powerful to allow them to be massed like that. Rather, a WB swap would be OK. Maybe 2WB@30cmLFR.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 24, 2010, 07:00:13 PM
Hi Sig,

the Protector is a 6hp vessel with 5 missiles, so Strike Cruiser could have that as well. Mind you, the FW protector had 6. Very different ship designs though.

The lance has been clubbed to death by us but the HA seems have to gotten a message from high above to include it. So best we could do is make it as useless as possible. ;) heh heh.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 24, 2010, 07:14:18 PM
I thought I'd clarify my suggestions:

Code: [Select]
Space Marine Strike Cruiser         145 pts
Hits - 6       Speed - 25cm     Turns - 90į
Armour - 6+    Shields - 2      Turrets - 2

Armament      Range/Speed     Str       Arc
P+S WBs          30cm          4        L+R
Prow BCs         30cm          3        LFR
Prow TH          20cm          1         -

Options: Any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with strength 3 torpedo tubes at no additional cost. Alternatively, for no additional cost, any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with firepower 2 weapon batteries with a 30cm range and left, front and right fire arcs.

Up to half the Strike Cruisers in the fleet may replace their broadside weapon batteries with 1 Thunderhawk bay each side for 20 pts. This upgrade can be taken in addition to one of the prow weapon alternatives.

Note: this would effectively give 6 different SC variants, none of which seem at all overpowered to me.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 24, 2010, 07:18:06 PM
Hi Sig,

the Protector is a 6hp vessel with 5 missiles, so Strike Cruiser could have that as well. Mind you, the FW protector had 6. Very different ship designs though.

Eh, the "prow" on a Protector is pretty much like another ships broadside, they're so wide and short.

Quote
The lance has been clubbed to death by us but the HA seems have to gotten a message from high above to include it. So best we could do is make it as useless as possible. ;) heh heh.

I think I can help in this regard. Give the option of taking a lance and then include a special rule whereby a fleet of IN ships comes onto the field during the battle, blows the lance ship to sh!t and fcks off again.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: KivArn on October 25, 2010, 12:39:05 PM

Options: Any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with strength 3 torpedo tubes at no additional cost. Alternatively, for no additional cost, any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with firepower 2 weapon batteries with a 30cm range and left, front and right fire arcs.


Are they meant to be weapons batteries or bombardment cannons?

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Don Gusto on October 25, 2010, 03:24:39 PM
I'm still of the opinion that the shield upgrade option is too cheap and advocate it being made more expensive and/or restrictive.

Who in their right mind would take 10 SC's with 1 shield over 9 SC's with 2 shields each?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 25, 2010, 06:11:39 PM

Options: Any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with strength 3 torpedo tubes at no additional cost. Alternatively, for no additional cost, any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with firepower 2 weapon batteries with a 30cm range and left, front and right fire arcs.


Are they meant to be weapons batteries or bombardment cannons?

Weapon Batteries. Giving just about any strength BC in place of the TH is overpowering I think.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 25, 2010, 07:21:59 PM
My vote is switch a TH bay for a str3 front firing bombard cannon at +10 points.  Alternatively, make it a str3/str4 weapon battery similar to what Sigoroth suggested, firing l/r/f. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 25, 2010, 11:12:19 PM
My vote is switch a TH bay for a str3 front firing bombard cannon at +10 points.  Alternatively, make it a str3/str4 weapon battery similar to what Sigoroth suggested, firing l/r/f. 

I considered a forward only BC. Consider however a squadron of 4 SCs firing all BCs against a closing cap ship, normal range, no BMs. That's 24BC which equals 17 lances which crit on a 4+. When on LO that'd be 5.375 hull hits on a cruiser after brace saves, which would be 2.69 crits on top. That's not even at close range (where it goes up to 7.25 hull hits after brace + 3.63 crits).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on October 26, 2010, 12:11:57 PM
Right Sig, but anything looks impressive in multiples.  You increase points and lose out on ordnance.  Then theres the option to limit variants to 1:1, potentially. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on October 26, 2010, 01:33:23 PM
I think you should keep the BC upgrade as it is, but make it more rare by returning  wording "Lower than original..." Makes more sence and makes it fairer.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 26, 2010, 06:48:42 PM
I just don't see anyone not taking the maximum number of BC variants possible.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on October 26, 2010, 07:00:54 PM
Yeah, this is a point where Caine is right. The BC option is too attractive.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 26, 2010, 07:15:24 PM
I'm still of the opinion that the shield upgrade option is too cheap and advocate it being made more expensive and/or restrictive.

Who in their right mind would take 10 SC's with 1 shield over 9 SC's with 2 shields each?

I agree that the 2nd shield is a must have, but I don't think that they should even have the option of taking 1 shield. So I'm glad it's a must have.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on October 27, 2010, 12:15:27 AM
Do you think that perhaps limiting a SC to one upgrade would help make the shield less of a must have? Then you would have the option to swap weapons or take the shield.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 27, 2010, 07:26:06 AM
Do you think that perhaps limiting a SC to one upgrade would help make the shield less of a must have? Then you would have the option to swap weapons or take the shield.

It might, but as I said, I think it should be a must have. You shouldn't be able to have just 1 shield. So, to me, everyone deciding to take the 2nd shield isn't a problem. I would much rather they just have a straight swap of +1 shield for -1 Thunderhawk for 145 pts. I'd say the shield is worth more, but since we'd be lowering offensive power and taking extra defensive power instead (SM thing) then I don't mind seeing the SC come out ahead in this trade-off.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Hymirl on October 27, 2010, 10:26:10 PM
While I know that the rules have altered to allow a ship to fire both bombardment cannons and gun batteries without gimping its own firepower with blast markers would it be an idea to simply modify bombardment cannons to ignore blast markers (and possibly even the short range bonus for the sake of balance). It seems a little more targeted on the problem at hand to fix the weapons throwing up the issue instead of the core rules?

As an aside I think that variant strike cruisers are a great idea, adds a lot of variety to the fleet. I would like to suggest moving away from the direct comparisons with the Dauntless though, they're in different roles.

As to the old 'lances or not' maybe allow 0-1 strike cruiser to have forward lances to represent a venerable strike cruiser or the GK cruiser (which is about the only one that could justifiably break teh rules).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on October 28, 2010, 02:39:08 AM
While I know that the rules have altered to allow a ship to fire both bombardment cannons and gun batteries without gimping its own firepower with blast markers would it be an idea to simply modify bombardment cannons to ignore blast markers (and possibly even the short range bonus for the sake of balance). It seems a little more targeted on the problem at hand to fix the weapons throwing up the issue instead of the core rules?

This would just make BC super lances. I am strongly opposed to them even getting to ignore BMs from their own previous fire, let alone from other ships. The fact is that both Orks and SMs can be made balanced without this change to the core rules. This is a good reason not to change. Since the interaction between different gunnery weapons is fluffy in both the SMs and Orks cases then this is reason to insist that the core rule not be changed.

Quote
As an aside I think that variant strike cruisers are a great idea, adds a lot of variety to the fleet. I would like to suggest moving away from the direct comparisons with the Dauntless though, they're in different roles.

I think that comparisons to the Dauntless are valid. You can get mixed SM/IN or SM/AM fleets, so there's no reason not to compare them. In terms of overall capabilities, it's not unreasonable to suggest that since SMs are the elite of the Imperium no expense is spared for them. Hence they get access to extra shielding and the best armour, etc. So the SC can 'out-max' a Dauntless in some areas, particularly defensively, but in terms of weaponry I'd say that they shouldn't be able to significantly out perform a Navy gunboat. Equal at max I say.

Obviously I'm in favour of variants though. The SMs needs some cap ship variety.

Quote
As to the old 'lances or not' maybe allow 0-1 strike cruiser to have forward lances to represent a venerable strike cruiser or the GK cruiser (which is about the only one that could justifiably break teh rules).

I see no reason to allow it at all. If there is a SM SC out there somewhere with lances on it then it's likely in the hands of renegade marines! While a good number of codex doctrine can be (fairly) safely ignored by a chapter in one way or another, the SMs do not have the influence in space that they do on the ground. There's no way the IN would allow it at all. At all. This is basic psychology (and I should know).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on October 28, 2010, 08:05:53 AM
Thoughts after a few tests:

Changing base SMSC profile is a nonsence. This ship works as it is in armageddon fleet list and therefore it should not be changed. The upgrades should be unique to SM flit lists only.

The lance is overpriced, so who cares about it.

I dont understand why everyone is so much about taking +1 shield upgrade - It is good, but deffinately not a must-have. Personally I have only a handfull of rosters where all SMSC will have 2 shields.

I think str 3 bc with a rule that you must have more normal SMSC than upgraded solves (as per draft 3.1) all the issues.

Other than that this works pretty well and boosts marines to a playable level.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: clintv42 on October 30, 2010, 08:33:36 PM
Sweet god,
So, I just got done reading through all 25 pages of this post.  There were ups, there were downs, I cried a little, my sister had a baby.... and now I'm here.  My friends and I just started playing BFG and I have a handful of games under my belt, although I am a hardened veteran of all other gw systems.   I commend all the work and screaming back and forth you guys have done for the sake of this sweet game.  While I've had nothing but success with my marines I can already tell that these new options will breath some more life into them as I'm looking at very few options for army builds currently. 

I do have a question for you guys in terms of the marine version.  Is it done?  Is there a date that is being aimed for in regards to when it will no longer be a draft?  I'm getting an ichy trigger finger as to when I can let these bad boys off the chain but until I'm certain you're done I don't want to use these proposed rules and if it is officially out I didn't want to miss it. 

Thanks to all of you who have posted and keep up the great work guys.  Now to spend another week reading the tau changes....
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 08, 2010, 10:10:51 AM
More tests undergone:

Str 5 bc is an overkill - str 3 upgrade works much better.

SM still looses most of the games to Chaos and eldars (DE also). But fights better against IN.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 08, 2010, 12:54:43 PM
I just don't see anyone not taking the maximum number of BC variants possible.

Hi Sigoroth!  :D  Try maxing out on BC SC's in a game and see how it goes, especially against Devastations with a bunch of 60cm lances. if you don't have ordnance covering your BC-only SC's, half your ships will get whacked before you even close the range. Slide-rule gaming is not the same thing as real-life playtesting. We tested this over and over again- BC-only SC's or even a 50-50 mix (the max allowed in the finished rules) can be overwhelmed by ships maximizing long-range lances and ordnance superiority, which is not too hard to do for Imperials and VERY easy for Chaos. When used against Corsair Eldar, BC's are just WB's- there's no difference. Try it my friend, and you will see this is not as terrifying as it seems.

We considered a str-3 BC in the prow instead of str-5, and it just didn't end up being worth as much as 2 T-Hawks in actual gameplay. While T-Hawk armed SC's can fight all the way in (launch T-hawks at range while closing, then start shooting in the knife fight), BC SC's have to get in quick because they can ONLY start fighting when in knife range. Against Orks and Tau they ended up prow-on against ships that were maximizing their own fire arcs. Against Chaos and Imps they were always shooting abeam and thus had very minimal effects with a firepower-6 BC. Tyranids ended up being a VERY bloody knife-fight because closing at 30cm against the bugs is ALWAYS bad news. Against Eldar, it was usually (but not always) too easy for the pointy-ears to keep away from this weapon.

- Nate
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on November 08, 2010, 06:22:02 PM
Str3 would be worth it if the TH was only one, and the SC was two shields auto :D

I'm just saying it cuz I know its a new idea :P
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 08, 2010, 10:01:13 PM
Str3 would be worth it if the TH was only one, and the SC was two shields auto :D

I'm just saying it cuz I know its a new idea :P

Definitely worth it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 09, 2010, 12:06:53 AM
I trust Nate in this. I thought 5 is too hard but if they tested it his arguments seem to fit.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 09, 2010, 09:45:55 AM
Their arguments fit if they keep the Str 2 TH. If they put it down to Str 1 then FP5 BC would be overpowered and FP3 would be ideal.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 09, 2010, 01:57:49 PM
Their arguments fit if they keep the Str 2 TH. If they put it down to Str 1 then FP5 BC would be overpowered and FP3 would be ideal.

Exactly. This is why strike cruisers are NOT going to be str-1 bays.

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 09, 2010, 02:13:53 PM
Their arguments fit if they keep the Str 2 TH. If they put it down to Str 1 then FP5 BC would be overpowered and FP3 would be ideal.

Exactly. This is why strike cruisers are NOT going to be str-1 bays.

- Nate



And I disagree. They should only have Str 1 THs. If that's the reason then it's really a flawed reason. SM aren't supposed to have that many ABs in the first place. 1 squadron is more than enough to bring down their troops and equipment. The rest can come in drop pods.

To replace the prow weapons with that many BCs supported by WBs which now do not interfere with each other would be making this variant and anti-ship platform.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 09, 2010, 02:19:17 PM
My main concern is that SMSC in no way should be better than any IN regular cruiser. 8 BC + 4 WB + 2 shields + 6+ armor +SM crew makes it better than a lunar 1 on 1
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: commander on November 09, 2010, 03:43:12 PM
The SMSC needs a boost but not that much. And I still feel that sometimes people try to cramm too many weaponsystems on too small a platform and come up with all sorts of explanations for this. KISS please.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 09, 2010, 06:48:09 PM
?? Regarding weapon hardpoints nothing changed compared to the old Marine Strike Cruiser.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on November 10, 2010, 10:20:00 AM
Well to be honest the SC has always been overloaded with goodies in the prow. It's just that SMs have sucked so hard for so long that no one was willing to speak up and suggest that they get a decrease. This seems the perfect opportunity to change as far as I can see. Particularly as it allows for an extra variant ship, and SMs need the variety.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: russ_c on November 10, 2010, 11:40:11 AM
I slip out of the country for a month, come back and find 6 more pages but little to no changes!  :D  Concerning SM needing more variants, I agree with Sigroth and my argument in reply #295 still remains.

The 3.1 draft is looking pretty good at this point.  It's come along way since Admiral's first objections.

Russ
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 10, 2010, 12:09:39 PM
Russ, i think you missed the post about it actually being 3.2 and then released as a pdf, but still arguments do not end ))))
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 11, 2010, 12:07:14 PM
Hello from Russia.    :D
I'm playing SM since 2002, and there is my opinion about VBB.  
I think that  100%  pts penalty ( or bonus for adversary )  is ruined whole idea.  That simply means that my opponent that made HALF of normal job will take FOUR TIME bonus.
Will you take any cruiser with compulsory fleetcomm, that needs only four pts of hull damage to bring you to defeat? I will not.  Can you name any ship that brings over 200 pts  to you enemy for only 4 damage? I cant.  
Maybe I should take battleship? No! the reason is same. For only 2 additional hull damage I'll  loose  another ~200 pts. I cant recall any ship that grants my opponent near 400 for 6 hull damage.

I think that there is no need  in introducing any penalties for having VBB  via shifting  bonus for crippling or destroying VBB.

Instead you  may just adjust point costs.  
Any SM fleet, even consisting Imperial\Chaos ship as VBB, will newer match for hardcore  chaos, or any raider type fleet (except Orks ). So you there is no need to penalize them for "doctrine deviations"







 

 


 

 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 11, 2010, 05:56:27 PM
I think Atog has a point. One ship/one VBB wont win a game anyway. So why give a panalty for that. SM doesnt have a lot of variety in that way you give some variety on the one hand but in the same moment resticting it again, i dont like that.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 11, 2010, 06:29:54 PM
If there wasn't a penalty, everyone would likely field a VBB of some kind rather than your base BB. In a typical game, you are only going to see max two battlebarges. With the standard BB 425 points, you have a huge range of options that are cheaper and would bring heavy lances or other weapons to the fleet even with the extra 35 points for the marine crew. Take for instance the desolator, for 335 points (90 points cheaper than the BB) I can bring s8 (p/sb) 60cm lances, 5 cm better speed, an extra shield and turret, and spit out 9 torpedoes. There needs to be some drawback for fielding something like that in the marine fleet and the VP penalty does this.

Other examples would be an apocalypse for 400 points (25 points cheaper and can pump out a NC and six 60cm lances per side LO) or Emperors for 400 points, etc.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 11, 2010, 07:25:34 PM
Others can field those ships anyway and even cheaper.
I understand your point but having lances on one ship wot win you the game.
Chaos can field an excellent repulsive or an desolator to get torpedoes they usually dont have. Having no torpedos is one of the few disadvatages of chaos, still thay have 2 ships to compensate that with no extra penalty.
Having no lances in a SM fleet is one of their disadvantages they have no ship (without the VBB) to compensate that (i didnt count escorts for chaos/torpedoes so i dont count them for sm/lances).
Most ppl would agree that SM are one of the weaker fleets in BFG so why dont give tham this one ship without a penalty (they already have to expent 35points extra, for SM crew they dont need on some ships).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 11, 2010, 08:54:37 PM
Doesn't matter if other races can field the ships or if they are cheaper. The comparison has to be between the marine BB and the ship used as the VBB because that is what it will be competing for the Battleship slot in a marine fleet. The thing here isn't just the Marines getting easy access to lances by using VBB, it's that they are able to do so by using a platform that would arguably be better than their normal options at a price that is less than their own BB which gives them more points to spend on other ships. Since this option also nets them the ability to field 60cm weapons, both WB and Lances, and a battleship that can keep up with the strike cruisers why even bother with a battle barge?

The serious VP penalty means you actually have to think about whether or not to field the things and if you do field them you have to be more careful as to how you use them. Perhaps 100% VP penalty for crippling them is a bit much, but I think the higher VP if the ship is destroyed is warranted.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 11, 2010, 10:46:15 PM
And if chaos takes a desolator it is cheaper than a despoiler and has the same speed as chaos cruisers, so was it a failure to give chaos two different ships with different advantages?
A Battle Barge has its own advantages e.g. armor 6 all around, so i dont think noone would ever use it again.

Furthermore remember that the VBB already exists in current pdfs without a penalty and all SM players i played against still use normal Battle Barges in their fleets. Why would they do that?

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 11, 2010, 11:15:42 PM
And if chaos takes a desolator it is cheaper than a despoiler and has the same speed as chaos cruisers, so was it a failure to give chaos two different ships with different advantages?
A Battle Barge has its own advantages e.g. armor 6 all around, so i dont think noone would ever use it again.

And people mostly take the Desolator over the Despoiler. One can do a lot of things with 100 points difference, lance battleship and one which can keep up with your regular cruisers.

Furthermore remember that the VBB already exists in current pdfs without a penalty and all SM players i played against still use normal Battle Barges in their fleets. Why would they do that?

No, VBBs are not yet legal. The only legal SM list is the one in Armada. This new list is the one which the HA hopes will make the VBB legal.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 12, 2010, 12:08:29 AM
Quote
And if chaos takes a desolator it is cheaper than a despoiler and has the same speed as chaos cruisers, so was it a failure to give chaos two different ships with different advantages?

What chaos fleets do really has no bearing on what the same ship would do in a marine fleet. Chaos has plenty of options for lances, long range weapons and speed that don't revolve around glorified light cruisers. Marines by their design do not have access to these things without severe penalty (lance option for a SC, it'll cost ya or it'll go on the most expensive escort available to the Imperium). Following the desolator example, that cheaper battleship gives you a whole host of options like 60cm weapons, higher speed, and better defenses as well as freeing up a sizable chunk of points for other things be it more escorts or shields on your SCs.

Regardless, the point being that you can get options normally unavailable to marines that fill intentional gaps in the list with no penalty while freeing up points to further boost your fleet. Having that penalty makes the regular BB more desirable and leaves the VBB as an interesting fluff option that will still have competitive value if used carefully.

As the admiral mentioned, VBB aren't legal until the new marine lists become official. It does not exist in the official books or PDF's from GW.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 12, 2010, 07:04:21 AM
Maybe a decrease in cripple penalty will work? 50% for cripple, but keep 150% for destroyed? Also, you could make venerable BB cost +50pts for SMcrew and  venerable BC|HC cost +35 pts?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 12, 2010, 05:11:06 PM
I didnt say the VBB is legal i said it exists.

How many ppl play with FW Tau still they arent available at GW. I talked about what is played not what i legal. And VBBs are already in rules that are used in many playing groups.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 12, 2010, 05:49:06 PM
FW tau isn't a good comparison, FW is a subsidiary of GW and they did up until their site redesign have rules that were official and available for download as well printed in the IA books. I've also yet to see a tourny that allows unofficial ships and even if a gaming group does have some people using VBB, they still require approval of the opponent to field since they are not yet official ships.

Once VBB are a legal and accessible option for marines, I think that without the VP penalty you will see more tournament fleets centered around the chaos ships.

Mazila: I think 50% could work better for crippled since it would keep the drawback for taking a VBB and letting it get destroyed but not trash a player if it gets crippled.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 12, 2010, 06:09:27 PM
And the SM Rules are from Andy Chambers the author of the game presented in a hobby magazine.

We arent talking about 40k where every week there is a tournament, so in my opinion the game is more defined by the usual playing groups than by tournaments. Maybe we should discuss about those two fields of playing the game seperatly.
I think the game is by far more often played without tournament rules. Many gaming groups use several of the unofficial/non legal pdf so why should we ignore how the game is already played when making more rules.

Do you really think the usual SM setup will be too strong with one ship as variety? Even if they get 60cm weapons on ONE ship what could the do with it scratch shields? But with different options they could try out different tactics with SM thus having more diverse gameplay and maybe more fun in the end.

And in the usual gaming group you could even talk about what game you like to play and as an enemy why couldnt you ask the SM player not to field the same chaos ship over and over. Like maybe the SM player would ask the chaos player not to use only lance cruisers. Thats the normal conversation that takes place in a small group of player we usually have for BFG. I dont know whith how many player you play but in my old group we were about 4-5 and in my new there are timewise 7 players but most of the time about 5 as well.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 12, 2010, 07:39:04 PM
Just because Andy designed the game doesn't make everything he wrote official. The VBB was never rolled into the official rules so it doesn't matter that it was printed in a hobby magazine or even who made them up. Until the new PDF goes live, if people in your gaming group let VBB rules be used that's their business and fine for your group but it doesn't make the rules official.

To the point at hand, we aren't talking about removing the VBB from the list. When the new Marine PDF goes up they will be official and allowed. The discussion here is about the VP penalty which in no way prevents a person from taking them. All it does is make VBB a less competitive option for tournament play and something to protect and use delicately as fitting a revered vessel. You can still take one and have fun with it. Perhaps it is a bit harsh to give 100% VP for just crippling the ship, but the penalty balances the ability to take any ship you want from any imperial or chaos fleet ignoring all reserve restrictions and requirements and retrofitting them with marine crews for the cost of a single escort.

If I thought that taking a VBB would make marines too strong, I'd have raised an issue with the concept from the beginning. I don't think it will make marines too strong, but I also think that with no downside makes it the no brainer choice in a marine fleet.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on November 12, 2010, 08:37:17 PM
Just cuz Andy wrote the game doesn't mean it was flawless and cant be improved apon :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 13, 2010, 01:51:39 AM
I still didnt say its official or legal, i said its used ;-)

How can a option where you have to chose from many ships be a no brainer?

Moreover its a no brainer to take a Nightshade only fleet with eldar, or a devastation only fleet with chaos or several other fleet options that are not even restricted by the official rules. So what happens for tournaments? They make their own restrictions and when doing that and someone doesnt like VBBs they can restrict them. Its just not necessary to give a penalty that only affects after game statistics who won in a close game for a option that makes a boring list more interesting. Even more if it is not seen as making the fleet to strong.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 13, 2010, 04:30:26 AM
Caine, it can be a no brainer to take the VBB option over the BB even if there are multiple ships that can be used as the VBB. Think of the VBB and BB as top level choices with the VBB split into multiple sub choices. If the VBB sub choices always make more sense than the BB, then the VBB becomes a no brainer despite there being multiple ships that can be taken as VBB's.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 13, 2010, 08:46:36 AM
The only problem here is that no one will ever take a cruiser as VBB since it is too easy to cripple and SM will actually have to disengage it after 2-3 hits taken. I mean this is not really a style of SM to go: "Oh noes, our precious and glorious barge has taken a hit!!! Retreat before it looses more of that precious 10 millenium old chapter paint!!!!" We shall know fear when our paint is at stake!!!!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 13, 2010, 09:09:15 AM
The comparison has to be between the marine BB and the ship used as the VBB because that is what it will be competing for the Battleship slot in a marine fleet.
I disagree. Most of fleets has  ships that no mach other fleets option.  
Oberon, Apocalypse  in Armageddon Fleet.
Chaos ships, as was mentioned before.

Tau protector is WAAAAY better than standart missile ship.   Or consider eldar aconite. Why don't you suggest to raise hemlocks and nightshades point costs to make aconite more desirable choice?

Kind sir, the fact is current official SM  rules is bad. We have not any solid line cruiser. That why comes StC shield upgrade and TH-BC swap options. We have not good battleship. And standard BB is overpriced crap that good only in two scenarios. That's   why was intentioned VBB options.

And  WHOLE POINT of that topic is  to develop playable SM fleet rules! That will  brings challenge to my opponent at any scenario. And will brings joy for SM player in any game rather then "Hey look! I'm rollin AAF for my Strikes  at blockade run! "
 

=============================================================================
An here i dare to suggest following solution.
- Only IN b-ships and grand cruisers as VBB .  
- No penalties for loosing ship.
- 50 pts for sm crew because b-ship or g -cruiser significantly larger than usual cruiser

 

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 13, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
Kind sir, the fact is current official SM  rules is bad. We have not any solid line cruiser. That why comes StC shield upgrade and TH-BC swap options. We have not good battleship. And standard BB is overpriced crap that good only in two scenarios. That's   why was intentioned VBB options.

While the rules do need improving, they should be improved within the context of the SM fluff. The fact is, the SM are not supposed to be a fleet engagement race. They are supposed to be strong in Planetary Assault and Exterminatus. When you take this into account, the SM BB is not an overpriced crap.

The VBB option was introduced to introduce variety but personally, VBBs should only be limited to First and Second Founding Chapters. Anything beyond those 2 Foundings, they should take the generic BB and its variants which should be introduced. The BB and its variant should always be the first option before taking any VBB.

And  WHOLE POINT of that topic is  to develop playable SM fleet rules! That will  brings challenge to my opponent at any scenario. And will brings joy for SM player in any game rather then "Hey look! I'm rollin AAF for my Strikes  at blockade run! "

Wrong on the first part. Again, SM in BFG is not SM in 40k where they reign supreme. They should not be having even close to the same joy as they have in 40k. SM should only be good in Planetary Assault and Exterminatus. Maybe even Blockade Run. But anything which requires Fleet Engagement they should be at a disadvantage. However, I do agree their rules need to be upgraded to add variants and not even lance variants. If we were introducing a lance variant and making it very expensive for the race to use then I say might as well not have it at all. Just give them something they can use at a price they can afford.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 13, 2010, 01:56:08 PM
"they should be improved within the context of the SM fluff."
Are they? Why?  "Just because"??  
If we will talk about fluff I 'll say that whole SM fleet  is "unfluffy" regarding that game. Because BFG is about  ruthless space battles between mighty fleets.  Battles that sm fleet must avoid, according to background.  

You said that SM is good for what they designed: Exterminatus and Planetfall. Do you really think that it is good idea to buy, assemble and paint fleet for 2 missions only, because it's damn fluffy?
GW had closed BFG project, because it was economically ineffective. People don't want very fluffy but unbalanced rules, so that game was "sinked".

But look at 40k. That is very popular and very unfluffy.  

Don't you want to see new players with new game approach and fleets?  Why when I came to local tournament i don't see many marines?  Or orks? Because their rules are silly!  I have many fleets: necrons, orks, sm. But when comes kick ass time, I'm picking IMPERIAL NAVY. Because it's rocks. Many other players do same. And I found that kinda boring.

So why must we repeat mistakes that was made by game creators?  Why can't we made less fluffy but more balanced rules that will allow play not only In vs Chaos games?

 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 13, 2010, 02:03:05 PM
"they should be improved within the context of the SM fluff."
Are they? Why?  "Just because"?? 
If we will talk about fluff I 'll say that whole SM fleet  is "unfluffy" regarding that game. Because BFG is about  ruthless space battles between mighty fleets.  Battles that sm fleet must avoid, according to background. 

Codex Astartes dictates why and they are fluffy indeed according to the rules set down by Roboute himsled.

You said that SM is good for what they designed: Exterminatus and Planetfall. Do you really think that it is good idea to buy, assemble and paint fleet for 2 missions only, because it's damn fluffy?

They should excel in those two. They might be able to succeed in the other scenarios but they should not have an easy time of it. And yes, it is a good idea as long as you stick to your strengths.

GW had closed BFG project, because it was economically ineffective. People don't want very fluffy but unbalanced rules, so that game was "sinked".

That is what you think. GW focused on their core games but I will say BFG is more balanced rules wise compared to two out of the three core games.

But look at 40k. That is very popular and very unfluffy.   

Who says it is unfluffy? What's unfluffy in that game?

So why must we repeat mistakes that was made by game creators?  Why can't we made less fluffy but more balanced rules that will allow play not only In vs Chaos games?

Because fluff and the rules should go hand in hand. Sorry but obviously you are an SM 40k player. If you think they should be as good in space as on the ground, well tough. Not gonna happen. And yes, it is fluffy that way.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 13, 2010, 02:19:04 PM
 "Who says it is unfluffy? What's unfluffy in that game?"
Are you really want to talk about it? I'm playing 40 since 1999. I'n with all my expirience I may say. Yes, it is unfluffy.  
 
But we talking about BFG.
 
Just answer me one questions.  Why You so bother about FLUFF?   Is that policy makes you  more happy? or may-be other players very happy when you talkin about fluff?

- Hey John Doe, don't you cry about your miserable defeat.  I crashed you with my nova-cannons limit versus you puny strikecruises, and it was rather fluffy game!
- Hell Yea, d'Artagnan , you are right! Lets take some beer!!!"
:D:D:D:D:D

As for me, i don't bother fluff if it hedges my comrade from having enjoyable games.


 
 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on November 13, 2010, 03:21:31 PM
I have no problem with SM ships under performing in fleet engagement style scenarios. In fact, I encourage it. Win percentage should be below 50 in these scenarios when using a pure SM fleet. However, there's no fluff reason why SM ships can't work in concert with IN ships. There should be an option to take a pure SM force of course, and a variety of strike cruiser fits would be good in this regard (though I happen to dislike the BC variant).

So, keep it fluffy, make SMs not so hot in fleet engagements. But allow access to IN ships. Perhaps a limited selection, or a specific ratio or a second commander requirement (SM commander and IN commander).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 13, 2010, 03:28:09 PM
Quote
So, keep it fluffy, make SMs not so hot in fleet engagements. But allow access to IN ships. Perhaps a limited selection, or a specific ratio or a second commander requirement (SM commander and IN commander).

And this is exactly what Armageddon fleet list does )))
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 13, 2010, 04:01:21 PM
Thats right.  The one and only true fluffy thing is include SM ships into IN fleet to achieve some  specific task. 

Whole that tread IS unfluffy.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 13, 2010, 04:31:49 PM
Atog, I agree that perhaps a 100% penalty is a bit much for just crippling a VBB, but I'm against removing the penalties all together like Caine is advocating because I think it helps add flavor to the VBB and also focuses back to the BB as a more desirable option by partially dictating your options on the field and giving a tangible drawback to taking whatever ship you like from IN and Chaos. The armageddon list is a tad different in that not all IN cruisers or Grand cruisers are options without reserve nor can you give IN ships marine crews.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on November 13, 2010, 05:09:58 PM
Increased VP is a pretty neat idea, shows the value of the ship.  100 percent is harsh though.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 13, 2010, 07:48:37 PM
Make it 50% be off with it then.



On fluff: it is rather important. All my fleets are background driven.
On balance: BFG is more balanced then 40k will ever be.


Marines: two scenarios they should excell in, yes cool. And a fleet engagement should be not a no brainer but a hard task for a Marine fleet to get a win out of it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 13, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
"Who says it is unfluffy? What's unfluffy in that game?"
Are you really want to talk about it? I'm playing 40 since 1999. I'n with all my expirience I may say. Yes, it is unfluffy.  

I would like to see what you think is unfluffy about it but since you said:
 
But we talking about BFG.

Let's focus on BFG then. Most of the rules here are based on the general fluff as much as can be. While there are some discrepancies in the timeline (which doesn't affect the stats) and ship design (which do), the finished product is quite ok.
 
Just answer me one questions.  Why You so bother about FLUFF?   Is that policy makes you  more happy? or may-be other players very happy when you talkin about fluff?

I bother because from the fluff I know what a race should have or should not have.

As for me, i don't bother fluff if it hedges my comrade from having enjoyable games.

Sure, easy enough to disregard it. Then again why wouldn't you have aany enjoyable games? There are things which do need to be addressed. Personally, I really think it's time for BFG Mk 2. Unfortunately, there is no go signal yet from the HAs bosses. We don't know why this is so when another gaming company has done it on a more massive scale with community input to boot.

Going back to SM:
1. They should refocus is to ensure maximum survival but at the expense of armament efficiency.
2. They should rebalance the SC by reducing 1 TH and adding 1 Shield for no change.
3. They should add more variety to allow the SM options but this variety should be within the SM fluff and doctrine and not marginalize the classes available to them.

To reiterate, SM in BFG are not SM in 40k as Zelnik has pointed out. They are not the gods in BFG that they are in 40k. They should be able to perform excellently in Planetary Assault and Exterminatus scenarios. They should be able to succeed in the other scenarios but success should not come easily compared to the fleet oriented races.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 13, 2010, 09:37:51 PM
On balance: BFG is more balanced then 40k will ever be.
Oh yeeees. So good balanced that you have to produce new FAQs and clarification since 2005 year?
I don't reccall exact date of "Unofficial FAQ 1.3" but  i guess it's near 2005.

So good balanced game, that local communities have to involve several homerules to make game playable?  I mean nova cannon limitation, maximum count of  x60 lances limitation ,max launch bays. Man, sometimes we have to ban whole roster, to make game more enjoyable.

You know, for over 10 years of play 0k, I remember only  one  roster, that deserves ban. Seer Counsil of 3rd edition.

But here we have hemlock\shade limit, dirge limit, nc limit, chaos-lance-fleet-of-doom and  many other rosters that make game  crappy. 

If  You say it's balanced. And way better than 40k, i'm just have nothing more  to say.


 
   




Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 13, 2010, 09:52:55 PM
Oh yeeees. So good balanced that you have to produce new FAQs and clarification since 2005 year?
I don't reccall exact date of "Unofficial FAQ 1.3" but  i guess it's near 2005.

As compared to 40k which produces FAQs and INATs every year (sometiems multiple times per year) and still has so many unresolved issues? Please. Aside from which, FAQs are not indicative of the balance in a game. The steadiness of the models' rules are. And nothing has changed much in the BFG universe except when they released BFG 1.5 and even then the stats mostly remained the same. Costs were the ones which did change and even then not so many.

Compare that to say, the nth time the SM Codex has come out in 40k? Or C:SM? Or Orks? Or IG? And there are still unbalanced models even when those new releases have come out.

So good balanced game, that local communities have to involve several homerules to make game playable?  I mean nova cannon limitation, maximum count of  x60 lances limitation ,max launch bays. Man, sometimes we have to ban whole roster, to make game more enjoyable.

NC limitation has just come out, which I do not agree with by the way. I haven't heard of any lance or LB limitations. If that's what your gaming group goes, that's fine as long as the decision is come to mutually between all parties. However, as of yet, there are NO limitations. Not even the NC.


You know, for over 10 years of play 0k, I remember only  one  roster, that deserves ban. Seer Counsil of 3rd edition.

But here we have hemlock\shade limit, dirge limit, nc limit, chaos-lance-fleet-of-doom and  many other rosters that make game  crappy.  

I know English is not your native tongue but you really have to understand, NC limit is something that is currently proposed and note again, people are not agreeing with it. The Hemlock/Shade issue came up in support of the NC issue. Meaning people are saying if you think the NC is broken, then you better look at other combinations like the Hemlock/Shade. People are not saying to limit them. Rather the opposite. I have not seen nor heard of limiting Dirges and lances.

If  You say it's balanced. And way better than 40k, i'm just have nothing more  to say.

Very much, sir. It is more balanced. There is no one fleet which is really dominant over another though the last 2 years Tau has won the major tournament. Even Orks have won tournaments and they're one of the more marginalized fleets. Imperials for all their short ranged weaponry or expensive launch bays can win against the other races. SM for all its difficulty in winning scenarios other than Planetary Assault and Exterminatus can win but the player has to really learn to use his fleet and that's all right.

Please realize that 40k is the worst example you can give for balanced gaming.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 13, 2010, 10:18:33 PM
Horizon, I'd be fine with 50% for crippled, or even standard points with the 150% penalty for having it destroyed. Would give incentive to disengage it to keep from the penalty
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 13, 2010, 11:57:40 PM
As far is i remember there is a 1 per 1000 rule for Battlebarges, so why not lower the cost of the barge that is obviously rated bad to make it mor attractive vs a VBB option?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 14, 2010, 12:40:16 AM
Battle Barge isn't bad. It just needs that 4th shield and turret (as a carrier, it should be 5 but 4 turrets are good enough). Otherwise, it's solid even with its weapons and it's price is just about right.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 14, 2010, 01:15:53 PM
"I know English is not your native tongue but you really have to understand"
I understood perfectly. I'm only bad at  sayn'  my thoughts, not at understanding others.
So I get your point,but still disagree with major part of it. 

But I have nothing to add to my previous statements.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 14, 2010, 07:22:41 PM
On balance: BFG is more balanced then 40k will ever be.
Oh yeeees. So good balanced that you have to produce new FAQs and clarification since 2005 year?
I don't reccall exact date of "Unofficial FAQ 1.3" but  i guess it's near 2005.

So good balanced game, that local communities have to involve several homerules to make game playable?  I mean nova cannon limitation, maximum count of  x60 lances limitation ,max launch bays. Man, sometimes we have to ban whole roster, to make game more enjoyable.

You know, for over 10 years of play 0k, I remember only  one  roster, that deserves ban. Seer Counsil of 3rd edition.

But here we have hemlock\shade limit, dirge limit, nc limit, chaos-lance-fleet-of-doom and  many other rosters that make game  crappy.  

If  You say it's balanced. And way better than 40k, i'm just have nothing more  to say.


Haha! I can delve deep but consider this:

1999 BFG release.
2001 Armada
2003 FAQ 1.5
2006 Rulebook v1.5
2007 FAQ2007
2010 FAQ2010

(A year may be of).

That's nothing compared to FIVE editions of 40K, codex creep, multiple FAQ's and other wooziness.

Quote
3.1 Rogue Trader (1987)
3.2 Second Edition (1993)
3.3 Third Edition (1998)
3.4 Fourth Edition (2004)
3.5 Fifth Edition (2008)


Nova Cannon limit: NOT needed.
Lance limit: NOT needed.
Launch bay limit = in play.
There is no fleet banned in BFG to me.

The only thing you need to keep in mind is DO NOT TAILOR. That will make stupid games in every game.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 14, 2010, 07:46:54 PM
"I know English is not your native tongue but you really have to understand"
I understood perfectly. I'm only bad at  sayn'  my thoughts, not at understanding others.
So I get your point,but still disagree with major part of it. 

But I have nothing to add to my previous statements.


It's good you understand then. However, where did you get your ideas about limiting ships or weapon systems (other than the NC)? For all my time in BFG those have never been serious proposals. Likewise the idea that BFG is not a balanced game esp compared to 40k. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on November 15, 2010, 02:07:28 AM
Battle Barge isn't bad. It just needs that 4th shield and turret (as a carrier, it should be 5 but 4 turrets are good enough). Otherwise, it's solid even with its weapons and it's price is just about right.

Thumbs up.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 15, 2010, 01:51:01 PM
But BB HAVE NOT  fourth shield and turret.  And it is overpriced at least 10  pts.  So maybe your dreamland BB with 4-5 shield is good, but current, our real bb is not. Sad,  but true.

 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 15, 2010, 08:22:42 PM
But BB HAVE NOT  fourth shield and turret.  And it is overpriced at least 10  pts.  So maybe your dreamland BB with 4-5 shield is good, but current, our real bb is not. Sad,  but true.

Really? Where do you get the idea that it's overpriced by 10? Accourding to the Smotherman formula which is not by any means official, mind you but good enough, the BB is underpriced by 30. So giving it a point of shield and turret should actually push up the price by 15 to 440.

Yes at the moment it doesn't have the 4th turret and shield but what I said was that it should. Are you really understanding what I am trying to say? Even then, it's still a formidable vessel to take down and can quite hold its own against other battleships in the 30 cm ranges. That's the fact of it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on November 16, 2010, 09:58:44 PM
Id happily pay 20 extra points for an extra shield and turret on the thing.  At least give us the option.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 21, 2010, 09:29:58 PM
Several playtests that we had run  last weekend revealed that even with only 50%  penalty for being crippled make all VBB idea is worthless. Especially with any vessel that have class  lighter that battleship.  

Maybe it's better to raise cost of VBB option , or use another kind of drawback?  Fleet composition restrictions, scenario penalties, something else?

 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 21, 2010, 10:03:08 PM
I find that rather surprising. If you are using an imperial cruiser as a VBB, you might as well not waste the effort and just use the Armageddon list to get access to the same thing without the penalty. That makes it only worthwhile if you use the VBB to take a chaos cruiser or BB. If you take a chaos cruiser the most you are giving up is 155 VP for the ship being crippled if you take a Styx. In a typical 1500 point fleet, it's a costly loss but hardly debilitating.

How did 50% vp make the VBB worthless? Did your group just focus on the VBB and then disengage? Do you have any batreps?

I guess I'm looking for a bit more than we tried it and it was worthless. That doesn't give much data to tweak or see how stuff wend down.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 21, 2010, 11:35:40 PM
Well, I'll try  to explain, so far my engrish will allow.
Firstly I'll say about our games format.
We played with  1000pts fleets   on a 120X180 cm board.    We found that fleet size and table size makes game more depending on good strategies and precise maneuvering and less depending on raw fleet firepower.  Also our idea was to test sm battle capabilities, so we played fleet engagement scenario  several times.   

Couple thoughts on VBB choices.   Armageddons rules are  not equal SM rules. Most important that IN ships that taken  as VBBs have superior sm leadership. So I disagree that it's better play Armageddon Fleet List rater than take IN vessel as VBB.  Also, as you can see , as VVB b-ship class we chose Retribution, tat not available for Arm. fleet list. Second run was to try some type of IN battlecruiser. There is no many choices so we picked up Mars as vessel that  can provide good fir4power support and able to defend itself with it's launch bays. And at last we tried chaos grand cruiser.  Because if i get right, the main idea of introducing VBB rules was to allow SM players  to deploy ol'n'good preheresy ships. So comes Executioner.  Rest of the SM fleets was different mixes of 3 to 4 strikecruisers and sm escorts squadrons.

And as adversary was taken IN list that shows very good results in  our local tournaments.
Here it is: 2 x Dictator ;2 x top. dauntless; 2  x 3Swors+1firestorm squadrons

We run  several test games changing fleets each other, to negate  difference in  gaming skill. 
In each game sm opponent had focused VBB and makes it cripled pretty easily. Except it was Retribution which solid amount of shields and hardpoints are not easy do  take off.   

But in case of IN batllecruiser that lack of shields and HP, or grandcruiser that lack of good armor, it pretty easy to focus it , take 150+ victory pts  for 4(6) "holes" and than happily disengage.

And I don't agree with "it's a costly loss but hardly debilitating". You know, victory points is always victory points.  And when opponents gets twice of it without applying  more efforts that usual, i found it pretty debilitating.


ps
Thanks for attention, and sorry for grammar mistakes.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on November 22, 2010, 02:15:58 AM
Thanks, that gives a bit better context for what was happening. at 1k points I can see that cruisers used as VBB aren't worth much since one cripple is enough you can disengage and still win. At 1500 points this becomes a much riskier prospect and depending on what you pick for the VBB not possible to cripple the VBB and disengage.

I realize you get better SM LD taking the IN cruiser as a vbb, but my point was you are spending 35 points on a slightly better LD roll since the other aspects of a marine crew are fairly situational. This makes IN cruisers the least useful to take as VBB because you can bring them into your fleet without the VP rules by using the armageddon fleet.

At 1k points I can see the extra VP can be a problem but that might just serve to make the vbb only useful in larger games unless you can squadron the thing to prevent it from being a target. I'm a bit hesitant to add more points to the baseline cost of the vbb as that might just make it more problematic to balance. What would you say to keeping the 150% penalty and having normal VP for crippled? That still gives a drawback for losing such an ancient craft but it wouldn't allow smaller point games to concentrate on it and disengage.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on November 22, 2010, 04:45:58 AM
I'd like to share my opinion as a non-marine player.

The battlebarge was made with 3 shields in the intention that it's 6+ armor would make their shields worth more against the weapons batteries in a fleet. GW felt as though this was about a 50/50 mixture of weapons batteries to lances, perhaps more in favor of the weapons batteries.

So if we think about it in these terms, compared to an emperor BB with 5+ armor on the front and 4 shields. We can note that if we have an equal number of weapons/lances firing (weapons batteries at 3 per lance) from a medium range and closing, then it would take firepower 27 weapons batteries to take down the shields on a Battlebarge, compared to 18 for the emperor. However since they are equally susceptible to lances, at 6 for the battlebarge, and 8 for the emperor.

Mathematically this means that the emperor is 33% better than the battle barge at taking lances to its shields, and the Battlebarge is 50% better at taking weapons batteries.

I don't think the problem with space marines is that they're low on shields or turrets. I think it's just a metagame thing, people love lances, especially newish players.

I think it's every ork player in the worlds nightmare to see a battlebarge with +1 shield and turret. It would mean that they are so much less likely to damage it through shooting (in order to get 27 firepower, they would need about 5 kill-kroozers in front arc)  And boarding is almost out of the question, as a battle barge with bv of 16 when defending and a built in +2 from space marines, it makes the orks +1 for natural and likely +1 for outnumbering almost wasteful. Getting an advantage here is improbable.

Space marines are a fine fleet, sure they have some trouble with taking damage, especially on their strike cruisers, but that's what you get for basing a fleet out of cls. I honestly don't know what I would do to make them more competitive. Like I said... people are generally lance-happy, because it makes them have to think less, and worry about space marines, necrons, and even IN/Orks less. (space marines being the most common fleet I see, as people want to play the same fleet as their 40k army). Unfortunately Eldar players are rare, so the metagame isn't balanced in this respect, and the other fleets where weapons batteries are good against, lances don't get any worse against so that point is kinda meh.

Hopefully with the DE codex, and all the people that I'm seeing who want to buy into a DE fleet there will be some metagame change.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on November 22, 2010, 07:54:53 AM
I'd like to share my opinion as a non-marine player.

The battlebarge was made with 3 shields in the intention that it's 6+ armor would make their shields worth more against the weapons batteries in a fleet. GW felt as though this was about a 50/50 mixture of weapons batteries to lances, perhaps more in favor of the weapons batteries.

So if we think about it in these terms, compared to an emperor BB with 5+ armor on the front and 4 shields. We can note that if we have an equal number of weapons/lances firing (weapons batteries at 3 per lance) from a medium range and closing, then it would take firepower 27 weapons batteries to take down the shields on a Battlebarge, compared to 18 for the emperor. However since they are equally susceptible to lances, at 6 for the battlebarge, and 8 for the emperor.

Mathematically this means that the emperor is 33% better than the battle barge at taking lances to its shields, and the Battlebarge is 50% better at taking weapons batteries.

Er, no. The Emperor will go abeam from the outset and refuse to close with the enemy. Therefore WBs will be shooting at an abeam cap ship at long range, compared to a closing cap ship when shooting at the Battlebarge. To beat down the 4 shields of the Emperor with WBs would then require 60(!) WBs. Compare this to the 35 required for the Battlebarge at long range (Emp can shoot back, BB can't) and the 25 WBs required at normal range (which will happen a lot sooner, since the BB is closing). Note, if you happen to close to normal range against the Emp it would still require 33 WBs to drop shields. You should be comparing the BB to the Ret.

Quote
I don't think the problem with space marines is that they're low on shields or turrets. I think it's just a metagame thing, people love lances, especially newish players.

No, not just meta-game, it's also how the fleet functions. Low range means they have to close. High cost means they need to use both broadsides, or if possible, board to maximise their fire/special abilities. Therefore they don't have the option of maximising their 6+ broadside armour by going abeam early and peppering away with long range guns, such as with the Emperor (or a proper Oberon). I don't disagree with any of these limitations (short range, costly), but since they've only got a little more protection than a Retribution and yet cost a lot more then they should get the extra shield and turret too.

Quote
I think it's every ork player in the worlds nightmare to see a battlebarge with +1 shield and turret. It would mean that they are so much less likely to damage it through shooting (in order to get 27 firepower, they would need about 5 kill-kroozers in front arc)  And boarding is almost out of the question, as a battle barge with bv of 16 when defending and a built in +2 from space marines, it makes the orks +1 for natural and likely +1 for outnumbering almost wasteful. Getting an advantage here is improbable.

Well I imagine that seeing just about any fleet come up against them is the Orks worst nightmare. And they'd need only 25 WBs to drop shields, not 27 (only 14 if on LO, 11 if at close range on LO). But apart from all that, Orks still have a good shot at boarding SM. An Ork BB with warlord (24 BV) and a supporting kroozer (10 BV) boarding the barge would get a net +1 over the SMs (+1 for Ork, +2 for double BV vs +2 for SM), +2 if some other ship could lay a BM in contact with it and +3 if it went on SO (such as Reload). That's not too bad. Not too many other fleets would have such a good shot at taking on a SM barge in boarding!

Quote
Space marines are a fine fleet, sure they have some trouble with taking damage, especially on their strike cruisers, but that's what you get for basing a fleet out of cls. I honestly don't know what I would do to make them more competitive. Like I said... people are generally lance-happy, because it makes them have to think less, and worry about space marines, necrons, and even IN/Orks less. (space marines being the most common fleet I see, as people want to play the same fleet as their 40k army). Unfortunately Eldar players are rare, so the metagame isn't balanced in this respect, and the other fleets where weapons batteries are good against, lances don't get any worse against so that point is kinda meh.

Hopefully with the DE codex, and all the people that I'm seeing who want to buy into a DE fleet there will be some metagame change.

Well another reason why people prefer lances is because the HA went and took away a lot of the potential of WBs, making lances more valuable by contrast. You used to be able to drop a targets shields from one direction and then allow the rest of your fleet to fire unimpeded on the target from another direction. Now BMs (stupidly) count as being 'all around' as far as incoming or outgoing fire is concerned. That change removed a lot of the tactics from the game.

If we changed it back to the original (not-broken/not-OP) rule then we might encourage more WBs in peoples fleets and therefore SMs, and to an extent Orks, would have a better time of it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 08:07:26 AM
Quote
Well another reason why people prefer lances is because the HA went and took away a lot of the potential of WBs, making lances more valuable by contrast. You used to be able to drop a targets shields from one direction and then allow the rest of your fleet to fire unimpeded on the target from another direction. Now BMs (stupidly) count as being 'all around' as far as incoming or outgoing fire is concerned. That change removed a lot of the tactics from the game.

If we changed it back to the original (not-broken/not-OP) rule then we might encourage more WBs in peoples fleets and therefore SMs, and to an extent Orks, would have a better time of it.
Quoted for Truth (again).

I agree 100000%.

We still play per original rules.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: silashand on November 22, 2010, 08:17:47 AM
Quoted for Truth (again).

I agree 100000%.

We still play per original rules.

Same here. Given that space is a 3D environment it would seem more appropriate under the original rules anyway.

Cheers, Gary
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 22, 2010, 09:38:17 AM
Paying 50 pts for terminators is crazy - show me a sane person who would do it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on November 22, 2010, 09:44:27 AM
hmm... I didn't think about how the vessels are actually played. So I guess there is a point in that.

I never really understood why CSM terminators and space marine ones were different. They should both be the same, and cost 10pts.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 22, 2010, 10:36:02 AM
Also, why chaos SM are getting a +3 bonus (+2 for SM and +1 for chaos)? I think SM should get +3 bonus.

This will actually make them more fluffy.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on November 22, 2010, 10:47:20 AM
Actually they addressed that in the faq. You only get one 'racial' mod, but it is understandable that chaos would get a +3 in this sense. A space marine/csm vessel only has about maybe 100 marines on it, and the rest are crew. For a cruiser that would mean that still 90,000 are just lowly scrubs, in the case of chaos these are still the normal chaos cultists, as opposed to navymen and others.

Like the ork Mega-Armored boarding parties, they only add on as it means that a small number of the crew have this improvement. Still the rest are just your standard ork, battle-ready as ever. Totaling +2.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 10:59:08 AM
"What would you say to keeping the 150% penalty and having normal VP for crippled?"  0
I think its pretty fair.


But here is another thing I want to discuss.
Many people says: "You'll never get  sm fleet able to fight as good aqs chaos or imperial, because it's unfluffy. "
Ok, I get your point. So let's take abou fluffy side of SM.
BOARDING ACTION.
You know, Space Marines ARE masters of close quarter battles. Many books , articles, funstuff  says that very small space marines squad can overcome thunderous amount of enemy troops.   

But what we have here, in BFG game? SM don't good at CQB at all!

 In most cases they don't have any bonuses at all! Because  strike cruisers are light and it's damn hard to bring it to boarding  unharmed.   And even if I made so, what will I have? +1 to roll?!?!? Is it glorious angels of death feared around all Human worlds? 

Lets consider typical boarding scene where sm strike cruiser tries to boar pirate dauntless
--Die heretics! In the name of Empraaaa!
--Wait maan, roll you die.
--We have no fear of your dies, we are Angels of Death! Oh wait... 2 vs 6 , ow shiiiiii....

You know, I thing glorious  warriors with decades of battle expirience may have more chances  to  succesfully board enemy ship. In fact SM must be LESS one-die-roll-depending.

And another thing that makes me smile -- absolutely useless and unfluffy upgrades for ridiculous prices: terminator boarding parties andhonour guard.

People, Terminators are elite  of a Chapters First Company. Most respectable and most feared warriors.
Terminators squad are trained to clean up whole ships fighting it crew without any  support. You know, first game about 40k was about "how to capture alien infested spacehulk by Terminators Squad in few easy missions " =) Ten terminators against hundred of aliens!  BUT what we have her? NOTHIN.
Once per batle, teleport attack, bla bla bla
I think it is ridiculous. 

What will say terminator sergeant or even captain to his master after it?
"My lord, in the name of His Divine Light we had successfully disable prow batteries of that heretics! Well, umm, it's already repared, but we was glorious and loose only two battle brothers! "

Terminator must be able to do SIGNIFICANT damage to enemy ship. They may have solid bonus to boarding, or roll 2d6 against critical hits table, or something like that.  And of course TBP must be able to operate from any SM capital ship.


And about Honour Guard. I think that it must be expensive and very hard hitting option. Because NG is the MOST skillful fighters of a Chapter. You know, Papa Smurf with his HG  SUCCESSFULLY  stormed Tyranids Hiveship at Battle for Macragge.  Is it possible to imagine foe more difficult to defeat? Maybe Necrons Doom Engine, but nothing else can be compared with hiveship!  But what we have again? Another puny teleport attack !

To be honest, I don't think that  HG is    necessary option. For they take part in fight very rarely. As rare as Chaper Master himself.

But If you want to include that option anyway, It must be very ( i mean VERY) destructive. 
Kinda "one time per battle d6 damage in boarding action " and of course that upgrade must be available only for BB(VBB). 




 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 11:07:25 AM
While I do agree SM are good at boarding, I don't think they're that good at boarding. I think you're mistaking the Boarding Rules. +2 is quite good, much better than double boarding value.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 22, 2010, 11:15:06 AM
My point is that +3 gives you a guaranteed draw with SMSC on a roll of 4+ vs normal cruiser and 5+  against chaos\orks.

With Barge it will be a roll of 2+ for regular cruiser and 3+ for chaos\orks - which seams more balanced to me.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 11:20:39 AM
Uh, the ship the SM is boarding most likely will have BM so that's +1. If it's on SO (and remember that BFI is an SO), it's another +1. If it's crippled, it's another +1 to the D6 roll. I really think +2 is quite enough for SM.

If that still isn't enough, the SCs can tag team the target cruiser.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 11:21:11 AM
While I do agree SM are good at boarding, I don't think they're that good at boarding. I think you're mistaking the Boarding Rules. +2 is quite good, much better than double boarding value.
Am I mistaken?

Would you please write down here  boarding  action of a strike cruiser against ordinary 8/2 cruiser.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 22, 2010, 11:23:46 AM
Uh, the ship the SM is boarding most likely will have BM so that's +1 - thats 0 since blast marker counts as being all around so they both have it. Makes me feel you guys are lost in all those FAQ's from time to time.

I am not taking into account crippled ships since Marines should be signifficantly better VS any opponent. The fact that SMSC has 6 hits negates that and makes it actually "safer" to shoot things instead of boarding.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 11:37:23 AM
Boarding happens like this:

1. Each player will roll a D6.
2. To the D6, you add modifiers from the table in the main rulebook. In this case SM gets +2 to the die roll already. If the target ship has BM, add another +1. If the target ship is on Special Orders, add another +1. If the target ship is crippled, add another +2. So that's potentially D6+3 to D6+6 to your die roll.
3. Now Boarding Value works like this: compare the remaining hit points of each ship involved in the boarding action. BV for an undamaged SC would be 6. An undamaged target cruiser with 8 hp and 2 turrets would have a Boarding Value of 10. So 6 vs 10. Checking the Boarding Modifier Table, this means the target cruiser has a BV higher than the SC. So the target cruiser's owning player gets a +1 to his D6 roll.

Note that some races have a rule which doubles their BV. Assuming this is the case, the target cruiser would then have a BV of 20 which under the Boarding Modifier Table means the ship has a BV 3x as much as the SC and so will get a +3 modifier. So be careful which race you board against. Nids are nasty this way.

So assuming still full HP SC vs still full HP normal cruiser without race modifiers with 8 hits and 2 turrets, it would be D6+2 vs D6+1.
If target cruiser has BM, quite likely, it becomes D6+3 vs D6+1.
If target cruiser is on Special Orders like BFI, it becomes D6+4 vs D6+1.
If target cruiser is crippled, it becomes D6+7 vs D6+0 (since the SC would now have more HP than the target cruiser).

If target cruiser is tag teamed by 2 SCs, the SCs would now have a higher BV (12 vs 10 assuming undamaged). So it now rolls D6+2 (for being SM)+1 for having higher Boarding Value vs D6.
If target cruiser tag teamed has BM on it, it becomed D6+4 vs D6.
And so on.

The difference bet the D6 rolls would be the damage inflicted on the loser. Then there's also the crit rolls which improves the higher the difference.

Nasty, no?

Edited some errors.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 11:40:13 AM
Uh, the ship the SM is boarding most likely will have BM so that's +1 - thats 0 since blast marker counts as being all around so they both have it. Makes me feel you guys are lost in all those FAQ's from time to time.

No. Note the wording in the Boarding Modifier table. If the Enemy ship has Blast Markers in contact. The boarding vessel is not affected here. Although I do see where there might be a problem with the wording of the BM rules. Would be best to have the HA address it definitively.

I am not taking into account crippled ships since Marines should be signifficantly better VS any opponent. The fact that SMSC has 6 hits negates that and makes it actually "safer" to shoot things instead of boarding.

Again, you can tag team the target ship, which one should be doing anyway if you want a guaranteed success.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 11:40:59 AM
All these years I have never seen boarding explained better. This should be in the FAQ. heh
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 11:57:11 AM
I don't like that words playing.  
 :-\

I don't ask to explain me boarding rules, that I know pretty well.
I ask to write down boarding action of ONE sm strike  cruiser against ONE 8/2 cruiser.  

But what I get? Some speculation about how cool to board  crippled enemy ship with 2 fresh cruiser?  

One strike against one 8/2 cruser!

My BV is 6  enemy is 10  
So he takes+1 for outnumbering
I take +2 for being sm

It's equal of I have +1 and my opponetn have no bonuses.
As I said before.
Is it good and fluffy? No.  Because SM ARE   very strong at close quater battles. And according to background  their chance to defeat human crew  of an ordinary vessel is much more than we have in BFG.  

And when we fights against more aggressive enemy, such orks or chaos, our chases to win is dropped to ground. Against any fluff again!  


PS
2d'Artagnan
I wonder why You don't  tell me how cool to board firestorm with fully loaded BB. It  must be so AWESOM  =\
  



Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 12:02:49 PM
Hi Atog,
not so itchy ;)

Marines:
fluffwise a Strike Cruiser only has 10 (ten) Space Marines aboard to command the vessel. The rest is servitors & chapter serves.

10 Space Marines won't make a fluff difference vs a kroozer filled with loonatic Orks.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 12:12:39 PM
My idea was to point that sm not excel at boarding as they must be.

"10 Space Marines won't make a fluff difference vs a kroozer filled with loonatic Orks."

Sorry but You wrong. There is tons of fluff where small sm party takes from one ship to whole planet.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 12:15:06 PM
I pointed out all is fine. 10 Space Marines and a +2 bonus? Seems excelling enough to me.

Marines are not dumb enough to fill every cruiser with 100's of Marines. One death ship would result in one death company... precious marine geneseed.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: RCgothic on November 22, 2010, 12:16:58 PM
Boarding happens like this:

1. Each player will roll a D6.
2. To the D6, you add modifiers from the table in the main rulebook. In this case SM gets +2 to the die roll already. If the target ship has BM, add another +1. If the target ship is on Special Orders, add another +1. If the target ship is crippled, add another +2. So that's potentially D6+3 to D6+6 to your die roll.
3. Now Boarding Value works like this: compare the remaining hit points of each ship involved in the boarding action. BV for an undamaged SC would be 6. An undamaged target cruiser with 8 hp and 2 turrets would have a Boarding Value of 10. So 6 vs 10. Checking the Boarding Modifier Table, this means the target cruiser has a BV higher than the SC. So the target cruiser's owning player gets a +1 to his D6 roll.

Note that some races have a rule which doubles their BV. Assuming this is the case, the target cruiser would then have a BV of 20 which under the Boarding Modifier Table means the ship has a BV 3x as much as the SC and so will get a +3 modifier. So be careful which race you board against. Nids are nasty this way.

So assuming still full HP SC vs still full HP normal cruiser without race modifiers with 8 hits and 2 turrets, it would be D6+2 vs D6+1.
If target cruiser has BM, quite likely, it becomes D6+3 vs D6+1.
If target cruiser is on Special Orders like BFI, it becomes D6+4 vs D6+1.
If target cruiser is crippled, it becomes D6+7 vs D6+0 (since the SC would now have more HP than the target cruiser).

If target cruiser is tag teamed by 2 SCs, the SCs would now have a higher BV (12 vs 10 assuming undamaged). So it now rolls D6+2 (for being SM)+1 for having higher Boarding Value vs D6.
If target cruiser tag teamed has BM on it, it becomed D6+4 vs D6.
And so on.

The difference bet the D6 rolls would be the damage inflicted on the loser. Then there's also the crit rolls which improves the higher the difference.

Nasty, no?

Edited some errors.
Cookie for you. Excellent explanation. Also shows that an undamaged SC is perfectly capable of taking on an undamaged CA and winning, possibly by quite a bit! Nasty indeed.

Although SC are by definition the interstellar transport of one battle company, 110 Marines at least. (Battle barges 3 Companies). In reality the bording strength of the strike cruiser would depend on whether the company had deployed yet.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 22, 2010, 12:19:17 PM
10 marines is a case for SMSC as part of Imperial Navy. A pure SM fleet would have those 100 marines for sure. If there is a pure SM fleet out there then they are deffinately on a conquest.

Also the thing with BM is not clear: Every player makes that BM check. so this means that if BM's count as being all around then both ships have it anyway. Enemy ship = they are enemies to each other!

BTW another question appeared: in case of a drawn combat which ship counts its turrets? Do they take turns or ignore it?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 12:20:45 PM
Crew on an Imperial cruiser is above 60000.

100 vs 60000
1 vs 60
Given Marines 1 on 100, the +2 is again validated.

:)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 12:29:35 PM
it's look like you are joking or don't read any background at all.

SM are masters of a surgical strikes. They will  launch several small teams that will disable  engines, power sources, will kill leading officers on a bridge or will place bomb  at main engines that will destroy most part of a ship.

There is no point to kill all of 6000  enemy personnel including  325 janitors ,212 quartermasters , 115 chiefs, 87 atmospheric engineers, and the shipborne cat Thadeus.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 12:29:59 PM
I don't like that words playing.  
 :-\

I don't ask to explain me boarding rules, that I know pretty well.
I ask to write down boarding action of ONE sm strike  cruiser against ONE 8/2 cruiser.  

But what I get? Some speculation about how cool to board  crippled enemy ship with 2 fresh cruiser?  

I gave you quite more than that. If you don't want to make use of what you can use to improve the odds then I can't help you anymore.

One strike against one 8/2 cruser!

My BV is 6  enemy is 10  
So he takes+1 for outnumbering
I take +2 for being sm

It's equal of I have +1 and my opponetn have no bonuses.
As I said before.
Is it good and fluffy? No.  Because SM ARE   very strong at close quater battles. And according to background  their chance to defeat human crew  of an ordinary vessel is much more than we have in BFG.  

And the modifiers I mentioned should be more than enough to help you take said enemy cruiser down. If you don't take advantage of them and just want to rely on the SM bonus then you will not be able to win easily unless the opponent rolls horribly on the D6.

And when we fights against more aggressive enemy, such orks or chaos, our chases to win is dropped to ground. Against any fluff again!  

It's Orks. You think SM can easily take out masses of Orks? Or even a regular Chaos ship mutated by the dark powers, much less Chaos SM ship? C'mon man. BFG is NOT 40k where SM are ridiculously overpowered in fluff and rules.

PS
2d'Artagnan
I wonder why You don't  tell me how cool to board firestorm with fully loaded BB. It  must be so AWESOM  =\

Why would you waste a BB in boarding a firestorm when you can just waste it with your THs? Use your BB to board said enemy 8/2 cruiser and see what the cruiser can do. In other words, be realistic in how you apply the rules.

Even in real life, one on one battles rarely happen on an equal basis. One side will strive as much as possible to make use of his advantage to turn the battle to his advantage. Bismarck was sunk in a battle with 2 battleships. Kirishima vs Washington might sound fair until you realize the latter had advantage in radar and the former was more a battlecruiser than a battleship. Scharnhorst was sunk by the Duke of York supported by cruisers. Americans made use of breaking the Japanese code and used that advantage to take out the Japanese carriers. Yamato was sunk by multitude of aircraft, torpedoing and bombing her to pieces. You cannot assume that one SC can take out a regular cruiser easily.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 12:33:07 PM
Mazilla.
Quote
it's look like you are trolling or joking or don't read any background at all.
Never ever accuse me of trolling. :/

IN cruiser crew = +60000
Sixty Thousand.

Ofcourse it is surgical strikes when doing Teleport/Hit&Run Attacks.

Boarding is something entirely different.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 12:34:37 PM
"And the modifiers I mentioned should be more than enough to help you take said enemy cruiser down. If you don't take advantage of them and just want to rely on the SM bonus then you will not be able wo win easily unless the opponent rolls horribly on the D6."

I'm playing since  2002 and i never gets such Ideal conditions that you described.

In most cases  both sides's bonuses are even, because of special orders, ship damages and blast barkers.  

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 12:35:09 PM
it's look like you are trolling or joking or don't read any background at all.

SM are masters of a surgical strikes. They will  launch several small teams that will disable  engines, power sources, will kill leading officers on a bridge or will place bomb  at main engines that will destroy most part of a ship.

There is no point to kill all of 6000  enemy personnel including  325 janitors ,212 quartermasters , 87 atmospheric engineers, and shipborne cat Thadeus.

Sure and these SM are so good that they automatically reach the places they need to disable the engines, power sources and all the other stuff you mentioned. You do realize the SM still has to get to those places right? There is no point in killing all those men, sure. But when 6000 weapons are trained on your 10 SM the odds are high the SM are going to get their heads handed to them.

Stop applying extremely biased SM W:40k craziness to BFG.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 12:36:59 PM
Why are both sides even? The Strike Cruiser won't have a blastmarker and does not need to be on special orders.


crew sizes:

Rogue Trader RPG (Fantasy Flight Games), page 196:

Lunar class cruiser. 5 Kms long. 0,8 km abeam at fins, approx.
Mass 28 megatons. Crew: 95 000.

Dauntless Light Cruiser: 4,5 Kms long. 0,5 Km abeam at fins, approx.
Mass: 20 megatons. Crew: 65 000.

Official, sanctioned, approved made in collaboration with and by Games Workshop.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 12:37:46 PM
2 d'Artagnan
I don't told a word about 40 game. I told only about books that produce Black Library and about some stories printed in codicies!

And You know, BFG is ABOUT SPACECOMBAT OF 40 000 millennium. So i don't understand why you os eager to separate it from WH 40k !

2 Horizon
Because my enemy want let me to bring fresh SC to combat.
 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 12:38:12 PM
"And the modifiers I mentioned should be more than enough to help you take said enemy cruiser down. If you don't take advantage of them and just want to rely on the SM bonus then you will not be able wo win easily unless the opponent rolls horribly on the D6."

I'm playing since  2002 and i never gets such Ideal conditions that you described.

In most cases  both sides's bonuses are even, because of special orders, ship damages and blast barkers.  

You don't get BMs on the enemy? The enemy is not on Special Orders? Maybe you're just not finding the right situation.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 22, 2010, 12:39:27 PM
Horizon, modefier for BM is checked for both players.

Lunar VS Strike

For lunar Strike is the enemy and for Strike Lunar is!

If lunar has a BM in contact then they both have it. This is the way it works as per current ruling, same way as massed turrets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 12:41:07 PM
Horizon, modefier for BM is checked for both players.

Lunar VS Strike

For lunar Strike is the enemy and for Strike Lunar is!

If lunar has a BM in contact then they both have it. This is the way it works as per current ruling, same way as massed turrets.
Depends on how you read the rule.

Quote
No. Note the wording in the Boarding Modifier table. If the Enemy ship has Blast Markers in contact. The boarding vessel is not affected here. Although I do see where there might be a problem with the wording of the BM rules. Would be best to have the HA address it definitively.

Lunar has marker on it, thus Lunar is affected I'd say.

edit: I mean, if both would be affected why on earth add the modifier?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 12:42:40 PM
I don't told a word about 40 game. I told only about books that produce Black Library and about some stories printed in codicies!

And You know, BFG is ABOUT SPACECOMBAT OF 40 000 millennium. So i don't understand why you os eager to separate it from WH 40k !

I don't want to just separate it. I do want you to pick and choose which stuff you present as proof because frankly, I question a lot of the stuff which comes out from the Black library. Even the Space Wolves had a hell of a time in their boarding action in one of their books. And really, all those books you mention are biased depending on who the book is about. If it's a book about SM, they're gods and they win against everything! If about Chaos SM, they're demons and win against everything. If Eldar, they're supreme beings and they win against everything. Are you seeing the picture? Heck, a book about Ratlings would probably see them win against everything.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 12:45:17 PM
Of course my mojo-dojo not so big to allow me bring fresh sm cruiser that not rolled for reload ordnance or all ahead full to crippled  enemy ship!  

And I don't believe that it's common to get +3(4) for boarding, no matter you say.

And according faq both ships supper of blastmarker in a BC with one of them.
  
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: RCgothic on November 22, 2010, 12:47:44 PM
In cramped corridors, perhaps 10 Naval armsmen can bring weapons to bear against 5 space marines. Those space marines have at least a 5-1 advantage all the time they are fighting. Sure, 60k vs 100 is going to be a short fight on an open battleground, but Corridors are where SMs excel.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on November 22, 2010, 12:56:58 PM
You know, Space Marines ARE masters of close quarter battles. Many books , articles, funstuff  says that very small space marines squad can overcome thunderous amount of enemy troops.   

Yeah, but some of the fluff describes SMs as being able to slaughter a million giants armed only with a broken toothpick. It's retarded.

Quote
But what we have here, in BFG game? SM don't good at CQB at all!

 In most cases they don't have any bonuses at all! Because  strike cruisers are light and it's damn hard to bring it to boarding  unharmed.   And even if I made so, what will I have? +1 to roll?!?!? Is it glorious angels of death feared around all Human worlds? 

Lets consider typical boarding scene where sm strike cruiser tries to boar pirate dauntless
--Die heretics! In the name of Empraaaa!
--Wait maan, roll you die.
--We have no fear of your dies, we are Angels of Death! Oh wait... 2 vs 6 , ow shiiiiii....

Ah, so SMs should be unbeatable? What's wrong with the current scenario anyway? They attack a superior force and are still more likely to win. How is that underpowered?

Uh, the ship the SM is boarding most likely will have BM so that's +1 - thats 0 since blast marker counts as being all around so they both have it. Makes me feel you guys are lost in all those FAQ's from time to time.

Just because the defending ship has a BM in contact that doesn't mean that any ship touching it has a BM in contact. Only if the BM is actually touching the ship does it count as having a BM in contact. At which point it counts as being in contact all around (though this is stupid).

Quote
I am not taking into account crippled ships since Marines should be signifficantly better VS any opponent. The fact that SMSC has 6 hits negates that and makes it actually "safer" to shoot things instead of boarding.

SMs should not be better against any opponent. Tyranids and Orks are both strong close quarters combatants, as are Eldar with their shuriken weaponry and aspect warriors and CSM have always been as good. Remember we're not talking about a few marines onto a few undirected genestealers. We're talking about battle against an entire ship's crew. Several thousand at least. Even when outnumbered the SMs tend to have the advantage. This is good enough.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 01:07:27 PM
"Ah, so SMs should be unbeatable?"
Of course not.
They must have more chances to beat ordinary enemy. Because the likely will beat it than not. And SM must have more chances to stand against hard enemy like Orks or Khornates.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 01:09:36 PM
You still apply it but it will depend on who's turn it is I would say. If next turn, it's the opposing player's turn then the turrets would be applied to the SC.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 01:13:15 PM
Of course my mojo-dojo not so big to allow me bring fresh sm cruiser that not rolled for reload ordnance or all ahead full to crippled  enemy ship!  

And why not? If the target could be taken out by not going on said Special Orders, then do it. Bring on the mojos.

And I don't believe that it's common to get +3(4) for boarding, no matter you say.

And according faq both ships supper of blastmarker in a BC with one of them.
  

Yes, the FAQ says the BMs count as being all around but the rule I believe means that if the target vessel already has a BM then the boarding vessel will get a +1. Otherwise, as Horizon points out, why the granting of the +1 modifier? That all around contact just makes things more difficult.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 01:15:02 PM
"Ah, so SMs should be unbeatable?"
Of course not.
They must have more chances to beat ordinary enemy. Because the likely will beat it than not. And SM must have more chances to stand against hard enemy like Orks or Khornates.


+2 Boarding Modifier is not enough against IN which is the most ordinary enemy you can get? You actually think they should be better against Orks and Khornates, masters of boarding themselves?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
In cramped corridors, perhaps 10 Naval armsmen can bring weapons to bear against 5 space marines. Those space marines have at least a 5-1 advantage all the time they are fighting. Sure, 60k vs 100 is going to be a short fight on an open battleground, but Corridors are where SMs excel.

Yeah and one or two kamikaze Orks or lunatic Chaos tainted chap with bombs strapped onto them should be able to clear them out easily. Orks can just fix the damage after. Chaos can just mutate it. Nids will just evolve the area. Necrons will self repair. Eldar can whip SM's butts easily in such a combat scenario. Only Tau and IN will probably be at the mercy of the SM.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on November 22, 2010, 01:26:19 PM
Again, I reiterate, and to be sure I can't believe there's actually confusion in this regard, the BM penalty only applies to ships that actually have a blast marker in contact. I have no idea how one could possibly consider otherwise. So just because you move into contact with a ship with a BM touching it, it does not mean that you're in contact with a BM.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 22, 2010, 01:30:53 PM
Again, I reiterate, and to be sure I can't believe there's actually confusion in this regard, the BM penalty only applies to ships that actually have a blast marker in contact. I have no idea how one could possibly consider otherwise. So just because you move into contact with a ship with a BM touching it, it does not mean that you're in contact with a BM.

Because you move into contact before boarding and only than you shoot it with another vesel. And this should work same way as massed turrets - BM counts as all around and effects all ships.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on November 22, 2010, 01:31:56 PM
Because you move into contact before boarding and only than you shoot it with another vesel. And this should work same way as massed turrets - BM counts as all around and effects all ships.

And why would you move your own BM to touch your own ships?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 01:33:11 PM
lolz

Anyway, now look what they did with the BM all around rule -> confuse people.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 22, 2010, 01:35:07 PM
Aye it is confusing thats why we ask to clarify it properly in a FAQ. Sometimes rules and FAQ does not take into account all possible applications of a rule
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on November 22, 2010, 01:49:05 PM
Aye it is confusing thats why we ask to clarify it properly in a FAQ. Sometimes rules and FAQ does not take into account all possible applications of a rule

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I haven't thoroughly checked out the 2010 FAQ for one reason or another (mainly because I've got enough to complain about without reading poorly worded "clarifications"). However, a cursory glance at the Blast Marker clarifications show two very clear rulings which specifically address this issue.

The first is in the first paragraph, where it states that a ship that doesn't have a BM in contact but which is in base contact with a ship that does have a touching BM does not itself count as being in contact with a BM.

The second is in the fourth paragraph where it says that when there are multiple ships in base contact under fire the attacking player may place the BM anywhere in contact with the target ship. It also says that to drop shields of contacting ships that the BM has to physically touch them.

These two rulings combined make it very very clear that you do not count as having a BM in contact yourself, even if you placed it on the defender via shooting while your ship was in base contact. The only way you could possibly be in contact with a BM as the attacker in a boarding action is if you happened to land on one that was already there before initiating the boarding action. If so, that's your lookout.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on November 22, 2010, 04:13:59 PM
Also note that fluff is poor for game mechanics. Especially in the world of 40k, sure a squad of 5 marines should walk through a squad of conscripts, but usually it's the other way around.

But since in 40k you don't want to play with an army of five men, GW made space marines just a little better than guardsmen instead of 1 space marine being able to murder everything forever.

And technically in the fluff anything that a navyman would be equipped with couldn't possibly hurt a marine anyway. You'd need at least a bolter (which a normal human can't fire... outside of those in power armor, I know they started doing it with more recent codexes.) So marines should auto-win, as the five that entered the ship kill everyone on board. ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Atog on November 22, 2010, 09:22:39 PM
You know, that's seems weird.   I told "hey guys, lets buff sm at naval combat! " You, people, told "no way man, its unfluffy! "
Ok! I said "so lets buff their boarding capabilities!" and you told "no way man, that fluff is sux"


Oh boy! Can anyone please explain how to differ good background from bad background?

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 22, 2010, 09:29:48 PM
You know, that's seems weird.   I told "hey guys, lets buff sm at naval combat! " You, people, told "no way man, its unfluffy! "
Ok! I said "so lets buff their boarding capabilities!" and you told "no way man, that fluff is sux"


Oh boy! Can anyone please explain how to differ good background from bad background?

The fluff sucks in the sense that it's unbelievable that 10 men could massacre a lot of men who have weapons of their own. That is different from background fluff where we know SM are good on the ground but not in space. +2 to Boarding Modifiers is already good when you compare it to the normal human faction in 40k which is IN. When you start going up against the races with their bonuses like Orks, Nids and Chaos who are also good at Boarding then don't expect to win easily. Your expectation is flawed in that you believe SM should walk through every race at boarding, even Nids because of one fluff that blue men won against a Hive fleet (again, book biased towards the blue men).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 04:04:12 AM
I don't get it... Marines get a pretty high bonus in boarding, more then average. What's to complain about.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 23, 2010, 08:23:20 AM
No complains, just after more thinking came up with systematic changes to the current draft that we want:

1. Crippled venerable barge 50%, destroyed 150%
2. Strike cruiser can change t-hawks for 3 frontal bc
3. Terminator Boarding Party 15pts gives +1 boarding (+3 in total) can be put on any capital ship (Orks have that rule actually)
4. Honor Guard 20pts can be put only on Master of the Fleet ship - give additional teleport attack - roll 2d6, pick the one you like (those guys are the elite of the chapter and they are actually even harder than the terminators)

This gives more options for SM, boosts them in boarding for extra points and looks cool.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 01:28:04 PM
I think the complaint is that other fleets can do boarding better...and also everything else better.

Its one of the reasons I'm against chaos having any kind of innate boarding bonus just for being all heretic-like.



Something on my mind:  I've never agreed with t-hawks being at all worth splitting your ordnance in half to get.  The fluff answer doesn't even make sense either.  So what if they are bigger, a normal marker represents a whole squadron of AC, surely the equal of one or two t-hawks.
And how the hell do you explain tau mantas?  Twice the size of t-hawks, resilient, and taken in double numbers.  Madness I tell you!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 23, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Horizon, modefier for BM is checked for both players.

Lunar VS Strike

For lunar Strike is the enemy and for Strike Lunar is!

If lunar has a BM in contact then they both have it. This is the way it works as per current ruling, same way as massed turrets.

In all cases concerning boarding actions (note emphasis), the blast marker affects the defending player. If it affected both ships, there would be no point in the rule, as the negative modifers cancel each other out.

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 23, 2010, 07:13:59 PM
Nids ignore the BM so there is a need for it
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 07:31:37 PM
Huh? How do you mean. There is no need for it as Nate says (and per Sigoroths FAQ2010 extrapolation).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 23, 2010, 08:15:44 PM
Nids ignore the BM so there is a need for it

A race ignoring BMs have nothing to do with it. As long as there is a BM in contact with the defending ship, the attacking ship gets +1.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 23, 2010, 09:12:42 PM
Anyway, ignore the BM, i think we had a lot of it in the other topic, how do you find our idea on SM?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 23, 2010, 09:18:03 PM
Which idea?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 24, 2010, 08:45:11 AM
Which idea?

7th post from top - Idea for SM draft from Russian BFG community:


Quote
1. Crippled venerable barge 50%, destroyed 150%
2. Strike cruiser can change t-hawks for 3 frontal bc
3. Terminator Boarding Party 15pts gives +1 boarding (+3 in total) can be put on any capital ship (Orks have that rule actually)
4. Honor Guard 20pts can be put only on Master of the Fleet ship - give additional teleport attack - roll 2d6, pick the one you like (those guys are the elite of the chapter and they are actually even harder than the terminators)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 10:20:45 AM
Hey,

1) good.
2) Most of us want that instead of the str5 BC.
3) Seems ok.
4) to avoid confusion: add all regular marine bonusses to them.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 24, 2010, 10:34:01 AM
3) We suggest this as a global rule for all terminators - chaos terminators included

4) actually there is another option that came up:

  a) roll 2d6, add +1 HnR bonus for being an SM to each roll, choose 1 result that you like
  b) roll 2d6 against crit table (impailer does it, so there is no reason why the best of the SM chapter can't do it)

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Silent Requiem on November 24, 2010, 10:36:49 AM
Any chance that we can get the sheilds and turrets on the BB officially upgraded? I don't want to have to take the SO just to get a sufficiently surviveable flagship.

-Silent Requiem
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: RCgothic on November 24, 2010, 10:52:13 AM
4. According to the rules, thunderhawks take up 2 ordnance slots instead of the normal 1 that a fighter, bomber or a-boat would use.  Every strike cruiser TECHNICALLY has launch capacity 4.  If you give a light cruiser the ability to launch 4 thunderhawks, you are giving it the same launch capacity as an Emperor battleship. PLEASE justify this insanity to me.

Thunderhawks may be bigger than regular AC (Iffy, Starhawk Bombers are HUGE), but they are fewer in number, so they shouldn't take up 2 Ordnance Slots. Mantas don't.

Thunderhawks are resilient fighter-assault boats. Being a combi-ordnance doesn't make up for the lack of a Bomber option, and Resilience only improves toughness by 20ish percent after accounting for being usually outnumbered and direct fire vulnerability. Again, not worth 2 regular AC.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 24, 2010, 12:16:32 PM
Nids ignore the BM so there is a need for it

You are right. This is because Nids PLACE A BLAST MARKER on ships when they come in contact with them, thanks to their spores. Making clear that they ignore this BM is for clarification. This is also in place to indicate that unlike other fleets, Tyranids also ignore blast markers in contact when being boarded, since getting in contact with them creates a blast marker. 

- Nate

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 12:38:40 PM
I refer to my manta comment a few posts back in response to madness of the t-hawk logic :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 24, 2010, 12:43:41 PM
I refer to my manta comment a few posts back in response to madness of the t-hawk logic :)

This logic is purely for the purpose of taking IN or chaos ships as VBB so that you don't get a VBB despoiler with 8 t-hawks
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 09:14:53 PM
My point was just to point out that the t-hawk=half space logic is deeply flawed.

I'm not saying barges and S cruisers should have their ordnance doubled, except perhaps on the barge, but perhaps its not rightly costed, or could use something extra to fill the space, like weapons, shield, turret, whatever.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 09:19:46 PM
Ehm, LS, your reasoning is flawed. Strike Cruisers/Barges are not build with regular bays. They are build with bays specific for Thunderhawks. So, there is no half space. It is full space as that was the intention.

Furthermore a T-Hawk with 4+ resilience and and option to be a fighter (Cap) and an assault boat with +1 to its dice roll is really good.

The reason it is halved on VBB's is that on a Styx 6 THawks would be a lot better then 6 regular bays.

With the addition of THawk annihilators they gain even more in value.

Thus Space Marine THawks are in all cases rightly costed.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on November 29, 2010, 02:51:54 PM
Any news on the SM draft? You guys are closer to devs than me ))
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 09, 2010, 06:02:16 PM
I'm unclear why people are wanting lances over the BC.  Last I checked, BC had more or less the same rules as a lance, but also a 50% chance to crit.  I looked around, and couldn't find anyplace that the BC no longer hit on a 4+ regardless of armor, so why is the lance +20 points?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 09, 2010, 07:03:59 PM
Easy answer: some higher ups or old designers wanted it on Strike Cruisers, the lance I mean. The community did not want lances on Strike Cruisers. So the trade was to make the lance as unattractive as possible. We succeeded and are happy. I am. :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 09, 2010, 07:43:44 PM
I wish there was a couple different options for teleport assaults and boarding that are not included.  Currently, marines stand zero chance against Tyranid ships.  Not saying they should, but definately better odds than they currently have.  Currently Orks, Khorne, and Tyranids absolutely slaughter marines in the one thing they are supposed to be good at.  There should be a double boarding strength option for the close combat specialist marine chapters.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 09, 2010, 08:15:11 PM
Easy answer: some higher ups or old designers wanted it on Strike Cruisers, the lance I mean. The community did not want lances on Strike Cruisers. So the trade was to make the lance as unattractive as possible. We succeeded and are happy. I am. :)

Ok.. I'm reading through, and still not following the logic.  St 2 lances would still be inferior to str 3 BC...  you were upset they gave you a weaker item for free, and wanted it even more nerfed?  This does not compute.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 09, 2010, 08:25:53 PM
Fluff wise, marines shouldn't have access to lances on capital ships and very limited access to escort based lances. The original lance option gave marines a very simple means of having a lance heavy fleet which they shouldn't have access to.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 09, 2010, 08:37:32 PM
Fluff wise, marines shouldn't have access to lances on capital ships and very limited access to escort based lances. The original lance option gave marines a very simple means of having a lance heavy fleet which they shouldn't have access to.

But.... BC is nearly identical to a lance anyway?  I mean, it's not a balance issue, because it's functionally identical except BC have more crits.  In fact, it'd actually be weaker with the lances, because so far all of them seem to be one point less. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 09, 2010, 09:19:31 PM
actually it isn't. BC is affected by BM which reduces the strength while lances aren't. Besides if it isn't a balance issue to you, fluff trumps. Marines should have easy access to lances regardless of game balance no more than Orks should have holofields.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 09, 2010, 09:25:38 PM
Ha, like thats an identical likelyhood :)

Like ive said before, I don't care either way.  But for those who want a few lances in their SM fleet, it won't effect us other SM players if they do so, we certainly don't have to take the option.
If you give marines an option for a free swap for a weaker option, you've balanced it right there that you won't see many lances.  I personally greatly prefer BC, they rock.  Lances are heavily frowned upon in an SM fleet, but there would be some few radical examples in some far flung chapters.  In small numbers it would be treated the same as the Nova, which actually has much less reason to mount a lance than a capital ship.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 09, 2010, 09:33:42 PM
actually it isn't. BC is affected by BM which reduces the strength while lances aren't. Besides if it isn't a balance issue to you, fluff trumps. Marines should have easy access to lances regardless of game balance no more than Orks should have holofields.

Actually I would think orks would more likely end up with holofields than space marines getting lances. Space marines are bound by law of the Emperor to not have lances, and not only is that who they worship every day, they are the most lawful people in existence. Now I know you're going to argue space wolves, but one chapters radicalism shouldn't define every other. Hell over half of chapters are from the Ultramarines geneseed, and they don't break the rules.

Orks however make their ships usually out of the wrecks of enemy ships (as ork engineering is very sub-par). So if they got a hold of a panzee ship, and for whatever reason didn't blow it up because it iz 2 weedy fur da boyz! then they might end up with holofields. I think it would be an entertaining design for a character ship, possibly part of a campaign or as a warp-rift article.

An ork ship with holofields would probably still have shields, and the holofields would probably be just as detrimental as they are helpful (I.e. the ork ship gets a 4+ HAwloofeld save, but every enemy would count it as closing, because of the big target sign projected on the ship.)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 09, 2010, 09:48:53 PM
That fluff reasoning is wrong on multiple points. 

Marines are not bound by the Emperor's law to not have lances.  Its a policy instituted after the Heresy, one that they flirt with.
Marines are notorious for conflicting with the legislation imposed on them, they are a proud and elitist culture for the most part.

It may make a fun WR article, but I hope you are not seriously saying that marines using some lance tech on a tiny fraction of their ships, a tech readily available, is less likely than orks managing to maintain holofields. :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 09, 2010, 10:26:37 PM
Exactly!! We do not want lances thus we as fans persuaded the HA to make them unattractive. yay!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 09, 2010, 10:33:02 PM
A lance is a weaker option than str3 BC.  20 points additional is stupid.  Stupid. :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 09, 2010, 11:08:13 PM
Cool isn't it? Just like we wanted it to be.

BECAUSE IN ESSENCE WE DO NOT WANT A LANCE AT ALL ON A STRIKE CRUISER.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 09, 2010, 11:11:38 PM
Cool isn't it? Just like we wanted it to be.

BECAUSE IN ESSENCE WE DO NOT WANT A LANCE AT ALL ON A STRIKE CRUISER.



Why not?  And who's 'we'?  You got a familiar in your pocket?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 09, 2010, 11:16:09 PM
Everyone who follows the fluff. Mainly people who aren't fanboys of SM.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 09, 2010, 11:16:27 PM
Well, we as in community who gave feedback to the HA on their draft for the Marines.

And why not? Because the Codex tells us. Guilliman says so. Because Marines should have only limited access to lances. Mostly not to be honest. It is the fluff that tells us. Read Armada etc.

It was the main reason the original Seditio was burned. It had the best lances in the arsenal of the Imperium. Very against fluff. Very! The new draft incarnation is very fine.



And yes, I have three familiars. :)

warning,
yes.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 09, 2010, 11:20:54 PM
I would be included in that group. And yes, one lance is weaker than s3 BC, but originally I believe the idea was to give them S3 forward lances or S2 LFR lances which is more powerful than the 3bc. As was noted before, they shouldn't get to have this. Why do you think there was outrage over the SO having so many lances? Because it was broken and not fluffy. Secondly, every fleet doesn't need to have access to all weapon types. Not having many lances gives Marines variety just like having BC.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 09, 2010, 11:31:25 PM
Well, we as in community who gave feedback to the HA on their draft for the Marines.

And why not? Because the Codex tells us. Guilliman says so. Because Marines should have only limited access to lances. Mostly not to be honest. It is the fluff that tells us. Read Armada etc.

It was the main reason the original Seditio was burned. It had the best lances in the arsenal of the Imperium. Very against fluff. Very! The new draft incarnation is very fine.



And yes, I have three familiars. :)

warning,
yes.


I have armada open in front of me.  There is no mention of 'no lances'.  Lances are frequently used in fluff in planetary bombardment and exterminatus.  Your argument does not hold water.

And, suggesting that I am a space marine fanboy is inherently ludicrous, as I seem to be the only one against buffing Battle Barges. 

This is not fluff as written, this is fluff as you interpret it.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 09, 2010, 11:47:35 PM
It's not about no lances. They can have them if they use the Firestorm and the Nova. It's that they're rare to have themselves as noted in the Nova entry.

Increasing the defensive capabilities of a ship is not a problem since it follows the fluff well. It has to survive to be able to get to the planet and start its planetary assault or exterminatus.

What we don't want is increasing the attack capabilities of the SM by giving them easy access to lances. BCs while it may seem perform similarly, do not. They have problems with blast markers as well as variable dice depending on the target ship's profile.

SM vessels are limited to vessels whose primary role is that of transport, delivery and suppression designed to facilitate planetary assault. That's in Armada for you.

The fanboyism comment is for people who think SM in BFG should be like what they are in 40k. Sorry, not going to happen.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 09, 2010, 11:56:33 PM
It does mention that the marine fleets were never to be capable of challenging the IN proper and that they be focused on transport and assault. Lances are a pinpoint weapon system primarily for ship to ship engagements but relatively useless in planetary bombardment or assault (epic lists them as pinpoint attacks and are only capable of hitting the largest vehicles like Titans or superheavy tanks). Since the primary role of Marine fleets is to transport marines to planets, why would they replace a weapon that is infinitely more capable for what they need with a weapon that is much less capable? It stands to reason that if marines aren't to take on the IN in a stand up fight, and lances are primarily for ship to ship combat, then they shouldn't be on marine ships because this would be seen as violating the IN's agreement and would see the chapter smacked down for it. This is reinforced by the distinct lack of lances on any dedicated marine vessel in armada except the Nova.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 10, 2010, 12:20:25 AM
It's not about no lances. They can have them if they use the Firestorm and the Nova. It's that they're rare to have themselves as noted in the Nova entry.

Increasing the defensive capabilities of a ship is not a problem since it follows the fluff well. It has to survive to be able to get to the planet and start its planetary assault or exterminatus.

What we don't want is increasing the attack capabilities of the SM by giving them easy access to lances. BCs while it may seem perform similarly, do not. They have problems with blast markers as well as variable dice depending on the target ship's profile.

SM vessels are limited to vessels whose primary role is that of transport, delivery and suppression designed to facilitate planetary assault. That's in Armada for you.

The fanboyism comment is for people who think SM in BFG should be like what they are in 40k. Sorry, not going to happen.

Other then oddities involving the rather strange way BM work currently, still not seeing the difference, as most of the time a SC's target is either closing or moving away.  If a SC is in range and abeam of the target, you've probably made a mistake and are about to get raked stem to stern.  A BB, on the other hand, has such overpowered BCs that I regularly see them crack cruisers and most IN battleships open like eggs.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 10, 2010, 12:33:27 AM
You're doing something wrong if you're cracking an IN battleship with those BCs. You're opponents must also be so nice that they always are in your closing or away profile and not abeam.

I can see the BB cracking cruisers I can agree with. Just about any battleship can do so anyway.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 10, 2010, 12:49:40 AM
You're doing something wrong if you're cracking an IN battleship with those BCs. You're opponents must also be so nice that they always are in your closing or away profile and not abeam.

I can see the BB cracking cruisers I can agree with. Just about any battleship can do so anyway.

It's not hard.  A battlebarge can come to new heading, a battleship can't.  Typically what happened with apocs was one of two things: they tried to use LR lances, and got crippled by the thrusters hit, and the battlebarge got in behind them, or they tried to close with the battlebarge, and the BB passed them and the used come to new heading to cross the T behind them.   Retributions typically did better, but +5 does not equal +6, and, again, typically they'ed get in behind them. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 10, 2010, 01:00:14 AM
It's not hard.  A battlebarge can come to new heading, a battleship can't.  Typically what happened with apocs was one of two things: they tried to use LR lances, and got crippled by the thrusters hit, and the battlebarge got in behind them, or they tried to close with the battlebarge, and the BB passed them and the used come to new heading to cross the T behind them.   Retributions typically did better, but +5 does not equal +6, and, again, typically they'ed get in behind them.  

Huh? Who sez the BB can Come to New Heading?

From FAQ 2007: "Space Marine battle barges as listed on p.24 may not use Come To New Heading special orders, regardless of any normal refits they may be equipped with."

So there's your "something wrong" already.

As for the Apocalypse, you do know it can Burn Retro right? So sorry, you can cross the T once but by next turn, Apoc will be Abeam.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 10, 2010, 01:38:20 AM
Cool isn't it? Just like we wanted it to be.

BECAUSE IN ESSENCE WE DO NOT WANT A LANCE AT ALL ON A STRIKE CRUISER.



Thats insanity.  When you say 'we' its confusing, as if the community as a whole had the same idea, rather than a number of people I could count on my fingers.  Making a tradeout for something weaker is self-balancing.  If you think there could not be an example of a strike cruiser in the Imperium without lances, you are simply wrong.  The proud nature of marines and the existence of the Nova prove that. 

But you don't have to play them, I certainly won't.  Charging 20 points for an already weaker option is POOR GAME DESIGN. 
Leave it alone and let the ones who want a bit different of a ship design to have their fun with their weaker ships.
It comes nowhere close to being OP, and you don't have to play with them or against them, and you certainly won't be losing to them.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 10, 2010, 01:45:14 AM
Thats insanity.  When you say 'we' its confusing, as if the community as a whole had the same idea, rather than a number of people I could count on my fingers.  Making a tradeout for something weaker is self-balancing.  If you think there could not be an example of a strike cruiser in the Imperium without lances, you are simply wrong.  The proud nature of marines and the existence of the Nova prove that.

They may be proud but if the Adepticus Mechanicus won't help them build an SC with a lance, and they won't just help them, not without any go signal from another group in the Imperium's top most command structure, as sure as the Emperor's in his guilded cage the SM won't get an SC with a lance. The Novas (and Firestorms)  are escorts which the IN reluctantly agreed to allow them to have. Any lances on cap ships they have would be limited to the VBBs (which should be only given to the 1st and at best 2nd Founding Chapters).
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 10, 2010, 02:34:41 AM
From my understanding the VBBs were pretty much just grandfathered in to the new anti-lance policy. Something like; well if you already have the ship we wont take it away, but you can't build any more.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 10, 2010, 03:24:51 AM
Quote
Charging 20 points for an already weaker option is POOR GAME DESIGN.

Not really, charging 20 points and saying it perfectly balanced is poor design, charging 20 points and saying you can take it you want but you really shouldn't be doing this often is quite fine.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 10, 2010, 04:07:36 AM
Lovely discussion.


LS, I am megelomaniac, that's why I use the term "we" as well. And I thought everyone agreed on the no lance policy for Strike Cruisers. Ah well.

But BaronI, so many reasons have been given by now. Accepted? ;)

And Battleships don't Come to New Heading.
On the example: The Apoc will use the extra rule on long range +30cm at least. That means there is no way the barge could be in the rear the next turn  or it would be AAF which means losing firepower.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 10, 2010, 06:19:57 AM
It's not hard.  A battlebarge can come to new heading, a battleship can't.  Typically what happened with apocs was one of two things: they tried to use LR lances, and got crippled by the thrusters hit, and the battlebarge got in behind them, or they tried to close with the battlebarge, and the BB passed them and the used come to new heading to cross the T behind them.   Retributions typically did better, but +5 does not equal +6, and, again, typically they'ed get in behind them.  

Huh? Who sez the BB can Come to New Heading?

From FAQ 2007: "Space Marine battle barges as listed on p.24 may not use Come To New Heading special orders, regardless of any normal refits they may be equipped with."

So there's your "something wrong" already.

As for the Apocalypse, you do know it can Burn Retro right? So sorry, you can cross the T once but by next turn, Apoc will be Abeam.

Because until six months ago, no one in our area knew there was a FAQ 07, much to Horizon's astonishment.  Considering our only 'pure' SM player moved some time before that, my experiences are a little out of date.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 10, 2010, 08:39:21 AM
As they say, ignorance of the rules is no excuse. The FAQ has been in existence for 3 years already. This board was already up then as well as the yahoo list and portmaw.com. I'm sure the people at dakkadakka also knows about the FAQ since some of them also hang out here and the other sites I mentioned.

Even then, six months ago you already knew. It doesn't take long to read the FAQ.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 10, 2010, 04:25:13 PM
As they say, ignorance of the rules is no excuse. The FAQ has been in existence for 3 years already. This board was already up then as well as the yahoo list and portmaw.com. I'm sure the people at dakkadakka also knows about the FAQ since some of them also hang out here and the other sites I mentioned.

Even then, six months ago you already knew. It doesn't take long to read the FAQ.

I've read it about seven times, but didn't catch the part about BBs.  And, you might note, I only joined any of those (other then dakka, and have you ever tried to get useful information out of people on dakka?) at that time, since that's when saw the thing on Warp Rift on warseer and Horizon pointed out to me that my information was outdated.  

I'm amazed how you take the internet for granted.  

And, regardless of my misinformation about CTNH and BBs, I still don't agree to the lance issue.  That's not how I interpret the fluff I'm reading here, and I honestly see nothing wrong with lances for SM.  I think that the str 2 lance swap for a BC was a good, balanced, idea, and would have presented a useful addition to the SM arsenal in certain circumstances.

I hate to say it, but I (cringe) agree with LS and don't see the five or six people I see post here as the 'voice of the players' any more then I think I'm the rightful rep.  
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 10, 2010, 05:59:07 PM
ok, lets run with that. It's easy to say what you are Baron, but lets get down to it. Why do you want marines to have access to more lances? What is the purpose of a lance?  How do lances fit into the primary role of marine vessels to transport marines and support landings?

From where I sit, you can't justify replacing BC with lances because it changes the role of the ship from planetary support to ship to ship combat which IS something that directly challenges the IN as their primary role is ship to ship combat (you could add transport of IG but that's not what I'd see their primary role as). It makes no sense that marines would willfully replace a weapon specifically designed to shell planetary targets with one that has little use unless they are planning to challenge the IN. Now does that mean lances will never be there? No, but they sure should be that attractive if you want people to play fluffy fleets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 10, 2010, 06:59:37 PM
ok, lets run with that. It's easy to say what you are Baron, but lets get down to it. Why do you want marines to have access to more lances? What is the purpose of a lance?  How do lances fit into the primary role of marine vessels to transport marines and support landings?

From where I sit, you can't justify replacing BC with lances because it changes the role of the ship from planetary support to ship to ship combat which IS something that directly challenges the IN as their primary role is ship to ship combat (you could add transport of IG but that's not what I'd see their primary role as). It makes no sense that marines would willfully replace a weapon specifically designed to shell planetary targets with one that has little use unless they are planning to challenge the IN. Now does that mean lances will never be there? No, but they sure should be that attractive if you want people to play fluffy fleets.

The average SM chapter probably wouldn't.  However, fleet based (BT, others) and chapters that prefer being more independent (DA) would probably insist on having something like this.  Consider: a fleet based chapter is attacked someplace: now, how long will it be before IN shows up?  a month?  a Year?  several centuries?  (not unheard of!)  If they (more or less) lack anti-ship capabilities, they're probably not going to last long enough for IN to show up. 

I would suggest that the Crusade fleet list be allowed to swap the bc for str 2 lances with the current limits (one regular SC for each variant) for free.  It's logical and fits the insular nature of these chapters.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 10, 2010, 08:25:58 PM
That isn't correct because marines don't lack anti-ship weapons; they lack dedicated anti-ship weapons unless you deny that lances are dedicated anti-ship weapons. Secondly, Fleet based chapters are usually centered around special vessels or immense starstations like the Rock which could very well mount lances as part of their defensive armaments. We aren't talking about defensive installations, we are talking about marine fleets set up for offensive fleet actions against other ships which is outside of their primary function regardless of their base of operations. Third, crusades, outside of penance crusades, are generally larger affairs involving all branches of the Imperium's military so I would think it quite common for the IN to support such actions. Although not exactly a crusade, we have the Armageddon list and the wars fought in the sector as a template for such interactions.

Perhaps somewhere there are a few marine capital ships that have lances. That's what the options currently represents. It's price implying that it is exceeding rare and difficult to acquire.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 10, 2010, 09:35:45 PM
That isn't correct because marines don't lack anti-ship weapons; they lack dedicated anti-ship weapons unless you deny that lances are dedicated anti-ship weapons. Secondly, Fleet based chapters are usually centered around special vessels or immense starstations like the Rock which could very well mount lances as part of their defensive armaments. We aren't talking about defensive installations, we are talking about marine fleets set up for offensive fleet actions against other ships which is outside of their primary function regardless of their base of operations. Third, crusades, outside of penance crusades, are generally larger affairs involving all branches of the Imperium's military so I would think it quite common for the IN to support such actions. Although not exactly a crusade, we have the Armageddon list and the wars fought in the sector as a template for such interactions.

Perhaps somewhere there are a few marine capital ships that have lances. That's what the options currently represents. It's price implying that it is exceeding rare and difficult to acquire.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they, by default, have boarding torpedoes, which are a dedicated anti-ship weapon.  They have absolutely no use in a planetary landing.  So, to suggest that they have absolutely no dedicated anti-ship weapons is already false.  And, bluntly, since crusades of penance can last.... well, the Black Templars, the largest and best known such chapter, have been on one for ten thousand years now...  it would not be out of the question for them to acquire such weaponry as a precaution.  Or the chapters known for their anti-ship operations, such as the Minotaurs?  

Remember that SM are not just landings, a SM SC may also be the first on the scene to any number of events, particularly in regions bordering the Eye of Terror, and most likely will arm themselves and their ships accordingly.  For example, strike cruisers are commonly used to track space hulks in fluff.  Would you say that they would have trouble justifying a lance to the inquisition for such a task?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 10, 2010, 10:20:27 PM
Boarding torpedoes are under the purview of transporting marines to a target. The torpedoes won't typically kill capital ships, only deliver marines to them to take out critical systems to aid the strike cruiser similar to how thunderhawks are used from time to time to board enemy ships. So, while they are dedicated space weaponry, they aren't in the same category as lances. I also think that it is worth noting that only two marine vessels have the capability to launch torpedoes in the armada list, the battlebarge and the Hunter/cobra.

I disagree. Most would not rearm their ships. Most would be incapable of doing such. No Marine chapter outside of perhaps the ultramarines have any form of shipbuilding capabilities. That means they have to get their vessels from the AdMech who likely would not violate whatever treaties and oaths they have with the IN to refit marine vessels for ship to ship combat. Even swapping out the BC would be a very delicate affair since lances are a totally different type of weapons system and would require more than a simple swap of turrets. Even on the lengthy crusades the BT engage in, has no supporting evidence that they have any such weapons refitted to their ships. It's much more likely they have captured several lanceboats that should be taken as VBB than it is for them to have refit their ships with lances. And yes, they probably would have difficulty explaining it to the Inquisition.

All that aside, read the entry for the Nova. It's stated that this craft is the one that IN takes the most exception to. The only thing that differentiates it from the Gladius, which is listed as the most numerous escort, is that it has one lance. From that we can infer than the IN takes exception to Marine craft mounting lances even at the escort level. Why would they let them use lances on capital ships beyond the rare relic if they have a problem with it on an escort?

EDIT: added info.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 10, 2010, 10:32:08 PM
I've read it about seven times, but didn't catch the part about BBs.  And, you might note, I only joined any of those (other then dakka, and have you ever tried to get useful information out of people on dakka?) at that time, since that's when saw the thing on Warp Rift on warseer and Horizon pointed out to me that my information was outdated.  

Seven times and you never read that part? I find that unlikely.

I'm amazed how you take the internet for granted.  

It's not taking the internet for granted. It's surprise that 7 times you've read the document and you missing that particular point. particularly since it's the 4th entry in the Imperial, Chaos and SM part of the document. When I get into a game, I'd ask if there were any other rules other than the rulebook which I needed to get and where to get the latest ones. That's common sense and not taking the internet for granted.

And, regardless of my misinformation about CTNH and BBs, I still don't agree to the lance issue.  That's not how I interpret the fluff I'm reading here, and I honestly see nothing wrong with lances for SM.  I think that the str 2 lance swap for a BC was a good, balanced, idea, and would have presented a useful addition to the SM arsenal in certain circumstances.

Well how do you interpret the fluff on lances available on Escorts and rarely at that? If it is available only rarely and on Escorts, the chances on SM cap ships would be virtually nil. You already posted that you think the BC is better than a lance (in your opinion) so why would you still want lances on the SM cap ships? They provide no other function other than ship killing. It's not a matter of a useful addition. It's a matter of application.

I hate to say it, but I (cringe) agree with LS and don't see the five or six people I see post here as the 'voice of the players' any more then I think I'm the rightful rep.  

The five or six people you see posting here are the ones adhering to the fluff however. Are you?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 10, 2010, 10:40:20 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they, by default, have boarding torpedoes, which are a dedicated anti-ship weapon.  They have absolutely no use in a planetary landing.  So, to suggest that they have absolutely no dedicated anti-ship weapons is already false.  And, bluntly, since crusades of penance can last.... well, the Black Templars, the largest and best known such chapter, have been on one for ten thousand years now...  it would not be out of the question for them to acquire such weaponry as a precaution.  Or the chapters known for their anti-ship operations, such as the Minotaurs?  

And which SM cap ships currently have torpedoes?

And let me clarify something. Just because a Chapter is fleet based does not mean that the Chapter is an anti-ship based fleet. It is fleet based because they do not have a planet they can call home. So they operate mainly out of mobile fortresses. It does not interfere with their mandate of Planetary Assault or Exterminatus. And just because they are on a 10,000 year Crusade does not mean they are going left and right destroying fleets of enemy ships.

Remember that SM are not just landings, a SM SC may also be the first on the scene to any number of events, particularly in regions bordering the Eye of Terror, and most likely will arm themselves and their ships accordingly.  For example, strike cruisers are commonly used to track space hulks in fluff.  Would you say that they would have trouble justifying a lance to the inquisition for such a task?

SM ARE about landings. That's the fluff for you. If they are the first at a scene and they find they can't handle the situation, well it's time to call for reinforcements. Same with tracking Space Hulks. So track. If they're dumb enough to attack something they don't know and that huge, then that's their problem.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 11, 2010, 12:23:59 AM
I hate to say it, but I (cringe) agree with LS

What?  Where does the vitriol come from?  I don't even own a marine fleet yet, nor intend to use lance variants.  I was just arguing the fluff and principle of it for those like you who want the option to use it, but I'm bowing out now.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 11, 2010, 01:02:34 AM
And we've argued fluff back. We haven't provided proof which are not outside the books. SM Fleet is a transport fleet mainly for planetary assault or exterminatus. That's in Armada. Lances are rare. They're so rare that they the term is used in the Nova entry. That is also in Armada.

You, Baron Iveagh and the other pro-lances-for-SM have not provided one fluff proof much less game balance reason why they should have lances.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 11, 2010, 03:42:05 AM
And we've argued fluff back. We haven't provided proof which are not outside the books. SM Fleet is a transport fleet mainly for planetary assault or exterminatus. That's in Armada. Lances are rare. They're so rare that they the term is used in the Nova entry. That is also in Armada.

You, Baron Iveagh and the other pro-lances-for-SM have not provided one fluff proof much less game balance reason why they should have lances.

Hmm.. as far as a direct statement that 'And then the space marines fired their lance batteries from their strike cruisers', no, there isn't any.  

There are vague statements involving Space marines ships and lance fire, IN might be present, and simply never mentioned by anyone in the entire book, ever.  Several times lances are mentioned when the Dark Angels fleet destroys Caliban, and a few times in asides about space marines directing lance fire from their ship in orbit, but this is never made clear what ship it is.  Love those BL authors and vague statements.

The Black Templars it is flat out stated in their codex do not conform to the Codex Astartes.  Further, since they took Dorn's original fleet when they parted, they DO have lance cruisers (see any of the Horus Heresy books with Dorn's fleet in it).  Which meshes nicely with Ray Bell's BT list from Fanatic.  Oh well.

The Blood Ravens strike cruiser Armageddon appears to be a lance variant of some type, but since at no point does anyone grab a hold of it and scream 'THIS IS A LANCE' (they just sort of seem to take it for granted that it fires a beam of energy) I guess it won't count...

  
For a real fluff mind twist with SC:
 
Nightbringer, Chapter IV, page 1:

Vae Victus is described as having both torpedo tubes AND prow launch bays (plural).  This is confirmed several times in the Ultramarines series.  


And, as far as space marines being about landings: Except for when they're about boarding enemy ships.  (Which is sort of implicit in the name 'marine' and the subject of not only and entire separate game but also a whole book from GW describing how to combine 40k and BFG!  I wonder if it was official of not???)



As for as balance goes: prove to me that giving SM this option UPSETS balance.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 11, 2010, 05:13:08 AM
Destruction of Calaban was immediately post heresy so it's quite possible the DA still had IN forces under their control since I don't believe there was any distinction between the IN and chapter fleets. That's not to say they still have those or than any dedicated marine ships have lances. Given the fluff in Armada, it would seem unlikely.

Just because a chapter doesn't conform to codex doesn't mean they have access to lances. Marine chapters just don't have the technical capabilities to construct the ships and there is no telling what's happened over the last 10k years or how thinly that original fleet has been spread. For all we know a ship here or there shows up as a VBB.

In either case you are referring to events close the heresy which doesn't provide insight into modern SC or Marine fleet. It wasn't until after the heresy that either the BB or the SC were put into service. Before then marines just used IN vessels that were under their command. If you want to represent that kind of fleet perhaps using the Chaos list would work better.

Landings/ boardings same type thing :)

It doesn't matter if it upsets balance or not, marines don't need the lances and don't have to have them. Not giving them a lot of lances gives them a different flavor to play not to mention the propensity to take lances that seems to affect a good number of players. Not having the option opens them up to a different play style.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 11, 2010, 06:21:17 AM
@BI

All SM weaponry not dedicated to the landing of their troops are dedicated to the removal or boarding of enemy defence installations. Even with WB and BC fire interfering with each other, the two systems are better against defences than equivalent weight of WB/Lance or BC/Lance combinations. So, even with interference, it is the most efficient anti-defence combination. Also, torpedoes are more effective against defences than ships, simply because they can be launched from extreme range without the possibility of the defence moving out of the path of fire. So current SM armament is fine for their role, so long as WB/BC interference remains.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 11, 2010, 08:03:06 AM
Ok.  We all know that marines having limited access to lances in no way changes their competitive nature or playstyle if the switch is for bombardment cannon hardpoints.  So it comes down to a pure fluff argument.

We all know the primary role of marines, exactly why their fleet is armed and armored as they are, and why you can go through multiple chapter fleets before you see a lance example.

But it also takes no imagination for anyone who knows how the Imperium and Space Marines work to assume there are exceptions.
It takes more imagination to assume that there are not fleets, especially crusading fleets and chapters in the far flung galaxy rim worlds, that would never have lances.  The nova proves that marines can mount ship killing weapons on escorts, which is actually more significant than if they were on their capital ships.

The SM can't always rely on the IN in dangerous spacelanes, they have to fend for themselves as a fleet.  Now usually they do this in their own heroic boarding way, as true marines.  But of course you will find the odd strike cruiser with a couple of lances to protect its sister ships, since in the fluff only lances are seen as ship killers.

And its not like lances CAN'T be used for bombardment, has no-one ever seen...well, there used to be a really cool pic of an orbital lance strike.
Can't find it atm :(
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 11, 2010, 08:44:52 AM
Yes, LS, good point : Imperium and Marines work together. Hence, the smarter Marine Master will call in for the Imperial Navy if the enemy fleet poses a large threat to the assault. Hence Armageddon or even more on a larger scale the Ultramar region where IN/Ultramarines/Successors work closely together.

Yes, lances can a pinpoint attack in Epic:Armageddon but that is one warmachine as a target, not a complete city like batteries or bombardment cannons do.

And as you describe an odd Strike Cruiser (before it is found by the Imperium/Inquisition) could be around, but the +20pts for 1 lance describes just how odd, rare and non-use to Marines they really are.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 11, 2010, 10:05:31 AM
But it also takes no imagination for anyone who knows how the Imperium and Space Marines work to assume there are exceptions.
It takes more imagination to assume that there are not fleets, especially crusading fleets and chapters in the far flung galaxy rim worlds, that would never have lances.  The nova proves that marines can mount ship killing weapons on escorts, which is actually more significant than if they were on their capital ships.

The SM can't always rely on the IN in dangerous spacelanes, they have to fend for themselves as a fleet.  Now usually they do this in their own heroic boarding way, as true marines.  But of course you will find the odd strike cruiser with a couple of lances to protect its sister ships, since in the fluff only lances are seen as ship killers.

And its not like lances CAN'T be used for bombardment, has no-one ever seen...well, there used to be a really cool pic of an orbital lance strike.
Can't find it atm :(

No, this I have to disagree with absolutely. The Horus heresy was possible due to the SM legions having their own warfleets. After this it was decreed that SM chapters would not have such fleets any more. This isn't merely some codex guidelines that can be ignored to some degree or other. Space power was taken out of the hands of the space marines and put solely into the hands of the Imperial Navy. Space marines may reign supreme on the ground, but in space it is the navy that holds sway. The heresy is the single most devastatingly traumatic event in Imperial history. Nothing else comes close. Do you think that the Highlords of Terra would even countenance the possibility of allowing space marines such fleet weapons on their ships? [Note: lances are purely fleet weapons. They ignore target aspect and armour and intervening blast markers, allowing for good damage despite ill manoeuvring or target obfuscation.]

The psychology of power states that those that have it are paranoid about losing it. When you throw in the sheer intimidation factor of Space Marines and the idea of just how unstoppable they would be if they controlled the space lanes too this paranoia would be ramped up considerably. Add to this that rebel Space Marines were the ones responsible for the greatest blow to the Imperium in all history, including the death/undeath of their god-emperor and the idea simply would not be countenanced.

The Imperial Navy rules the space lanes of the Imperium, and any post-heresy Space Marine ship found with lances would be hunted down and destroyed mercilessly, with possible further ramifications for the Chapter as a whole. No chapter would be exempt from this, not even the most powerful chapters, such as Ultramarines and Black Templars. In fact, the more powerful the chapter the more assiduously they would be monitored.

This is the psychology of power. This is the psychology of the Imperium.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 11, 2010, 11:01:32 AM
But it also takes no imagination for anyone who knows how the Imperium and Space Marines work to assume there are exceptions.
It takes more imagination to assume that there are not fleets, especially crusading fleets and chapters in the far flung galaxy rim worlds, that would never have lances.  The nova proves that marines can mount ship killing weapons on escorts, which is actually more significant than if they were on their capital ships.

The SM can't always rely on the IN in dangerous spacelanes, they have to fend for themselves as a fleet.  Now usually they do this in their own heroic boarding way, as true marines.  But of course you will find the odd strike cruiser with a couple of lances to protect its sister ships, since in the fluff only lances are seen as ship killers.

And its not like lances CAN'T be used for bombardment, has no-one ever seen...well, there used to be a really cool pic of an orbital lance strike.
Can't find it atm :(

No, this I have to disagree with absolutely. The Horus heresy was possible due to the SM legions having their own warfleets. After this it was decreed that SM chapters would not have such fleets any more. This isn't merely some codex guidelines that can be ignored to some degree or other. Space power was taken out of the hands of the space marines and put solely into the hands of the Imperial Navy. Space marines may reign supreme on the ground, but in space it is the navy that holds sway. The heresy is the single most devastatingly traumatic event in Imperial history. Nothing else comes close. Do you think that the Highlords of Terra would even countenance the possibility of allowing space marines such fleet weapons on their ships? [Note: lances are purely fleet weapons. They ignore target aspect and armour and intervening blast markers, allowing for good damage despite ill manoeuvring or target obfuscation.]

The psychology of power states that those that have it are paranoid about losing it. When you throw in the sheer intimidation factor of Space Marines and the idea of just how unstoppable they would be if they controlled the space lanes too this paranoia would be ramped up considerably. Add to this that rebel Space Marines were the ones responsible for the greatest blow to the Imperium in all history, including the death/undeath of their god-emperor and the idea simply would not be countenanced.

The Imperial Navy rules the space lanes of the Imperium, and any post-heresy Space Marine ship found with lances would be hunted down and destroyed mercilessly, with possible further ramifications for the Chapter as a whole. No chapter would be exempt from this, not even the most powerful chapters, such as Ultramarines and Black Templars. In fact, the more powerful the chapter the more assiduously they would be monitored.

This is the psychology of power. This is the psychology of the Imperium.

Sigoroth, I think you're way off here.  First, um, the Nova wouldn't exist at all then, if what you say is true.  It would have been blown up, along with all the chapters that don't follow the codex astartes, which means that Space Wolves and BTs would have long ago been exterminated, along with the Dark Angels.  Since, this didn't happen, one must assume that the prohibition was not absolute.  Bluntly, though, I suspect that particular weapons were probably never even mentioned.  IN, if you stop and think about it, would be concerend about any armed space marine escort, as they are universally too small to support landings.  It just mentions it in the Nova entry, and implies it again in the Hunter entry, as the Hunter is clearly meant to be an equivalent of the IN cobra, just as Nova is a firestorm and Gladius is a sword.  (It's vaguely implied that Eisenstein is a Gladius when Gerro compares it to the 'new' Sword class)


And if you never caught the rather tongue in cheek naming scheme before now, well...


Vaaish: As far as space marines building their own ships: It's flat out stated, and not just in the silliness about SO, that Ultramarines, at least, build their own ships at Calth (again, Nightbringer, Chapter 4, et al) Not at the segmentum fortress.  The Salamanders are stated to build their own ships as well, as are the Dark Angels.  It would not surprise me if BTs did on an as-needed basis, since they consider the Ad-mech to be heretics and have their own forge ships to make their own equipment. 

As far as the more powerful then IN subject goes, I might point out an interesting thing: if the fluff dates are right, it's not the current IN fleet they'ed have compared it to, it's the IN fleet at the time.  Which would be the Chaos fleet.  Remember that the current IN fleet only really came into existence around M37.  A single 30 cm str 2 lance on a turret and a bunch WB would have been considered weak, slow, and close range in a fleet where chaos cruisers are the norm. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 11, 2010, 12:38:16 PM
Hmm.. as far as a direct statement that 'And then the space marines fired their lance batteries from their strike cruisers', no, there isn't any.

Yep so why do you continue to insist?  

There are vague statements involving Space marines ships and lance fire, IN might be present, and simply never mentioned by anyone in the entire book, ever.  Several times lances are mentioned when the Dark Angels fleet destroys Caliban, and a few times in asides about space marines directing lance fire from their ship in orbit, but this is never made clear what ship it is.  Love those BL authors and vague statements.

And when did the DA destroy Caliban?

The Black Templars it is flat out stated in their codex do not conform to the Codex Astartes.  Further, since they took Dorn's original fleet when they parted, they DO have lance cruisers (see any of the Horus Heresy books with Dorn's fleet in it).  Which meshes nicely with Ray Bell's BT list from Fanatic.  Oh well.

You're assuming they still have the lance cruisers after the decision to remove the ships from SM was decided on. That was waaaay back then around the time just after the heresy. Do you really think that with things still fresh in the minds of everyone that they would allow BT to retain their fleet of lance ships?

The Blood Ravens strike cruiser Armageddon appears to be a lance variant of some type, but since at no point does anyone grab a hold of it and scream 'THIS IS A LANCE' (they just sort of seem to take it for granted that it fires a beam of energy) I guess it won't count...

Yep and again, I'd really take books with a grain of salt when it comes time to use them as reference.
  
For a real fluff mind twist with SC:
 
Nightbringer, Chapter IV, page 1:

Vae Victus is described as having both torpedo tubes AND prow launch bays (plural).  This is confirmed several times in the Ultramarines series.  

Books again.

As for as balance goes: prove to me that giving SM this option UPSETS balance.

Ships with 6+ armor and lances will not upset the balance? Really now. And again, it's not up to us to show you it will upset the balance. The onus is on you to prove it won't upset the balance. We've given you enough proof that SM should not have access to lances easily. Those are in Armada. The only book you should be checking for reference other than the PDFs that were made official.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 11, 2010, 12:41:53 PM
As far as the more powerful then IN subject goes, I might point out an interesting thing: if the fluff dates are right, it's not the current IN fleet they'ed have compared it to, it's the IN fleet at the time.  Which would be the Chaos fleet.  Remember that the current IN fleet only really came into existence around M37.  A single 30 cm str 2 lance on a turret and a bunch WB would have been considered weak, slow, and close range in a fleet where chaos cruisers are the norm. 

It's not a matter of weak. It's a matter of availability. Why give SM weak ships with lances when you can just give them weak ships without lances?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 11, 2010, 01:45:14 PM
Sigoroth, I think you're way off here.

Well you're wrong.

Quote
First, um, the Nova wouldn't exist at all then, if what you say is true.  It would have been blown up, along with all the chapters that don't follow the codex astartes, which means that Space Wolves and BTs would have long ago been exterminated, along with the Dark Angels.  Since, this didn't happen, one must assume that the prohibition was not absolute.  Bluntly, though, I suspect that particular weapons were probably never even mentioned.

The Imperium is terrified of the prospect of the SM having a fleet of ships capable of defeating the IN in protracted battle. The lance is solely and purely an anti-ship weapon. Why would the IN give the SM the very tool necessary to defeat them? There is zero support for this stance. What possible reason is there to give SMs lances? Is there even one single reason? No. On the other hand the only reason not to is that there is no way that the IN would allow it ever. Well, I can see a case for lances on SM ships.

Quote
IN, if you stop and think about it, would be concerend about any armed space marine escort, as they are universally too small to support landings.  It just mentions it in the Nova entry, and implies it again in the Hunter entry, as the Hunter is clearly meant to be an equivalent of the IN cobra, just as Nova is a firestorm and Gladius is a sword.  (It's vaguely implied that Eisenstein is a Gladius when Gerro compares it to the 'new' Sword class)

Escorts are universally too small to pose a threat to IN dominance. That's why they're allowed, though rare. Mostly, the Nova would be used for harrying rebellious or pirate escorts.

Quote
And if you never caught the rather tongue in cheek naming scheme before now, well...

Of course I'm aware of the naming scheme, though "Hunter" is a bit off. It should have been Viper or Adder or Taipan or something. Either way, this is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 11, 2010, 05:15:06 PM

The Imperium is terrified of the prospect of the SM having a fleet of ships capable of defeating the IN in protracted battle. The lance is solely and purely an anti-ship weapon. Why would the IN give the SM the very tool necessary to defeat them? There is zero support for this stance. What possible reason is there to give SMs lances? Is there even one single reason? No. On the other hand the only reason not to is that there is no way that the IN would allow it ever. Well, I can see a case for lances on SM ships.

Once again: you are totally forgetting that the IN fleet at the time of the writing of Codex Astartes was not the IN fleet used 'today'.  The Inq DOES NOT go around telling SM chapters 'Well, IN got simpler/weaker again, so you have to throw out your priceless relics from your founding.'  One thing that Space Marines do take very seriously, in any and all fluff I have ever read, is the traditions of their chapters.

And, frankly, as far as 'things space marines can get away with' Huron Blackheart, as chapter master of the Astral Claws, seized an entire sector in the Maelstrom zone as his own personal fief and no one cared.  It was only when he didn't tithe that anyone moved against him, triggering the Badab War http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Badab_War (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Badab_War).

One might cynically state that as long as they paid their taxes on it, a space marine chapter could have their own private kingdoms.  (Oh,wait...)

Escorts are universally too small to pose a threat to IN dominance. That's why they're allowed, though rare. Mostly, the Nova would be used for harrying rebellious or pirate escorts.

However, once again, it means that the ban isn't on lances themselves. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 11, 2010, 06:45:34 PM
Once again: you are totally forgetting that the IN fleet at the time of the writing of Codex Astartes was not the IN fleet used 'today'.  The Inq DOES NOT go around telling SM chapters 'Well, IN got simpler/weaker again, so you have to throw out your priceless relics from your founding.'  One thing that Space Marines do take very seriously, in any and all fluff I have ever read, is the traditions of their chapters.

What's tradition got to do with the Chapters created after the Horus Heresy and lance bearing ships?

However, once again, it means that the ban isn't on lances themselves. 

It is in a sense a ban on lances but in the sense of capital ships. They are permitted on escorts which can never threaten the IN.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 11, 2010, 07:38:51 PM

The Imperium is terrified of the prospect of the SM having a fleet of ships capable of defeating the IN in protracted battle. The lance is solely and purely an anti-ship weapon. Why would the IN give the SM the very tool necessary to defeat them? There is zero support for this stance. What possible reason is there to give SMs lances? Is there even one single reason? No. On the other hand the only reason not to is that there is no way that the IN would allow it ever. Well, I can see a case for lances on SM ships.

Once again: you are totally forgetting that the IN fleet at the time of the writing of Codex Astartes was not the IN fleet used 'today'.  The Inq DOES NOT go around telling SM chapters 'Well, IN got simpler/weaker again, so you have to throw out your priceless relics from your founding.'  One thing that Space Marines do take very seriously, in any and all fluff I have ever read, is the traditions of their chapters.
Eh, you give even more reason for the Imperium to deny Marine lances. A Lance is a lance. And the old IN (Imperial Army) (Chaos models) or the new Imperial vessels: they are equally vulnerable to a lance. Thus even the doctrine and fleet changed for the Imperial Navy, the prospect of facing enemy fire did not. And to keep it all in check the Marines would still not get a lance.
To add: That precious prow does not mean anything to a lance!!! Thus more reason to deny lances to Marines in case of troubles!!!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 11, 2010, 08:14:03 PM
What's tradition got to do with the Chapters created after the Horus Heresy and lance bearing ships?

Actually, it would be for any chapter founded pre-M37 when IN changed over the the Lunar-style ships from the Murder.  Which would be a fair chunk of them

It is in a sense a ban on lances but in the sense of capital ships. They are permitted on escorts which can never threaten the IN.

It's pretty clear in the text that the ban is on ships specifically designed to hunt other ships.  It's not about strike cruisers or any other ship designed to land troops (as, even with a lance, a strike cruiser is still primarily a fire support/close air support platform.) and, further, a precision weapon like a lance, for purposes of fire support, is much superior to 'flattening the city with a BC' since bunkers and other hardened structures are likely to survive a BC, but for a decapitation strike against a hardened bunker, a lance is much superior.  (see Cain's Last Stand for just such a decapitation lance strike against a planetary PDF HQ.)  Since Space Marines are a scalpel, not the sledgehammer of the IG.

Further, if you blow a city to rubble, it makes it harder, not easier, to fight in.  Additionally, it damages infrastructure that the IG follow up landings might want intact.  Like airfields and space ports.  


Eh, you give even more reason for the Imperium to deny Marine lances. A Lance is a lance. And the old IN (Imperial Army) (Chaos models) or the new Imperial vessels: they are equally vulnerable to a lance. Thus even the doctrine and fleet changed for the Imperial Navy, the prospect of facing enemy fire did not. And to keep it all in check the Marines would still not get a lance.
To add: That precious prow does not mean anything to a lance!!! Thus more reason to deny lances to Marines in case of troubles!!!

Except, Horizon 'that precious prow' didn't exist at the time the Codex was written.  The armored prow was a later invention (See fluff for GCs).  And, no, a single 30cm str 2 lance and a str 4 wb does not equal a str 2 lance and a str 14 wb on a faster and more durable hull (though not as heavily armored), since at the time the codex was written, the SC's navy equivalent would have been the Slaughter.  Same with the Desolator, which can, quite easily, kill a battle barge without ever taking damage from a barge carrying a str 4 30cm lance.

To the IN at that time, such short ranged lances would have represented very little threat, particularly compared to how rare they were relative to other ships of the period.  Same with the heavier armor, since most IN cap ships of the era carried at least one lance.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 11, 2010, 08:25:22 PM
Actually, it would be for any chapter founded pre-M37 when IN changed over the the Lunar-style ships from the Murder.  Which would be a fair chunk of them

You're mistaken with your time sequence. The heresy happened around M30. Soon after the splitting of responsibilities occured and the IN came into being and the ships were taken from the SM. The current IN design came into being around M37. Design is different from when the ships were removed from the SM's hands.

It's pretty clear in the text that the ban is on ships specifically designed to hunt other ships.  It's not about strike cruisers or any other ship designed to land troops (as, even with a lance, a strike cruiser is still primarily a fire support/close air support platform.) and, further, a precision weapon like a lance, for purposes of fire support, is much superior to 'flattening the city with a BC' since bunkers and other hardened structures are likely to survive a BC, but for a decapitation strike against a hardened bunker, a lance is much superior.  (see Cain's Last Stand for just such a decapitation lance strike against a planetary PDF HQ.)  Since Space Marines are a scalpel, not the sledgehammer of the IG.

And again, what is the weapon in BFG which is used to hunt other ships? Can't you get idea?

Further, if you blow a city to rubble, it makes it harder, not easier, to fight in.  Additionally, it damages infrastructure that the IG follow up landings might want intact.  Like airfields and space ports.  

And you think a lance is that precise? Sorry dude, but the lances are worse when it comes to damaging cities. It's a mega laser. NOTHING will be left of the city.

To the IN at that time, such short ranged lances would have represented very little threat, particularly compared to how rare they were relative to other ships of the period.  Same with the heavier armor, since most IN cap ships of the era carried at least one lance.

You actually think the Slaughter with it's short lances represented very little threat? LOL!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 11, 2010, 09:16:15 PM

You're mistaken with your time sequence. The heresy happened around M30. Soon after the splitting of responsibilities occured and the IN came into being and the ships were taken from the SM. The current IN design came into being around M37. Design is different from when the ships were removed from the SM's hands.

M31 and lasted for slightly less then a decade.  And, again, my point was that they would have set up the SM based on the fleets of the time, not the current ones.  


And you think a lance is that precise? Sorry dude, but the lances are worse when it comes to damaging cities. It's a mega laser. NOTHING will be left of the city.


Wrong.  It's stated both in fluff (books, etc) and in the various rule systems that, yes it is (40k, Epic, Rogue Trader).  In fact, as Vaaish pointed out earlier, it can target individual titans from orbit in Epic.  (For a look at a Str 3 60cm lance battery in 40k look up the defense laser for Apocalypse stats on GW's site.  It's the planetary defense laser mentioned in blue book.)

Why else would it have a 50% chance of hitting, as long as the target is in range, if it wasn't accurate?

You actually think the Slaughter with it's short lances represented very little threat? LOL!

No, I think that a Slaughter is superior to an SC.  You need to learn to read what I said before trying to be a wise ass.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 11, 2010, 09:31:54 PM


Except, Horizon 'that precious prow' didn't exist at the time the Codex was written.  The armored prow was a later invention (See fluff for GCs).  And, no, a single 30cm str 2 lance and a str 4 wb does not equal a str 2 lance and a str 14 wb on a faster and more durable hull (though not as heavily armored), since at the time the codex was written, the SC's navy equivalent would have been the Slaughter.  Same with the Desolator, which can, quite easily, kill a battle barge without ever taking damage from a barge carrying a str 4 30cm lance.

To the IN at that time, such short ranged lances would have represented very little threat, particularly compared to how rare they were relative to other ships of the period.  Same with the heavier armor, since most IN cap ships of the era carried at least one lance.
You didn't get it. Back then without precious prow they issued the lance-ban. With the prow they will even enforce that ban harder!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 11, 2010, 10:25:39 PM
M31 and lasted for slightly less then a decade.  And, again, my point was that they would have set up the SM based on the fleets of the time, not the current ones.  

And at the time, the fleet contained Murders, Carnages, Devastations, Slaughters, Acheron, Hades, Styx, Repulsives, Vengeances, Avengers, Exorcists, Executors, Retaliators, the Desolators, Emperors and Oberons and a smattering of the Apocalypse and Retribution as well as the Vengeful Spirit variants. What do you think would would be removed from SM hands?

Wrong.  It's stated both in fluff (books, etc) and in the various rule systems that, yes it is (40k, Epic, Rogue Trader).  In fact, as Vaaish pointed out earlier, it can target individual titans from orbit in Epic.  (For a look at a Str 3 60cm lance battery in 40k look up the defense laser for Apocalypse stats on GW's site.  It's the planetary defense laser mentioned in blue book.)

Why else would it have a 50% chance of hitting, as long as the target is in range, if it wasn't accurate?

Uh huh and just how limited is the damage that a lance can do when it targets said Titan? The area around the Titan is what we're talking about. Targeting is different from doing damage.

No, I think that a Slaughter is superior to an SC.  You need to learn to read what I said before trying to be a wise ass.

And you need to figure out what I was saying before making an ass of yourself further. PRECISELY that's what I meant, that even 30 cm on a Slaughter is deadly. You seem to be implying that 30 cm range lances are weak. Well those 30 cm lances on the Slaughter can hurt. And did you notice which among the cruisers at the time had 30 cm lances? Why only the Slaughter and the Executor which are not weak cruisers on any given day. Even gaming shows Slaughters being effective even against its Chaos siblings, which the IN would have been at the time which were the Murders, Devastations, Acheron, Hades and Styx'. So in short, what I am saying is don't pooh pooh 30 cm lances.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 11, 2010, 11:21:35 PM

You didn't get it. Back then without precious prow they issued the lance-ban. With the prow they will even enforce that ban harder!

Horizon: Where are you getting the lance ban?  I do not see a rule that 'And they shall know no lances.'  

I DO see 'Inevitably, the wrangling over interpretation of a ship's 'primary role' leads to some chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets then the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with.'   Which suggests that A) this is written in the Codex Astartes, and B) even some codex chapters are playing fast and loose with this rule, never mind what non-codex chapters are doing.

In the nova fluff, it talks about how the high speed and F/P/S lance make it a potent gunboat (by the standards of both the current and Heresy Era, as it is faster then almost any other Imperial or chaos ship).  I don't notice anyone suggesting that all space marine vessels but it must have a move of only 15 cm, because planetary landers have no need for the ability to move at high speeds.  

The Nova and Hunter are both specifically designed from the keel up as ship killers, to take on and take out ships outside their displacement class.  It's not the fact that it carries a lance.  It's the fact that it's an absurdly efficient at eliminating ships while having no use either as a boarding platform or an ability to land marines.  It's not just the lance, it's the whole package.  

A lance variant SC is actually far LESS fluff breaking then, say, a str 6 torpedo variant, as a lance has uses for fire support for a landing.

And at the time, the fleet contained Murders, Carnages, Devastations, Slaughters, Acheron, Hades, Styx, Repulsives, Vengeances, Avengers, Exorcists, Executors, Retaliators, the Desolators, Emperors and Oberons and a smattering of the Apocalypse and Retribution as well as the Vengeful Spirit variants. What do you think would would be removed from SM hands?

Well, you left out Swords, which were a new class in M31, and

Uh huh and just how limited is the damage that a lance can do when it targets said Titan? The area around the Titan is what we're talking about. Targeting is different from doing damage.

I may be wrong, since I don't play epic, but reading the pdf, as it's a pinpoint attack, it sound like it doesn't hit much other then the target, since no template is named in the rules I'm looking at.  In 40k it can scatter twice a d6 on a miss, and a single d6 on a hit, and uses the ord template.  In practical terms, it would probably devastate a fair sized building.

I think you may have it confused with a torpedo strike, which does do tremendous property damage in fluff. (See Storm of Iron)

And you need to figure out what I was saying before making an ass of yourself further. PRECISELY that's what I meant, that even 30 cm on a Slaughter is deadly. You seem to be implying that 30 cm range lances are weak. Well those 30 cm lances on the Slaughter can hurt. And did you notice which among the cruisers at the time had 30 cm lances? Why only the Slaughter and the Executor which are not weak cruisers on any given day. Even gaming shows Slaughters being effective even against its Chaos siblings, which the IN would have been at the time which were the Murders, Devastations, Acheron, Hades and Styx'. So in short, what I am saying is don't pooh pooh 30 cm lances.

D'Art, you still arn't getting what I was talking about.  At all.  You're off on a tangent here.  

My point was: At the time, they would have looked at what the SM had and asked: is this stronger then IN?  Is it a threat?

Answer: No, IN has Slaughter (at the time), which is faster, and more heavily armed.  A Strike Cruiser has average speed for a cruiser (of the period), and while heavily armored, has inferior firepower compared to the IN equivalent (of the period) even with a lance.  

Thus, a Strike Cruiser with a lance turret would not be seen as a threat to IN superiority in space at the time the codex was written.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 11, 2010, 11:50:15 PM
I don't understand the argument for the need for a lance. Str3Bcs is about equal to 2 lances. 2 lances, although rare and unique doesn't do anything for a strike cruiser. There is no gameplay reason for it.

The reasons against:
Lances are a very rare and valued weapon, and it is decided that they would be put on IN vessels before Astartes vessels, as the IN's primary function is ship to ship combat. Marines have significantly less use for a lance than they do bombard cannons. Lances are solely for ship to ship combat, and the imperium decided that allowing marines to have such weapons would make them too powerful.

Reasons for:
Marines would likely have some ships from before the heresy, (which are represented by character bbs?), or before mid 30 thousands at least. Some chapters may be more radical and choose to have lance equipped vessels, in spite of the Imperium's decree.

Eh, it's one of those arguments.... let them keep the lance, let them have 1 lance for free. It's a compromise that would make everyone half-happy.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 11, 2010, 11:52:05 PM
I may be wrong, since I don't play epic, but reading the pdf, as it's a pinpoint attack, it sound like it doesn't hit much other then the target, since no template is named in the rules I'm looking at.  In 40k it can scatter twice a d6 on a miss, and a single d6 on a hit, and uses the ord template.  In practical terms, it would probably devastate a fair sized building.

I think you may have it confused with a torpedo strike, which does do tremendous property damage in fluff. (See Storm of Iron)

No, I am not. Let's do a little thought experiment. Lances are very powerful energy weapons which should be able to tear through the toughest shield and armor a ship can have in space. This energy should enough that it can hit a target from, depending on the lance battery, 0 to 60,000km if we follow the 1:1000 scale which BFG normally follows. This is in a vacuum. Now imagine this weapon turning this amount of power into the atmosphere of a planet striking the planet surface. I would say, it wouldn't be as simple as just devastating a fairsized building.

D'Art, you still arn't getting what I was talking about.  At all.  You're off on a tangent here.  

My point was: At the time, they would have looked at what the SM had and asked: is this stronger then IN?  Is it a threat?

Answer: No, IN has Slaughter (at the time), which is faster, and more heavily armed.  A Strike Cruiser has average speed for a cruiser (of the period), and while heavily armored, has inferior firepower compared to the IN equivalent (of the period) even with a lance.  

Thus, a Strike Cruiser with a lance turret would not be seen as a threat to IN superiority in space at the time the codex was written.

I do get what you are talking about. To the point where you were even pooh pooh-ing a Str 4 30 cm BB. Lances are a threat whether it comes in ones or fours or more from 15 cm to 60 cm. In the end, the simplest way to remove the possibility of any such threat is to remove it entirely because even 1 lance can be a threat as the Nova entry implies since the IN prefer the SM to have it only limited to Escorts and the IN would not want to take chances the SM having it on even one cap ship. Str 1 lance supported by WBs with the speed, armor and maneuverability of the SC might just be enough to take down a Lunar. It can certainly take down a Dauntless.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 11, 2010, 11:52:44 PM
Quote
Thus, a Strike Cruiser with a lance turret would not be seen as a threat to IN superiority in space at the time the codex was written.
Yes it would.

I guess we come at a point where we just don't agree.

A lance is anti-ship. Period.
Anti-ship was disallowed. Dot Com.
:)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 12, 2010, 01:14:22 AM
No, I am not. Let's do a little thought experiment. Lances are very powerful energy weapons which should be able to tear through the toughest shield and armor a ship can have in space. This energy should enough that it can hit a target from, depending on the lance battery, 0 to 60,000km if we follow the 1:1000 scale which BFG normally follows. This is in a vacuum. Now imagine this weapon turning this amount of power into the atmosphere of a planet striking the planet surface. I would say, it wouldn't be as simple as just devastating a fairsized building.

Lightening can be over 30,000 degrees C and over a billion volts. It can hit a tree and blow it to flaming kindling without even singeing objects a few feet away because they only last tens of microseconds.  It's not the power or range of the beam, it's the duration that would cause the sort of thermal effects you seem to be alluding to.  

Further, experiments with the US Navy's Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser showed that a laser weapon based on the surface with only an output in the millions of watts could destroy a target outside the atmosphere (432km).  It had an effective beam about 14cm by 14cm


I do get what you are talking about. To the point where you were even pooh pooh-ing a Str 4 30 cm BB. Lances are a threat whether it comes in ones or fours or more from 15 cm to 60 cm. In the end, the simplest way to remove the possibility of any such threat is to remove it entirely because even 1 lance can be a threat as the Nova entry implies since the IN prefer the SM to have it only limited to Escorts and the IN would not want to take chances the SM having it on even one cap ship. Str 1 lance supported by WBs with the speed, armor and maneuverability of the SC might just be enough to take down a Lunar. It can certainly take down a Dauntless.

Except that at the time the decision was made, the Lunar and Dauntless were not mainline navy ships.  The Lunar may not have existed at all, (IN did not embrace the Lunar for another five thousand years or so) and the Dauntless it's unclear when it came into service, though probably not until after the Slaughter was phased out.  

You keep going back to current IN.  Current IN did not exist at the time.  'Well, it might kill a lunar' That's nice, but when the decision was made, those were still a few thousand years in the future.  At the time, even with lances, SM ships anti-ship ability was average at best.

@Plaxor: As far as lances being rare: at the beginning of the Imperium just about every class of ship seems to have carried them as a standard weapon, one much more common then torpedoes were at the time.  Again, you're thinking as though that were built by the Imperium at the present day.

As far as why: variety.  The game has been slowly stagnating for years due to lack of much new content 'officially'.  If it brings new possibilities to a list, or otherwise shakes things up, I'm all for it.  Personally, I'd like to see two or three new lists a year and at at least ten new ships or options for existing ones. 

@Horizon: Torpedoes are anti-ship, and yet SM are practically crawling with them now.  Other then exterminatus, they have no value for planetary operations whatsoever.  And yet, I don't see you calling for the SC variant with torps to be str 1 and cost 20 points. So, obviously, anti-ship is not disallowed.  TILT

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 12, 2010, 02:33:41 AM
Lances may not be as effective, but they certainly can be used against cities.  Its not a pinpoint, but a laser beam the width of a building.  They can also 'rake'.  Eldar being advanced enough to sometimes prevent this.

I thought this was a purely fluff debate, but to be sure, does anyone actually think a lance for a str3 BC is OP?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 12, 2010, 02:40:29 AM
I thought this was a purely fluff debate, but to be sure, does anyone actually think a lance for a str3 BC is OP?

Nope, 3bc equals about 2 lances.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 12, 2010, 03:34:05 AM
Lances may not be as effective, but they certainly can be used against cities.  Its not a pinpoint, but a laser beam the width of a building.  They can also 'rake'.  Eldar being advanced enough to sometimes prevent this.

I thought this was a purely fluff debate, but to be sure, does anyone actually think a lance for a str3 BC is OP?

Actually, according to fluff from RT, only certain archeotech versions can maintain the beam for more then a second.  However, in the GW 28mm scale model of a planetary defense laser, which is a 60cm str 3 lance, the actual aperture of the laser , according to scale, would only be a few feet wide.  Which would more or less mesh with having blast radius of about 20 feet to scale.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 12, 2010, 05:46:56 AM

Nope, 3bc equals about 2 lances.

Well, whatever. I was just making sure none of these good sensible people were actually trying to argue it from a gameplay perspective.


'I want to give this fleet an option that is rare, so I think I'll make it a variant option, but weaker than the current one to balance it out, just for those players who want to use certain chapters of this fleet.'

'I dunno, thats a good start, but iif some lunatic wanted to take all of those rare variants, that wouldn't be very fluffy, so lets impose a limit on the number of those variants that can be taken in the fleet.'

'Hey, thats a great idea.  Wait, no, nevermind.  Lets just allow the weaker option, but also charge 20 points for it.'


Terrible game design.  This might be more of the tabletop game you are looking for :P

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Airfix54mm.JPG&imgrefurl=http://pulp-zen.blogspot.com/2008/12/ethics-of-toys.html&usg=__e7u2s6WwTYt73FBCNue25JDm3HU=&h=1712&w=2288&sz=1923&hl=en&start=0&sig2=MAw0g4uNxcv62baY0jg85g&zoom=1&tbnid=uOJuRB7FxbcM1M:&tbnh=107&tbnw=154&ei=MGEETc6HC8HflgeTqujdCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darmy%2Bmen%2Btoys%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1138%26bih%3D535%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=405&oei=MGEETc6HC8HflgeTqujdCQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0&tx=67&ty=6
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 12, 2010, 06:30:43 AM
limits to the numbers of variants taken is already in place. the 20 points for the lance is to ensure that no one takes it outside of the odd fluff reason. If we'd had our way the lance option wouldn't even be there and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 12, 2010, 06:36:53 AM
If it were my choice I would make it a +10 point upgrade for two lances. Or an even trade off for 1. Rare/somewhat unfluffy things are usually costed more to make fleet lists resemble what is supposed to be true. Much like torpedoes on the vengeance gcs in the modification thread, probably should cost 20, but the decision was to overcost it slightly to show it's rarity/difficulty in repairing non-redundant systems etc.

I can see the reason behind it, but +20 for a weaker option is a bit much. +5 or +10 maybe.

At free for 1 the player could choose to have a different option, and make their fleet of someone radical like the minotaurs. However this would be at the cost of some firepower and wouldn't be the optimal thing to do, so most people would only do it for fluff reasons.

It's like a lot of the options for different variants of the IN dominator and tyrant. Not worthwhile, but more for a fluff standpoint than anything. Or the lower hit version of the merchant.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 12, 2010, 07:29:03 AM
I think a tradeoff for one lance is the best option.  Not as good as a str3 BC, but you dont have to pay stupid tax for it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 12, 2010, 07:53:46 AM
Lightening can be over 30,000 degrees C and over a billion volts. It can hit a tree and blow it to flaming kindling without even singeing objects a few feet away because they only last tens of microseconds.  It's not the power or range of the beam, it's the duration that would cause the sort of thermal effects you seem to be alluding to.  

and you're comparing lightning to something which is more powerful and has more duration than tens of microseconds?

Further, experiments with the US Navy's Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser showed that a laser weapon based on the surface with only an output in the millions of watts could destroy a target outside the atmosphere (432km).  It had an effective beam about 14cm by 14cm

And again, you're comparing puny tech to highly advanced and designed for maximum destructive tech 30,000 years into the future?

Except that at the time the decision was made, the Lunar and Dauntless were not mainline navy ships.  The Lunar may not have existed at all, (IN did not embrace the Lunar for another five thousand years or so) and the Dauntless it's unclear when it came into service, though probably not until after the Slaughter was phased out.

You keep going back to current IN.  Current IN did not exist at the time.  'Well, it might kill a lunar' That's nice, but when the decision was made, those were still a few thousand years in the future.  At the time, even with lances, SM ships anti-ship ability was average at best.

It doesn't matter if current IN ships didn't exist at the time. What matters is SM do not get anything which can even remotely threaten IN, whether they were using Murders or Slaughters or Lunars or Dauntless'. The only way for that to happen is not giving SM lances.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 12, 2010, 08:15:05 AM
LS, you must be clear at that point, the game designer in this case (Nate & friends) wanted the lance for free in the beginning. Even str2 at one point. So the design was like a 1 on 1 call.

Then the fans (at least some/majority?) screamed murder evil burn at the idea of Marines getting lances since that was not allowed by the background story (if BaronI reads his own arguments next week he'll see he is in support of even higher anti-lance enforcement by the Imperium ;) ).

So the HA, a) having gotten old design directions from the old HA needed to keep the lance but came forward and made the lance extra costed. To follow the logic of background.

So, do not call it terrible game design. But more bringing game design with no fluff support into a a fluff supported setting. :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 12, 2010, 12:10:29 PM
and you're comparing lightning to something which is more powerful and has more duration than tens of microseconds?


Oh?  Point me to the fluff that says it lasts for longer then tens of microseconds.  The only fluff I've found so far is statements that a lance shot only lasts a fraction of a second. The Starflare pattern lace from the RT is a piece of archeotech that is an exception to this (according to it's fluff) that can maintain a beam long enough to be raked across the target.  However, that might be a relative amount of time, because at range, the turret would move a very tiny bit to rake even a Battleship (we're talking a few hundredths of a degree of motion.

This would imply that the beam is of such short duration in most lances that it's impossible to move the turret fast enough to do so.  Since a turret can track a ship 60,000km away and hit it, this would imply that they're quite fast tracking.  

All described lance strikes in 'books' as you like to call them, as though being a book made it somehow less, indicate that all most people not caught in it see is a sudden flash of light and a tremendous bang.  Usually a building or some similar object is noticed missing shortly thereafter.  


And again, you're comparing puny tech to highly advanced and designed for maximum destructive tech 30,000 years into the future?

Well, other then the lances would have been designed before 30k years in the future, since 40k Imperium tech is on a downslope, MIRACL (don't you love military acronyms?) has a power output that could be compared to a 40k laser destroyer LR variant.  Make the thing about hundred times bigger, and give it a private nuke to power it, and you have a lance, or something that can do a passable impersonation of one.

Most things you see in 40k, unless it has to do with the warp, or magic space marine implants (which must have been designed by Tzeench, because none of the other chaos gods would have failed biology so epicly), we can more or less do, if not right now, within the next decade or two.

Except make a five kilometer long space ship with a density lower then styrofoam.  I'm still working that one out.

It doesn't matter if current IN ships didn't exist at the time. What matters is SM do not get anything which can even remotely threaten IN, whether they were using Murders or Slaughters or Lunars or Dauntless'. The only way for that to happen is not giving SM lances.

Yes, because lances are clearly less threatening to ships then, say, vortex torpedoes.  (Which SM are permitted)

Here's the thing, you guys seem absolutely hung up on the idea that it's the weapon.  It's not.  It's the whole package.  Otherwise Fortress Monasteries wouldn't mount lances (and before anyone freaks that lances on FM are new, they have had them since the original Rogue Trader.  And, for those of us who think they're too powerful, including me, the originals were stated to have over 80 lance batteries).  Let me use an example from history: once upon a time, the RN got an idea to mount a 12 inch naval gun on a submarine.  Needless to say, it did not work as well as a 12 inch gun mounted on a battleship, despite being the exact same weapon.  Your assertion is that no matter what hull the weapon is mounted on, it's autoimatically equally as dangerous.  To me, that's like saying that an 88 mounted on a parked opel blitz is just as dangerous as the one mounted in a koenigstiger chasing you through the hedgerows.  While, yes, it will likely inflict the same damage if it hits you, the one mounted in the koenigstiger is actually much more dangerous.

And, bluntly, the only way a SM ship could never, ever, ever be a threat to IN is if it had no weapons and no engines.  And, according to fluff, this was suggested.  What the primarchs said to this was not recorded, other then it was not accepted.  One would imagine that their actual responses though were rather short and anatomically improbable.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 12, 2010, 08:15:29 PM
Quote
Of all the vessels in the service of the Adeptus Astartes, the Nova class
frigate is commonly the single class to which the Imperial navy take the
most exception. It lacks sufficient size to really fulfil the deployment and
assault roles for which Space Marine ships are primarily intended and its
lance armament and speed make it a menacing gunboat in its own right. As
such, the Nova remains rare in most Space Marine fleets, a trend the
Imperial Navy, the Inquisition and other institutions perpetually concerned
by the balance of power would dearly love to see continue.

Bold Part:
Lances and the position of the Imperium & Inquistion regarding them. Pretty clear.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 12, 2010, 10:35:16 PM
Quote
Of all the vessels in the service of the Adeptus Astartes, the Nova class
frigate is commonly the single class to which the Imperial navy take the
most exception. It lacks sufficient size to really fulfil the deployment and
assault roles for which Space Marine ships are primarily intended and its
lance armament and speed make it a menacing gunboat in its own right. As
such, the Nova remains rare in most Space Marine fleets, a trend the
Imperial Navy, the Inquisition and other institutions perpetually concerned
by the balance of power would dearly love to see continue.

Bold Part:
Lances and the position of the Imperium & Inquistion regarding them. Pretty clear.

No, the word that should be highlighted is 'gunboat' or 'gunship'.  It's mentioned again and again in the fluff about things SM can't have bigger then escorts.  Lances are only mentioned once in the Nova fluff.  

"Instead, a compromise was reached which limited the Space Marines to vessels whose primary role was that of transport, delivery, and suppression designed to facilitate planetary assault. Only the smallest of vessels would be permitted to act exclusively as gunships..." Armada, page 20.  (italics mine)

"Inevitably, the wrangling over interpretation of a shipís Ďprimary roleí leads to some chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets than the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with." Armada, Page 20.  [no italics needed]

"The vessel, although larger than any genuine gunboats likely to be in use, is relatively small by Space Marine standards, seldom carrying much more than a single squad of Space Marines... and is of little use in their favoured planetary assaults, but instead earns itself an admirable place as the foremost ship of the line when it comes to more mundane border patrols and deep space blockades." Fluff for Gladius class

"It lacks sufficient size to really fulfil the deployment and assault roles for which Space Marine ships are primarily intended and its lance armament and speed make it a menacing gunboat in its own right." Nova class fluff.


Again and again it comes back to 'gunboat' and 'primary role'.  Not lances.  Not torps.  Not anti-ship weapons.  The role the ship is designed for.  A ship built exclusivly as a weapons carrier would qualify as a 'gunboat'.  A strike cruiser with a str 2 lance would not.   In fact, a Strike Cruiser, designed to be the first ship to enter a contested system, would be totally justified in having lances, as it's 'primary role' is given in several places as a first responder to a crisis.

"A typical offensive against a rebel or alien-held planet begins with the arrival of strike craft which engage and clear away defending system ships and may establish a hidden base located within an asteroid field or on a small moon if a protracted campaign is being undertaken." Armada, page 26

"Their primary function seems to be that of rapid response, reports indicating that they are invariably the first craft to arrive at a threatened planet." - Strike Cruiser fluff entry.

"Like battlebarges, strike cruisers do not represent a single class of vessel, or specific configurations of weapons and systems, but rather represent a broad range of different Space Marine vessels used for largely similar tasks. ... Other chapters, too, possess widely differing forms of strike cruiser, each shaped by centuries of tradition and varying doctrine amongst the chapters of the Adeptus Astartes." Armada, page 23 (italics mine)


By the logic presented by the anti-lance faction, as long as the ship has no lances, it's allowed, because it's the lances that make it a threat.  This flies in the face of fluff, as clearly the prohibition is on 'pure' warships with no capability to support landings.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 12, 2010, 10:47:08 PM
Oh?  Point me to the fluff that says it lasts for longer then tens of microseconds.  The only fluff I've found so far is statements that a lance shot only lasts a fraction of a second. The Starflare pattern lace from the RT is a piece of archeotech that is an exception to this (according to it's fluff) that can maintain a beam long enough to be raked across the target.  However, that might be a relative amount of time, because at range, the turret would move a very tiny bit to rake even a Battleship (we're talking a few hundredths of a degree of motion.

Do the math. At 30,000 km, the equivalent of 30 cm, it should last a 10th of a second at least. For 60,000 km, 1/5th of a second. Definitely more than microseconds.

Well, other then the lances would have been designed before 30k years in the future, since 40k Imperium tech is on a downslope, MIRACL (don't you love military acronyms?) has a power output that could be compared to a 40k laser destroyer LR variant.  Make the thing about hundred times bigger, and give it a private nuke to power it, and you have a lance, or something that can do a passable impersonation of one.

Assuming again.

Yes, because lances are clearly less threatening to ships then, say, vortex torpedoes.  (Which SM are permitted)

Oh, definitely esp since Vortex torpedoes are not readily available, whether in the game or in the books even and ones which can quite easily be taken out as long as one has AC. Can you take out a lance shot?

Here's the thing, you guys seem absolutely hung up on the idea that it's the weapon.  It's not.  It's the whole package.  Otherwise Fortress Monasteries wouldn't mount lances (and before anyone freaks that lances on FM are new, they have had them since the original Rogue Trader.  And, for those of us who think they're too powerful, including me, the originals were stated to have over 80 lance batteries).  Let me use an example from history: once upon a time, the RN got an idea to mount a 12 inch naval gun on a submarine.  Needless to say, it did not work as well as a 12 inch gun mounted on a battleship, despite being the exact same weapon.  Your assertion is that no matter what hull the weapon is mounted on, it's autoimatically equally as dangerous.  To me, that's like saying that an 88 mounted on a parked opel blitz is just as dangerous as the one mounted in a koenigstiger chasing you through the hedgerows.  While, yes, it will likely inflict the same damage if it hits you, the one mounted in the koenigstiger is actually much more dangerous.

So do you use a FM in your fleet? And you're actually confirming for us that it is the weapon mounted on cap ships (the Koenigstiger) instead of the Escort (the Opel Blitz) which is dangerous which is what we have been pointing out all along. The whole package as you say. Tada. Thank you for playing.

And, bluntly, the only way a SM ship could never, ever, ever be a threat to IN is if it had no weapons and no engines.  And, according to fluff, this was suggested.  What the primarchs said to this was not recorded, other then it was not accepted.  One would imagine that their actual responses though were rather short and anatomically improbable.

And the IN would have been happy to take that deal. Unfortunately, we all know how horsetrading works so SM still has to get some weapons as long as it cannot threaten the IN capital ships.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 12, 2010, 11:04:24 PM
A strike cruiser with a str 2 lance would not.   In fact, a Strike Cruiser, designed to be the first ship to enter a contested system, would be totally justified in having lances, as it's 'primary role' is given in several places as a first responder to a crisis.

Yes it would. The thing has FP4 WBs, Str 3 BCs and THs. It is a gunship already but not as efficient as the IN contemporaries. To give it Str 2 lances, it would now be a much more effective ship rivaling a Dauntless which has FP4 WBs and Str3 lances.

"A typical offensive against a rebel or alien-held planet begins with the arrival of strike craft which engage and clear away defending system ships and may establish a hidden base located within an asteroid field or on a small moon if a protracted campaign is being undertaken." Armada, page 26

Yup. System ships which the current SC and Escorts can easily handle. Establishing moon bases which do not require lances.

"Their primary function seems to be that of rapid response, reports indicating that they are invariably the first craft to arrive at a threatened planet." - Strike Cruiser fluff entry.

Yup and if they find a Chaos task force orbiting the planet? Should they charge in headlong?

"Like battlebarges, strike cruisers do not represent a single class of vessel, or specific configurations of weapons and systems, but rather represent a broad range of different Space Marine vessels used for largely similar tasks. ... Other chapters, too, possess widely differing forms of strike cruiser, each shaped by centuries of tradition and varying doctrine amongst the chapters of the Adeptus Astartes." Armada, page 23 (italics mine)

And so we present other profiles like all launch bay BBs and SCs. Maybe torp heavy. Those are different weapons which do not have to have lances as part of the package. Doctrines and tradition would mainly be how they like to handle things. Some prefer assaulting (boarding, hit and runs, fighting up close) while others like siege tactics and bombarding from afar (which WBs and BCs are well suited in doing).

By the logic presented by the anti-lance faction, as long as the ship has no lances, it's allowed, because it's the lances that make it a threat.  This flies in the face of fluff, as clearly the prohibition is on 'pure' warships with no capability to support landings.

Nope, it does not. Yes, the lances make the ship a threat against another ship. The only thing that can minimize a lance's damage are shields. WBs and BCs are affected by BMs, shields and for the former, armor values and both are subject to the gunnery table. Torps and AC while ignoring shields are affected by armor value and can be shot down by turrets and AC. NCs are affected by shields only as well but it has it's own problems in the scatter rules as well as not being able to fire at anything under 30 cm.

So lances are what makes a ship truly a threat against another ship and is a central component of what really makes a ship a proper gunship.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 12, 2010, 11:06:00 PM
Do the math. At 30,000 km, the equivalent of 30 cm, it should last a 10th of a second at least. For 60,000 km, 1/5th of a second. Definitely more than microseconds.


By the numbers, I believe you're talking about range and the speed of light.  The problem is that the lance would not have to be continuously transmitted the entire time it takes to reach it's target.  


So do you use a FM in your fleet? And you're actually confirming for us that it is the weapon mounted on cap ships (the Koenigstiger) instead of the Escort (the Opel Blitz) which is dangerous which is what we have been pointing out all along. The whole package as you say. Tada. Thank you for playing.

Um D'art, an 88 mounted on a blitz can't move and fire.  You have to stop, get out, and set up the gun on it's carrage.  The King Tiger is the fast, maneuverable one, in this case, since it can chase you down with it.  

And I don't have a Space Marine fleet.

[/quote]
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 12, 2010, 11:14:07 PM
By the numbers, I believe you're talking about range and the speed of light.  The problem is that the lance would not have to be continuously transmitted the entire time it takes to reach it's target.  

And you are saying that because? Note that the lance also has to damage. It has to puncture the outer hull's armor which is in no way weak. So actually the lance should fire for at least a second just so it can have that oompf! factor to punch through the outer hull then still have enough energy to damage the inside of a ship.

Um D'art, an 88 mounted on a blitz can't move and fire.  You have to stop, get out, and set up the gun on it's carrage.  The King Tiger is the fast, maneuverable one, in this case, since it can chase you down with it.  

And I don't have a Space Marine fleet.


You're missing the point aren't you? The Blitz is not a true war chariot even though it can be used just that it would be tedious and so would not be a threat similar to Escorts (though with a little ingenuity, cutters, welders and metal plate I think the 88 can be mounted and operate in the rear). The 88 can still hurt if the weapon hits as you pointed out, just like the lances. But having the weapon on a proper platform, it would be certainly most dangerous. The Koenigstiger is a proper platform equivalent of a capital ship.  As you point out, it is most threatening. That is your analogy, not mine.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 12, 2010, 11:17:19 PM
Once again: you are totally forgetting that the IN fleet at the time of the writing of Codex Astartes was not the IN fleet used 'today'.  The Inq DOES NOT go around telling SM chapters 'Well, IN got simpler/weaker again, so you have to throw out your priceless relics from your founding.'  One thing that Space Marines do take very seriously, in any and all fluff I have ever read, is the traditions of their chapters.

Firstly, you are still making no case for marines to have lances. Secondly, let's assume that, against the fleet of the day, the IN didn't care about lances and that they do care about lances now. This is NOT a reasonable assumption by the way. The fact is that, yes, they would very certainly demand that SMs surrender any lance armed ship for retrofitting to a more acceptable weapon system. The Inquisition don't order space marines about as far as how they run their fief or in the way they operate their crusades or deploy their ground forces. The High Lords of Terra however do have an agenda to keep SM fleets from getting too powerful and they have the might of the IN to back up their agenda and a paranoia of clinical proportions to ensure that this never comes about.

Space Marines may well have their own way in a lot of things. In space however, they are completely dominated by the IN. The IN are the law. No lances on space marine ships.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 13, 2010, 12:16:35 AM
Quote
No, the word that should be highlighted is 'gunboat' or 'gunship'.  It's mentioned again and again in the fluff about things SM can't have bigger then escorts.  Lances are only mentioned once in the Nova fluff. 

That means absolutely nothing in the context. Compare the stats of the gladius, which is noted as being the most numerous marine escort, with the nova, which is considered rare and problematic. The difference is one has a lance and the other does not. Use some logic and common sense to tell you what the IN has a problem with.

Now if that isn't enough, look at WHAT defines it as a menacing gunboat... let me quote: "its lance armament and speed make it a menacing gunboat in its own right."
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 13, 2010, 12:20:04 AM
Yes it would. The thing has FP4 WBs, Str 3 BCs and THs. It is a gunship already but not as efficient as the IN contemporaries. To give it Str 2 lances, it would now be a much more effective ship rivaling a Dauntless which has FP4 WBs and Str3 lances.


And would not have rivaled the slaughter which is, again, the ship they would have weighed it against.  Stop trying to use modern IN, it's not fluffy in this case.


Yup. System ships which the current SC and Escorts can easily handle. Establishing moon bases which do not require lances.

I'd say that the common SFD Monitor is being heavily underestimated here.  +6 and two shields and turrets make a single monitor a tough nut for a SC or a nova to crack.  One on one, a nova killing it is nearly impossible, and they cost within 10 points of each other.


Yup and if they find a Chaos task force orbiting the planet? Should they charge in headlong?

It would not be the first time they did exactly that.  Particularly the Minotaurs and the Space Wolves.

And so we present other profiles like all launch bay BBs and SCs. Maybe torp heavy. Those are different weapons which do not have to have lances as part of the package. Doctrines and tradition would mainly be how they like to handle things. Some prefer assaulting (boarding, hit and runs, fighting up close) while others like siege tactics and bombarding from afar (which WBs and BCs are well suited in doing).

Torps are anti-ship weapons, having no use in planetary landing support, and by your logic, prohibited.  BCs, at least for SC, are not a long range weapon, and are unsuitable for what you describe.

BCs are also powerful anti-ship weapons.  A lance only inflicts a critical hit 1/6th of the time, a BC does 50% of the time.  Since a critical hit represents massive internal damage to a ship...

"Bombardment cannons are equally devastating in ship-to-ship combat, capable of blasting apart any capital ship in just a few salvoes." Armada, Page 21.

Nope, it does not. Yes, the lances make the ship a threat against another ship. The only thing that can minimize a lance's damage are shields. WBs and BCs are affected by BMs, shields and for the former, armor values and both are subject to the gunnery table. Torps and AC while ignoring shields are affected by armor value and can be shot down by turrets and AC. NCs are affected by shields only as well but it has it's own problems in the scatter rules as well as not being able to fire at anything under 30 cm.

So lances are what makes a ship truly a threat against another ship and is a central component of what really makes a ship a proper gunship.

So, the Avenger is NOT a proper gunship, and not a 'true' threat to other ships, because it doesn't have lances, despite having a more powerful broadside then a Retribution class battleship?  
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 13, 2010, 01:11:25 AM
Firstly, you are still making no case for marines to have lances. Secondly, let's assume that, against the fleet of the day, the IN didn't care about lances and that they do care about lances now. This is NOT a reasonable assumption by the way. The fact is that, yes, they would very certainly demand that SMs surrender any lance armed ship for retrofitting to a more acceptable weapon system. The Inquisition don't order space marines about as far as how they run their fief or in the way they operate their crusades or deploy their ground forces. The High Lords of Terra however do have an agenda to keep SM fleets from getting too powerful and they have the might of the IN to back up their agenda and a paranoia of clinical proportions to ensure that this never comes about.

Space Marines may well have their own way in a lot of things. In space however, they are completely dominated by the IN. The IN are the law. No lances on space marine ships.

Ok, I'll state this: to talk inquisition makes it so that I cannot argue the point within the parameters that D'Art et al insist that I argue within, requiring that I refer to sources outside Blue Book and Armada.  I'm making the best case possible within the limitation that no other 40k material 'counts'.  

That aside: the Inquisition seems to by and large not have as much authority as you suggest over space marines, as, Lord Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, and Space Marines chapter masters are listed as the peers of the Imperium (meaning in the eyes of the Emperor, they're all more or less of the same rank.)  Typically, it seems that the Inquisition seeks out the approval of other space marine chapters or Imperial organizations when dealing with a 'rogue' chapter (See Souldrinkers books, IA on the Badab War, all fluff for the Relictors) in much the same way that IG Commissars hold tribunals when another commissar is charged with a crime.  

The only situation that the Inquisition acted on it's own was the Grey Knights assault on the Flame Falcons, though it could be argued that they are another space marine chapter as well as an Inquisitorial arm.  

When Space Marines feel their fellows are being treated unfairly by an Imperial Institution, situations like the Badab war happen, so IQ tends to treat SM with kid gloves. 

When relics of the chapters are sized, for whatever reason, you have a situation such as led the Souldrinkers down the path to rebellion against the Imperium.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 13, 2010, 01:17:14 AM
@BI

Torps do have a place. They can carry exterminatus warheads for one. Secondly they can be boarding torps, which is apropos of space marines and thirdly, they are better against static defences at extreme range than they are against things that can simply move out of the way.

Apart from that, you are not making the case for SMs to get lances. You are simply saying that denying the SMs lances is not all that the IN would have to do in order to keep them suppressed. This is true. They should also be denied pure gunships that could stand toe to toe with IN vessels. This is why they have undergunned and short ranged BBs and why they have no 8 hit line cruiser.

The weapons they do have either aid in their ground deployment or perform optimally against static defences, which is all they need. Lances are an anti-ship weapon. The only reason to take them would be to shoot ships with. This is because ships move, and have aspects and lances ignore this. Defences don't move. WBs and BCs perform extremely well against these. This is all the SMs need. They don't need a lance.

Now, as for notions that the SC is able to beat this or the BB can't be stopped except by that blah blah, well of course there are some concessions made, in the interests of making the game balanced and more interesting. Note however that we're talking a very expensive BB here, so there is balance in that the SMs will be outnumbered (you can get more Rets for points than BBs). However, there is no reason whatsoever why we would ever give Space Marines an anti-ship weapon. None. If we were talking pure fluff we might reduce SM firepower a bit further, making them little more than tough transports. We concede that players want to fight battles with fleets of space marine ships, rather than SM embarked IN ships, so we make it doable. But then why would we give them lances?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 13, 2010, 01:19:03 AM
Gah! don't start the space marine vs. inquisitor argument. I've seen it too many times. An inquisitor has power to declare a chapter excommunicae. Power enough.

Although he probably doesn't necessarily have the power to tell SMs to do whatever he wants, they probably would. Inquisitors are the Imperium in idea, they are to enforce it's regulations.

Now there are a few accounts of sms going against inquisitors, but it isn't a normal thing for them. I.E. the space wolves refusing to be inducted into the deathwatch. Also likely an inquisitor would have to meet with a board of other members of the inquisition to explain his reasons for declaring a chapter excommunicae, to prevent it being done rashly.

Yes, some space marines could and probably do get away with having a lance on their SC, it could be for a plethora of reasons. Which is why I take the, 'it should only be overcosted enough to make it obviously not a good choice' idealogy.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 13, 2010, 01:21:47 AM
That aside: the Inquisition seems to by and large not have as much authority as you suggest over space marines, as, Lord Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, and Space Marines chapter masters are listed as the peers of the Imperium (meaning in the eyes of the Emperor, they're all more or less of the same rank.)  Typically, it seems that the Inquisition seeks out the approval of other space marine chapters or Imperial organizations when dealing with a 'rogue' chapter (See Souldrinkers books, IA on the Badab War, all fluff for the Relictors) in much the same way that IG Commissars hold tribunals when another commissar is charged with a crime.

I did not suggest that the Inquisition did have authority over the SMs, in fact I stipulated that they didn't. The High Lords of Terra do, however. They also directly control the IN, and it is with this hammer that they dominate the SMs. The SMs answer to the High Lords. They do not have the power to resist. This is why they were broken down into chapters and stripped of their warships.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 13, 2010, 01:22:17 AM
If you limit the lance variants taken, and make the tradeout option one of less overall use, why is there a need to also add in a points cost?
What does that accomplish?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 13, 2010, 01:25:15 AM
If you limit the lance variants taken, and make the tradeout option one of less overall use, why is there a need to also add in a points cost?
What does that accomplish?

It gives a lance option to all those that demanded it and yet ensures that no one will take it as they shouldn't or, if they do, they're punished for their stupidity. It's a cowards way out. It should simply be stated that no purpose built SM capital ship will fuckin EVER have a lance on it. Deal with it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 13, 2010, 01:32:09 AM
It gives a lance option to all those that demanded it and yet ensures that no one will take it as they shouldn't or, if they do, they're punished for their stupidity. It's a cowards way out. It should simply be stated that no purpose built SM capital ship will fuckin EVER have a lance on it. Deal with it.

I think the more Sigoroth has to talk the angrier he gets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 13, 2010, 01:34:08 AM
Except you have no basis on which to make that statement, Sig.  

Limitating the amount taken to very small, on a tradeout with no net gain, is quite enough of a limitation.
Tacking on a large points cost on top of that is just seems mean spirited.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 13, 2010, 01:34:42 AM
If you limit the lance variants taken, and make the tradeout option one of less overall use, why is there a need to also add in a points cost?
What does that accomplish?

It gives a lance option to all those that demanded it and yet ensures that no one will take it as they shouldn't or, if they do, they're punished for their stupidity. It's a cowards way out. It should simply be stated that no purpose built SM capital ship will fuckin EVER have a lance on it. Deal with it.


From the Rules for the Damocles Command Rhino:

" During large engagements the Space Marines can call upon the firepower of their orbiting Strike Cruisers or Battle Barge to lend heavy fire support. This is always a weapon of last resort, reserved only for the most dangerous of foes, as an orbital strike can be as dangerous for friendly forces in the area as it is for the enemy. "  

First option on the list?

'Lance Strike  70  10  1  Ordnance blast '
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 13, 2010, 01:38:13 AM
I think the argument is pointless now, everyone has their opinions and they are very hard to change over the internet. Especially if there is no cited evidence.

This isn't going anywhere. SMs have their lance, It's a POS. This argument is about a compromise that gave each side nothing, and in fact both sides probably lost something. Yes, even the side that gets the lance, because it is an insult to have to pay so much for it.

Oh and the lance strike on the Command Rhino was because it mimicked the already in place stats of the lance strike for daemonhunters. Now the current chapter master has orbital bombardment, a more appropriate thing.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 13, 2010, 01:38:22 AM
To be clear, I'm not sure if Baron is advocating widespread use of lances in the SM fleet, standard, or not.  But I'm certainly not.  
Limited, meh options.  But available if you wish to represent very specific fleets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 13, 2010, 01:53:34 AM
I think the argument is pointless now, everyone has their opinions and they are very hard to change over the internet. Especially if there is no cited evidence.

This isn't going anywhere. SMs have their lance, It's a POS. This argument is about a compromise that gave each side nothing, and in fact both sides probably lost something. Yes, even the side that gets the lance, because it is an insult to have to pay so much for it.

Oh and the lance strike on the Command Rhino was because it mimicked the already in place stats of the lance strike for daemonhunters. Now the current chapter master has orbital bombardment, a more appropriate thing.

That's nice, but it's still a fluff example of SM using lances on battlebarges and SC.  Another one would be, if anyone cares to watch the trailer for the new 'Space Marine' game, a (VERY POWERFUL) lance strike is called down by the Ultramarines from a strike cruiser.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 13, 2010, 03:25:43 AM
And would not have rivaled the slaughter which is, again, the ship they would have weighed it against.  Stop trying to use modern IN, it's not fluffy in this case.

On the contrary, SC with lances and THs and supporting WB CAN rival a Slaughter. Remember that SCs have 6+ armor so can are almost as hardy as the Slaughter. Adding lances would allow the SC to now be an efficient gun platform able to tear down the shields and plink the Slaughter for damage and the existing TH loadout of Str 2 would give the Slaughter headaches. The SC has a tighter turning radius that it could get behind the Slaughter and shoot or maintain an abeam profile. All that for cheaper points. 


I'd say that the common SFD Monitor is being heavily underestimated here.  +6 and two shields and turrets make a single monitor a tough nut for a SC or a nova to crack.  One on one, a nova killing it is nearly impossible, and they cost within 10 points of each other.

Look at the speed and tell me the Monitor won't be outmaneuvered and killed by an SC? Esp one with lances.

It would not be the first time they did exactly that.  Particularly the Minotaurs and the Space Wolves.

And they almost always come out of the deal much battered and have to use teleport attacks to mess up the opposing ship. Your point?

Torps are anti-ship weapons, having no use in planetary landing support, and by your logic, prohibited.  BCs, at least for SC, are not a long range weapon, and are unsuitable for what you describe.

Torps might have no use against planetary assault but they most certainly have uses in exterminatus. IN find torps a more acceptable weapon for SM since 1. they can easily be taken out by ordnance or 2. outmaneuvered. BCs are not suitable for what I described? And why not? it's not like you need long range to hit a planet.

BCs are also powerful anti-ship weapons.  A lance only inflicts a critical hit 1/6th of the time, a BC does 50% of the time.  Since a critical hit represents massive internal damage to a ship...

Crits won't easily kill ships. Every lance hit after shields is a point of damage. BCs will hope it gets the right profile to get a lot of dice and crits will contribute to its destruction over the long run but the target ships can weather BC fire better than lances.

"Bombardment cannons are equally devastating in ship-to-ship combat, capable of blasting apart any capital ship in just a few salvoes." Armada, Page 21.

Sure just about any weapon in BFG can. But lances are much more efficient in doing so. Again, it's a problem with efficiency.

So, the Avenger is NOT a proper gunship, and not a 'true' threat to other ships, because it doesn't have lances, despite having a more powerful broadside then a Retribution class battleship?  

Yup. Sad to say, Avenger isn't. FP16 is nice but against an abeam target greater than 15 cm, that's 5 dice. See the problem? With the Retribution, that's 4 dice and 3 lances. See the difference?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 13, 2010, 04:08:43 AM
BaronI,
please, Vaaish also said it:

The Nova Entry clearly states:

The Lance makes the Nova a Gunboat.

I'm not native English but even I can understand that line.

Lance = Gunboat.

And I don't care about some space marine movie which suddenly has a lance. Tells me how friggin bad those BL writers can be and how daft the BL editors are. Frankly, I don't think they even care.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 13, 2010, 04:36:59 AM
BaronI,
please, Vaaish also said it:

The Nova Entry clearly states:

The Lance makes the Nova a Gunboat.

I'm not native English but even I can understand that line.

Lance = Gunboat.

And I don't care about some space marine movie which suddenly has a lance. Tells me how friggin bad those BL writers can be and how daft the BL editors are. Frankly, I don't think they even care.


That's nice, but so far, no one has refuted that the Damocles Command Rhino in IA2 specifically states that it contacts SC/BB for lance strikes.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 13, 2010, 04:41:11 AM
No, we cannot refute a book which has been written. The thing is... it was Forgeworld who did it. You do know they wanted to make a Custodian like mega uber wonky powerful (the HA intervened). FW knows (knew?) total shyte about what happens in BFG or 40k at many points.

Also, if a BB was called for it was a VBB. ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 13, 2010, 05:13:53 AM
No, we cannot refute a book which has been written. The thing is... it was Forgeworld who did it. You do know they wanted to make a Custodian like mega uber wonky powerful (the HA intervened). FW knows (knew?) total shyte about what happens in BFG or 40k at many points.

Also, if a BB was called for it was a VBB. ;)

Compared to FFG, FW is a model of internal consistency.  Some of the revisions to existing BFG fluff make my brain burn, and they're getting official approval from GW for them, so it's canon fluff now.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 13, 2010, 06:17:10 AM
Quote
That's nice, but so far, no one has refuted that the Damocles Command Rhino in IA2 specifically states that it contacts SC/BB for lance strikes.

Actually, those rules for the Damocles Rhino are outdated. FW released an update to IA2 last august which replaces the rules in the book and only gives the vehicle access to an orbital bombardment which is an ordnance barrage template no longer specifically stated as being a lance.

here's a link to the update on the FW site:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA2update28AUG.pdf
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 13, 2010, 06:39:13 AM
Baron, you are arguing way more than you need to.  Stick to the simple fact:
Lances are are in a space marine fleet, but there is precedent to believe that they wouldn't be nonexistant.

Limiting their inclusion and having it be a suboptimal variant is the key to them being allowed.
The only thing that needs to go is the ridiculous points cost.  If it was trading a str3 BC for 2 lances, then it would be ok at +10 points.  Not equal, but maybe enough to satisfy both parties.  Or a Str3 for 1 lance for free.  Any more is just mean spirited anal behavior. 

The anti-marine bias in this thread is palpable.  Much stronger than any fanboyism.  It is clouding the judgment of some to the point that they think its ok to charge ludicrous amounts of points for an underpowered variant.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 13, 2010, 06:49:08 AM
Quote
[The anti-marine bias in this thread is palpable. Much stronger than any fanboyism. It is clouding the judgment of some to the point that they think its ok to charge ludicrous amounts of points for an underpowered variant.
Oh really???

The people who do not want lance swayed the HA to the following:

* 2nd shield option for Strike Cruisers
* Prow options to replace t-hawks (BC/torps = good)
* Seditio is strong and in-line now.

We (I speak for most anti-lancers I think) also want:
* 4th turret on Barge  (free)
* 4th shield on Barge (+ few pts to me).
* strike cruiser assault variant

That is very far from anti-Marine. So don't make remarks like that LS. :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 13, 2010, 07:13:51 AM
I didn't mean you, Horizon.  :)

Just a rare poster got me riled enough to say that.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 13, 2010, 07:15:27 AM
Don't threaten Horizon, he'll murder us all with his gargantuan chaos fleet (IIRC, but that might've been Goya)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 13, 2010, 07:36:35 AM
LS, if you mean Adm.A, he is on the same wave as me regaring Marines.


Plaxor,
That'll be Goya (or Sigoroth or Ancaris).

I will just make an alliance of Craftworld Eldar, Corsair Eldar, Adeptus Mechanicus, Renegade (Chaos), Chaos, Rogue Trader, Tau CPF, Imperial Navy plus a small Marine detachment. About ~ 13500 points.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 13, 2010, 07:46:56 AM
Ah, is it Goya that lives in wyoming? because I told him that I would come play a few games with him if I was in the area (which is not that rarely) never did get around to it though, and it's been 3? 4? years.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on December 13, 2010, 09:36:24 AM
We here in Russia were also suggesting some things to boost marines and make them more fluff-wise, so saying that ppl want to nerf Sm is stupid. You can't nerf one of the weakest fleets in BFG anyway  :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 13, 2010, 09:39:49 AM
Quote
That's nice, but so far, no one has refuted that the Damocles Command Rhino in IA2 specifically states that it contacts SC/BB for lance strikes.

Actually, those rules for the Damocles Rhino are outdated. FW released an update to IA2 last august which replaces the rules in the book and only gives the vehicle access to an orbital bombardment which is an ordnance barrage template no longer specifically stated as being a lance.

here's a link to the update on the FW site:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA2update28AUG.pdf

I'm aware of that.  However, it still follows the lance weapon profile.  They changed it for the same reasons they have the Chapter master the ability: they feel that new players are coming in due to the video games.  Since the main characters in that can call down what looks like a lance strike, they'd give the genetic 'chapter master' a lance strike.  To avoid alienating fatbeards, they give it a generic name.

The strike cruiser Excoriatior used lances to cripple an Endeavor class cruiser in Throne of Lies, but it's not clear if it had them before it was taken by the Nightlords.  

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 13, 2010, 11:39:59 AM
What they call a lance (surgical strike) in 40k could/would be completely different from what they'd call them in BFG. Don't forget, lance/WB are classes of weaponry, not specific names for weaponry. And if something like a Tau railgun is a WB then I'm sure WBs can be used for precision orbital strikes. Hell, a different ammo round or cohesion focal point or energy input could produce this effect, depending on the weapon.

I imagine WBs acting like a projectile weapon for the most part, where you have to calculate the intersection between the round and the target. A lance on the other hand would be much more like the weaponry in Babylon 5, ie, scything through space.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on December 13, 2010, 01:06:48 PM
It's just another mistake made by different game designers. SM use BC for shooting at planetary defences. Why do they call them BOMBARDMENT canons huh? Lance just looks cooler in stupid DOW game and just wrote whatever they wanted. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with actual SC profile.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 13, 2010, 02:27:53 PM
Quote
I'm aware of that.  However, it still follows the lance weapon profile.
That means nothing. There are several things in 40k that "follow the lance profile". Just face it, the lance strike is dead and gone and it's been replaced with a generic orbital bombardment.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 13, 2010, 09:31:28 PM
What they call a lance (surgical strike) in 40k could/would be completely different from what they'd call them in BFG. Don't forget, lance/WB are classes of weaponry, not specific names for weaponry. And if something like a Tau railgun is a WB then I'm sure WBs can be used for precision orbital strikes. Hell, a different ammo round or cohesion focal point or energy input could produce this effect, depending on the weapon.

I imagine WBs acting like a projectile weapon for the most part, where you have to calculate the intersection between the round and the target. A lance on the other hand would be much more like the weaponry in Babylon 5, ie, scything through space.

According to 'current' fluff, a weapon battery fills a volume of space with fire, though aiming is involved.  Older WBs seem to be composed of lasers, while newer are solid projectiles.  Some have increased range due to gravimetric manipulation (grav culverins) or refined propellants (turbo weapons). Plasma weapons are also considered wbs, and would be terminally disrupted by a planets EM field, as a plasma bolt is a electromagnetic package surrounding a chunk of plasma.   Tau may very well be able to use railguns through an atmosphere, as an ion bolt would not penetrate for the same reasons as a plasma round.

Ancient targeting systems fluff has been revised, and, if converted to BFG, would be a left shift rather then the extension to range on most IN ships.

Page 114 of Lure of the Expanse from FFG has a nice illustration of a lance strike on a building by a Firestorm, for those questioning what a lance strike looks like as fire support.

And, much to my irritation, GW has officially condoned FFGs work as the current fluff for our beloved ships, which is why the HA is having such a hard time getting ships changed/approved.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Plaxor on December 13, 2010, 10:49:23 PM
Baron, you're right. The pinpoint attacks from ships shown in 40k are probably lances.

In fact there is a part in epic about a cruiser being able to destroy a titan legion from space, with no argument from the titans.

A lot of fluff is ignored for the sake of gameplay. I mean... the orbital bombardment option for inquisitors probably should be a D weapon that covers the whole battlefield, but that would be boring.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 14, 2010, 02:19:32 AM

A lot of fluff is ignored for the sake of gameplay.

Excellent, lets settle on suboptimal and limited lance variants, and imposing mean spirited and baseless limitations :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 14, 2010, 02:52:45 AM
"Mean spirited" and "baseless" limitations? Really? I hope you can show proof of "mean spirited" as well as "baseless" in all of the posts so far.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 14, 2010, 04:08:18 AM
Hi BaronI,

the problem with art:
In the Rogue Trader RPG corebook there is a picture (first pic starship section) of a Protector firing guns from its keel Manta Launch bay at another vessel.

Artists .... creative freedom. :)

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 14, 2010, 04:47:19 AM
Woot!  Grounds for a non-carrier Protector! :D
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 14, 2010, 04:57:13 AM
If you want to create a ship out of a mistake to have a mistaken ship you go kid!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 14, 2010, 05:36:54 AM
If you want to create a ship out of a mistake to have a mistaken ship you go kid!

Horizon: you're forgetting that anything and everything that goes into one of those books must be approved by GW.  (and there's lots of text to go along with the lance strikes, as the orbiting firestorm is bombarding the planet the players are on.)

And to give an example of how exacting it is: it took twelve tries before GW approved a battlecry for FFG's in house SM chapter for Deathwatch.  The art and text is similarly scrutinized.  

I say, pity the HA if they have to go through the same crap.


And:btw: that's recycled art from GW, rather then FFG's new stuff.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 14, 2010, 07:33:40 AM
It is just as plausible for SMs to have Eldar movement as it is for them to have a lance boat. I have no fuckin idea why we're arguing this. Show me one reason to give SMs a lance. What's that? You can't? Oh, I wonder why that is. Oh wait, I know, it's because there is no fuckin reason. "I want a lance! I'm a SM fanboy! SMs need everything!" Fuck off.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 14, 2010, 07:35:50 AM
And:btw: that's recycled art from GW, rather then FFG's new stuff.
Then GW are ****.
sjeez,
I made one small email to FW and got an answer to what what is. And they cannot get it straight in-house?
Losers. :)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 14, 2010, 09:53:34 AM
Its like theres a different Sigoroth on this thread.  Sig, I for one have listed a few reasons, have you been reading the posts?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 14, 2010, 12:01:04 PM
Hi LS,

same Sigoroth, he just gets very annoyed when bricks don't work anymore. I'm the same, I just don't use the same vocabulair.

Also, I'm with Sigoroth, apart of mistakes (eg BL) I have seen no reason for Marines to have lances on Strike Cruisers.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 14, 2010, 05:47:04 PM
Ok, you see no reason.  Others of us see reason that there would be lances in small amounts in some fleets, for various reasons.
So why not let those some of us be happy, make the tradeout suboptimal and limited, and no need for a points increase?
You will likely never even see it on the tabletop.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 14, 2010, 06:36:12 PM
it's not fluffy. That is why not. Marines aren't meant to have a lot of lances or have them on half the ships in their fleet.  If you want small numbers of lances, take the Nova or pay the premium and use a VBB. Stop complaining you can't get lances cheap on the SC because you shouldn't even be getting the option that's there now.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 14, 2010, 07:22:53 PM
Lances in Marine fleet per current:
Firestorm RSV (rsv's should be ditched imo).
Nova
VBB


Still, LS, that wasn't a reason, that was a wish. ;)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 14, 2010, 07:30:47 PM
it's not fluffy. That is why not. Marines aren't meant to have a lot of lances or have them on half the ships in their fleet.  If you want small numbers of lances, take the Nova or pay the premium and use a VBB. Stop complaining you can't get lances cheap on the SC because you shouldn't even be getting the option that's there now.

Actually, if you're playing a pre-heresy SM fleet, it's exactly fluffy.  I dug around in some books that I previously skipped over last night.  It's not clear if it was a peculiarity of the Night Lords, but every reference to NL SCs, both pre and post heresy has their SCs equipped with lances.  Not just one or two.  ALL of them.  Though NOT all of them seem to have BCs, as they use their lances to destroy a Callidus facility, as opposed to using BCs.

What's not clear is if this is common through out SM fleets of the era or a peculiarity of the NL, though what we know of Dorn's fleet suggests it's not unknown in other fleets.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 14, 2010, 08:13:33 PM
Well, of course it is in a pre-heresy fleet. If you want to do that, play chaos and take marine crews (I'm assuming you know that the Night Lords turned traitor). The list we've been discussing is most certainly NOT a pre-heresy marine fleet so this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 14, 2010, 08:24:14 PM
Quote in the Strike Cruiser entry:
Quote
a number of strike cruiser designs date far back to the centuries immediately following the development of the Codex Astartes.
Thus Strike Cruisers are designed after the heresy, in a way the codex described. In the following millennia variants are known but rare and limited to older chapter/chapters with many resources.

Now, this means, that any book which says Strike Cruisers operate during or before the heresy are wrong and mistaken.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 15, 2010, 01:00:54 AM
Quote in the Strike Cruiser entry:
Quote
a number of strike cruiser designs date far back to the centuries immediately following the development of the Codex Astartes.
Thus Strike Cruisers are designed after the heresy, in a way the codex described. In the following millennia variants are known but rare and limited to older chapter/chapters with many resources.

Now, this means, that any book which says Strike Cruisers operate during or before the heresy are wrong and mistaken.

Um, Horizon, I would humbly suggest that this has been retconned.  Since... while I can picture a single author getting it wrong, I have a hard time picturing all of them doing so, since they turn up again and again in the HH series.  And various CSM books that take place afterward.  

This leads to the question: either the SM have lost a disturbing number of ships sized by CSMs since the Heresy, OR, that they had them to begin with.  

I hate to say it, but BFG's rulebooks fluff has been getting retconned off and on, either by GW or FFG since 2003.  If you say 'well, it doesn't count as it's new' then you have to take the un-updated IA2, which was written at roughly the same time, and states that SM's have lances.  Or you could take the stance that 'new books trump old books', and thus space marines have lances and SC's were around before the heresy, which, by the way, fits better with the whole '40k is a technological downslope' as SC are supposedly hyper advanced and require few crew.

Or you could go back to old issues of WD, and discover that SM ships with lances predate BFG.  However, they're built by squats.  So...

Like the Leman Russ Vanquisher, they're in, they out, they're in, they're out, they're in...

Strike Cruiser Lances, the Pamela Anderson's Implants of 40k...
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 15, 2010, 02:02:37 AM
I think it's much more likely that there was no standardized design for a strike cruiser during the heresy with legions using regular naval ships or modified versions of them and after the heresy the strike cruisers we see in the marine fleet were designed in accordance with the Codex Astartes.

This is the reason you see things referred to as strike cruisers, yet there are very few of the modern style strike cruisers in Chaos hands. They haven't retconned the entire chaos fleet from BFG yet.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 15, 2010, 04:58:02 AM
Anything published for the BFG game is Leading, the rest is a mistake if they don't follow the letter of BFG.

:)

I have no faith in BL /HH series whatsoever to be background true.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 15, 2010, 08:34:07 AM
I think it's much more likely that there was no standardized design for a strike cruiser during the heresy with legions using regular naval ships or modified versions of them and after the heresy the strike cruisers we see in the marine fleet were designed in accordance with the Codex Astartes.

This is the reason you see things referred to as strike cruisers, yet there are very few of the modern style strike cruisers in Chaos hands. They haven't retconned the entire chaos fleet from BFG yet.

But then Black Templars would have no Strike cruisers, in the modern sense, at all, as they took Dorn's fleet and left (as in, did not stay for more then an hour after Dorn agree to break up his legion, let alone hear the rest of that Gulliman had in mind), generally resisting Inquisition efforts to find out even the tiniest bit about them, and have never conformed to the Codex.  Ever, according to fluff.  Dorn and Russ barely agreed to even split their legions up, after all.  Corax openly reviled the restrictions on ships, feeling that his own legion would not have been decimated if they had a proper fleet with them at Isstvan.  

And, the various night lords books seem to definitly describe an SC in the 'modern' sense and they have more then one of the same class.  It's smaller then a regular cruiser with fewer crew.  So it's either an SC or a chaos light cruiser.  Take your fluff poison of choice.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 15, 2010, 08:47:02 AM
So, correct, no Strike Cruisers for the Black Templars then. Interesting. Perhaps as an oddity in the fleet (eg replacing destroyed vessels?).


Also, the cool aspect of this discussion is the fact it is the same discussion the Primarchs had after the Heresy. haha
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 15, 2010, 11:17:40 AM
Yep so I would say by this time BT shouldn't have any more ships since they prefer the old style. I would think that by now majority of those ships would have been destroyed after 13 Black Crusades as well as battles vs Orks and if they really don't want to give up the old style ships, sure no problem since the High Council can just order the AM not to repair or maintain those ships.

Ok with you then Iveagh?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 15, 2010, 11:22:29 AM
Of course there were no pre-heresy Strike Cruisers. The SMs had fleets of their own. The SC was made as a replacement for their loss of ships.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 15, 2010, 02:59:31 PM
Quote
ut then Black Templars would have no Strike cruisers, in the modern sense, at all, as they took Dorn's fleet and left (as in, did not stay for more then an hour after Dorn agree to break up his legion, let alone hear the rest of that Gulliman had in mind), generally resisting Inquisition efforts to find out even the tiniest bit about them, and have never conformed to the Codex.

That doesn't make much sense. Ok so they took the fleet and ran for the border and are now quite secretive. 10k years of battle means some attrition, there's just no way around it. That means they either actively salvage chaos ships to replace losses, build their own ships (unlikely), or have since accepted the standardized strike cruiser and battlebarge designs. The last option makes the most sense because it doesn't assume they have access to shipbuilding capabilities on a scale that rivals a forgeworld or have the manpower to devote to construction. Not to mention better technical skill than the mechanicus with "lost" technologies. Second, the modern SC and BB are very good at what marines do most of the time, that is attack planets, so from a practical standpoint I don't see why they would shun the new ships just because they follow the codex. At the very best I'd say BT would just use the chaos list and be forced to take marine crews on all ships to represent Dorn's fleet. At worst, they should have access to a larger number of VBB to represent the remaining ships in Dorn's Fleet.


In any event, your best example for having lances in what is arguably the lists for Codex Astartes based marine fleets is the one that by your own admission disregards completely. That's a pretty weak argument for having lances.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 15, 2010, 11:00:06 PM
Quote
ut then Black Templars would have no Strike cruisers, in the modern sense, at all, as they took Dorn's fleet and left (as in, did not stay for more then an hour after Dorn agree to break up his legion, let alone hear the rest of that Gulliman had in mind), generally resisting Inquisition efforts to find out even the tiniest bit about them, and have never conformed to the Codex.

That doesn't make much sense. Ok so they took the fleet and ran for the border and are now quite secretive. 10k years of battle means some attrition, there's just no way around it. That means they either actively salvage chaos ships to replace losses, build their own ships (unlikely), or have since accepted the standardized strike cruiser and battlebarge designs. The last option makes the most sense because it doesn't assume they have access to shipbuilding capabilities on a scale that rivals a forgeworld or have the manpower to devote to construction. Not to mention better technical skill than the mechanicus with "lost" technologies. Second, the modern SC and BB are very good at what marines do most of the time, that is attack planets, so from a practical standpoint I don't see why they would shun the new ships just because they follow the codex. At the very best I'd say BT would just use the chaos list and be forced to take marine crews on all ships to represent Dorn's fleet. At worst, they should have access to a larger number of VBB to represent the remaining ships in Dorn's Fleet.


In any event, your best example for having lances in what is arguably the lists for Codex Astartes based marine fleets is the one that by your own admission disregards completely. That's a pretty weak argument for having lances.

The Imperial Fists Strike Cruiser Terrible Angel was fired upon by IF the when Dorn objected to the Codex (Codex: Black Templars, page 6) and was the event that persuaded Dorn to accept splitting his legion.  

BT fluff implies that they build their own equipment and have little to no ties with the Mechanicus.  However, they have extensively refitted the Eternal Crusader, Sigismund's flagship, which was a battlebarge, but has been so extensively refitted it seems to approach a FM in size, with docking for escorts.  

As far as technical expertise, the BTs did develop a new Land Raider variant from a discovery made on Crusade, something that is not usually achieved outside the AdMech.


And, I'm not arguing that non-fleet based (ie Codex) chapters would have such a thing.  However, for the Crusade list, since it's to represent a fleet base chapter (not a Imperial Crusade, but rather a Crusade in the Black Templars/Lamentors sense) they would be more likely to have such a thing.  For this particular list, as it does not represent a standard codex chapter, I would suggest that the original Str 2 lance swap be allowed.

That aside, any chapter with extensive holdings that they control directly is likely to have one or two lance ships (adequately represented by the costly upgrade)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 15, 2010, 11:08:31 PM
There's a literally and figuratively a huge difference between equipment and kilometers long warships.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 15, 2010, 11:58:05 PM
There's a literally and figuratively a huge difference between equipment and kilometers long warships.

Point, however, given their self-sufficiency, it's more then likely they have their own shipyard facilities (possibly mobile).  After all, if you don't like the Inquisition, you definitely wouldn't want your ship sitting at drydock someplace where people you don't know are poking around in it's innards.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 16, 2010, 12:21:15 AM
There's a literally and figuratively a huge difference between equipment and kilometers long warships.

Point, however, given their self-sufficiency, it's more then likely they have their own shipyard facilities (possibly mobile).  After all, if you don't like the Inquisition, you definitely wouldn't want your ship sitting at drydock someplace where people you don't know are poking around in it's innards.

Ok you have shipyards.

So now who among the BT's are going to do the actual building of the ships? Who among the BT's actually knows the principle of how Plasma Drives work? How about how it is constructed? How about the Gellar equipment? The Warp drives? How about the weapons connecting to the engines? Cooling systems? Electrical systems? Communication systems? Shields? Fuel systems? Life support? Sanitation? And I am pretty sure many, many more systems integral to a ship operating at full efficiency.

Then of course, there's also the question of procurement of the hardware. So now you're telling me they also have the tech base to build the components since it's going to be obvious the High Council will not allow them to have access to the components if they decide to disobey the High Council's orders.

Unless of course you believe that BT's can do and get all these things through prayers and bolter fire.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 16, 2010, 03:11:39 AM

Ok you have shipyards.

So now who among the BT's are going to do the actual building of the ships? Who among the BT's actually knows the principle of how Plasma Drives work? How about how it is constructed? How about the Gellar equipment? The Warp drives? How about the weapons connecting to the engines? Cooling systems? Electrical systems? Communication systems? Shields? Fuel systems? Life support? Sanitation? And I am pretty sure many, many more systems integral to a ship operating at full efficiency.

Then of course, there's also the question of procurement of the hardware. So now you're telling me they also have the tech base to build the components since it's going to be obvious the High Council will not allow them to have access to the components if they decide to disobey the High Council's orders.

Unless of course you believe that BT's can do and get all these things through prayers and bolter fire.

Well, I'll start by pointing out that in fluff they have huge factory ships as part of their fleet. Since they do have chapter serfs, they would probably form the bulk of the Sm ship crews, and probably the bulk of the chapter forges manpower led by the tech marines. 

Since the chain of supply of any fleet based chapter is poorly explained, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that larger crusades bring with them an extensive logistics arm in the form of specialized ships carrying asteroid mining rigs, provender ships (such as the Bountiful Beast [Radicals Handbook, pg 30]), huge factory ships, and so forth. 

Smaller fleets would probably have to make do with using facilities on liberated worlds.  I have a hard time picturing the recently saved govenor saying 'No, despite the fact you just saved my world from Chaos, you can't use dock number 3 at the orbital station'.

I'm guessing from your description that you assume that SM chapter serfs are as ignorant as the rest of the population of the Imperium, by and large.  Due to the nature of the uses that SM chapters put them to, this would be an impossibility in any SM chapter, for the simple reason that there would never be enough tech marines to go around.  A DCT on a strike cruiser would have to know how life support works, for example.  Actually, depending on what part of the ship they're stationed in, a DCT would probably have to know a good deal about any one of those systems you mentioned.  Chapter serfs in the engineerium would have to know how a plasma drive works, since they might have to work on any number of components of it. 

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 16, 2010, 03:38:53 AM
You don't get it do you? I'm not talking about general education. We're talking about specific technical knowledge and expertise. You still haven't answered who is going to build all those ships and components building the ship without AM assistance. Techmarine knowledge can only go so far, probably up to the point of Thunderhawks. Anything else and I doubt they would have the knowledge. Again we are talking about a ship which is a very sophisticated and complex construction.

Sure they may have mobile factories but if you don't have the correct people manning those factories, read: Adeptus Mechanicus, those factories would be nothing. The AM can withhold that expertise upon request of the High Council which can happen if BT decide they could just do without the High Council.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 16, 2010, 04:21:04 AM
Techmarines, after 30 years of intense training, better darn well know more about things than just thunderhawks, since they are expected to have complete knowledge of how to repair and manufacture stuff for the chapter.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 16, 2010, 04:32:27 AM
No because technical knowledge in 40k has been seriously compromised. Techmarines would know general repair and maintenance. Maybe they can assist in repairing ships. But as to the real nuts and bolts of how a starship is constructed and the interoperability of the systems comprising it, that is knowledge strictly and jealously guarded and controlled by the AM. Techmarines are akin to combat engineers in the modern day army. You don't expect them to build a transport, much less a battleship do you?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 16, 2010, 06:03:49 AM
No because technical knowledge in 40k has been seriously compromised. Techmarines would know general repair and maintenance. Maybe they can assist in repairing ships. But as to the real nuts and bolts of how a starship is constructed and the interoperability of the systems comprising it, that is knowledge strictly and jealously guarded and controlled by the AM. Techmarines are akin to combat engineers in the modern day army. You don't expect them to build a transport, much less a battleship do you?

Um, actually BT fluff suggests they do exactly that, particularly since they, without the mechanicus help, not only interpreted a STC diagram they found, but were able to turn it into a new land raider variant within weeks. 

Further: you think that Damage control teams on a starship as sophisticated as a SC or a BB would not require specific technical knowledge and expertise?  Particularly if they need to get whatever was hit working again, right away?  These aren't 20th Century sea going ships, where you can just put out the fires and weld the hole in the bulkhead and all is well. 
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: RCgothic on December 16, 2010, 09:43:29 AM
There's a bit of a difference between a forgeworld produced 10m land raider being modified in a vehicle workshop and constructing a 5km starship from scratch. Even if they had the technical knowledge, they'd have neither the manpower, resources or facilities required.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: barras1511 on December 16, 2010, 01:39:22 PM
The people who do not want lance swayed the HA to the following:

* 2nd shield option for Strike Cruisers
* Prow options to replace t-hawks (BC/torps = good)
* Seditio is strong and in-line now.

We (I speak for most anti-lancers I think) also want:
* 4th turret on Barge  (free)
* 4th shield on Barge (+ few pts to me).
* strike cruiser assault variant

That is very far from anti-Marine.


Getting back to the main topic. This is exactly what the SM fleet needs. The SM do not need the lances. In game terms thats what the BC is for. The BC could be increased but I don't believe that lack of fire power is the SM flaw. The flaw is their lack of survivability. The SM need more shields. Fix this and you fix all the problems with the SM fleet. I would be tempted to give the Battle Barge 5 shields and 3 turrets (with the BB points increased) but I think 4 sheilds (at current points) would be enough to fix most of the current problems with the fleet. The SCs having 2 shield is an absolute must for the fleet. The Seditio is a regrettable and forgettable ship that should never have been made! Leave lances off of SM. We don't need them but we do need changes!
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Mazila on December 16, 2010, 01:55:33 PM
You forgot:

- Crippled venerable barge 50%, destroyed 150%
- Terminator Boarding Party 15pts gives +1 boarding (+3 in total) can be put on any capital ship
- Honor Guard 20pts can be put only on Master of the Fleet ship - give additional teleport attack which rolls 2d6 on crit table, just like DE impailer
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 16, 2010, 02:17:05 PM
Um, actually BT fluff suggests they do exactly that, particularly since they, without the mechanicus help, not only interpreted a STC diagram they found, but were able to turn it into a new land raider variant within weeks. 

BT fluff from who? I haven't seen any official BT fluff esp with BFG. Again, Land Raiders are in existence already. THey just went and looked at the difference. What kind of Land Raider was that again? What was the difference? From there you'll already know it's much easier to design said Land Raider compared to the original Land Raider which uses Lascannons.

Further: you think that Damage control teams on a starship as sophisticated as a SC or a BB would not require specific technical knowledge and expertise?  Particularly if they need to get whatever was hit working again, right away?  These aren't 20th Century sea going ships, where you can just put out the fires and weld the hole in the bulkhead and all is well. 

Again, repairing something is different from building something. They may not be 20th century sea going ships and they can do some battlefield repairs. However, do you think a Nimitz class carrier with a hit to its nuclear plant can easily be fixed by just welding a hole in it and all is well? I think this is the problem. You think it's simple enough to fix and fixing automatically equates to a capability to build. Sorry but they are two different bananas. Quick and dirty remedies can be made but remedies generally are done to help the ship make port. Once in port, you need the professional gremlins to do the real work. Otherwise you actually think the Techmarines can easily repair a damaged plasma drive to make it function 100%?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 16, 2010, 02:49:15 PM
Not to mention that if the BT could do all this and then did do all this then they would be declared exterminatus, hunted down and destroyed on sight. This concept of total autonomy from any authority as well as the capability to challenge the IN is the exact thing that the Imperium cannot afford to tolerate.

When talking about SMs a lot is made of their headstrong ways, giving the Inquisition the finger and whatnot. Sure, an Inquisitor can't order a SM to get him a cup of tea, or give him a massage, but this is because SMs not giving out massages is not a threat to the Empire. SMs having some form of autonomy to run their fiefs pretty much as they please is also not a threat to the Empire, generally speaking. Sometimes there is suspect goings on and the Inquisition is there, sticking their noses in. If they think they've got some solid evidence of rebellion or corruption they can then act upon it. Otherwise they tread lightly. This is the tightrope the SMs walk with the Imperium; gaining autonomy without becoming a threat.

The BT are already under scrutiny for their excess numbers. Should the Inquisition or other authorities ever get confirmed evidence then they'd be in deep doodoo. Censure and immediate segmentation into smaller chapters would be the minimum they'd face.

However, all this is close to the line stuff. Having a battlefleet is far far faaaaaaaaaaaar beyond the pale. It is so intolerable that it would result in an immediate call to action, with the mobilisation of as many fleets as possible to hunt them down and take them in, if possible, destroy them if not. The very worst and most cataclysmic incident in all the long millennia of Imperial history is the Space Marine rebellion. This is what they're paranoid about reoccuring some 10,000 years later. It is indelibly printed upon their psyche. Suggesting in an off hand way that some SM chapters operate differently to typical codex types and so could have lances and battlefleets, etc is retarduless. Any fluff that supports this notion is just garbage. Not worth considering. This is just the way it has to be for the 40k universe to have any internal consistency.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 16, 2010, 03:15:37 PM
There's a bit of a difference between a forgeworld produced 10m land raider being modified in a vehicle workshop and constructing a 5km starship from scratch. Even if they had the technical knowledge, they'd have neither the manpower, resources or facilities required.

Stone aged tribesmen managed to mine enough metal to build the Lord Daros in 11 years.  One would imagine that a SM chapter could build a smaller ship faster.  And, again, fluff states that SM do have the facilities to make their own ships.  This is not a 'Well maybe...' issue, fluff is clear on this subject (for once). Both Dark Angels (another fleet based chapter) and Ultramarines are stated, not in a suggestive sort of maybe manner, but clearly(!) to have their own production facilities manned by chapter serfs.

As far as how such a facility might work in a chapter fleet, I'll use the provinder ship Bountiful Beast as an example.  The Beast is 16 km long, having a volume 111 times that of a strike cruiser, and is of a hull class frequently used in Imperial Crusades as a mass conveyance of victuals, according to fluff (yes, this makes it twice the length of an Emperor class battleship, but those are it's canon stats).  One would not have a hard time imagining a hull this size made into a mobile dockyard for cruisers and escorts.

And again, we're looking at just replacing ships lost to attrition, not building a fleet from scratch.

@D'Art

BT fluff from Games Workshop.  You know, the font of all official fluff?  Pick up a copy of something called Codex: Black Templars.  Very interesting stuff in the fluff section at the beginning of the book.

Oh, and there was a BT fleet list once upon a time from Ray.  Not official, but interesting enough.

The Land Raider Crusader was not just a weapon refit of the existing landraider, as it also has expanded troop carrying ability, which implies extensive internal reconfigurations.  

As far as that reactor goes, it depends on where the hole is if all it needs is some fast welding.  However, most things beyond that, as I stated before, will need some knowledge of how it actually works to fix it, even with a quick and dirty repair, particularly nukes (See K-19).  Hell, anything electronic, or even some just electrical things, you WILL need to know how it works to fix it, even a quick and dirty repair.

@Sig: And yet, they do!

Again, this is EXACTLY what it states in fluff:

"Although utterly loyal to the Emperor, the Black Templars are at the extreme end of Independence from Imperial authorities, verging on a rogue element.  Their fleet based nature and the goals of their 10,000 year crusade take the Black Templars throughout the galaxy, and it is primarily the will of their Marshals that send them to war.  Like all Space Marines, they do not consider themselves subject to Imperial rule, and each Crusade is effectively an autonomous fighting force, though they may choose to respond to requests for aid made by others in their vicinity (as happened during the Armageddon Crusade)." - Codex: Black Templars, pg 9.

And, I might point out, the problem you are having is right there: 40k HAS no internal consistency since GW changes fluff every new edition of 40k that comes out.  Black Templars approach the old legions in size, by some estimates, and would require ships and equipment comparable to that to get around.  

And, bluntly, you have not offered up any fluff proof at all of your position other then the oddly worded entry in Armada and your interpretation of another.  I've produced excerpts from a dozen sources so far, all published by GW that support my position.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 16, 2010, 03:32:04 PM
Quote
Stone aged tribesmen managed to mine enough metal to build the Lord Daros in 11 years.

and mining metals is a far cry from doing anything related to the fabrication of components or construction of the vessel.

Second, you've not provided any evidence that marines HAVE lances. You've talked about pre-heresy which no one disputes and you've provided circumstantial quotes that prove nothing. At most you've shown that chapters should have access to older model IN and Chaos vessels (which is possible with VBB) and that the ocasional marine capital ship might have a lance (also possible). You've shown nothing that shows marines gallivant around the galaxy merrily tacking lances on their ships. 

The weight of evidence would point that what you are positing as widespread is actually exceedingly rare and would face serious repercussions.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 16, 2010, 03:37:31 PM
Quote
Stone aged tribesmen managed to mine enough metal to build the Lord Daros in 11 years.

and mining metals is a far cry from doing anything related to the fabrication of components or construction of the vessel.

Considering when they finished it sailed away, I'd state that both were probably going on.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 16, 2010, 03:40:24 PM
@Sig: And yet, they do!

Again, this is EXACTLY what it states in fluff:

"Although utterly loyal to the Emperor, the Black Templars are at the extreme end of Independence from Imperial authorities, verging on a rogue element.  Their fleet based nature and the goals of their 10,000 year crusade take the Black Templars throughout the galaxy, and it is primarily the will of their Marshals that send them to war.  Like all Space Marines, they do not consider themselves subject to Imperial rule, and each Crusade is effectively an autonomous fighting force, though they may choose to respond to requests for aid made by others in their vicinity (as happened during the Armageddon Crusade)." - Codex: Black Templars, pg 9.

Firstly, this does not say that they have warfleets. Secondly, the reason why an accurate census cannot be taken of the BT numbers is because they're always moving and always split up. This is, in effect, identical to being separated into different chapters anyway. Despite which there are still Imperial agents actively investigating them to try to find evidence of their perfidy.

Quote
And, I might point out, the problem you are having is right there: 40k HAS no internal consistency since GW changes fluff every new edition of 40k that comes out.  

So, the question becomes why the FUCK would we pay one iota of attention to crap fluff made by fanboy morons that don't even understand the basic premises and constraints of the fictional universe in which everything is set?

Quote
And, bluntly, you have not offered up any fluff proof at all of your position other then the oddly worded entry in Armada and your interpretation of another.  I've produced excerpts from a dozen sources so far, all published by GW that support my position.

What I have offered up, and which you have not, is the only possible way in which the 40k universe could work. Otherwise any fucktard could make up whatever fluff they wanted and play that.

The God-Emperor of Mankind sits up from his deck chair, and while reaching for another Martini suddenly clicks on how to defeat the powers of Chaos once and for all but unfortunately is killed by a rampaging toothpick wielding Gretchin before he can enact his plan. All Imperial ships, aircraft, vehicles, men, dogs and children (though not women) benefit from a 5+ Eldar holofield save.

If you're not willing to throw out bad fluff then there is no such thing as a fluff justification. It simply becomes meaningless. In which case we can just say no lances for SMs because we don't like SM fanboys that argue for lances for SMs.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 16, 2010, 04:04:59 PM
Firstly, this does not say that they have warfleets. Secondly, the reason why an accurate census cannot be taken of the BT numbers is because they're always moving and always split up. This is, in effect, identical to being separated into different chapters anyway. Despite which there are still Imperial agents actively investigating them to try to find evidence of their perfidy.


I didn't say they had warfleets.  My point was that people were insisting that A) Space Marines cannot build thigns for themselves and B) that all space marines could not be independent of other imperial organizations such as admech.  BT do not follow the codex, and are more or les a law unto themselves.  the idea that they would stop their crusade to turn in their ships while the admech stripped off any lances they might have is rather absurd.

As they do not depend on other imperial organizations, they would, by necessity, have to maintain their own lines of supply, which would include occasionally replacing ships lost to attrition.  If Rogue Traders can (and have, in fluff) build their own private shipyards beyond the Imperium where they do things that the admech would FREAK OUT over like grafting xenotech into Imperial ships, obviously the knowledge of how to build a starship is not as secret as you seem to think.  

So, the question becomes why the FUCK would we pay one iota of attention to crap fluff made by fanboy morons that don't even understand the basic premises and constraints of the fictional universe in which everything is set?


Flaming GW authors in general does not support your position, since one of them was Andy Chambers.

What I have offered up, and which you have not, is the only possible way in which the 40k universe could work. Otherwise any fucktard could make up whatever fluff they wanted and play that.

The God-Emperor of Mankind sits up from his deck chair, and while reaching for another Martini suddenly clicks on how to defeat the powers of Chaos once and for all but unfortunately is killed by a rampaging toothpick wielding Gretchin before he can enact his plan. All Imperial ships, aircraft, vehicles, men, dogs and children (though not women) benefit from a 5+ Eldar holofield save.

If you're not willing to throw out bad fluff then there is no such thing as a fluff justification. It simply becomes meaningless. In which case we can just say no lances for SMs because we don't like SM fanboys that argue for lances for SMs.

Bad fluff, sure.  However, since bad fluff would be the one at odds with the bulk of available sources, however...

And, bluntly, there was once a rather amusing piece of fluff where the administratum and the Inquistion tried to determine how the Administratum could possibly work.  Their determination was that it didn't.  

Trying to apply logic to 40k is a fools errand.  After all, if Space Marines implants worked in the manner described, they would not be superhuman, they'd be dead.  If the mass/volume fluff for IN starships is correct, you would not need a powerfist to reach out and tear off a chunk of bulkhead, the damn things densities are so low they'd float on water.

The arraignment of their weapons makes no sense in a 'real' space environment, as you could simply attack them from underneath  (The kroot are apparently the only race in 40k to even have the vaguest idea what a space warship would probably look like.) and throw in daemons and magic into the mix and logic dies horribly.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: commander on December 16, 2010, 07:29:25 PM
And all these pages for or against lances, which they can have if they pay for it ??? Pricey, yes, but that's the fate of everything special/rare.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 16, 2010, 07:35:42 PM
Except 20 points isnt a premium, its a joke.  It would be acceptable at 10 points, but I'd rather just see the option for free, and more limited.
Say, one for every 3 ships, or better yet, one per 750 to 1000 points.  That takes care of the rarity issue. 
The statement 'no lances on capital SM ships ever' is a stupid one, with no basis whatsover with the variety and dispersal of chapters in 40k, and the proof in the Nova that SM chafe against the lance policy.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 16, 2010, 08:25:44 PM
Yes, 1 lance for 20pts is a perfect representation of the background.

LS, no lances on SM capitalships except vbb's. :)

And did you read the fluff from the Nova Frigate how rare it is and how closely it is being watched?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: lastspartacus on December 16, 2010, 08:53:52 PM
Quote that fluff source about the cap ships, Horizon.  I think its just how you feel about it, and since there's no hard fluff to back up the 'no not ever' argument, I say let the SM players have limited lances, if they want that INFERIOR option, without such stupidly wrong points costs.
Unless I misunderstand and you are arguing for some additional lance for 20 points, rather than 20 points and a str3 BC.

I read the fluff on the Nova.
'RARE in MOST chapters'.  'A trend the...would dearly love to see continue.'
Pretty soft wording for the interpretation you are getting from it.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 16, 2010, 10:37:54 PM
Stone aged tribesmen managed to mine enough metal to build the Lord Daros in 11 years.  One would imagine that a SM chapter could build a smaller ship faster.  And, again, fluff states that SM do have the facilities to make their own ships.  This is not a 'Well maybe...' issue, fluff is clear on this subject (for once). Both Dark Angels (another fleet based chapter) and Ultramarines are stated, not in a suggestive sort of maybe manner, but clearly(!) to have their own production facilities manned by chapter serfs.

Mining. Where AM order the tribesmen to get the metal. Which is simple enough to do. But then what do they do with the metal? Why someone gets it and transports it to orbit where it is now processed by those in the know. Really, Baron, if you are not in the know, don't force it. I'm an engineer. I know the difficulties about building something and building a ship is not simple as you seem to think, especially with restrictions of knowledge in place.

Fleet based chapter does not mean fleet production facilities. Rather it means the Chapter is heavily reliant on its fleet. Incorporating this into 40k fluff, it means the Chapter is supported by the AM because of how the internal dynamics work.

As far as how such a facility might work in a chapter fleet, I'll use the provinder ship Bountiful Beast as an example.  The Beast is 16 km long, having a volume 111 times that of a strike cruiser, and is of a hull class frequently used in Imperial Crusades as a mass conveyance of victuals, according to fluff (yes, this makes it twice the length of an Emperor class battleship, but those are it's canon stats).  One would not have a hard time imagining a hull this size made into a mobile dockyard for cruisers and escorts.

Sure and the concept is legit but who, WHO, are the people manning the dockyard? No it's not the BTs.

And again, we're looking at just replacing ships lost to attrition, not building a fleet from scratch.

Provide your definition of replace. Is it building a new ship? If so, I do not see the difference between replacing ships lost to attrition and building a ship from scratch.

@D'Art

BT fluff from Games Workshop.  You know, the font of all official fluff?  Pick up a copy of something called Codex: Black Templars.  Very interesting stuff in the fluff section at the beginning of the book.

Uh huh and please point out to me where it says they build their own ships WITHOUT aid from the AM.

Oh, and there was a BT fleet list once upon a time from Ray.  Not official, but interesting enough.

And so entirely irrelevant to this debate.

The Land Raider Crusader was not just a weapon refit of the existing landraider, as it also has expanded troop carrying ability, which implies extensive internal reconfigurations.  

Yes, it's called removal of the power source of the Lascannon. Tadaaaa! Instant space. And veeeeeeery easy enough to do. Now if it were the reverse and the LRC was in existence and you now had to PUT the power source in for lascannons, that is now a much different situation. That is much harder to do.

As far as that reactor goes, it depends on where the hole is if all it needs is some fast welding.  However, most things beyond that, as I stated before, will need some knowledge of how it actually works to fix it, even with a quick and dirty repair, particularly nukes (See K-19).  Hell, anything electronic, or even some just electrical things, you WILL need to know how it works to fix it, even a quick and dirty repair.

Fix. FIX. Which is different from BUILD. Are you getting this through your head yet? K19 involved activating the failsafes to prevent a futher deterioration of the reactor which would result in the ship blowing up and the loss of everyone on board involved by rotating a valve (simple enough to do), the knowledge of which came from one of the commanding officers of K19.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 17, 2010, 01:32:30 AM
Mining. Where AM order the tribesmen to get the metal. Which is simple enough to do. But then what do they do with the metal? Why someone gets it and transports it to orbit where it is now processed by those in the know. Really, Baron, if you are not in the know, don't force it. I'm an engineer. I know the difficulties about building something and building a ship is not simple as you seem to think, especially with restrictions of knowledge in place.

Fleet based chapter does not mean fleet production facilities. Rather it means the Chapter is heavily reliant on its fleet. Incorporating this into 40k fluff, it means the Chapter is supported by the AM because of how the internal dynamics work.

And, again, I love that superior streak of yours.  First, your 'restricted knowledge' isn't very restricted if any half assed rogue trader can set up a private ship yard somewhere and commit tech heresy.  And, yes, the part where obviously more then JUST the miners were involved.  My point was not that they were the only ones building it, but that the facilities to do so would be primitive at best, probably a mobile drydock.


Sure and the concept is legit but who, WHO, are the people manning the dockyard? No it's not the BTs.


I would suggest the chapter serfs, as, after all, that's how the Ultramarines do it.

Provide your definition of replace. Is it building a new ship? If so, I do not see the difference between replacing ships lost to attrition and building a ship from scratch.

The assertion was that the Black Templars would not have the resources to build ships on a large scale.  While this may to may not be true, there is a difference of scale between gathering enough materials to build a single ship and to build a dozen.  Replacing losses is easy from a resource management standpoint then building a whole new fleet from scratch.

Uh huh and please point out to me where it says they build their own ships WITHOUT aid from the AM.

Since there is no data to prove or disprove this absolute, I cannot disprove your assertion, just as you cannot disprove mine.  It is 'implied' that this is the case, but it is not 'stated' one way or the other.

Yes, it's called removal of the power source of the Lascannon. Tadaaaa! Instant space. And veeeeeeery easy enough to do. Now if it were the reverse and the LRC was in existence and you now had to PUT the power source in for lascannons, that is now a much different situation. That is much harder to do.

You obviously have never owned an armored vehicle or tried to modify one.  Since you're leaving out that you have to add a shotlocker for the bolters, among other things.  For an engineer, you missed a really obvious problem there.  Since, you know, sufficient ammunition storage would require just as much, if not more, room then two generators.  I would suggest that other things were changed as well.

Fix. FIX. Which is different from BUILD. Are you getting this through your head yet? K19 involved activating the failsafes to prevent a futher deterioration of the reactor which would result in the ship blowing up and the loss of everyone on board involved by rotating a valve (simple enough to do), the knowledge of which came from one of the commanding officers of K19.

Um, wrong.  On both counts, really, but particularly the K-19.

The backup unit had never been installed.  They had to cut off a air vent valve and weld a pipe from the subs fresh water supply to it, cooling the runaway reactor.  Once again, knowing how something works is what allowed them to mange a temporary repair.

And, frankly, again, if you are going to fix, patch, jury rig or Micky Mouse something, you need to know what it does, and how it works.  I've seen people who did not know what they were doing try to 'fix' equipment in the past without knowing how it operated, and usually it just made the problem worse.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 17, 2010, 01:55:39 AM
And, again, I love that superior streak of yours.  First, your 'restricted knowledge' isn't very restricted if any half assed rogue trader can set up a private ship yard somewhere and commit tech heresy.  And, yes, the part where obviously more then JUST the miners were involved.  My point was not that they were the only ones building it, but that the facilities to do so would be primitive at best, probably a mobile drydock.

Uh huh and when said RT is found out then what happens? Aside from which said RT most likely will have assistance from other races. Not so SM. The point of the miners is that mining is not a difficult process to do. Miners can just DIG for the material, not even the most important ore. Digging is SIMPLE.


I would suggest the chapter serfs, as, after all, that's how the Ultramarines do it.

You haven't produced anything which shows they do the actual building, BT or UM. Let's face it, fluffwise, AM handles the building of warships.

The assertion was that the Black Templars would not have the resources to build ships on a large scale.  While this may to may not be true, there is a difference of scale between gathering enough materials to build a single ship and to build a dozen.  Replacing losses is easy from a resource management standpoint then building a whole new fleet from scratch.

No, the assertation is the BT do not have the technical knowledge to build such ships. Resources (raw materials) they will most likely have. How to transform such raw materials in a warship, they do not. Again, define what you man by "replace".

Since there is no data to prove or disprove this absolute, I cannot disprove your assertion, just as you cannot disprove mine.  It is 'implied' that this is the case, but it is not 'stated' one way or the other.

No, I have proof from the fluff based on the background of the 40k universe. You do not have any proof whatsoever. You made the assertation that BT can build ships without AM assistance. As such it is you who has to present the proof they can. All you have provided is that BT are fleet based which does not mean they build their own ships. You present proof that they have fleets which is not being contradicted here. The issue here is can they build ships without AM assistance. You have not provided any proof whatsoever.

You obviously have never owned an armored vehicle or tried to modify one.  Since you're leaving out that you have to add a shotlocker for the bolters, among other things.  For an engineer, you missed a really obvious problem there.  Since, you know, sufficient ammunition storage would require just as much, if not more, room then two generators.  I would suggest that other things were changed as well.

I know adding shotlockers to Bolters would be easier than adding a power source for something as complicated as a Lascannon. That is a simple problem of layout. How to place the Bolters in such a way as to feed the Hurricane Bolters which are simple weapons at best. Oh yes I DO UNDERSTAND the complexities involved, especially as an ENGINEER.

Um, wrong.  On both counts, really, but particularly the K-19.

The backup unit had never been installed.  They had to cut off a air vent valve and weld a pipe from the subs fresh water supply to
it, cooling the runaway reactor.  Once again, knowing how something works is what allowed them to mange a temporary repair.

Exactly, a temporary repair which I never said the BTs or any engineer could not do. But repairs are different from BUILDING something. If you cannot get the difference between REPAIRING and BUILDING, then it's useless to discuss things further.

Regarding K19, while it had no backups, there were still failsafes on board which could have assisted in minimizing the problem. These failsafes failed which resulted in the required fabricating of a pipe to direct water to cool down the problem reactor. K-19s problem was simple: how to cool down the reactor (note that I said simple, though this in no way downplays the seriousness of the problem). Making a pipe to divert water from another source on the ship is a simple solution as well.

And, frankly, again, if you are going to fix, patch, jury rig or Micky Mouse something, you need to know what it does, and how it works.  I've seen people who did not know what they were doing try to 'fix' equipment in the past without knowing how it operated, and usually it just made the problem worse.

Again we're not talking about repairs in the case of BT but building ships. Yes, as I said, Techmarines will have some general knowledge to help repair. Building something is another issue entirely. If you don't believe me, go build yourself a ship like a Nimitz class. Heck, you can even watch the building of one in Discovery Channel if you can catch it when they do re-runs or get a copy.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 17, 2010, 04:54:17 AM
If you, as a person, think that Space Marines should be allowed lances on SCs or BBs, given the political situation, then you, as a person, are a retard.

40K logic not lining up with real world logic? Fine. Hand waive it. Who gives a flying fuck. What you are doing here is the equivalent of saying that Space Marines have the best armour and weapons available to the Imperium and then giving them a 6+ armour save and a lasgun. Learn the difference between external and internal consistency. There is zero fluff that could support the notion that SMs have lances. If a piece of fluff came right out and said "Such-and-such chapter have a plethora of pure lance armed SCs and BBs and the Imperium lets them" then that fluff would simply be WRONG.

The vast majority of these guys that put pen to paper to create the fluff are just writing what they think would be thematic or dramatic or cool or nasty or whatthefuckever. They have no concept of what the pre-established political situation requires. It might be cool for Eldar to carve off a sizeable chunk of the Imperium, establish their own Empire and slay Slaanesh, but if some dickhead were to write it I wouldn't buy it.

If you follow every bit of fluff as gospel, regardless of source and regardless of its internal consistency then you're a moron. That's all there is to it. There is an ordinal supremacy here:

1. Premises of fictional universe
2. Specific historical incidences

Your assertion of lances for SMs runs against the premises. Even if your fluff stated specifically that they have lances and was from a reputable (ie, otherwise acceptable) source then it would still be wrong. That's even if it were straight out and from a reputable source, let alone these veiled inferences you bring up. It is wrong, you are wrong. There is no other way it can be.

Now, you could make up some sort of fluff whereby the SM chapter of the moment manages to maintain/build lance boats in secret, but as soon as they're discovered they're going to be either brought back into line or, more likely, simply exterminated. Building warships is an act of open rebellion. Lance boats are warships. That's it. End of fucking story. Buh-bye, thanks for playing. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. There is no alternative scenario. You cannot simultaneously hold that the Heresy happened and that SMs should get lances. They are mutually exclusive.

The option that currently exists should only be available to those chapters that are about to be struck by the great Imperial nerfhammer. In other words, you take the lance option, you're now a chapter in rebellion. You get caught with it, you're screwed.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 17, 2010, 05:37:59 AM
Uh huh and when said RT is found out then what happens? Aside from which said RT most likely will have assistance from other races. Not so SM. The point of the miners is that mining is not a difficult process to do. Miners can just DIG for the material, not even the most important ore. Digging is SIMPLE.

Well, not a whole lot, apparently.  Since they regularly take xenos systems without taking Imperial fire, though I would not be surprised if the Admech were miffed at them.   Oh, and, I don't think that the Eldar or the Fra'al or the Yuvath have conveniently located shipyards for any Rogue trader to just pull into and start refitting.  Remember, most races are not the Tau or the Stryxis.  You also leave out all the wrecking operations that go on, which ALSO require extensive knowledge of how a ship goes together.  

You haven't produced anything which shows they do the actual building, BT or UM. Let's face it, fluffwise, AM handles the building of warships.

Again, Nightbringer, Chapter 4.  The Vae Victus was built at Calth by the Ultramarines, several centuries previous to the beginning of the novel.  I've site this source twice now.  

No, the assertation is the BT do not have the technical knowledge to build such ships. Resources (raw materials) they will most likely have. How to transform such raw materials in a warship, they do not. Again, define what you man by "replace".

Site a source that says they have no technical knowledge.  I've sited several that they do.  (One would hope that in a 30 year apprenticeship the tech marines in particular would have gone beyond bolt tightening.  After all, it only takes 10 to be an engineer)

No, I have proof from the fluff based on the background of the 40k universe. You do not have any proof whatsoever. You made the assertation that BT can build ships without AM assistance. As such it is you who has to present the proof they can. All you have provided is that BT are fleet based which does not mean they build their own ships. You present proof that they have fleets which is not being contradicted here. The issue here is can they build ships without AM assistance. You have not provided any proof whatsoever.

A simple one would be that the AdMech would have refused to alter the Eternal Crusader from it's holy STC design.  Since this alteration did take place, it would have to have been without the assistance of the AdMech, and, as the ship is a Battlebarge, would have required extensive facilities to carry out, and highly trained shipwrights.

and, I might point out that you have not sited a single source other then to make vague statements about '40k background'.


I know adding shotlockers to Bolters would be easier than adding a power source for something as complicated as a Lascannon. That is a simple problem of layout. How to place the Bolters in such a way as to feed the Hurricane Bolters which are simple weapons at best. Oh yes I DO UNDERSTAND the complexities involved, especially as an ENGINEER.

Really?  Then you'd know that a series of six synchronized ammo feeds (per side) are a lot harder to pull off them a single high voltage connection and a group of capacitors.  Further, the feeds would require a precise timing mechanism to feed the ammunition into the bolters without fouling, which would be rather complicated as it fires six bolters at once. A lascannon is complicated (sort of, well, not really, assuming that it's just a very powerful laser) within the weapon itself, rather then the ancillary mechanisms to operate it.

Exactly, a temporary repair which I never said the BTs or any engineer could not do. But repairs are different from BUILDING something. If you cannot get the difference between REPAIRING and BUILDING, then it's useless to discuss things further.

Regarding K19, while it had no backups, there were still failsafes on board which could have assisted in minimizing the problem. These failsafes failed which resulted in the required fabricating of a pipe to direct water to cool down the problem reactor. K-19s problem was simple: how to cool down the reactor (note that I said simple, though this in no way downplays the seriousness of the problem). Making a pipe to divert water from another source on the ship is a simple solution as well.

I'm not sure why you seem to think they're two separate things.  I know, at least in my field, they're exactly the same skills.  And, as John Staph, one of the men that built the Triton missile, told me, 'You need to know how to build one to know how to fix one.'

And, btw: you'd have to know that the air intake connects in a manner that would direct the coolant into the proper location, instead of, say, flooding the boat.  Further, the only failsafe was SCRAM, which simply inserts all the control rods.  SCRAM worked perfectly, however, without any coolant in the system, SCRAM doesn't do too much to prevent a meltdown.

However, that wasn't what you said they did the first time.

Again we're not talking about repairs in the case of BT but building ships. Yes, as I said, Techmarines will have some general knowledge to help repair. Building something is another issue entirely. If you don't believe me, go build yourself a ship like a Nimitz class. Heck, you can even watch the building of one in Discovery Channel if you can catch it when they do re-runs or get a copy.

While I doubt I could build myself a Nimitz (without being arrested, plutonium requires a license) I could, however, build you a nice unmanned drone carrier with a more conventional propulsion system (I'm fond of the Babcox and Wilcox non-explosive boiler, myself.  It's not as efficient, but any idiot can be trained to operate it, and if something goes wrong, there's no issues with all that Strontium 90).  And some drones, though nothing as well armed or fast as the USG's toys.  Or any number of cute civilian ships.   Assuming you want to drop the money on me to get all the materials I need.


@Sigorath: So, to summarize, what you're saying is "If it doesn't agree with MY interpretation of things in a fictional universe, it's WRONG!"

 (And, by the way, once upon a time, SM could be equipped with lasguns)

Normally, I'd just let it go at that, but let me tear into your supposition further:

1) Premise of a fictional universe: 40,000 years in the future, the totalitarian Imperium of Mankind is in slow decline, as it teeters toward oblivion.  Existing power structures are under constant attack from both within and without, slowly crumbing under their own inertia while the Inquisition tries to hold it all together [and occasionally disturbing things best left undisturbed] and the IG and SM run around pissing on fires.  

(Anyone want to argue that this is not 40k?)


2) Historical Incidents: I've already covered this ground fairly well.  

Point me to where the Inquisition is going to say "Despite you being the only thing standing between us and (species/invasion/heresy here) Space Marine, kneel down to be executed because we feel you're too powerful.  We don't mind losing the sector over this and possibly starting another Badab War."

The High Lords of Terra have so little concern about space marines they don't even know how many chapters there are.  That a single chapter sized an entire sector of space was of little concern, until they didn't pay their taxes for 150 years.  And even then, it was only because several space marines chapters got into a private shooting war that the Inquisition even noticed.  

Fluff states that the High Lords spend a great deal more time worrying about one another, and their own power hungry subordinates, then about space marines (After all, to fill someone's shoes, you must first empty them) and that, in fact, this is the reason they grant so many Writs of Trade, to dispose of useful people that are making them nervous without having to kill them.

Further, when an Empire reaches this level of decline, typically their ability to enforce their will starts to diminish rapidly in far flung areas and on groups only nominally under thier control. (See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 17, 2010, 06:40:08 AM
Okay okay, I give in.

I'll stop bitchin about no lances at all. Giving them 1 lance for +20pts instead of prow Bombardment Cannons is fine.

<grin>
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 17, 2010, 08:50:12 AM
@Sigorath: So, to summarize, what you're saying is "If it doesn't agree with MY interpretation of things in a fictional universe, it's WRONG!"

Absolutely. When my interpretation is the only cogent interpretation.

Quote
(And, by the way, once upon a time, SM could be equipped with lasguns)

Hmm, and now they can't. I wonder why? Could it be that some bright spark realised how stupid that idea was? How it didn't line up with the premises regarding SMs? I think so.

Quote
Normally, I'd just let it go at that, but let me tear into your supposition further:

1) Premise of a fictional universe: 40,000 years in the future, the totalitarian Imperium of Mankind is in slow decline, as it teeters toward oblivion.  Existing power structures are under constant attack from both within and without, slowly crumbing under their own inertia while the Inquisition tries to hold it all together [and occasionally disturbing things best left undisturbed] and the IG and SM run around pissing on fires.  

(Anyone want to argue that this is not 40k?)

This is an incomplete picture. You left out that the slightest deviation from accepted practice is heresy. That tinkering with your own machines without the authority of the AdMech is heresy. That execution is the solution of choice. That paranoia abounds in all forms. And that the most psychologically traumatic event in all of human history was the space marine rebellion!

Quote
2) Historical Incidents: I've already covered this ground fairly well.  

Point me to where the Inquisition is going to say "Despite you being the only thing standing between us and (species/invasion/heresy here) Space Marine, kneel down to be executed because we feel you're too powerful.  We don't mind losing the sector over this and possibly starting another Badab War."

Well, this would be under oh, I don't know, every single piece of Inquisition fluff ever written!. The Imperium are arrogant and bureaucratic and above all else paranoid. Paranoid. They don't trust the SMs to just go off and do the right thing. What they do trust is their bureaucracy. They have faith in the Emperor and in the might of the Imperium. One small portion of which, ie, the SM chapter they happen to be looking at, cannot be allowed to threaten. What the Badab war would have taught the Imperium is that they can't trust SMs at all and that they need to control them more. The one thing they fear more than anything is another Heresy on the scale of Horus's. That's why they split them up in the first place, so the heresy couldn't spread so easily. Therefore when they spot it they can uproot it easily.

So despite them splitting them up for this very reason, despite them denying the SMs a warfleet to deliberately limit their power you're saying that they, the Highlords and the Inquisition, really couldn't give a rats arse about whether SMs get a warfleet or have numbers on the scale of the old legions. No, you're right, that makes absolute sense. It's not as if the Horus Heresy redefined the lives of every single human in the empire or anything. Oh wait ...

Quote
The High Lords of Terra have so little concern about space marines they don't even know how many chapters there are.  That a single chapter sized an entire sector of space was of little concern, until they didn't pay their taxes for 150 years.  And even then, it was only because several space marines chapters got into a private shooting war that the Inquisition even noticed.  

Wow. You really don't get it do you. It doesn't matter how many chapters there are. In fact, the more the better. The more chapters the less cohesion. All they'd give a rats about is whether the SMs have a warfleet that could challenge the IN or, more pertinently, whether it looked like one might happen. The next issue down, and this one is a distant second, is the size of the individual chapters. SMs don't breed at a prodigious rate and yet there are more chapters popping up all the time. So they're all split up, job sorted. The only real chapter noted as not obeying this rule is the BT, and they're only suspected. If they never gather enough men in the one spot for it to be confirmed then they're not likely a threat. Still, they're watched.

Quote
Fluff states that the High Lords spend a great deal more time worrying about one another, and their own power hungry subordinates, then about space marines (After all, to fill someone's shoes, you must first empty them) and that, in fact, this is the reason they grant so many Writs of Trade, to dispose of useful people that are making them nervous without having to kill them.

So they actually do nothing while they're in office and have no concerns other than political intrigue with their near rivals. The idea of revolution is so distant to them that they're not even afraid of it at all. After all, it has never happened before, right? Oh wait ...

Also, the reason they don't worry about SMs is likely because when it comes to the important stuff they do mainly tow the line. SMs don't even want lances on their ships. They know their place, and that's on the ground, in the front lines, with some xenos races blood on their armour.

Quote
Further, when an Empire reaches this level of decline, typically their ability to enforce their will starts to diminish rapidly in far flung areas and on groups only nominally under thier control. (See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)

You go pick up any psychology text on power. Anyway, your example only supports my case. The Romans, ever fearful of someone of power (ie, a SM chapter master) taking over used to ban Generals from bringing their armies into Rome (hence we get the saying, crossing the Rubicon). Eventually they fell prey to their own Praetorian guard, but only due to some other political slips beforehand. Up until this time it was a wise provision in and of itself, but regardless, even when it became unwise it was still enforced. Emperor after Emperor was beholden to the Praetorian guard, a mere puppet. A relieving army would've been a wonderful idea then.

Even in decline the ideas and practices are still followed, regardless of whether that hastens your decline. Hell, at the end of WWII the yanks decided to go through France rather than the Baltic states as advocated by Churchill. The yanks were afraid of British imperialistic intentions and ignored Churchills fears of the Russians advancing their borders and becoming a superpower. Policy decisions are made by fear. The single greatest fear the Imperium has is being betrayed by their own SMs. More than any xenos threat, their own troops are their biggest threat. As the Imperium of Man declines, and its ability to exert its influence wanes it will contract its borders to a size it can control, and within those borders they would still exert control in the same manner, ie, no SM gunboats. They might even escalate their paranoia such that they try to systematically exterminate remaining SM forces from space once they feel they can no longer control them. They would not adapt, they would not risk giving over control of space to the marines.

Two things here. We're not at that point yet and even if we were the only SMs allowed lances would be those outside of the Imperiums controllable borders. In other words, ex-Space Marines. Well, you want to give your ex-Space Marines lances, go ahead. That's perfectly allowable.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Octavius_Maximus on December 17, 2010, 02:40:37 PM
While the Arguements both have their merits. Sigoroth, you seem to overstate the importance of Space Marines in the wider Imperial Theater. You say that the single most fear of the Imperial Brass is a Space Marine revolt, although while harsh i think it is more traitors in general.

A space Marine chapter can be devastating, but thats only if its a plot thing it seems. While Imperial Guard regiments, Imperial Ships, etc could all represent a greater threat due to their increased size and power.

The Badab war was another mass Space Marine Revolt (not on par with the Heresy, but still) which is still a footnote in all of Imperial History, which shows how insignificant it may be according to the Imperial Big Picture.

Not only that, but your classification of the Heresy as being a defining moment that changed the Imperium is true, although its relevance to the modern Imperium is, also, less than you state i believe. I would equate it the same importance to most Imperial Citizens as The fall of Lucifer does to the modern world. Its a story from a text, told to you endlessly, but still a story, not to mention those who dont believe vehemently .

But on the other topic, Space Marines not having lances can be a defining trait of theirs (like Orks, for example) and their Bombard Cannons are a good replacement. But if you are going to give Space Marines the options for lances, you CANNOT try to Produce fleets through overcharging for options. It is an Anathema to good game balance to try and incorporate fluff into the mechanics of the rules in such a hamfisted way. If you want to make Space Marines not take lances, you dont give them the option. A Option which is inherantly inbalanced and overcosted is an insult.

I would simply put that Space marines can replace their original Bombard Cannons with a St1 45cm range Lance (or a S2 30cm lance), for free. This means that you have:

Strike Cruiser:
Side Weapons Batteries (S4)
Prow Bombardment Cannons (S3)
Dorsal Launch bay (S1)

Variant 1:
Side Weapons Batteries (S4)
Prow Bombardment Cannons (S3)
Prow Bombardment cannons (S5)

Variant 2:
Side Weapons Batteries (S4)
Prow Lance (S2 30cm or S1 45cm)
Dorsal Launch Bay (S1)

Variant 3:
Side Weapons Batteries (S4)
Prow Lance (S2 30cm or S1 45cm)
Prow Bombardment cannons (S5)

You could even add in a mass launch bay variant.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: horizon on December 17, 2010, 02:44:01 PM
Hi,
Quote
I would simply put that Space marines can replace their original Bombard Cannons with a St1 45cm range Lance (or a S2 30cm lance), for free. This means that you have:
Yeah... 45cm lances for Marines. Ya better edit that idea.... ;)

Also, per draft SC has 2 launch bays, so with 1 per your suggestion you go for 2 shields per standard?
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Sigoroth on December 17, 2010, 05:22:58 PM
While the Arguements both have their merits. Sigoroth, you seem to overstate the importance of Space Marines in the wider Imperial Theater. You say that the single most fear of the Imperial Brass is a Space Marine revolt, although while harsh i think it is more traitors in general.

Nope, SM treachery. Any normal human can be destroyed on the ground. They can be investigated, arrested, "questioned", etc. SMs are just too powerful and physically imposing to be treated this way. They also, as a political body, have some clout. The more powerful a group is the more effort is put into controlling them. The Imperium doesn't give a rats about whether a potato farmer in some backwater rebels.

Quote
A space Marine chapter can be devastating, but thats only if its a plot thing it seems. While Imperial Guard regiments, Imperial Ships, etc could all represent a greater threat due to their increased size and power.

Guard regiments and IN ships can and do revolt too. They're just not such a threat though. They don't have such limitations on their power imposed from on high. SMs are terrifying, the IG is not. SMs are extremely hard to defeat, IG are not. SMs could sway the loyalty of billions, some IN captain could not.

Quote
The Badab war was another mass Space Marine Revolt (not on par with the Heresy, but still) which is still a footnote in all of Imperial History, which shows how insignificant it may be according to the Imperial Big Picture.

Not only that, but your classification of the Heresy as being a defining moment that changed the Imperium is true, although its relevance to the modern Imperium is, also, less than you state i believe. I would equate it the same importance to most Imperial Citizens as The fall of Lucifer does to the modern world. Its a story from a text, told to you endlessly, but still a story, not to mention those who dont believe vehemently.

Er, we're talking about a society that denies rational thought, degrades science, reveres faith and strictly punishes any deviation from dogma. It's more like the importance of the fall of Lucifer to Spanish Inquisition society!

Quote
But on the other topic, Space Marines not having lances can be a defining trait of theirs (like Orks, for example) and their Bombard Cannons are a good replacement. But if you are going to give Space Marines the options for lances, you CANNOT try to Produce fleets through overcharging for options. It is an Anathema to good game balance to try and incorporate fluff into the mechanics of the rules in such a hamfisted way. If you want to make Space Marines not take lances, you dont give them the option. A Option which is inherantly inbalanced and overcosted is an insult.

They simply should not have the option at all.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 17, 2010, 06:26:01 PM
Quote
If you want to make Space Marines not take lances, you dont give them the option.

We didn't want the option there at all; this is the compromise. The lance is available since the HA wanted it but useless because of price.

EDIT:

Quote
Again, Nightbringer, Chapter 4.  The Vae Victus was built at Calth by the Ultramarines, several centuries previous to the beginning of the novel.  I've site this source twice now.

I finally had a chance to look this up and your statement is inaccurate. It was built in the shipyards of Calth but it not listed as being built by the Ultramarines. It is not indicative of the Ultramrines possessing the capabilities to create ships by themselves because it does not say if the shipbuilders of Clath are admech, part of the chapter forges, or another entity.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 17, 2010, 08:43:24 PM
Quote
If you want to make Space Marines not take lances, you dont give them the option.

We didn't want the option there at all; this is the compromise. The lance is available since the HA wanted it but useless because of price.

EDIT:

Quote
Again, Nightbringer, Chapter 4.  The Vae Victus was built at Calth by the Ultramarines, several centuries previous to the beginning of the novel.  I've site this source twice now.

I finally had a chance to look this up and your statement is inaccurate. It was built in the shipyards of Calth but it not listed as being built by the Ultramarines. It is not indicative of the Ultramrines possessing the capabilities to create ships by themselves because it does not say if the shipbuilders of Clath are admech, part of the chapter forges, or another entity.

I would suggest that 'we' is a weakening position as more people hear about it.  

As far as Calth goes: Calth's primary industry is shipbuilding, according to the fluff section of Codex:Ultramarines, and is their fief.  The Ultramarines seem to encourage education over ignorance within their domain, as dictated by their primarch.  Further, Calth shows none of the usual hallmarks of an admech run industrial operation (in fact, if the description given on page 14 of Codex: Ultramarines is correct, the operation is the antithesis of one) as the planet lacks the sprawling toxic wasteland that usually arises from Admech operations, preventing them from possessing the sort of self sufficiency that the worlds of Ultramar pride themselves in.

If the shipyards of Calth are an admech operation, it's a highly atypical one.  Sort of like finding a squad of loyalist Luna Wolves wandering around.

@Sigoroth: Obviously you've forgotten that Gogue Vandire was a 'normal' human.  And the Age of Apostasy was much more recent then the Horus Heresy.  Further: I might point out that you are REALLY underestimating IG.  

As far as Space Marines go: 'The Adeptus Terra never felt it necessary to enforce the Codex absolutely.  Indeed, it is doubtful that it could.' - Codex: Ultramarines, page 10.

Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: Vaaish on December 17, 2010, 09:43:00 PM
Baron, the we referring to those of us at the time this came up originally isn't changed by anything you've posted after the fact. In fact, I think you're one of maybe two here who is trying to get more lances on marine capital ships. However, on to the point. You haven't provided any proof that Calth DOES NOT have ties to the AdMech. No one denies calth is under ultramarine control, but that is a far cry from the ultramarines building the ships. Second, we don't know what a typical small scale Admech operation looks like. All we've been given is that the Admech has a monopoly on large tech like titans and starships and most of this is done from forgeworlds.

At this point all the fluff you've provided regarding Calth can tell us is there is a shipyard in the Ultramarine controlled area of space that build strike cruisers with the abnormal addition of torpedoes. That's all the facts you presented tell us.

From what we know of the AdMech (it jealously guards high tech and has a virtual monololy on building anything advanced) it makes it highly unlikely that the Calth DOES NOT have some attachment to the AdMech. This is especially true because I believe the AdMech is listed as being the sole producer of spacecraft and the like in WD140. So far, I've not seen anything to state otherwise.
Title: Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 17, 2010, 11:33:34 PM
Baron, the we referring to those of us at the time this came up originally isn't changed by anything you've posted after the fact. In fact, I think you're one of maybe two here who is trying to get more lances on marine capital ships. However, on to the point. You haven't provided any proof that Calth DOES NOT have ties to the AdMech. No one denies calth is under ultramarine control, but that is a far cry from the ultramarines building the ships. Second, we don't know what a typical small scale Admech operation looks like. All we've been given is that the Admech has a monopoly on large tech like titans and starships and most of this is done from forgeworlds.

At this point all the fluff you've provided regarding Calth can tell us is there