October 21, 2019, 12:03:07 AM

Author Topic: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development  (Read 174704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #15 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?

Offline Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #16 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)

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #17 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

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #18 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

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #19 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.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #20 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!

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #21 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.

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #22 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

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #23 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.

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #24 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
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 10:59:48 PM by russ_c »

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #25 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.

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #26 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
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 11:36:23 PM by russ_c »

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #27 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.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #28 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.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #29 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.
-Vaaish