November 15, 2019, 11:58:02 PM

Author Topic: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development  (Read 177586 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #255 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.
-Vaaish

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #256 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




Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #257 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
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #258 on: October 07, 2010, 07:24:23 PM »
(Out of curiosity) are there any plans to tweak other fleets like Admech?
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #259 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...?


Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #260 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
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #261 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.
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #262 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.


Offline commander

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #263 on: October 07, 2010, 07:54:36 PM »
Defences

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #264 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?

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #265 on: October 07, 2010, 09:01:04 PM »
More Kroot sphere options please

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #266 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.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #267 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?
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #268 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

Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #269 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.