Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started 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.
-
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:
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?
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What you said is correct. it only relates to the same ship or squadron.
-
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
-
Spartacus, that is basically what the clarification in the draft FAQ says.
-
Last S.
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1612.0
FAQ2010 wip PDF
(I mean the title says it all....) ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
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 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!
-
on variants for cruisers I mean:
* The Assault variant
* Devestator variant
not this lance blasphemy. Or S.O. blasphemy.
-
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?
-
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)
-
Fine with 2 thawks for barge to differentiate
3 strikecruisers should play very different
SC should not be a 1/3 barge
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
How about an minute fix. Make bombardment cannon 45cm for SM.
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
How about the Seditio Opprimere is only available when playing Tyranids?
-Zhukov
-
NEVER EVER!
VETO!
INQUISITION!
HERETIC!
No really, batteries are better against Nids anyway.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Mostly it was just "they don't exist anymore".
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
ok with me.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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)
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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 90° 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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
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.
I have a huge problem with people landing Retributions, Oberon, Emperor and Despoiler battleships and saying "lolmarines" on top of it.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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 90° 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+.
-
Seconded.
Although I would much rather see it be traded for a TH than get a points increase.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Onq quibble with the design: when crippled or braced or braced & cripple the maximum launch capacity is still intact.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I definitly don't have a problem with there being one in the fleet.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sounds reasonable.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 “Devastator†(?) strike cruiser, though we did not go with the one with larger launch bays because the SM’s 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 isn’t 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 don’t like it, don’t 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
-
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?
-
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 “Devastator†(?) strike cruiser, though we did not go with the one with larger launch bays because the SM’s 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 isn’t 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 don’t like it, don’t 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
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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 “Devastator†(?) strike cruiser, though we did not go with the one with larger launch bays because the SM’s 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 isn’t 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 don’t like it, don’t 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Honestly Admiral, a couple lances on an SC, from a competative perspective, is only a bit more scary to me than bombardment cannons.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Still, fitting with background they should not have lances even at premium prizes in this or any other draft.
-
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
-
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.
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.
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
-
Linebreaker, becuase there are already WAY too many classes that start with D ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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 it’s 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. It’s rare and expensive, but they can still do it (up to 45cm and 60cm, no less!) What we’re saying is that for Space Marines, it should be rare and expensive, but not entirely absent. Obviously there’s 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.
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 doesn’t 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 won’t mention it in any materials he produces for the game.
Still we wait views on:
- the refit we don't like.
Okay. Gone.
- 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 WB’s 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 “nobody.†You don’t see the e-mails I get, and I’m not sharing them nor debating this here.
- the 2nd shield on strike cruisers minus 1 bay
Good idea. In fact, this is such a good idea, we’re considering changing the “buy any refit†to “buy a shield†and leaving the launch bays at 2. Once again, at least half the SC’s in a fleet have to be plain-vanilla.
- your draft 'devestator' with too many bombardments
You’re right, keeping in mind that these still behave as WB’s 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 shouldn’t be able to out-shoot a BB in any arc so this has been reduced. BTW- I’m sure you know I didn’t call it “Devastator†in any official capacity; I just didn’t 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
-
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.
-
Good idea. In fact, this is such a good idea, we’re considering changing the “buy any refit†to “buy a shield†and leaving the launch bays at 2. Once again, at least half the SC’s 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Ok, thats a better design philosophy. My misunderstanding.
-
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?
-
Zhukov, the Seditio does NOT fit fluff vs Tyranids! Weapon Batteries are much better against Tyranids then lances.
How are WB’s better than lances against 5+armor and all the BM’s Tyranids generate? I know many people think the Gothic is overrated, but as a fleet weapon, I just don’t see how this makes sense. I’m not arguing the point, I’m just curious is all.
____
Hi Nate, Bob, Ray,
Hi! ;D
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- that’s why this debate is happening in the first place. It has not been nor will it be our intention to force unwanted rules down anyone’s 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 “breaking†anything already in place.
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 we’re 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 “get in your face†theme much better without creating yet another SC variant.
By the way: the “buy a refit†rule is gone. I notice the 2x prow lance version wasn’t addressed here, but that’s gone as well.
* 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.
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
* Marines may make teleport attacks when on special orders.
This doesn’t need to be addressed here. The soon to be released draft FAQ includes a ruling that Lock-On and Reload Ordnance doesn’t 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 wouldn’t they be exempt? Don’t get me started on Necrons- their tech is so good, even escorts have portals! See what I mean? It’s a door better left closed.
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 don’t also get dedicated T-Hawk bombers. Also, the quirky “turrets hit on a 6†was not merely overlooked, it is gone.
* Venerable battle barges but no Desolator or lance toading gunships.
Here’s 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 Wolves’ Emperor is a particular example, the fluff behind it being a nod to what the Space Marine battlebarge model almost was (that’s a different story).
Here’s 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.
anything else?
Yes, there is.
We KNEW there was going to be some concerns about allowing Chaos battleships be Venerable BB’s, but this is actually fluff true, intended by the game designers and not a broken rule so it’s 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 “no never EVER†response we’ve 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 “no capital lances, EVER!†response.
Here’s a compromise to the “I hate lances†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 HA’s at this point) was to create a Space Marine Apocalypse without the quirky “it blows a gasket beyond 30cm†rule.
Yes everyone, I know it was a bad idea- I get it. Here is Bob’s 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 someone’s going to hate this even though there isn’t a lance or >30cm weapon anywhere on this thing! Thoughts?
- Nate
-
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 someone’s going to hate this even though there isn’t 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.
-
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 someone’s going to hate this even though there isn’t 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 we’re 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 Imp’s 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.
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; there’s 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 “doesn’t need to modify†rule. Also, there’s room to bump the price up a bit, but not too much, especially if it loses a T-Hawk bay. Once again, it’s tough, but for its rock-hard fists, it’s got some tiny arms!
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% VP’s if crippled and 150% VP’s if destroyed. There’s 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.
I’m really glad to see we’re closing the gap.
- Nate
-
Hey,
I like the new Sed.Opp. Maybe sort the points a little as Vaaish pointed out.
:)
Other items make me smile too ;)
Thanks.
-
Hi Nate,
well thanks on the replies regarding refits, devestators, t-hawks/shields. We are getting somewhere. ;)
Hi Horizon! (say that three times fast!) I’m even happier about this than you are. Believe me, NONE of the HA’s are trying to put out a crappy product to the fans.
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 won’t be calling any Strike Cruisers by individual class names. Fluff has always said SC’s represent a broad range of ships with roughly congruent capabilities as opposed to a particular class.
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. It’s cool and chicks dig it.
2. It’s cool and chicks dig it.
3. It’s 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 SC’s 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 we’ve 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.
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. That’s why the Emperor has no lances and the torp Dauntless (no lances again!) were invented before it was decided the SM’s would get dedicated models of their own.
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.
Space Marine symbols on the IN vessels, someone give me proof. ;)
Now THIS is the fun part! Take a good look at the Emperor’s 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 SM’s 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 SM’s should have a fleet with a distinctly different feel much more removed from simply saying they don’t have lances. With the Firestorm and Nova, they were given an opportunity to have a few.
I promise you we’re 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 it’s 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!
(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.
That’s actually not the case. The truth is unfortunately more sad and beyond the scope of this post. Keep your smile on though- you’re not the only one still around that really cares about this game!
- Nate
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Make it amror 6+ and it might be worth 1k points :)
Now THATS a fortress. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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
-
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
-
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.
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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 “other†prow BC, the total is only str-8, the same strength as a BB’s dorsals, and they only go prow at that strength. Also, don’t compare str-5 BC’s to str-6 torps because that’s not what’s 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. It’s not that str-5 BC’s 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.
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 “pure†SM fleet with the new rules grafted in, sort of a reboot of the original SM rule-set written when RSV’s were the only escort models available.
The Dominion fleet is a more rounded fleet for much larger engagements where the SM’s 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.
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 VBB’s 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
-
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.
-
BC’s to str-6 torps because that’s not what’s 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. It’s not that str-5 BC’s 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.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. We’re trying. Really.
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
I’m 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 that’s 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?
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 “whenever possible, don’t change any of the rulebook/Armada profiles.†(I’ll drop names this time- that came straight from Jervis). We will fix what’s broken, which is how the Styx, Retribution and Emperor got re-priced, but after nine years of use, there just isn’t 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! That’s why it can have one for +15 points for as many SC’s as you want to put them on, regardless of what variant, and you even get to keep the two launch bays!
Here’s why we don’t 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 SM’s, 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.
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
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
I’m 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 that’s 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 “whenever possible, don’t change any of the rulebook/Armada profiles.†(I’ll drop names this time- that came straight from Jervis). We will fix what’s broken, which is how the Styx, Retribution and Emperor got re-priced, but after nine years of use, there just isn’t 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! That’s why it can have one for +15 points for as many SC’s as you want to put them on, regardless of what variant, and you even get to keep the two launch bays!
Here’s why we don’t 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 SM’s, 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.
-
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 90° 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.
-
BC’s to str-6 torps because that’s not what’s 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. It’s not that str-5 BC’s 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 that’s more a tactics issue and not under discussion at the moment.
Will less experienced players wowed by the “oooh†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 aren’t looking solely at raw firepower but tactical utility. I’m sure you yourself can see this, even if you don’t 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!
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. It’s 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 don’t are not required to. The list itself is little more than a different type of seasoning and doesn’t 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
-
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
-
@ 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. ;)
-
@ 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I’m 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 that’s 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 “whenever possible, don’t change any of the rulebook/Armada profiles.†(I’ll drop names this time- that came straight from Jervis). We will fix what’s broken, which is how the Styx, Retribution and Emperor got re-priced, but after nine years of use, there just isn’t 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! That’s why it can have one for +15 points for as many SC’s as you want to put them on, regardless of what variant, and you even get to keep the two launch bays!
Here’s why we don’t 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 SM’s, 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." SM’s in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but we’re talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SM’s can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesn’t 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 let’s look at making an SC’s 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 that’s worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a “carrier SC,†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 SC’s, 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 HA’s (all three of us are members here), but I don’t think I’ll be alone in feeling this way.
- Nate
-
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
-
This is not simply a matter of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." SM’s in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but we’re talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SM’s can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesn’t 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 let’s look at making an SC’s 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 that’s worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a “carrier SC,†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 SC’s, 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 HA’s (all three of us are members here), but I don’t think I’ll 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.
-
Nate
good job going thus far regarding the SM
once that is done
how about we revisit a light kroot sphere? ;)
-
Will less experienced players wowed by the “oooh†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 aren’t looking solely at raw firepower but tactical utility. I’m sure you yourself can see this, even if you don’t 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.
-
Thanks. We’re trying. Really.
It' quite clear at this point. Thank you!
I’m 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 that’s 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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Will less experienced players wowed by the “oooh†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 aren’t looking solely at raw firepower but tactical utility. I’m sure you yourself can see this, even if you don’t 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
-
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
-
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 SC’s have guaranteed the enemy’s 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 SC’s, 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 BC’s, finally do it with two-squad pairs each BC’s and T-hawks so one can lock-on while the other reloads. See which set of SC’s fare better. Play each game more than once to account for dice foibles. That’s how I determined str-5 BC’s for the prow was the best fit.
- Nate
-
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.
-
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 SC’s, 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 BC’s, finally do it with two-squad pairs each BC’s and T-hawks so one can lock-on while the other reloads. See which set of SC’s fare better. Play each game more than once to account for dice foibles. That’s how I determined str-5 BC’s 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
-
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 SC’s, 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 BC’s, finally do it with two-squad pairs each BC’s and T-hawks so one can lock-on while the other reloads. See which set of SC’s fare better. Play each game more than once to account for dice foibles. That’s how I determined str-5 BC’s 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 didn’t 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 wasn’t 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 wasn’t too worried about. Like I thought he would, he CAP’ed them with one Dev’s worth of fighters and pushed them in. I didn’t 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 SM’s (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, that’s right, I forgot a rule. What, you all think I walk around with a memorized BFG rolodex in my head? ;)
- Nate
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
@ 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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
^amen! Agree completely.
-Zhukov
-
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 everyone’s input on this. One suggestion is to trade some lances for more 60cm WB’s, another is to trade ALL lances for even more 60cm WB’s. I also don’t have an issue with incorporating some kind of gunnery modifier if we go this route, and it’s true that this is rather fluff-true for SM’s, 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 haven’t spoken to Bob about any of this yet, but there we are. I don’t know if it’s 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?
-
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.
-
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
-
Admittedly your playtest example would probably have been a more accurate assessment which I didn’t 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 wasn’t 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
-
Admittedly your playtest example would probably have been a more accurate assessment which I didn’t 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 wasn’t 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
-
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.
-
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 SC’s is a bad idea. Here’s a direct paste of that response:
This is not simply a matter of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." SM’s in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but we’re talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SM’s can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesn’t 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 let’s look at making an SC’s 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 that’s worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a “carrier SC,†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. It’s okay that you disagree, and I do understand why you feel how you do. However, in my opinion I don’t think your solution set is viable. I don’t 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 can’t reasonably fight any other fleet. I also don’t believe the fix for this should be “just give Orks and Space Marines more firepower.†Just because it’s 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
-
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
-
(Out of curiosity) are there any plans to tweak other fleets like Admech?
-
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...?
-
(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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Defences
-
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?
-
More Kroot sphere options please
-
I don’t 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 can’t 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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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. Don’t think to yourself “fair and balanced†Chaos or Tau. Think “beardy munchkin 16-year old with deep pockets and no personality using all carriers and lances because it’s legal†Chaos or Tau. Your fix for this is to create a SC carrier. How about we do neither, thus we don’t break the SC and then fix it with yet another SC. ;D
The “too many hardpoints†issue is not enough in and of itself to revise a baseline profile that has existed for nine years.
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. I’m not saying “let’s make it official!†I’m merely saying that were we to do so, the model itself wouldn’t be an issue because any novice modeler could make one right out the box.
- Nate
-
Admiral, PLEASE playtest this. Put bluntly, your idea will create a SM fleet that will get smashed by Chaos or Tau. Don’t think to yourself “fair and balanced†Chaos or Tau. Think “beardy munchkin 16-year old with deep pockets and no personality using all carriers and lances because it’s legal†Chaos or Tau. Your fix for this is to create a SC carrier. How about we do neither, thus we don’t 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 “too many hardpoints†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. I’m not saying “let’s make it official!†I’m merely saying that were we to do so, the model itself wouldn’t 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hi Sigoroth! I already posted separately why the 1TH +1Shield rule for all SC’s is a bad idea. Here’s a direct paste of that response:
This is not simply a matter of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." SM’s in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but we’re talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SM’s can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesn’t 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 let’s look at making an SC’s 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 that’s worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a “carrier SC,†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. It’s okay that you disagree, and I do understand why you feel how you do. However, in my opinion I don’t think your solution set is viable. I don’t 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 can’t reasonably fight any other fleet. I also don’t believe the fix for this should be “just give Orks and Space Marines more firepower.†Just because it’s 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.
-
@ 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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
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)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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, here’s what the HA’s are proposing: Give an SC two shields for +15 points, which solves your biggest problem, and it’s 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, what’s 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 what’s 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. That’s 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
-
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 everyone’s input on this. One suggestion is to trade some lances for more 60cm WB’s, another is to trade ALL lances for even more 60cm WB’s. I also don’t have an issue with incorporating some kind of gunnery modifier if we go this route, and it’s true that this is rather fluff-true for SM’s, 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 haven’t spoken to Bob about any of this yet, but there we are. I don’t know if it’s 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
-
+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.
-
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. :)
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
Okay, here’s what the HA’s are proposing: Give an SC two shields for +15 points, which solves your biggest problem, and it’s already in the v3.1 draft.
Very good. Now can I drop a TH for -15 pts?
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, what’s 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.
-
Hi Sigoroth,
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.
-
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Forgive my ignorance, what exactly is being argued here?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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).
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.
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.
-
/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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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?
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!
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 ...
-
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.
-
Then why do it at all?
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
-
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.
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?
-
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
-
Then why do it at all?
I think Nate already answered this.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
...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
-
...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
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
4. 10 marines? A strike cruiser holds around 100 marines. I'd say thats proportional to whatever is on a cruiser.
-
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. ;)
-
well by that logic, the boarding torps would be empty after the first go :)
-
I rarely use Boarding Torps anyway. Much better to just use regular torps and blast the target away.
-
i disagree when it comes to bships. and you cant brace against it
-
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.
-
Oh right, i forgot about that rule. I really have for a long time. Why does that rule exist?
-
For balance.
And you can brace vs hit&run.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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"?
-
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
-
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
-
Except the option to give the Strike Cruiser 5 Bombardments instead of 2 THawks it is fine to me.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Still insistent on Str 2 TH eh? Really just too overpowered for me.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Btw as written the planet killer can be taken as a venerable barge?
-
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, 90° 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!?
-
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/90° 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.
-
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.
-
I thought I'd clarify my suggestions:
Space Marine Strike Cruiser 145 pts
Hits - 6 Speed - 25cm Turns - 90°
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
I just don't see anyone not taking the maximum number of BC variants possible.
-
Yeah, this is a point where Caine is right. The BC option is too attractive.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
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.
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).
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
I trust Nate in this. I thought 5 is too hard but if they tested it his arguments seem to fit.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
?? Regarding weapon hardpoints nothing changed compared to the old Marine Strike Cruiser.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ))))
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Just cuz Andy wrote the game doesn't mean it was flawless and cant be improved apon :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!!
-
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
-
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.
-
"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?
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
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).
-
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 )))
-
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.
-
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.
-
Increased VP is a pretty neat idea, shows the value of the ship. 100 percent is harsh though.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Id happily pay 20 extra points for an extra shield and turret on the thing. At least give us the option.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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!
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Paying 50 pts for terminators is crazy - show me a sane person who would do it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
All these years I have never seen boarding explained better. This should be in the FAQ. heh
-
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 =\
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Crew on an Imperial cruiser is above 60000.
100 vs 60000
1 vs 60
Given Marines 1 on 100, the +2 is again validated.
:)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Mazilla.
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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).
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
lolz
Anyway, now look what they did with the BM all around rule -> confuse people.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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?
-
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).
-
I don't get it... Marines get a pretty high bonus in boarding, more then average. What's to complain about.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
Nids ignore the BM so there is a need for it
-
Huh? How do you mean. There is no need for it as Nate says (and per Sigoroths FAQ2010 extrapolation).
-
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.
-
Anyway, ignore the BM, i think we had a lot of it in the other topic, how do you find our idea on SM?
-
Which idea?
-
Which idea?
7th post from top - Idea for SM draft from Russian BFG community:
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)
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
I refer to my manta comment a few posts back in response to madness of the t-hawk logic :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Any news on the SM draft? You guys are closer to devs than me ))
-
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?
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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. :)
-
Exactly!! We do not want lances thus we as fans persuaded the HA to make them unattractive. yay!
-
A lance is a weaker option than str3 BC. 20 points additional is stupid. Stupid. :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
Everyone who follows the fluff. Mainly people who aren't fanboys of SM.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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 :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Sigoroth, I think you're way off here.
Well you're wrong.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:)
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ship’s ‘primary role’ 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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?
-
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.
-
@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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 '
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
[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. :)
-
I didn't mean you, Horizon. :)
Just a rare poster got me riled enough to say that.
-
Don't threaten Horizon, he'll murder us all with his gargantuan chaos fleet (IIRC, but that might've been Goya)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
"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.
-
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. :)
-
Woot! Grounds for a non-carrier Protector! :D
-
If you want to create a ship out of a mistake to have a mistaken ship you go kid!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
Its like theres a different Sigoroth on this thread. Sig, I for one have listed a few reasons, have you been reading the posts?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Quote in the Strike Cruiser entry:
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.
-
Quote in the Strike Cruiser entry:
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
There's a literally and figuratively a huge difference between equipment and kilometers long warships.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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%?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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>
-
@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.
(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.
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!
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Hi,
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?
-
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.
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.
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!
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I refer you to the Breaking Yards at SR-651 in Edge of the Abyss, pg 32 and 33. Also Aubry's Anvil, in a more peripheral way, pg 35 of the same book. Here we have shipyards under Imperial control that have nothing to do with the admech. I would suggest that their grasp on tech is not as total as is assumed.
On Calth: "Of all the local worlds, Calth is the most specialized...Calth is famous for it's shipyards, which provide the craft used by the Ultramarines as well as civil and military craft for wider use in the Imperium." - Codex: Ultramarines, pg 14. This doesn't sound small scale.
Further, Calth is one of the Ultramarines recruiting worlds. The main point about Calth was to show that it was possible that space marines might possess technical knowledge of ship building (since Calth is a recruiting world of the Ultramarines). After all, it seems like information that any Rogue Trader has fall into their lap on regular basis.
And I count 3-4 so far.
-
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.
UM are one of the Chapters which AM would give assistance without any qualms since they are the basis for the vanilla SM in the 40k universe. Citing this source doesn't mean squat.
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)
Several dubious sources and none of which says they have the technical knowledge of building a starship. Again 30 years is pointless since knowledge of building something like a starship is restricted.
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.
The simplest answer would be the BT follow the guidelines set down by Guilliman and so get assistance from the AMs. Much more simpler than your solution.
and, I might point out that you have not sited a single source other then to make vague statements about '40k background'.
I've cited sources from Armada regarding why lances would be a no-no. We all agree with me that AM control the knowledge of such things as starships and technology that goes into it which is based on GW fluff and even you will agree with that. So what more do you want? Again that is the structure of the 40k universe. Do you have anything to disprove it? That AM are the ones who control such knowledge?
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.
No, synchronizing a series of ammofeeds are not harder to pull off compared to installing a power supply for the lascannons. It's not a simple matter of a single high voltage connection and a group of capacitors. Where are you going to get the source of the energy for the capacitors? It obviously needs something large and separate from the engines. Otherwise, we're talking about a really big engine. Then you're going to have to wire that source correctly inside. Compared to that synchronizing bolters is simpler.
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.'
I know how to fix my car but I sure don't know how to build one. You're statement is correct though that if you know how to build one, you know how to fix one. If you still can't see the difference after this, then again, I can't give you any better example any more.
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.
Which the Russians taught the engineer. No, the book I have states that when the pressure dropped, they needed to start a second pump and it failed. This was before they wanted to insert the control rods. That failsafe failed. I was mistaken a bit in some of the details but I wasn't mistaken on the failsafe failing.
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.
So you can build a drone carrier but would you want an idiot to handle the plasma drive of a starship with all its attendant issues? You miss the point though. And that is building a Nimitz or similar warship is no small thing much less that of a kilometers long warship.
-
Well, if you want an example of SM building starships, the Hunter blurb demonstrates that marines build it so as not to have to rely on the Admech for Imperial escorts.
Its kind of funny, the anti-lance crowd demanding fluff and arguing against what is presented, when the burden of proof lies on them to completely deny lances to marine capital ships. Since there is no hard proof either way, its a feels-right crusade.
Baron, you are trying too hard, the answer is very simple. Ill reiterate my previous statement, since others chose to go after Baron's points since they were more easily argued.
"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."
Open and shut case. Get rid of the points hike and make the lance variant far more limited.
-
Several dubious sources and none of which says they have the technical knowledge of building a starship. Again 30 years is pointless since knowledge of building something like a starship is restricted.
Except to, apparently, random rogue traders.
The simplest answer would be the BT follow the guidelines set down by Guilliman and so get assistance from the AMs. Much more simpler than your solution.
Except that the BT's don't follow Guilliman's 'guidelines' is the keystone of their identity a space marines and a core part of their fluff.
I've cited sources from Armada regarding why lances would be a no-no. We all agree with me that AM control the knowledge of such things as starships and technology that goes into it which is based on GW fluff and even you will agree with that. So what more do you want? Again that is the structure of the 40k universe. Do you have anything to disprove it? That AM are the ones who control such knowledge?
I would posit that their control is not absolute, and that as 'lesser tech heresy' (such as invention, building, and repairing things without admech approval) is rife on most hive worlds (see Creatures Anathema, pg 14) This is opposed to 'Greater Tech Heresy' such as building thinking machines, anything powered by the warp, certain brands of genetic engineering. It's made clear in Anathema that the admech only calls for exterminatus for things like building androids (recreating the men of iron) or constructing large scale warp devices. That last one also leads other organizations to call for exterminatus. Largely the level of 'lesser' tech heresy that a given world allows is at the discretion of the local planetary admech temple. (same source, same page)
No, synchronizing a series of ammofeeds are not harder to pull off compared to installing a power supply for the lascannons. It's not a simple matter of a single high voltage connection and a group of capacitors. Where are you going to get the source of the energy for the capacitors? It obviously needs something large and separate from the engines. Otherwise, we're talking about a really big engine. Then you're going to have to wire that source correctly inside. Compared to that synchronizing bolters is simpler.
Your argument might have weight except that the engines in a sentinel walker can power one. The much larger and more advanced engines in a land raider would probably have no problem driving the vehicle forward as well a powering lascannons. And the wiring of an alternator to an engine to produce electricity isn't that complicated. And, yes, looking at every lascannon GW has ever produced, it's a single high voltage connection hooked to a capacitor. (what do you think those things are that the IG use in the field when they have a man portable lascannon?)
I know how to fix my car but I sure don't know how to build one. You're statement is correct though that if you know how to build one, you know how to fix one. If you still can't see the difference after this, then again, I can't give you any better example any more.
I would suggest then that there are a lot of things that you don't know how to fix on your car then. If you can replace a panel, or weld a frame, replace your electrical system, or swap out the engine, you can probably build a car. If you doubt it, go to any hotrod show.
So you can build a drone carrier but would you want an idiot to handle the plasma drive of a starship with all its attendant issues? You miss the point though. And that is building a Nimitz or similar warship is no small thing much less that of a kilometers long warship.
No, your statement was that I wouldn't know how and couldn't do such a thing even if I had the resources. Which was incorrect. I did not say that it was not a major undertaking. It would probably take months or even years to finish. But the point is that they could know what to do, and would have the manpower, equipment, and material to do it.
And I see idiots play with tokamaks every day, but we call them graduate students. The thing about a plasma drive is actually it would be fairly safe. Sure, if you have one in your basement and the mag field gives out, you're probably going to burn the house down, but they don't actually explode with the sort of hundred gigatonne explosions we have in BFG and 40k in general.
-
I know how to fix my car but I sure don't know how to build one. You're statement is correct though that if you know how to build one, you know how to fix one. If you still can't see the difference after this, then again, I can't give you any better example any more.
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.
So you can build a drone carrier but would you want an idiot to handle the plasma drive of a starship with all its attendant issues? You miss the point though. And that is building a Nimitz or similar warship is no small thing much less that of a kilometers long warship.
The problem here is neither of you is taking into account what you could do with near infinite resources. With 10,000 years and the income from a planet I think you could build a Nimitz carrier, but why would you stop there. I am totally against SM getting lances. It is one of the sacrifices you make to allow your fleet to continue to be unique. Fuck the fluff. Honestly does anyone really care? To me this arguing is more about "I'm right" than it is about the game. SM dont need lances they need sheilds please stop this bickering and concentrate on the main issue. SM need help! They dont need lances! This will hide the flaws in the fleet by making SM look more balanced. The main issue with the SM fleet is it is tin foil and until this changes they will always need help.
Nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam. Cicero.
Has anyone thought about dropping WB to increase sheilds as an option for BB and SC? For example turn a BB in to a brick with 5 or 6 shields, a flight deck and a BC. You would have to change the exterminatus rules.
If you want to play SM with lances talk to your opponent and make house rules but please don't spoil the flavour of my SM by going and making your varient mainstream.
Please Sir I want some more. Oliver
-
The problem here is neither of you is taking into account what you could do with near infinite resources. With 10,000 years and the income from a planet I think you could build a Nimitz carrier, but why would you stop there. I am totally against SM getting lances. It is one of the sacrifices you make to allow your fleet to continue to be unique. Fuck the fluff. Honestly does anyone really care? To me this arguing is more about "I'm right" than it is about the game. SM dont need lances they need sheilds please stop this bickering and concentrate on the main issue. SM need help! They dont need lances! This will hide the flaws in the fleet by making SM look more balanced. The main issue with the SM fleet is it is tin foil and until this changes they will always need help.
Nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam. Cicero.
Has anyone thought about dropping WB to increase sheilds as an option for BB and SC? For example turn a BB in to a brick with 5 or 6 shields, a flight deck and a BC. You would have to change the exterminatus rules.
If you want to play SM with lances talk to your opponent and make house rules but please don't spoil the flavour of my SM by going and making your varient mainstream.
Please Sir I want some more. Oliver
Actually, I tried to bring up the available resources, but they simply ignored that.
My (original) point was since SM are getting lances anyway, why force them to suck? It's not like you can take an entire lance fleet with the rules as written anyway. For the crusade fleet list the exchange makes sense. For the rest, I'd just prefer to see them limited in numbers rather then nerf the lances.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - GAIVS IVLIVS CÆSAR
I can't say that I ever thought of +6 armor as tinfoil before. However, I do agree that SCs need 2 points of shields (which is a purchasable upgrade now). I don't think that BBs need them though.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur - anonymous
-
Lance = anti-ship weapon. SMs aren't allowed Warfleets. Therefore no lances. End of story. No amount of innuendo or supposition or guess work gets around that. Hell, a bald statement saying that BTs have a gazillion battleships armed with lances wouldn't get around that.
If you're going to try to argue for SMs getting lances then it has to make sense. This means that you can stop arguing for it, since it will never make sense.
-
In the fluff the SM navy was designed as a glorified chapter transport system and orbital strike weapon array. The IN was designed to keep the Imperial space clear of any enemies. SM should only be armed with defensive/offensive weaponry in line with this purpose. The current problem with SM is they seriously lack sheilds yet to give them more may unbalance the fluff purpose of the fleet.
So with this purpose in mind what I propose is.....
Any time 3 or more SM capital ships (BB or SC) are within 10cm of each other they MUST give up their weapon batteries to defensive fire grids (Even if they do not get any bonus). For every 25 weapon batteries given up in this way, one shield is generated for all SM capital ships in the grid up to a maximum of 2 additional sheilds. So for example 1 BB and 4 SC within 10cm of each other would give up 62 WB to gain 2 sheilds. In this example you would have a BB with 5 shields and 4 SC with 3 shields but only leave BC AC and torps as offensive firepower. This would allow the nova cannons of the IN to be incredibly effecive against SM so this not taking away from the fluff while increasing the SM ability to survive in its role as a transport vs other navies. Crippling, orders and anything else that may remove firepower from the weapon batteries also affect the defensive grid (A bad timed brace for impact for example). This idea is based on the Phalanx defense system of the US Navy.
Let the bitching begin!
A man who quotes, lacks imagination - Barras
-
a little complicated and bizarre don't you think?
-
Lance = anti-ship weapon. SMs aren't allowed Warfleets. Therefore no lances. End of story. No amount of innuendo or supposition or guess work gets around that. Hell, a bald statement saying that BTs have a gazillion battleships armed with lances wouldn't get around that.
If you're going to try to argue for SMs getting lances then it has to make sense. This means that you can stop arguing for it, since it will never make sense.
By that logic though Space Marine vessels should be totally unarmed, which makes even less sense.
And I did give bald statements, but as you say, they're discounted. However, since the HA has stated that they will have lances, this bizarre insistence that they must suck, supposedly based on fluff, which has plenty of statements to the contrary, is idiotic, and, as has been pointed out, forces bad game design in order to match fluff.
It's nice to see that getting the game growing again takes a back seat to people's preconceptions.
@Barras: it might be simpler to do it this way:
A BB or SC can sacrifice two points of WB to gain a point of turrets until it's owners next turn. If a ship is in a squadron, this bonus is applied to the entire squadron. This must be done at the beginning of the turn, before the movment phase.
Which would be a closer match to CIWS.
-
No. If you want extra shielding group your ships together. If you want higher firepower don't have 3 ships within 10cm of each other. How is that complex? It doesn't allow SM to get high shields and firepower which keeps them balanced to the fluff. I don't expect this system to be mainstream but I do like putting up any original ideas on to the forum for analysis and reveiw. I think this system is a lot better than going the SM need something, fuck it lets give them lances and shut the muppets up.
I hate the idea of SM with any more lances! I will do everything I can to stop that from happening. While that might be a total of bugger all, it still looks good to try.
@sigoroth btw I looked up laser dispersal systems earlier and found that if the WBs fire diffusion spheres (minute prisms) into the path of the lances in addition to conventional ordinance it would (might hopefully) act as an effective shield vrs WBs and lances. The only problem would be it couldn't be a reactive system it would have to be a constant effect to diffuse the beam weapons enough to minimise fire. Hence the need for so many WBs for it to be effective. I would have msg you but I thought it would be better served by a post here instead.
-
I looked up laser dispersal systems earlier and found that if the WBs fire diffusion spheres (minute prisms) into the path of the lances in addition to conventional ordinance it would (might hopefully) act as an effective shield vrs WBs and lances. The only problem would be it couldn't be a reactive system it would have to be a constant effect to diffuse the beam weapons enough to minimise fire. Hence the need for so many WBs for it to be effective. I would have msg you but I thought it would be better served by a post here instead.
Not quite: WBs also include such things as very large ordinance and plasma rounds, which would not be much disturbed by a lds. A lance might or might not, however I'll point out that they're not disturbed by BMs, which would have a powerful dispersal effect.
-
There is one funny thing about debates, usually they just end up with each side more entrenched in their beliefs.
-
There is one funny thing about debates, usually they just end up with each side more entrenched in their beliefs.
Actually, that's just on the Internet. Though I did like Sigoroth's "I'm right, and any proof I'm wrong is also wrong, no matter who says it or how much there is of it".
Very doublethink.
I wish that grant committees were swayed by that one.
And, if there ever is a BFG 2.0, and they give SM lances, I will laugh my ass off.
-
Don't worry about it. Sig has no specific proof, nor does any of the no-lance crowd.
Its not the most firmly detailed line of fiction in the 40k saga, but there is definitely more that would allow for rare examples of lance armed capital ships than wouldn't, which is why the no-lancers choose to pick apart opposing arguments rather than present any real arguments of their own.
I refer to my previous post, no response yet to my points.
-
The problem of a theoritical premise is just that it is what it is. I would put forth that if the rules are broken or if you disagree with them please argue on those grounds, but to argue with a therory based in fantasy is just......
I only put the fluff in as an it could work if you wanted it to. This is the way Sci-Fi works. It's all made up on the hope it could work. The conventional explosives from the WBs would disturb and displace a plasma beam or convential weapons.
If you think of an explosive shell with a sabot of micro prisms (millions diffusion spheres per shell). Open a space inside the prisms with a perfect void enviroment and add antiparticles into this enviroment. These are not burned up by the shells exploding as they have been discarded away from the shell during the shooting process. As the incoming lance burns though the prisms dispersing energy as it does so it would release the antiparticles soaking more energy from the lance. Billions and trillions of the spheres would be ejected into space using this defensive fire pattern. Fill the intervening space with explosions all around the defensive grid to disturb matter type weaponary. This is the way I could see this working system working. Horribly inefficient though. It would cost an absolute fortune!
A good example of a convential version of this system without the antiparticles would be to look at Battlestar Galactica. A small variation from hundreds of miles away equates to a miss.
@Lastspartacus Look at the role Lances play in this game and refer to my premise behind this increased shield option for SM. SM navy is a glorified group of transports. The IN are the guns of the Imperium navies. To me SM have too much fire power as it is. They are not meant to be able fight effectively as a navy by design and Inquisitors are not happy with change. Should they be fluff bound not to have lances? Yes, no, don't care. In game balance terms they got BC to balance the lack of lances.
-
And, if there ever is a BFG 2.0, and they give SM lances, I will laugh my ass off.
Lol,
Fan, "but space marines don't have lances! it says in the fluff!?"
GWrep, "Well they obviously found them in their basement, and in the meantime they defeated 6 hivefleets, and told the IN to shove it."
-
Except to, apparently, random rogue traders.
Random RTs is fine. If said particular RT got to the point where AM discovers his usurping their territory, AM would in all likelihood ask for help from IN in hunting him down.
Except that the BT's don't follow Guilliman's 'guidelines' is the keystone of their identity a space marines and a core part of their fluff.
So you say. What is in their fluff so far is that they do not follow the guidlines exactly but they should be following a lot of them. Otherwise, they would already be declared as traitors and hunted down. While they may be fleet based, this is only because they have no planet they call their own. The simplest explanation is still that they grudingly follow the guidelines and so have been granted AM support.
I would posit that their control is not absolute, and that as 'lesser tech heresy' (such as invention, building, and repairing things without admech approval) is rife on most hive worlds (see Creatures Anathema, pg 14) This is opposed to 'Greater Tech Heresy' such as building thinking machines, anything powered by the warp, certain brands of genetic engineering. It's made clear in Anathema that the admech only calls for exterminatus for things like building androids (recreating the men of iron) or constructing large scale warp devices. That last one also leads other organizations to call for exterminatus. Largely the level of 'lesser' tech heresy that a given world allows is at the discretion of the local planetary admech temple. (same source, same page)
A startship which can traverse the warp is essentially a large scale warp device.
Your argument might have weight except that the engines in a sentinel walker can power one. The much larger and more advanced engines in a land raider would probably have no problem driving the vehicle forward as well a powering lascannons. And the wiring of an alternator to an engine to produce electricity isn't that complicated. And, yes, looking at every lascannon GW has ever produced, it's a single high voltage connection hooked to a capacitor. (what do you think those things are that the IG use in the field when they have a man portable lascannon?)
Twin linked? and there's one per side? Aside from which if I remember correctly that the reason why extra troops could be fielded into an LRC was because of the removal of the Lascannons.
I would suggest then that there are a lot of things that you don't know how to fix on your car then. If you can replace a panel, or weld a frame, replace your electrical system, or swap out the engine, you can probably build a car. If you doubt it, go to any hotrod show.
No, as in build an entire car from scratch. Down to literally the nuts and bolts. Swapping and replacing stuff, sure easily done. Building something from nothing is another issue.
No, your statement was that I wouldn't know how and couldn't do such a thing even if I had the resources. Which was incorrect. I did not say that it was not a major undertaking. It would probably take months or even years to finish. But the point is that they could know what to do, and would have the manpower, equipment, and material to do it.
Yes you wouldn't know how if the information on how to build one was strictly controlled. The mindset of tech in real life is vastly different from the theoretical world of 40k where we know a lot of the knowledge was lost or severely restricted. In this real life, you can build that drone of yours because you have access to the information to build one. Doing that in 40k would be almost impossible with a lot of the restrictions in place from political to technological.
And I see idiots play with tokamaks every day, but we call them graduate students. The thing about a plasma drive is actually it would be fairly safe. Sure, if you have one in your basement and the mag field gives out, you're probably going to burn the house down, but they don't actually explode with the sort of hundred gigatonne explosions we have in BFG and 40k in general.
But what's important is in BFG and 40k in general is they do.
It's obvious we're already at an impasse. I believe what I believe are the parameters of the 40k-BFG universe. SM are great on the ground but suck in space battles. That doesn't mean I don't think they need help which is why I put up this thread in the first place. I don't believe they need help by getting lances, even if that is what the HA wants to introduce and that is why we are telling the HA not to do it. The BCs are already almost as good which is alright. They need help in the defensive aspect. They need survivability. That they can win through attrition.
What Sigoroth has said is the simplest answer one can get as to why they cannot and shouldn't get lances even on expensive basis. There's already a couple of ways they can do it, either by the Novas or Firestorm RSVs or the VBBs. That's more than enough already to satisfy the pro-lance crowd and the fluff without having to take those lances as standard, expensive or not, on the regular SCs and BBs.
-
Random RTs is fine. If said particular RT got to the point where AM discovers his usurping their territory, AM would in all likelihood ask for help from IN in hunting him down.
It's not exactly secret. The administratum sends ships from all over to be scrapped there.
So you say. What is in their fluff so far is that they do not follow the guidlines exactly but they should be following a lot of them. Otherwise, they would already be declared as traitors and hunted down. While they may be fleet based, this is only because they have no planet they call their own. The simplest explanation is still that they grudingly follow the guidelines and so have been granted AM support.
Again, the Adeptus Terra does not enforce the Codex (that would, broadly speaking, include the Inquisition). It does not have the weight of law outside of chapters that follow it.
A startship which can traverse the warp is essentially a large scale warp device.
No, they usually aren't much outside 20km long. Think more 'planet' or 'solar system' sized. Anything that can't threaten more then a single planet they tend to fob off on the local admech temple or the Inquisition. (Creatures Anathema, pg 14)
Twin linked? and there's one per side? Aside from which if I remember correctly that the reason why extra troops could be fielded into an LRC was because of the removal of the Lascannons.
Leman Russ Annihilator. The whole shebang fits in the turret. And, the space it occupies is probably thinner, but takes up more overall room.
No, as in build an entire car from scratch. Down to literally the nuts and bolts. Swapping and replacing stuff, sure easily done. Building something from nothing is another issue.
Well, if you want to go all the way back to smelting the steel, sure, it'd be time consuming, but not impossible. As far as building a car from car parts, no, that's still quite easy if you know what each part is and how it works. Heck, it's not even really that hard to fabricate most of them. My father thought it would be cute to build a replica jeep once in his shop.
Yes you wouldn't know how if the information on how to build one was strictly controlled. The mindset of tech in real life is vastly different from the theoretical world of 40k where we know a lot of the knowledge was lost or severely restricted. In this real life, you can build that drone of yours because you have access to the information to build one. Doing that in 40k would be almost impossible with a lot of the restrictions in place from political to technological.
If that were true, then tech heresy would be impossible. However, since it's rampant, according to fluff, the obviously the admech is not the only source of information or they're not as reluctant to share it as you think.
But what's important is in BFG and 40k in general is they do.
It's obvious we're already at an impasse. I believe what I believe are the parameters of the 40k-BFG universe. SM are great on the ground but suck in space battles. That doesn't mean I don't think they need help which is why I put up this thread in the first place. I don't believe they need help by getting lances, even if that is what the HA wants to introduce and that is why we are telling the HA not to do it. The BCs are already almost as good which is alright. They need help in the defensive aspect. They need survivability. That they can win through attrition.
What Sigoroth has said is the simplest answer one can get as to why they cannot and shouldn't get lances even on expensive basis. There's already a couple of ways they can do it, either by the Novas or Firestorm RSVs or the VBBs. That's more than enough already to satisfy the pro-lance crowd and the fluff without having to take those lances as standard, expensive or not, on the regular SCs and BBs.
So, you're saying that 'Any proof that I am wrong is incorrect because it disagrees with my interpretation.'
-
Getting lances isn't 'Helping' the marines if its an equal tradeout for a better lance-like variant, come on now.
Like I said, stop ignoring my posts just because they are harder to counter. BC-lance tradeout, str2 prow lance, front fire only, no points increase,
one per 1000 points. Problem solved.
-
So, you're saying that 'Any proof that I am wrong is incorrect because it disagrees with my interpretation.'
Firstly, you haven't provided any. You have provided innuendo, supposition, wishful thinking and non-canonical fluff. You wonder why we select only certain aspects of fluff and yet by your own admission acknowledge that a great deal of it is inconsistent. This last is why we (and by we I mean not just the members of this board but players as a whole) reject bad fluff. To be clear, I am not talking external consistency. Something doesn't have to line up exactly with the laws of physics, for example. However, it does have to be internally consistent. It has to line up with the established premises of the universe.
You bring up authors that clearly ignore this, breaking pre-established fluff when they create their own. Therefore their's is automatically bad. By this same token, since we have already established the Imperium have deliberately neutered SM fleet capabilities and are paranoid of SM rebellion then we already know that they're not going to give SMs anti-ship guns in their fleets. Any fluff that says otherwise is wrong and rejected out of hand (much like the death of Eldrad Ulthran).
Also, the fact that you even want SMs to have lances puts you in the greedy fanboy category. "I want it! I want it!". There's actually no reason for the SM to have it and a whole lot of reason for them not to.
-
Rubbish, Sig. You are letting your apparent hatred of people who like marines cause you to produce embarassing posts.
Where's the proof to back up your much stronger claims? Or maybe I am misunderstanding what Baron is arguing. If its an all-lance SM fleet, that shouldn't be. But I think he is arguing for limited numbers, like I am. Check my above posts, since you seem to have not read them yet.
I don't at all understand your rage over this topic, but give us something to back up those passionate responses, because its coming across as pure opinion and tantrum-throwing. With the ideas you have come up with, I know you are better than this.
-
Well, approach the whole matter from a different angle.
In 40K, technology is degraded to faith. If a piece of machinery works, than that is the will of the Omnisiah. If something breaks down, they simply replace it, if there are spare parts, as a low level tech priest has no knowledge of how to repair the broken down part. Only high level priests are initiated in that kind of knowledge/mysteries of the faith. And to be able to construct titans and starships, well, that's very high level.
The AM are those that 'teach' the tech marines all they have to know. Now, one has to ask him/herself how much that would be. Consider the time spend by a Tech marine with the AM and than consider how long it takes for a tech priest to climb up in the hierarchy to the point that he is initiated in the 'faith' of building titans and starships. Also consider the fact that they are very paranoid when it comes to sharing technology with OTHERS.
Can the SM construct their own starships? I think not as I've seen no fluff, NONE, that indicates that a tech marine has reached/surpassed the 'level' of a AM magos.
Can they build lances on their SC or BB? NO, not without the help of the AM. Would the AM refuse such request? Likely, as it would mean that a holy STC has to be changed in some way.
Does this exclude lances? NO, but it makes them very unlikely on SM capital ships.
...
-
This goes beyond the victory of this argument, but for what its worth, marines seem to be able to construct escort ships, including the Nova.
So if they have the Nova, they can learn how to put it on cap ships too, one would reason.
-
Rubbish, Sig. You are letting your apparent hatred of people who like marines cause you to produce embarassing posts.
There is nothing embarrassing in my posts. Every one of my posts has been based upon reason, something that you SM fanboys have yet to bring to the table.
Where's the proof to back up your much stronger claims? Or maybe I am misunderstanding what Baron is arguing. If its an all-lance SM fleet, that shouldn't be. But I think he is arguing for limited numbers, like I am. Check my above posts, since you seem to have not read them yet.
P1 - The lance is purely and totally an anti-ship weapon.
P2 - Space marines have absolutely no need for this weapon to fulfil their role.
P3 - The Imperium is paranoid about excessive SM power.
P4 - The main focus for this paranoia is space power.
P5 - The Imperium is as described in fluff, paranoid, superstitious, merciless, self-righteous.
C - The Imperium would never allow SMs to have lances on their SCs and BBs.
You cannot hold to be true the premises given above while holding the conclusion to be false. In which case you would need to take issue with one or more of the premises. P1 is unarguable. Hmm, so is P2. Aaaand the main fluff for the entire 40k universe centres around P3, P4 and P5. So they're unarguable too. There's my superior proof.
This is far far FAR superior to some whiny SM fanboy saying "weeell, if you look at it from this point of view you might think it plausible for SMs to be able to make their own ships in which case they might be able make lances and looky looky, some dickhead author who knows nothing about the classification of a lance in BFG terms says they got 'em and and and in 40k they even say lance strike look look, that's proof".
If SMs are allowed to have lances then the Horus Heresy didn't happen. Nothing that SMs do is punishable at all, and SMs are allowed to do what they want and therefore the Badab war also didn't happen, because the Imperium wouldn't even have tried to stop them, because SMs are autonomous and the Imperium don't have the power to do anything to them.
What an author calls a lance and what BFG calls a lance could be completely different things. What 40k calls a lance IS a completely different thing! Lances in 40k are Eldar and Dark Eldar weaponry! What is obviously meant by a lance strike is a precision strike. While the same may be true in BFG, these are on tremendously different scales. The tiny area affected by a 40k lance strike would be nothing compared to that of a BFG lance.
But even if it were on the same scale, they're obviously not calling for a BFG lance, which is an anti-ship weapon, they're merely asking for a precision strike. Nothing more.
Even if you fervently believed that the SMs could build and maintain their own fleet of lance boats this is utterly irrelevant. They simply wouldn't do it. Because they know that this is going too far. If they did do it they would eventually be found out. Ships tend to get noticed. Once they're found out then there would be the inevitable consequences.
I don't at all understand your rage over this topic, but give us something to back up those passionate responses, because its coming across as pure opinion and tantrum-throwing. With the ideas you have come up with, I know you are better than this.
You accuse me of tantrum throwing!? You, who will not listen to reason and instead demands more toys for your boys? You have not provided even once a single reason why Space Marines should get an anti-ship weapon. You have wilfully ignored all reason and not provided a rebuttal. The only thing I've heard is "I think you're overstating it". Well, did the Horus Heresy happen or not? Was it the single most traumatic event in human history or not? Was it the reason the SMs had their power stripped or not? Do the ramifications of which echo down through 10000 years or not? The answer to all that is fuckin yes! Yes, yes, yes, yes! The Imperium is not a reasonable place. It's a place of extremes. It's not a tolerant place either.
Despite every single one of your arguments being dubious in their premises (as has been argued ad infinitum by others on this board) they're inconclusive as to the Space Marines actions even if true! If the SMs could do all you say there's nothing to say they would! If they did there's nothing to say the Imperium wouldn't fuck 'em up for their trouble. The reverse is true. Since they haven't built a lance boat in all this time (as shown by current profiles and Nova fluff) then that suggests that even if they could have they chose not to. The above argument that I've put forward over and over again says that if the SMs did decide to they'd get pwnd for it.
Your arguments are so damn stupid, marginal and irrelevant it reeks of fanboyism that you continue in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Let me sum up your current circumstance. You're arguing for SM lances in the face of:
No game/fluff reason for it
Dubious reason to suspect its possible
No reason to suspect they'd do it
Reason to suspect they wouldn't
No reason to suspect it would be allowed
Reason to suspect it wouldn't
So despite absolutely everything against you, you still argue for it as if it were oh so reasonable. And you wonder why I get pissed off.
-
There is nothing embarrassing in my posts. Every one of my posts has been based upon reason, something that you SM fanboys have yet to bring to the table.
Reasonable in your own mind, but I'd like to see some proof. You can make any number of seemingly reasonable statements, but without backup, its pure and utter conjecture. And fanboy? Please. I don't have a marine fleet, nor do I plan to have one soon.
I'm just arguing this side because it makes the most sense. And a mild underdog complex that activates when I see one side falling under attack by bad arguments. I'm a grunt-in-the-mud Guardsman guy, marines were always too aloof for me. Stop sticking people who disagree with you in pigeon-holes.
P1 - The lance is purely and totally an anti-ship weapon.
Its a weapon, used primarily against ships, but completely capable against hard defenses and ground targets. Can be used against other things, but not as effective as weapon batteries, which, hey, are also anti-ship weapons, or they wouldn't be used against ships. Duh.
As has been said, by your logic, marines would be unarmed. Lances are one of the weapons a ship uses against other ships, trading number of shots for armor penetration, the end.
P2 - Space marines have absolutely no need for this weapon to fulfil their role.
For their role, you are correct that marines don't need lances as much. The BC works just fine against defenses, and while lances would be handy against defense ships, IN backup and superior tactics can make up for this. Unfortunately that has point has nothing to do with the topic.
The discussion is centered on some marine chapters having some lances. In the hostile 40k galaxy, chapters have to fend for themselves, and absolutely have to fight their own fleet battles against traitor forces, xenos, etc. The fact is, the rare lance would absolutely be more feasible than impossible.
P3 - The Imperium is paranoid about excessive SM power.
Yes, every Imperial organization is paranoid against the other organizations, standard fluff
P4 - The main focus for this paranoia is space power.
Sure.
P5 - The Imperium is as described in fluff, paranoid, superstitious, merciless, self-righteous.
More of the same.
C - The Imperium would never allow SMs to have lances on their SCs and BBs
Wow, what a conclusion jump. Paranoid and complete galaxy-spanning and heavily monitored ban aren't the same. And why just SC and BB?
You cannot hold to be true the premises given above while holding the conclusion to be false. In which case you would need to take issue with one or more of the premises. P1 is unarguable. Hmm, so is P2. Aaaand the main fluff for the entire 40k universe centres around P3, P4 and P5. So they're unarguable too. There's my superior proof.
Debate class 101: Making a point, then setting the tone by saying it is inarguable, big fallacy. Rather, make it good enough to be easy to argue, and you will get alot more traction. Your points aren't inarguable, but are not completely false. The jump from the points to the conclusion though is way too far of a jump. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the suspicion of one Imperial organization towards another is not the central axis of the 40k universe. Its not superior proof my friend.
This is far far FAR superior to some whiny SM fanboy saying "weeell, if you look at it from this point of view you might think it plausible for SMs to be able to make their own ships in which case they might be able make lances and looky looky, some dickhead author who knows nothing about the classification of a lance in BFG terms says they got 'em and and and in 40k they even say lance strike look look, that's proof".
Man up buddy. No one is whining and it doesn't take a fanboy to argue for a specific fleet. Let me break it down, with actual reasoning.
The Hunter entry indicates that marine escorts are, or at least can be made by SM chapters independently, no alternate point of view needed.
The Nova is a marine escort. Therefore we can assume that marines have some knowledge of lance technology, though they do know that it is frowned upon by other powers that be, and not a normal tool in their craft.
If SMs are allowed to have lances then the Horus Heresy didn't happen. Nothing that SMs do is punishable at all, and SMs are allowed to do what they want and therefore the Badab war also didn't happen, because the Imperium wouldn't even have tried to stop them, because SMs are autonomous and the Imperium don't have the power to do anything to them.
More perfect reasoning I guess. 'If the SM are allowed lances, it means the Horus Heresy didn't happen'. Are you really serious?
If you know anything about 40k, you know that the Imperium is a massive and contradictory system, with different cells in the same group reacting completely differently to one situation, not to mention multiple virtually independent power groups.
Guess what Sig? Marines ARE allowed lances! The Nova has a lance!
What an author calls a lance and what BFG calls a lance could be completely different things. What 40k calls a lance IS a completely different thing! Lances in 40k are Eldar and Dark Eldar weaponry! What is obviously meant by a lance strike is a precision strike. While the same may be true in BFG, these are on tremendously different scales. The tiny area affected by a 40k lance strike would be nothing compared to that of a BFG lance.
Not really relevant, but the Eldar tech is called a lance because it is, advanced enough to fire with the same tech on a much smaller weapon and area of effect. At least, thats what I always figured.
But even if it were on the same scale, they're obviously not calling for a BFG lance, which is an anti-ship weapon, they're merely asking for a precision strike. Nothing more.
Lances can target ground targets, sure. You are confusing main purpose with ability, I think. Its like saying Bombardment Cannons are rubbish against ships, because they were made with static defenses in mind.
Even if you fervently believed that the SMs could build and maintain their own fleet of lance boats this is utterly irrelevant. They simply wouldn't do it. Because they know that this is going too far. If they did do it they would eventually be found out. Ships tend to get noticed. Once they're found out then there would be the inevitable consequences.
Well, for one, an SM chapter, especially the mobile, type, can hide their particulars near forever, as fluff has shown.
But yes, assuming they massed lances, that is a clear sign of something fishy, and they would be held accountable.
We are talking limited lances here, the possibility of some lances on some ships in some chapters, not lance fleets. They could and would do that much, or some would, if they had the ability and curcumstances. The Nova shows that the IN turns a blind eye to small numbers of lances.
What changes if it is on a capital ship rather than an escort?
Despite every single one of your arguments being dubious in their premises (as has been argued ad infinitum by others on this board) they're inconclusive as to the Space Marines actions even if true! If the SMs could do all you say there's nothing to say they would! If they did there's nothing to say the Imperium wouldn't fuck 'em up for their trouble. The reverse is true. Since they haven't built a lance boat in all this time (as shown by current profiles and Nova fluff) then that suggests that even if they could have they chose not to. The above argument that I've put forward over and over again says that if the SMs did decide to they'd get pwnd for it.
Even if you think the arguments dubious, those ones that are supported by simple fluff, at least they are arguments. You just have conjecture.
Your arguments are so damn stupid, marginal and irrelevant it reeks of fanboyism that you continue in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
How are they stupid, Sig? What is so unreasonable, marginal, and irrelevant? Not much, but yours are. There is small worth in your post, and lots of name calling. It reeks of anti-marine fanboyism, did you get your ass kicked by too many 40k marine armies? How is it even another 'toy'?
Its an inferior option for goodness sakes.
Here is the pro-lance argument in a nutshell.
1.It is not impossible to think that some chapters have those willing to assist them with lance technology, especially those with strong Admech ties or looting potential.
2. While not essential to their primary role, lances could obviously be useful to SM fleets.
3. While lances are frowned upon, the existence of the Nova proves that the no-lance policy is a bendable one, though the amount of lances in the fleet would surely be met with equally rising amounts of hostility.
4. Marines seem to be able to build marine escorts.
5. The Nova is a marine escort, therefore they would have at least some knowledge on how to produce and maintain it.
6. There is zero fluff to indicate that 'whats ok on the escorts is taboo on the capital ships' nor can I think of a reason as to why this would be.
7. There is zero fluff to indicate this view that any lance on an SM capital ship would be met with extreme action.
8. The Nova entry shows with soft language that lances in marine fleets are seen as less than acts of rebellion.
C: Limited amounts of lances in certain fleets can exist, easy.
1 strike cruiser may trade the str3 l/r/f bombardment cannon for a str2 forward lance for free, per 750-1000 points.
I think Novas could use a restriction as well, sure.
-
Rubbish, Sig. You are letting your apparent hatred of people who like marines cause you to produce embarassing posts.
There is nothing embarrassing in my posts. Every one of my posts has been based upon reason, something that you SM fanboys have yet to bring to the table.
Where's the proof to back up your much stronger claims? Or maybe I am misunderstanding what Baron is arguing. If its an all-lance SM fleet, that shouldn't be. But I think he is arguing for limited numbers, like I am. Check my above posts, since you seem to have not read them yet.
P1 - The lance is purely and totally an anti-ship weapon.
P2 - Space marines have absolutely no need for this weapon to fulfil their role.
P3 - The Imperium is paranoid about excessive SM power.
P4 - The main focus for this paranoia is space power.
P5 - The Imperium is as described in fluff, paranoid, superstitious, merciless, self-righteous.
C - The Imperium would never allow SMs to have lances on their SCs and BBs.
You cannot hold to be true the premises given above while holding the conclusion to be false. In which case you would need to take issue with one or more of the premises. P1 is unarguable. Hmm, so is P2. Aaaand the main fluff for the entire 40k universe centres around P3, P4 and P5. So they're unarguable too. There's my superior proof.
This is far far FAR superior to some whiny SM fanboy saying "weeell, if you look at it from this point of view you might think it plausible for SMs to be able to make their own ships in which case they might be able make lances and looky looky, some dickhead author who knows nothing about the classification of a lance in BFG terms says they got 'em and and and in 40k they even say lance strike look look, that's proof".
Ok, well: P1 is not true. P2 is questionable. P3 has a kernel of truth to it. P4 is false, P5 is true. However, once again:
'The Adeptus Terra never felt it necessary to enforce the Codex absolutely. Indeed, it is doubtful that it could.' - Codex: Ultramarines, page 10 (author: Rick Priestly, the creator of the entire 40k universe. If you want to argue he doesn't know his fluff, please, by all means.)
The High Lords of Terra do not enforce the codex. This includes the Inquisition (as they are among the High Lords of Terra).
So, tell me again how a statement in the codex is going to bring down the wrath of those that have never felt the need to enforce it in 10,000 years?
The Inquisition has only been concerned with the balance of power within the Imperium since the Reign of Blood during the Age of Apostasy. However, the Inquisition is also not a unified organization, and has as many sub-sects trying to upset the balance of power as they do ones trying to maintain it.
-
I repeat.
- Check the inner workings of the AM. Then judge if THEY would agree to changing a holy STC. VERY UNLIKELY.
- Has a tech marine ever reached magos level (or higher) in the fluff? If yes, they can build ships. But I've seen NONE.
That brings me to say:
- No, SM cannot build ships; they have to ASK the AM.
- No, SM cannot install lances upon their ships; they have to ASK the AM.
-
I repeat.
- Check the inner workings of the AM. Then judge if THEY would agree to changing a holy STC. VERY UNLIKELY.
- Has a tech marine ever reached magos level (or higher) in the fluff? If yes, they can build ships. But I've seen NONE.
That brings me to say:
- No, SM cannot build ships; they have to ASK the AM.
- No, SM cannot install lances upon their ships; they have to ASK the AM.
Ok:
- Space Marine battle barges, such as Eternal Crusader have been altered from their holy STC pattern. This is direct out of fluff.
Therefor, if the Admech would never have approved it, it would have to have come from somewhere else.
Therefore: Space Marines have the ability to build their own ships.
-
Who says AM would NEVER approve? Only that it is VERY UNLIKELY and thus when AM agrees, with a certain clear goal in mind, it still is a very, very rare thing to happen (also in fluff).
IF the SM could do/build everything they wanted, they would all be at legion strength again, isn't it? WITH a fleet of their own liking.
That's not how the Imperium works, also in fluff.
-
I believe Sigoroth likes the diversity of the BFG universe and the differences in the fleets. This is where I believe the majority of his resistance is coming from (correct me if I am wrong!). His only problem is trying to come from a fluff perspective instead of a logical one. (Reason cannot be based on fanasy so therefore fluff can not be logical. There can be however logic in fluff) To keep this game fun and interesting the fleets must have differences. SM have their own lances in the shape of their BC. What your suggesting with your proposed changes to the fleet lists is to make SM like every other fleet out there instead of being individual. I love the SM fleet. I just hate it being torn to pieces by lance heavy fleets. Fuck the lances. Give us shields! With sheilds the problems with the fluff and game mechanics are mostly resolved. Lances on SM fleets are superfluous. I do believe in customization so if you really want lances on your ships... Talk to your opponent about house rules. After all this game is meant to be fun. And the fluff would support your arguement to do this to YOUR fleet.
-
That's what is in the PDF; extra shields for protection. And lances at a hefty price.
-
Ok, well: P1 is not true.
Yes it is.
P2 is questionable.
No, it's not.
P3 has a kernel of truth to it.
A kernel? This is the single greatest threat to humanity.
P4 is false
No, it's not.
P5 is true. However, once again:
'The Adeptus Terra never felt it necessary to enforce the Codex absolutely. Indeed, it is doubtful that it could.' - Codex: Ultramarines, page 10 (author: Rick Priestly, the creator of the entire 40k universe. If you want to argue he doesn't know his fluff, please, by all means.)
Absolutely I'll argue it. It says there nowhere that the Imperium don't have the power to blow the fuckin SM out of the skies for being arrogant enough to challenge their power. In fact, it says the opposite. It says they don't have the power to enforce the codex absolutely. So all those tiny provisions in the codex that a hell of a lot of chapters ignore, that's what can't be enforced. What can be enforced is limiting SM space power. Why can this be enforced? Because the Imperium has the IN and the SM don't. They already have the power to enforce this. Why would it be enforced? This I have gone into in extremis.
The entire codex cannot be enforced absolutely, and there's no need for it to be. The restriction on SM space power can be enforced and there's great need.
The High Lords of Terra do not enforce the codex. This includes the Inquisition (as they are among the High Lords of Terra).
So, tell me again how a statement in the codex is going to bring down the wrath of those that have never felt the need to enforce it in 10,000 years?
This is false. Of course they enforce the codex. You said it yourself in the fluff you just quoted by Rick Priestly. The Adeptus Terra never felt it necessary to enforce the Codex absolutely. This means they've enforced it in part. Therefore it is enforceable in parts. Presumably these parts would be the ones worth getting all het up about.
The Inquisition has only been concerned with the balance of power within the Imperium since the Reign of Blood during the Age of Apostasy. However, the Inquisition is also not a unified organization, and has as many sub-sects trying to upset the balance of power as they do ones trying to maintain it.
No, they've been concerned for longer than that. The Age of Apostasy merely extended the scope of their concerns. The Space Marines are an extraordinarily powerful sub-section of the Imperium. So powerful that even split into tiny factions they have the power to ignore Inquisitors for the most part. No IN admiral or governor could do that. SMs are the greatest warriors of the Imperium, have the best equipment and training and are superhuman on top of it all. Compared to the rest of man they're demigods. Their potential to rip apart the Imperium is far greater than that of any other institution. They've done it before. The result being the interring of their God-Emperor into his sarcophagus! Before this revolt their God walked amongst them! Compared to this the Age of Apostasy was a blip on the radar.
-
I believe Sigoroth likes the diversity of the BFG universe and the differences in the fleets. This is where I believe the majority of his resistance is coming from (correct me if I am wrong!).
My resistance comes from this idea being completely utterly and totally stupid. No reason whatsoever for SMs to get lances. Shit tonnes of reason for them not to. Of course I'm going to resist.
His only problem is trying to come from a fluff perspective instead of a logical one. (Reason cannot be based on fanasy so therefore fluff can not be logical. There can be however logic in fluff)
I'm not sure that fluff cannot be logical, a lot of fantasy turned out to be quite possible (look at Star Trek for example, predicted a lot of technological advancements). However, yes, the point is that the fluff has to be internally consistent. You can't have a premise and then completely act contrary to that premise.
To keep this game fun and interesting the fleets must have differences. SM have their own lances in the shape of their BC. What your suggesting with your proposed changes to the fleet lists is to make SM like every other fleet out there instead of being individual. I love the SM fleet. I just hate it being torn to pieces by lance heavy fleets. Fuck the lances. Give us shields! With sheilds the problems with the fluff and game mechanics are mostly resolved. Lances on SM fleets are superfluous. I do believe in customization so if you really want lances on your ships... Talk to your opponent about house rules. After all this game is meant to be fun. And the fluff would support your arguement to do this to YOUR fleet.
More than just diversity or balance, giving SM lances would break the fluff. You would never be able to use the background to justify anything ever again. Why can't Eldar get 6+ armour, 5 shields and a heap of hits? SMs can have lances ...
-
I repeat.
- Check the inner workings of the AM. Then judge if THEY would agree to changing a holy STC. VERY UNLIKELY.
- Has a tech marine ever reached magos level (or higher) in the fluff? If yes, they can build ships. But I've seen NONE.
That brings me to say:
- No, SM cannot build ships; they have to ASK the AM.
- No, SM cannot install lances upon their ships; they have to ASK the AM.
Well, there is always looting existing systems from fighting chaos and renegades, a common practice in most fleets. It certainly wouldn't be common, nor would it be common for admech to allow lances, but remember the admech isn't the organization that would be most concerned about marine lances. Still, uncommon, so thats why it should be uncommon but there, since the Nova can have them.
They wouldn't approach legion strength with a few lances. It takes more than that to make the sluggish Imperium move, so lots of lances, or a few thousand marines, and then if they don't hide it well, there will be an inquisitorial appointment, most likely.
As to marines not being able to build ships, there is no evidence that they build their own cap ships. But they do build their own escorts, some that have lances.
@Sig: You can make the statement 'completely and utterly stupid' as your thesis statement all you want, but you won't get anywhere. Your shit tonnes of reasons are a few points of conjecture, and our no reasons are points you refuse to acknowledge. You instead fight with exaggerations, misquoting, and assumed intent. No one is wanting lance heavy marine fleets, but a few examples could absolutely exist. This does nothing to dilute the flavor of the fleet.
-
I repeat.
- Check the inner workings of the AM. Then judge if THEY would agree to changing a holy STC. VERY UNLIKELY.
- Has a tech marine ever reached magos level (or higher) in the fluff? If yes, they can build ships. But I've seen NONE.
That brings me to say:
- No, SM cannot build ships; they have to ASK the AM.
- No, SM cannot install lances upon their ships; they have to ASK the AM.
Well, there is always looting existing systems from fighting chaos and renegades, a common practice in most fleets. It certainly wouldn't be common, nor would it be common for admech to allow lances, but remember the admech isn't the organization that would be most concerned about marine lances. Still, uncommon, so thats why it should be uncommon but there, since the Nova can have them.
They wouldn't approach legion strength with a few lances. It takes more than that to make the sluggish Imperium move, so lots of lances, or a few thousand marines, and then if they don't hide it well, there will be an inquisitorial appointment, most likely.
As to marines not being able to build ships, there is no evidence that they build their own cap ships. But they do build their own escorts, some that have lances.
@Sig: You can make the statement 'completely and utterly stupid' as your thesis statement all you want, but you won't get anywhere. Your shit tonnes of reasons are a few points of conjecture, and our no reasons are points you refuse to acknowledge. You instead fight with exaggerations, misquoting, and assumed intent. No one is wanting lance heavy marine fleets, but a few examples could absolutely exist. This does nothing to dilute the flavor of the fleet.
As I see it, this is my opinion, the SM can have access to shipyards which can build SM ships BUT under license from the AM. That means that the AM RUN the shipyard or that Tech priests are involved in controlling that the license is not abused.
AM cannot control what is done in the chapter forges (Monastery- fortress) but they can and will control shipyards.
-
Possibly, Commander, but no fluff one way or another for that. Adjutants make alot of sense at least for aid in shipyards.
The Hunter entry though indicates that marines have their own methods of constructing at least escorts. If this is some facility that is part of the fortress monastery or some small shipyard orbiting a fiefdom, I don't know, but the indication is there.
-
@Sig: You can make the statement 'completely and utterly stupid' as your thesis statement all you want, but you won't get anywhere. Your shit tonnes of reasons are a few points of conjecture, and our no reasons are points you refuse to acknowledge. You instead fight with exaggerations, misquoting, and assumed intent. No one is wanting lance heavy marine fleets, but a few examples could absolutely exist. This does nothing to dilute the flavor of the fleet.
Wow. Just wow. You still don't think that it's stupid? Look, there comes a point where there's a line in the sand. There are only so many things that the Imperium can tolerate from the SMs. If you think it's OK for them to refit one of their SCs with lances, then where does it stop? If one chapter can do it, all can do it. If on one SC then why not another? If they're allowed on their cruisers, escorts, legacy ships and fortress monasteries then why not on their battlebarges too? If every chapter is allowed to put lances on all their ships then how does the IN stop the SM from building fleets that can take on the IN?
This is the inevitable end result. Even if you presume that the SMs won't even go this far, the Imperium certainly wouldn't make that assumption. If they don't limit the SMs here and now, then they can't limit them at all in space. This would make it tremendously more important to limit the SM numbers within a chapter, as this becomes the last and only safeguard against rampant SM power.
Now, how do you suppose the Imperium would manage to enforce this last safeguard? SMs are almost unbeatable by the IG on the ground. It's not likely that SMs will submit to a census. If the Imperium doesn't have the trump up their sleeve of clear dominance in space then how are they going to stop the SMs from doing as they please? With other SMs? This will result in just another civil war.
The fact is that those in power just would not allow this to come to pass. They would stop the SMs getting lances. It's that simple. If a chapter tries to push the issue then it would be far better for the Imperium to simply destroy that chapter rather than risk the alternatives. Fear is key.
Now, setting that aside for just a minute. Name me one reason why SMs should get lances. Can you do that? So far a whole lot of crap about how they could possibly get them (none of which is conclusive) and some dubious fluff depicting them with lances (authors definitions of lances may be different from those of game designers, and even if not, easily dismissable as people with more enthusiasm than sense). Nothing to suggest they should have lances though.
So, tell me, why should they have lances?
-
You are caught up in a slippery slope fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
'If some chapters flirt with the limitation by taking a few lances, then all chapters will have all lance ships, and will build a fleet that will rival the IN'
They are certainly a long way from that, currently, with only about 12 capital ships in a chapter.
Marines can make escorts, but not capital ships, or at least there is nothing written about it.
There is rarely a 'line in the sand' in the Imperium, rather a hazy field where, depending on whose in charge of the situation, a decision is made at some point. And a few lances does not an inquisitorial appointment make, read the fluff that has been quoted to you, and it will be clear.
Your current argument is 'Tell me one reason marines would have lances' To which there is a reply, reasons are given, and you reply with 'Tell me one reason why marines would have lances.'
What is the difference between lance escorts and lances on a small percentage of capital ships?
DO YOU REALIZE MARINES ALREADY HAVE AND USE LANCES?
If you keep referring to the psycology of the Imperium, you must know, as I said in earlier posts, that it is incredibly inefficient and contradictory.
Read the reasons given if you feel like it, or give me something besides opinion and conjecture.
-
Hiia haa,
This is some friendly words and discussion being thrown around.
LS,
we (I) never argued the lance on the Nova. But an escort is something vary different then a capital ship. The Nova is a small gunboat with a big fluff entry that the IN, Inq and Imperium have issues with it. It is rare. Hmmm? Perhaps Marines now the Imperiums stance and keep the number of Nova's to a minimum (reasoning: to protect the delivery from Strike Cruisers), so they won't feel the torch of the Imperium? The Marines know it is already iffy to have the Nova. So they'll certainly won't equip Strike Cruisers with it.
So....
Write a thesis on why Marines should not or should have lances. Submit them to Warp Rift. Despite the WR team being anti-lance we will publish non-edited. I promise. <grin>
Challenge for ya all?
-
You are caught up in a slippery slope fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
'If some chapters flirt with the limitation by taking a few lances, then all chapters will have all lance ships, and will build a fleet that will rival the IN'
They are certainly a long way from that, currently, with only about 12 capital ships in a chapter.
Marines can make escorts, but not capital ships, or at least there is nothing written about it.
First of all, there is no slippery slope fallacy here. There is no middle ground. This is not a reasonable society. If you suggest that the Imperium is incapable of enforcing this limitation now then it stands to reason that they will become less able to enforce it later.
Secondly, even if it were an example of the slippery slope fallacy (which it is not) it's irrelevant. This is because this is how the Imperium thinks. They don't think "Oh hey, what's a few lances? So they could only give us a severe mauling if they rebelled instead of destroying us if they only had a few lances ... Oh, and I'm sure that we won't need to police it, they'll restrict themselves to just a few, it's all good, no need to worry". We're talking about paranoia of clinical levels here. Even if there were some enforcable middle ground then they're still not going to take it, they fear far too much.
If you think that they wouldn't enforce it then you know nothing about psychology. Inefficiency and contradiction has nothing to do with psychology. That's just bureaucracies for you. The people who run those bureaucracies are still human. The fact is, if what you said were true, that the Imperium either can't do anything to stop the SM or couldn't give a fuck then there simply would be no codex restrictions. The SMs would just do whatever the fuck they wanted. Who's going to stop them? They can build warfleets and increase their command to legion status or beyond and carve out their own empire or do whatever. No one can or would stop them according to your logic.
There is rarely a 'line in the sand' in the Imperium, rather a hazy field where, depending on whose in charge of the situation, a decision is made at some point. And a few lances does not an inquisitorial appointment make, read the fluff that has been quoted to you, and it will be clear.
Your current argument is 'Tell me one reason marines would have lances' To which there is a reply, reasons are given, and you reply with 'Tell me one reason why marines would have lances.'
What is the difference between lance escorts and lances on a small percentage of capital ships?
DO YOU REALIZE MARINES ALREADY HAVE AND USE LANCES?
If you keep referring to the psycology of the Imperium, you must know, as I said in earlier posts, that it is incredibly inefficient and contradictory.
Read the reasons given if you feel like it, or give me something besides opinion and conjecture.
The Nova. This is itself a strong argument against SMs getting lances. They already have access to Imperium approved lances in the form of the Nova. Therefore whatever need there might be (and I have seen none) it is already met. As for why the Imperium would allow the Nova, because it's an escort. It's not a threat. Lances on a SM capital ship is a huge threat. On an escort, not a threat. Despite which it is only granted grudgingly and there are factions that don't want the SMs to have even that. What makes you think that it'd be fine on a capital ship when it is so worrying on an escort?
When asked for reasons why SMs should get lances you can't provide any? What, don't want to repeat yourself? You make me repeat myself. So why shouldn't you?
Here, take your very best reasons and list them all in a new reply under "reasons why SM should get lances".
-
You are caught up in a slippery slope fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
'If some chapters flirt with the limitation by taking a few lances, then all chapters will have all lance ships, and will build a fleet that will rival the IN'
They are certainly a long way from that, currently, with only about 12 capital ships in a chapter.
Marines can make escorts, but not capital ships, or at least there is nothing written about it.
First of all, there is no slippery slope fallacy here. There is no middle ground. This is not a reasonable society. If you suggest that the Imperium is incapable of enforcing this limitation now then it stands to reason that they will become less able to enforce it later.
Secondly, even if it were an example of the slippery slope fallacy (which it is not) it's irrelevant. This is because this is how the Imperium thinks. They don't think "Oh hey, what's a few lances? So they could only give us a severe mauling if they rebelled instead of destroying us if they only had a few lances ... Oh, and I'm sure that we won't need to police it, they'll restrict themselves to just a few, it's all good, no need to worry". We're talking about paranoia of clinical levels here. Even if there were some enforcable middle ground then they're still not going to take it, they fear far too much.
If you think that they wouldn't enforce it then you know nothing about psychology. Inefficiency and contradiction has nothing to do with psychology. That's just bureaucracies for you. The people who run those bureaucracies are still human. The fact is, if what you said were true, that the Imperium either can't do anything to stop the SM or couldn't give a fuck then there simply would be no codex restrictions. The SMs would just do whatever the fuck they wanted. Who's going to stop them? They can build warfleets and increase their command to legion status or beyond and carve out their own empire or do whatever. No one can or would stop them according to your logic.
There is rarely a 'line in the sand' in the Imperium, rather a hazy field where, depending on whose in charge of the situation, a decision is made at some point. And a few lances does not an inquisitorial appointment make, read the fluff that has been quoted to you, and it will be clear.
Your current argument is 'Tell me one reason marines would have lances' To which there is a reply, reasons are given, and you reply with 'Tell me one reason why marines would have lances.'
What is the difference between lance escorts and lances on a small percentage of capital ships?
DO YOU REALIZE MARINES ALREADY HAVE AND USE LANCES?
If you keep referring to the psycology of the Imperium, you must know, as I said in earlier posts, that it is incredibly inefficient and contradictory.
Read the reasons given if you feel like it, or give me something besides opinion and conjecture.
The Nova. This is itself a strong argument against SMs getting lances. They already have access to Imperium approved lances in the form of the Nova. Therefore whatever need there might be (and I have seen none) it is already met. As for why the Imperium would allow the Nova, because it's an escort. It's not a threat. Lances on a SM capital ship is a huge threat. On an escort, not a threat. Despite which it is only granted grudgingly and there are factions that don't want the SMs to have even that. What makes you think that it'd be fine on a capital ship when it is so worrying on an escort?
When asked for reasons why SMs should get lances you can't provide any? What, don't want to repeat yourself? You make me repeat myself. So why shouldn't you?
Here, take your very best reasons and list them all in a new reply under "reasons why SM should get lances".
And there are factions that want the space marines to have a lot more (in Armada, even).
Sigoroth, I might point out that your entire argument hinges on your perception of the Imperium. You make two key assumptions: The Imperium is run by ignorant people suffering from paranoia at near delusional levels, and B) They they perceive the Space Marines as the greatest threat to their position.
Let's start with B first:
Which is a greater threat: the admech with their unlimited private fleet, ability to create virus bombs, titan legions, and vast armies of skittari or the relatively self limiting number of Space Marines? Abaddon blew up one star with three Blackstones, however, in 550 M37, a rogue group of tech priests decided to exterminate humanity, and went on a rampage with a similar supernova causing weapon from the Dark Age of Technology for a decade with the near extermination of most of the rimward sectors of Segmentum Obscuris before the Imperium can slip an Emperor Class battleship into the pocket dimension that their leadership is using as a headquarters(WH:40 5th Ed, Pg125)
I would suggest that, by comparison, Space Marines might be somewhat low on the High Lords list of serious threats. Particularly considering that lances or not, with the exception of the Black Templars, a 2000 point fleet, while a fraction of even a sector's IN forces, would be the bulk of a single chapters forces. Not because of the inability to produce ships, but rather the inability to produce more Space Marines. It can, after all, take centuries for a chapter to recover from even moderate losses.
A) The Hight Lords of Terra.
Aside from the Period preceding the Age of Apostasy, known as the Nova Terra Interregnum for the fact that the Imperium was divided in half between the High Lords of Terra and Ur-Council of Nova Terra in Segmentum Pacificus, the High Lords have run the show.
The Lord Commander Militant: Leader of the Imperium's military. This position has, on occasion in fluff, been held by a Space Marine (Guilliman being the first person to hold the office). Paranoid: Maybe. Probably directed outward as much as toward his immediate underlings. Educated: Probably
The Fabricator General: Representative of the Priesthood of Mars. Paranoid: Probably (again, directed at those under him gunning for promotion) Educated: Yes
The Inquisitorial Representative: Name speaks for itself. Paranoid: Yes (and with good reason) Educated: Almost certainly, and in things far beyond most others.
The Master of the Adminstratum: Head Bureaucrat. Paranoid: Definitely of his underlings. Educated: most likely.
I would suggest that while almost certainly paranoid, the High Lords are not uneducated and are, in fact, master politicians, understanding the need for certain institutions to have leeway, even if they're a possible threat to their own power base. For an example of how they have handled things in the past, take the example of Admiral Usurs. Usurs was too powerful to execute without plunging the Imperium into civil war, so he was instead tasked with exploring the intergalactic gulf. After a decade of reports back, he was never heard from again.
-
It's not exactly secret. The administratum sends ships from all over to be scrapped there.
Then this is done with AM presence and supervision and most likely, any changes are not usurping the AM's territory yet.
Again, the Adeptus Terra does not enforce the Codex (that would, broadly speaking, include the Inquisition). It does not have the weight of law outside of chapters that follow it.
Sigoroth has already answered this and I am, unsurprisingly, agreeing with him in all his points in his reply.
No, they usually aren't much outside 20km long. Think more 'planet' or 'solar system' sized. Anything that can't threaten more then a single planet they tend to fob off on the local admech temple or the Inquisition. (Creatures Anathema, pg 14)
Uh huh. Picky picky. Regardless of whether it is 20km long or not, AM still have jurisdiction over such things, local or overall as you have pointed out yourself.
Leman Russ Annihilator. The whole shebang fits in the turret. And, the space it occupies is probably thinner, but takes up more overall room.
The lascannon fits in the turret but the power supply to it does not necessarily have to accompany it in the turret.
Well, if you want to go all the way back to smelting the steel, sure, it'd be time consuming, but not impossible. As far as building a car from car parts, no, that's still quite easy if you know what each part is and how it works. Heck, it's not even really that hard to fabricate most of them. My father thought it would be cute to build a replica jeep once in his shop.
But that is the point of the debate. Can the AM build their own ships without any assistance from the AM whatsoever, both technical knowledge and technical parts. That's been my point all along. Repairs are one thing. Building something from the keel up is another.
If that were true, then tech heresy would be impossible. However, since it's rampant, according to fluff, the obviously the admech is not the only source of information or they're not as reluctant to share it as you think.
Not impossible but hard to do and not so grand a scale as constructing warships.
So, you're saying that 'Any proof that I am wrong is incorrect because it disagrees with my interpretation.'
Nope, I've made my points and it's obvious you don't want to agree with it. The Nova entry sums it all and no amount of conjecture about BTs ship constructing capability can overcome that entry. Nova is rare and is taken with the most exception by the IN. Even the SC is pointed out as being rare. And combining those two instances, it means any lance on an SC, even if it exists, would be virutally nil.
SM can win already with its present set up without lances on their cap ship. The BCs can make up for it, just that it's not as straightforward to use compared to lances. It takes a higher learning curve but they can win and this include Ship vs Ship and other fleet action scenarios not involving Planetary Assault and Exterminatus. In those last two scenarios, they are very strong.
What's currently needed is an upgrade to their defensive stats to make them more survivable. And so, in fluff and game balance and performance, they do not need any lances on their cap ship esp since they can use a VBB already.
Those have ever been my reasons and I see nothing in the current SM profile both in fluff and game balance which shows they NEED to have lances on their standard cap ships.
-
Then this is done with AM presence and supervision and most likely, any changes are not usurping the AM's territory yet.
Sorry, the people involved are named. The head of the yards at the time that the rogue trader Iradas Holden took over the yards and expanded them was a local voidfarer by the name of Haargoth Agamar, who was not a tech priest. Holden is stated to have an extensive interest in the shipyards of the Calixis sector, and pulls strings to have ships designated for the breakers to be sent to SR-651. Agamar later kills Holden and (re)takes over total control of the operation.
Not impossible but hard to do and not so grand a scale as constructing warships.
Then how do pirates get their ships, since many types of raider are not STC craft? The entry for iconoclast suggests that all sorts of escorts are made all over by practically anyone. The entry for the Hunter suggests that the Dark Angels opted to build it as they had difficulty getting ships from imperial shipyards and forgeworlds.
Nope, I've made my points and it's obvious you don't want to agree with it. The Nova entry sums it all and no amount of conjecture about BTs ship constructing capability can overcome that entry. Nova is rare and is taken with the most exception by the IN. Even the SC is pointed out as being rare. And combining those two instances, it means any lance on an SC, even if it exists, would be virutally nil.
And the Hunter entry on the previous page conflicts with your assertion that SM can't build their own ships. Since it states that the DA built them because they were having a hard time getting ships from the admech et al.
And, all SM ships are rare. Again, you're conveniently forgetting that a single 2k point fleet is the bulk of an entire chapter's naval forces, with possible exception of BTs, the same fleet for IN is a fraction of a single sector's forces. Compared to, say, the Lunar or the Murder (or, dear god, the Sword), yes, they're rare. Hundreds of them are not produced per year throughout the Imperium. (In all likelihood, the only time's they're produced is when a new chapter is founded or an old one looses a ship)
SM can win already with its present set up without lances on their cap ship. The BCs can make up for it, just that it's not as straightforward to use compared to lances. It takes a higher learning curve but they can win and this include Ship vs Ship and other fleet action scenarios not involving Planetary Assault and Exterminatus. In those last two scenarios, they are very strong.
What's currently needed is an upgrade to their defensive stats to make them more survivable. And so, in fluff and game balance and performance, they do not need any lances on their cap ship esp since they can use a VBB already.
Yes, because we all know that Space Marines need 5 shields and 5 turrets on their +6 armor. Would you like 'Reactive Hulls' while you're at it?
-
If you mean the standard 4 shields on the battleship, and 2 shields on the SC, admiral, then I'd consider that the most important thing right now.
I'll retire from the lance debate for now, if you are good about that article, Horizon. I think it would be best to just present both sides, without arguing against each other. Gets the base thoughts out better.
-
And there are factions that want the space marines to have a lot more (in Armada, even).
Sigoroth, I might point out that your entire argument hinges on your perception of the Imperium. You make two key assumptions: The Imperium is run by ignorant people suffering from paranoia at near delusional levels, and B) They they perceive the Space Marines as the greatest threat to their position.
I make the assumption that the Imperium is run by politicians. Politicians number 1 priority is to maintain their power. When you see politicians argue on TV today they turn into a bunch of retarded morons who'll say or do anything to get into or keep power. These are supposedly educated people. Supposedly they have the best interests of the people at heart. This isn't true of course, or else there would be more bipartisan action as a consequence. Politicians are, by nature, paranoid. They would be even more paranoid in the sort of society we're talking about.
Speaking of which, we are talking about a society that perform rituals and invoke spirits to turn a computer on or drive a car. One where free thought is not just oppressed or even just criminalised, but which could actually lead to corruption by Chaos. This is a society of racial purists and religious extremists. Xenophobes and zealots are the normal population. So yes, the High Lords are both ignorant and paranoid.
The single greatest threat to the Imperium in all of its history has been the SMs. They killed their God. Of course, they also defended him and ultimately saved the Empire, but the lesson they learned was that they needed to control the SMs. They could not be allowed to do as they pleased.
Let's start with B first:
Which is a greater threat: the admech with their unlimited private fleet, ability to create virus bombs, titan legions, and vast armies of skittari or the relatively self limiting number of Space Marines? Abaddon blew up one star with three Blackstones, however, in 550 M37, a rogue group of tech priests decided to exterminate humanity, and went on a rampage with a similar supernova causing weapon from the Dark Age of Technology for a decade with the near extermination of most of the rimward sectors of Segmentum Obscuris before the Imperium can slip an Emperor Class battleship into the pocket dimension that their leadership is using as a headquarters(WH:40 5th Ed, Pg125)
Space Marines. Without question they're the greater threat. The AdMech have never killed the Emperor.
I would suggest that, by comparison, Space Marines might be somewhat low on the High Lords list of serious threats. Particularly considering that lances or not, with the exception of the Black Templars, a 2000 point fleet, while a fraction of even a sector's IN forces, would be the bulk of a single chapters forces. Not because of the inability to produce ships, but rather the inability to produce more Space Marines. It can, after all, take centuries for a chapter to recover from even moderate losses.
And Space Marines will continue to be low on the Imperiums list of active threasts ... so long as they continue to do as they're told. Anyway, while one such fleet may be a pittance, there are over a thousand of those fleets.
A) The Hight Lords of Terra.
Aside from the Period preceding the Age of Apostasy, known as the Nova Terra Interregnum for the fact that the Imperium was divided in half between the High Lords of Terra and Ur-Council of Nova Terra in Segmentum Pacificus, the High Lords have run the show.
The Lord Commander Militant: Leader of the Imperium's military. This position has, on occasion in fluff, been held by a Space Marine (Guilliman being the first person to hold the office). Paranoid: Maybe. Probably directed outward as much as toward his immediate underlings. Educated: Probably
The Fabricator General: Representative of the Priesthood of Mars. Paranoid: Probably (again, directed at those under him gunning for promotion) Educated: Yes
The Inquisitorial Representative: Name speaks for itself. Paranoid: Yes (and with good reason) Educated: Almost certainly, and in things far beyond most others.
The Master of the Adminstratum: Head Bureaucrat. Paranoid: Definitely of his underlings. Educated: most likely.
I would suggest that while almost certainly paranoid, the High Lords are not uneducated and are, in fact, master politicians, understanding the need for certain institutions to have leeway, even if they're a possible threat to their own power base. For an example of how they have handled things in the past, take the example of Admiral Usurs. Usurs was too powerful to execute without plunging the Imperium into civil war, so he was instead tasked with exploring the intergalactic gulf. After a decade of reports back, he was never heard from again.
To an extent you are right here. Yes, they're master politicians. This comes with its own pitfalls as pointed out above. Understanding that certain institutions need leeway? Yep. Which is probably why they don't even try to come down hard on the Space Marines for every little infraction of Codex doctrine. I mean, what does it matter if Space Wolves are a little more surly than some?
This leeway is already a given. This is why it would be impractical to even try to enforce the entire codex strictly. No, they'd only sweat the important stuff. Such as limiting their numbers, denying them warfleets and ensuring there's no corruption to the geneseed that could result in Chaos mutation. This last one is hard to judge and even harder to detect since that sort of stuff is all handled in-house, but the Inquisition looks out for it nonetheless. So the major concerns regarding codex stuff are:
1) will they turn?
2) if they do, how big a turn are we talking?
3) can we stop em in space before boots hit the ground?
So these are the areas in which the codex is most enforced, and since the space superiority of the IN is the only backstop that Imperium has it's the most vital to protect. There would be no "leeway" in this area. However, I'm still waiting to see why the SM need lances. Their job is to land troops. They have heavily armoured transports for this very purpose. Sometimes there're defences to get through, and they have both WBs and BC to deal with these, as well as torpedoes and thunderhawks. All these weapons are better against static defences than lances are. Hell, the WB/BC combination is better than the alternatives even when you consider the interference between the two systems. So that just leaves mobile defences, such as system ships, defence monitors, etc.
Well, apart from being quite able to run a blockade they have lances on their Nova, which is fine for hunting down a few escorts. They have their Thunderhawks too. They have Hunters to help clear the way as well. There's no need for lances on their cap ships for this.
What other possible situation could they need them for? Orbital bombardment? Nope, just about any gun will do for that. A weapon the size of a BFG lance isn't going to deliver that type pinpoint strike in 40k scale. Which means its no more accurate than some other weapon type fired at a sub-maximum power or with a more accurate round, etc.
So that leaves, what, to shoot at warships with? Well that's exactly the reason they shouldn't get it. They shouldn't be fighting warships. They should be calling in the IN if there's a substantial ship based threat. Otherwise it's a case of blockade run -> drop troops -> bug out -> wait for reinforcements. They're Space Marines. That's what they do.
-
If you mean the standard 4 shields on the battleship, and 2 shields on the SC, admiral, then I'd consider that the most important thing right now.
I'll retire from the lance debate for now, if you are good about that article, Horizon. I think it would be best to just present both sides, without arguing against each other. Gets the base thoughts out better.
I presume this article will actually have some reasons for SMs to get lances. Beyond the "I think they could" argument you've tried to put forward. Well, I'll have to wait till then to find out I suppose, since you won't state them here.
-
I make the assumption that the Imperium is run by politicians. Politicians number 1 priority is to maintain their power. When you see politicians argue on TV today they turn into a bunch of retarded morons who'll say or do anything to get into or keep power. These are supposedly educated people. Supposedly they have the best interests of the people at heart. This isn't true of course, or else there would be more bipartisan action as a consequence. Politicians are, by nature, paranoid. They would be even more paranoid in the sort of society we're talking about.
Speaking of which, we are talking about a society that perform rituals and invoke spirits to turn a computer on or drive a car. One where free thought is not just oppressed or even just criminalised, but which could actually lead to corruption by Chaos. This is a society of racial purists and religious extremists. Xenophobes and zealots are the normal population. So yes, the High Lords are both ignorant and paranoid.
The single greatest threat to the Imperium in all of its history has been the SMs. They killed their God. Of course, they also defended him and ultimately saved the Empire, but the lesson they learned was that they needed to control the SMs. They could not be allowed to do as they pleased.
Well, first of all, as someone who's held a position where my job was to bust politicians, for the government, I can say that, no, not everyone dragged before me and put to the question was as you describe. And, as someone it was in their interests to be paranoid of, no, not all of them were, and some of them should have been.
And, again, you don't grasp that industrial level brainwashing to stifle free thought does not work. Governments for millennia have tried to formulate a means by which thought could be regimented into patterns they desired. Control of education, propaganda, show trials, public executions, torture, control of the media, spin doctors, and even tactics such as taking the publics children from them to be raised by the state. None of these were successful.
As far as the the whole Space Marines/Emperor paradigm: You're forgetting a key item of Imperial belief, that the Emperor is not dead. IF he's not dead, how could Space Marines have killed him?
And the Mechanicus breaching the Imperial palace with titans had nothing to do with that? It wasn't the Space Marines at the helm of Dies Irae...
Remember that during the Heresy the Mechanicus was also split, as the SM legions were. So why would they not be threat. After all, they were running around blowing up stars, a weapon there really isn't a lot of defense against, only 2500 years before the present. That's 'yesterday' as far as the Imperium goes.
Space Marines. Without question they're the greater threat. The AdMech have never killed the Emperor.
And Space Marines don't go around blowing up stars, with one noted exception.
And Space Marines will continue to be low on the Imperiums list of active threasts ... so long as they continue to do as they're told. Anyway, while one such fleet may be a pittance, there are over a thousand of those fleets.
Which are outnumbered by an individual sector fleet, of which there are 28k+ of.
This leeway is already a given. This is why it would be impractical to even try to enforce the entire codex strictly. No, they'd only sweat the important stuff. Such as limiting their numbers, denying them warfleets and ensuring there's no corruption to the geneseed that could result in Chaos mutation. This last one is hard to judge and even harder to detect since that sort of stuff is all handled in-house, but the Inquisition looks out for it nonetheless. So the major concerns regarding codex stuff are:
1) will they turn?
2) if they do, how big a turn are we talking?
3) can we stop em in space before boots hit the ground?
And how many other chapters will side with them. And what is the likelyhood that they might respond by simply seizing the IN ships in boarding operations? As well as what sort of IG contingent they can bring to the table as well. Also, what the larger ramifications are to enforcing such a decree, such as regional destabilization.
So these are the areas in which the codex is most enforced, and since the space superiority of the IN is the only backstop that Imperium has it's the most vital to protect. There would be no "leeway" in this area. However, I'm still waiting to see why the SM need lances. Their job is to land troops. They have heavily armoured transports for this very purpose. Sometimes there're defences to get through, and they have both WBs and BC to deal with these, as well as torpedoes and thunderhawks. All these weapons are better against static defences than lances are. Hell, the WB/BC combination is better than the alternatives even when you consider the interference between the two systems. So that just leaves mobile defences, such as system ships, defence monitors, etc.
Well, apart from being quite able to run a blockade they have lances on their Nova, which is fine for hunting down a few escorts. They have their Thunderhawks too. They have Hunters to help clear the way as well. There's no need for lances on their cap ships for this.
Except that 1 on 1, a Nova defeating a defense monitor is a mathematical impossibility unless they board. And lances are better against weapons platforms then WBs are, due to their +6 armor.
What other possible situation could they need them for? Orbital bombardment? Nope, just about any gun will do for that. A weapon the size of a BFG lance isn't going to deliver that type pinpoint strike in 40k scale. Which means its no more accurate than some other weapon type fired at a sub-maximum power or with a more accurate round, etc.
So that leaves, what, to shoot at warships with? Well that's exactly the reason they shouldn't get it. They shouldn't be fighting warships. They should be calling in the IN if there's a substantial ship based threat. Otherwise it's a case of blockade run -> drop troops -> bug out -> wait for reinforcements. They're Space Marines. That's what they do.
Except that Epic makes it clear that a lance is a pinpoint attack and other orbital bombardment weapons use a huge template. If you are using it for close fire support, the lance is much superior. Further, again, a strike cruiser is a first response vessel. It would be going into an unknown situation and must be able to deal with a variety of circumstances, which a lance does better then a BC.
-
Sorry, the people involved are named. The head of the yards at the time that the rogue trader Iradas Holden took over the yards and expanded them was a local voidfarer by the name of Haargoth Agamar, who was not a tech priest. Holden is stated to have an extensive interest in the shipyards of the Calixis sector, and pulls strings to have ships designated for the breakers to be sent to SR-651. Agamar later kills Holden and (re)takes over total control of the operation.
So they're named. So what? Authors have the liberty of naming and killing off their characters. I've read lots of books where that happens. And just because someone took over the yards and expanded them does not mean that the AM doesn't know about it. Just the mere fact that one has to pull strings means the AMs would know some things about it if not in detail.
Then how do pirates get their ships, since many types of raider are not STC craft? The entry for iconoclast suggests that all sorts of escorts are made all over by practically anyone. The entry for the Hunter suggests that the Dark Angels opted to build it as they had difficulty getting ships from imperial shipyards and forgeworlds.
And the Hunter entry on the previous page conflicts with your assertion that SM can't build their own ships. Since it states that the DA built them because they were having a hard time getting ships from the admech et al.
Pirates get their ships the usual way: by capturing them. A shipyard won't just sell them to any pirate obviously. And no, the Iconoclast entry does not suggest that all sorts of escorts are made by practically anyone at all. Here's the exact quote: "The Iconoclast is similar in design to a variety of small escort ships turned out by almost every shipyard." And who would control most of the shipyards in the 40k universe? Why the AMs.
As for the Hunter entry, again you are mistaken. All it says is that "The Hunter class destroyer, although based on a design long available to almost all Space Marine Chapters, was pioneered primarily by the Dark Angels, whose deep distrust of other factions within the Imperial heirarchy made acquisition of vessels from shipyards and forgeworlds far more problematic than for most other chapters."
Nothing in it says anything about the DA building the ships. They pioneered it, yes but pioneering does not automatically mean building it. It just means, they were the ones who made extensive use of it. Most likely, they have their own shipyards within their territory but these would still be under the control of the AM. Nothing in there suggests otherwise.
And, all SM ships are rare. Again, you're conveniently forgetting that a single 2k point fleet is the bulk of an entire chapter's naval forces, with possible exception of BTs, the same fleet for IN is a fraction of a single sector's forces. Compared to, say, the Lunar or the Murder (or, dear god, the Sword), yes, they're rare. Hundreds of them are not produced per year throughout the Imperium. (In all likelihood, the only time's they're produced is when a new chapter is founded or an old one looses a ship)
And the point of this post?
Yes, because we all know that Space Marines need 5 shields and 5 turrets on their +6 armor. Would you like 'Reactive Hulls' while you're at it?
Have I suggested anything of the sort? In order to answer Lastspartacus query and your sarcastic reply, I do believe the standard Battle Barge SHOULD get the additional shield and turret from the existing profile with additional points. I also believe the SC SHOULD get 2 shields at the expense of 1 TH strength for the same points as I don't believe the prow has the space to carry 2 TH squadrons (which would be the equivalent of 4 regular AC squadrons).
I have stated those two points and I do believe it would be enough to help them be more competitive in fleet actions giving the SC the survivability it lacks because of having only 1 shield and 6 HP.
Those are what they NEED. Unlike lances which are what you WANT.
-
So they're named. So what? Authors have the liberty of naming and killing off their characters. I've read lots of books where that happens. And just because someone took over the yards and expanded them does not mean that the AM doesn't know about it. Just the mere fact that one has to pull strings means the AMs would know some things about it if not in detail.
Never said they didn't know about it. Just said they were not involved in it. And, All of FFG's stuff is getting stamped canon by GW, so...
Pirates get their ships the usual way: by capturing them. A shipyard won't just sell them to any pirate obviously. And no, the Iconoclast entry does not suggest that all sorts of escorts are made by practically anyone at all. Here's the exact quote: "The Iconoclast is similar in design to a variety of small escort ships turned out by almost every shipyard." And who would control most of the shipyards in the 40k universe? Why the AMs.
As for the Hunter entry, again you are mistaken. All it says is that "The Hunter class destroyer, although based on a design long available to almost all Space Marine Chapters, was pioneered primarily by the Dark Angels, whose deep distrust of other factions within the Imperial heirarchy made acquisition of vessels from shipyards and forgeworlds far more problematic than for most other chapters."
Nothing in it says anything about the DA building the ships. They pioneered it, yes but pioneering does not automatically mean building it. It just means, they were the ones who made extensive use of it. Most likely, they have their own shipyards within their territory but these would still be under the control of the AM. Nothing in there suggests otherwise.
Yes, they capture from Imperials ships that Imperials have never used... Hmm...
Also:
Not true: if the admech control all the shipyards, again, how are the Rogue Traders able to commit tech-heresy by adding all that xenotech to their systems? Other then the Tau, no alien race is going to let a Rogue Trader into their yards for a casual refit (assuming they have yards). You have not yet explained how it is possible for them to use technology from actively hostile (or even dead) races such as the Yuvath or the Fra'al without being burned at the stake if they have no private shipyards without admech oversight.
Except the fact they talk about shipyards and forgeworlds. IF they don't trust the admech on a forgeworld or in a shipyard, why would they trust them on the Rock? Answer: they wouldn't! That's like saying 'We don't trust crooks in a bar, but we trust them in our home!'
-
Never said they didn't know about it. Just said they were not involved in it. And, All of FFG's stuff is getting stamped canon by GW, so...
I don't see how you can pull the name of two people who fought over administrative control of the shipyards and use that to support the claim no AdMech were involved in the operation.
-
Never said they didn't know about it. Just said they were not involved in it. And, All of FFG's stuff is getting stamped canon by GW, so...
I don't see how you can pull the name of two people who fought over administrative control of the shipyards and use that to support the claim no AdMech were involved in the operation.
Because the abuses of tech in the description of the place would never be tolerated by the admech. (the kindest word for waht they're describing the machine spirits going through would be 'abused'. Most of the facility sounds as if orks would not seem out of place there) The names were just to point out that they were not the ones running the salvage yard (which was D'Art's assertion). And, from the article, at this point, no one is fully in charge, as Agmar has disappeared.
-
Never said they didn't know about it. Just said they were not involved in it. And, All of FFG's stuff is getting stamped canon by GW, so...
And you think AM won't be involved in it in one way or another? The possible loss if not theft of tech which AM lay claim upon?
Yes, they capture from Imperials ships that Imperials have never used... Hmm...
It's not as if these ships are rare. These ships were built in the thousands. They may still be built even now, even if the IN do not use them in their fleets. It still doesn't mean the shipyards do not have AMs supervising them.
Also:
Not true: if the admech control all the shipyards, again, how are the Rogue Traders able to commit tech-heresy by adding all that xenotech to their systems? Other then the Tau, no alien race is going to let a Rogue Trader into their yards for a casual refit (assuming they have yards). You have not yet explained how it is possible for them to use technology from actively hostile (or even dead) races such as the Yuvath or the Fra'al without being burned at the stake if they have no private shipyards without admech oversight.
AM are constantly in the search for tech knowledge. The thing with AM is they will look the other way as long as they can get that knowledge even with RTs refitting their ships. I wouldn't be surprised if they had backroom dealings with RTs for discovering or acquiring of tech, both lost STCs or alien tech.
Except the fact they talk about shipyards and forgeworlds. IF they don't trust the admech on a forgeworld or in a shipyard, why would they trust them on the Rock? Answer: they wouldn't! That's like saying 'We don't trust crooks in a bar, but we trust them in our home!'
Does a shipyard have to be ON the Rock? The shipyard could be in a system under the DA jurisdiction where they can keep an eye on the AM and the AM can still have control over what they do best. What that phrase means is that they feel they are not being prioritized by the shipyards and forgeworlds and so they provide a system which can be used as their shipyard in a place with a lot of resources. AM will still control the production processes even if the DA owns the system. It's a fair enough compromise.
-
Because the abuses of tech in the description of the place would never be tolerated by the admech. (the kindest word for waht they're describing the machine spirits going through would be 'abused'. Most of the facility sounds as if orks would not seem out of place there) The names were just to point out that they were not the ones running the salvage yard (which was D'Art's assertion). And, from the article, at this point, no one is fully in charge, as Agmar has disappeared.
Not necessarily never as long as AM are in the know of it. It's when they are not in the know that they get upset.
-
Except that Epic makes it clear that a lance is a pinpoint attack and other orbital bombardment weapons use a huge template. If you are using it for close fire support, the lance is much superior. Further, again, a strike cruiser is a first response vessel. It would be going into an unknown situation and must be able to deal with a variety of circumstances, which a lance does better then a BC.
Actually this is blatantly untrue. While epic does indicate the lance is a pinpoint attack, it is completely ineffective for close fire support since it can only target enemy WE. That means the pinpoint attack can't help you at all if you need to bombard and entrenched infantry company or a Leman Russ company. It's ONLY capable of targeting things like baneblades or larger stuff like titans. The bombardment weapons are what you use when you need close fire support usually in concert with some form of airborne attack either via planetfall or thunderhawks. These let you predetermine the location of the barrage, like an objective or critical terrain feature, and the follow up the attack by retaining with an airborne assault element.
Now, in epic it should be noted that NEITHER the battlebarge NOR the strike cruiser have access to pinpoint attacks. Since there are no pinpoint attacks, then there are no lances on marine vessels according to epic.
-
AM are constantly in the search for tech knowledge. The thing with AM is they will look the other way as long as they can get that knowledge even with RTs refitting their ships. I wouldn't be surprised if they had backroom dealings with RTs for discovering or acquiring of tech, both lost STCs or alien tech.
Yes, but that's called 'greater tech heresy' and possible sentences for it include being turned into a servitor if they get caught by the forgeworld admech (and that's one of the nicer sentences Others include arcoflagellation or having your mechanicus implants stripped from you. Not a lot left after that...). They also get hunted down by the Ordo Xenos, who actually take a slightly LESS dim view of it, and simply torture then kill them.
So, while a RT might be able to recruit enough people to run his ship with such abominations on board, I highly doubt that he's going to find an entire dockyard willing to look the other way. Too many eyes and too much risk involved. It's like the Inquisition: yes, there are radical inquisitors, but odds are good they try and keep it as quiet as possible, and don't usually go marching through the center of town with their daemonhost in tow, bleeding warpfire all over the place. Or, at least, if they do, they probably don't last long before a puritan catches up with them.
Does a shipyard have to be ON the Rock? The shipyard could be in a system under the DA jurisdiction where they can keep an eye on the AM and the AM can still have control over what they do best. What that phrase means is that they feel they are not being prioritized by the shipyards and forgeworlds and so they provide a system which can be used as their shipyard in a place with a lot of resources. AM will still control the production processes even if the DA owns the system. It's a fair enough compromise.
Well, to do that they'd have to actually claim a world or system. They do have a handful of Chapter Keeps on various worlds they recruit from, but don't rule any of them. Representatives of the Dark Angels visit each recruiting world once within a normal human's lifetime, and take the strongest juveniles from the population. Caliban is about the only star system they claim outright, and it's a huge asteroid field since they lanced the planet to death following the Horus Heresy. Otherwise they are entirely fleet based.
The Rock is really the only facility that might be large enough to do so.
And, No, it has nothing to do with prioritization. The Dark Angels are paranoid in ways that make Inquisitors look carefree due to the 'big secret' which they've murdered their fellow space marines and entire planetary populations to keep hidden. Now, would they trust the admech, who, by their lights, don't even worship the Emperor, when they don't even trust other space marines outside their own successor chapters?
Actually this is blatantly untrue. While epic does indicate the lance is a pinpoint attack, it is completely ineffective for close fire support since it can only target enemy WE. That means the pinpoint attack can't help you at all if you need to bombard and entrenched infantry company or a Leman Russ company. It's ONLY capable of targeting things like baneblades or larger stuff like titans. The bombardment weapons are what you use when you need close fire support usually in concert with some form of airborne attack either via planetfall or thunderhawks. These let you predetermine the location of the barrage, like an objective or critical terrain feature, and the follow up the attack by retaining with an airborne assault element.
Now, in epic it should be noted that NEITHER the battlebarge NOR the strike cruiser have access to pinpoint attacks. Since there are no pinpoint attacks, then there are no lances on marine vessels according to epic.
Never said either one did. The entire argument was that A) lances are not precise, which they are, and that they are not useful for fire support, which they are. For example, a Devastator squad or three, or a deep striking assault squad can be used to good effect to neutralize that leman russ company. A few whirlwinds will keep that infantry pinned. But what do space marines do when they hit a titan? Other then the land raider, there isn't a whole lot they have that will even really put much of a dent even in a scout titan like the Warhound. A lance strike would be ideal for just this situation.
It's also perfect for another Space Marine specialty, the decapitation strike, particularly if, say, the enemy HQ, which needs flattened, is in close proximity to the spaceport, which would be required intact for followup landings by IG. A quick lance strike followed by drop pod assault on the space port and you are in buisness. Particularly good against underground bunkers that bombardment might not reach.
-
Yes, but that's called 'greater tech heresy' and possible sentences for it include being turned into a servitor if they get caught by the forgeworld admech (and that's one of the nicer sentences Others include arcoflagellation or having your mechanicus implants stripped from you. Not a lot left after that...). They also get hunted down by the Ordo Xenos, who actually take a slightly LESS dim view of it, and simply torture then kill them.
Not if it is sanctioned by the AM.
So, while a RT might be able to recruit enough people to run his ship with such abominations on board, I highly doubt that he's going to find an entire dockyard willing to look the other way. Too many eyes and too much risk involved. It's like the Inquisition: yes, there are radical inquisitors, but odds are good they try and keep it as quiet as possible, and don't usually go marching through the center of town with their daemonhost in tow, bleeding warpfire all over the place. Or, at least, if they do, they probably don't last long before a puritan catches up with them.
Again, not if it is sanctioned by the AM. Keeping things quiet or from the AM would be much more risky.
Well, to do that they'd have to actually claim a world or system. They do have a handful of Chapter Keeps on various worlds they recruit from, but don't rule any of them. Representatives of the Dark Angels visit each recruiting world once within a normal human's lifetime, and take the strongest juveniles from the population. Caliban is about the only star system they claim outright, and it's a huge asteroid field since they lanced the planet to death following the Horus Heresy. Otherwise they are entirely fleet based.
The Rock is really the only facility that might be large enough to do so.
So keep the shipyard in the same system as Caliban but not on Caliban itself. Really it isn't that far a stretch of the imagination. It can even be in a system just beside Caliban, perhaps in an asteroid field.
And, No, it has nothing to do with prioritization. The Dark Angels are paranoid in ways that make Inquisitors look carefree due to the 'big secret' which they've murdered their fellow space marines and entire planetary populations to keep hidden. Now, would they trust the admech, who, by their lights, don't even worship the Emperor, when they don't even trust other space marines outside their own successor chapters?
In the interest of getting the ships, I'm sure they could and could reach an accomodation. Business is business as they say, even with superhuman beings of the future. There will be political and business wheelings and dealings. They may be paranoid (and AM can be as secretive as the DA with their tech), but that doesn't preclude them from making a deal with the AM. Makes things much more simpler too as it cuts through a lot of the bureaucratic red tape and the DA wouldn't be sanctioned in any way since they would still be keeping to the Code and as long as each respects each other's area of expertise even though suspicious of each other, there wouldn't be much problems.
-
But what do space marines do when they hit a titan? Other then the land raider, there isn't a whole lot they have that will even really put much of a dent even in a scout titan like the Warhound. A lance strike would be ideal for just this situation.
It's also perfect for another Space Marine specialty, the decapitation strike, particularly if, say, the enemy HQ, which needs flattened, is in close proximity to the spaceport, which would be required intact for followup landings by IG. A quick lance strike followed by drop pod assault on the space port and you are in buisness. Particularly good against underground bunkers that bombardment might not reach.
Ideal, maybe, but not available and therefore irrelevant in epic. In epic, marines are effective enough against warhounds by performing engage actions with supporting formations. Against reavers there is more difficulty and against warlords, you basically need two detachments of terminators teleporting in and an air assault on the retain if you've prepped the target the previous turn to have a chance. So, yeah, marines get it tough when they hit a titan but it's possible and anything outside of an imperator or warlord isn't too bad or can be ignored if taking it out isn't accomplishing an objective.
at best so far all you can say is there might be a chapter than could have a strike cruiser with a lance. You've got nothing showing they are standard issue or that even one in ten have a lance. Beyond that you have nothing to prove that instances where a lance is used, the supporting ship isn't something akin to a VBB or allied IN. I think the cost of the upgrade very fairly represents the rarity.
-
But what do space marines do when they hit a titan? Other then the land raider, there isn't a whole lot they have that will even really put much of a dent even in a scout titan like the Warhound. A lance strike would be ideal for just this situation.
It's also perfect for another Space Marine specialty, the decapitation strike, particularly if, say, the enemy HQ, which needs flattened, is in close proximity to the spaceport, which would be required intact for followup landings by IG. A quick lance strike followed by drop pod assault on the space port and you are in buisness. Particularly good against underground bunkers that bombardment might not reach.
Ideal, maybe, but not available and therefore irrelevant in epic. In epic, marines are effective enough against warhounds by performing engage actions with supporting formations. Against reavers there is more difficulty and against warlords, you basically need two detachments of terminators teleporting in and an air assault on the retain if you've prepped the target the previous turn to have a chance. So, yeah, marines get it tough when they hit a titan but it's possible and anything outside of an imperator or warlord isn't too bad or can be ignored if taking it out isn't accomplishing an objective.
at best so far all you can say is there might be a chapter than could have a strike cruiser with a lance. You've got nothing showing they are standard issue or that even one in ten have a lance. Beyond that you have nothing to prove that instances where a lance is used, the supporting ship isn't something akin to a VBB or allied IN. I think the cost of the upgrade very fairly represents the rarity.
"With the precision typical of the Astartes, the three Strike Cruisers opened fire upon the co-ordinates given by Sebastius. Three blinding thunderbolts of pure white destruction speared down into the plaza with enough force to level a city block."
"The clean up operation was foul and difficult work. With the Daemon king reduced to nothing more then a smoking crater by the lance strikes from the Marines Vindicant spacecraft, the curse of the plague was lifted." - Planetstrike, pg 64
To throw a little more promethium on the fire, the mission was under the direct command of a lord inquisitor.
-
Well, first of all, as someone who's held a position where my job was to bust politicians, for the government, I can say that, no, not everyone dragged before me and put to the question was as you describe. And, as someone it was in their interests to be paranoid of, no, not all of them were, and some of them should have been.
Firstly, this is criminal paranoia, versus political paranoia. I think you'll find that the latter type is what we're talking about here. Secondly, we're not talking about today's society. We're talking the highest echelons of a bureaucracy of extreme size and disposition.
And, again, you don't grasp that industrial level brainwashing to stifle free thought does not work. Governments for millennia have tried to formulate a means by which thought could be regimented into patterns they desired. Control of education, propaganda, show trials, public executions, torture, control of the media, spin doctors, and even tactics such as taking the publics children from them to be raised by the state. None of these were successful.
Actually, these have been tremendously successful. In fact, the current method of suppressing the population works quite well. However, imagine the Spanish Inquisition to the power 10,000. That's what we're talking about here. There is no safe haven, no respite from authority where thinking people or political dissidents can flee to to develop alternative ways of existing. Even if there were they'd need to then return and expose the general populace of the Imperium to these alternatives. Some places may become isolated for long enough for these processes to occur, but as soon as they reintegrate with the Imperium they're destroyed. The oppression of the Imperium has lasted over 10,000 years. I think they've got this formula worked out.
As far as the the whole Space Marines/Emperor paradigm: You're forgetting a key item of Imperial belief, that the Emperor is not dead. IF he's not dead, how could Space Marines have killed him?
No, he's dead. The sarcophagus that is the Golden Throne merely provides an anchor for his soul, such that it doesn't drift away in the warp. But since souls go to the warp when people die and the Emperor is in the warp, that means he's dead. He certainly isn't up and striding around all over the Imperium as he used to before being mortally wounded by Horus (note mortally wounded, ie, a death blow).
And the Mechanicus breaching the Imperial palace with titans had nothing to do with that? It wasn't the Space Marines at the helm of Dies Irae...
Nope. The AdMech are nothing.
Remember that during the Heresy the Mechanicus was also split, as the SM legions were. So why would they not be threat. After all, they were running around blowing up stars, a weapon there really isn't a lot of defense against, only 2500 years before the present. That's 'yesterday' as far as the Imperium goes.
Because they're not warriors. They're not sailors. They're not tacticians. They have almost no political aspirations beyond the acquisition of technology. They are a force to be directed by others, not a threat in their own right.
And Space Marines don't go around blowing up stars, with one noted exception.
So? They do go around destroying planets. Those AdMech were defeated by an Emperor BB. Big deal. Also, the fact is that the Imperium are not paranoid about the AdMech, even if you think they should be. It is the SMs that were broken up, the SMs that have their numbers limited, the SM that have restrictions on their fleets. Not the AM.
Which are outnumbered by an individual sector fleet, of which there are 28k+ of.
Well then, if the IN have such superiority then they have the capability to police their policy of no lances for SMs.
And how many other chapters will side with them. And what is the likelyhood that they might respond by simply seizing the IN ships in boarding operations? As well as what sort of IG contingent they can bring to the table as well. Also, what the larger ramifications are to enforcing such a decree, such as regional destabilization.
This just proves my point. The IN need clear dominance in the skies. The SM are demagogues that can easily sway a lot of people to their side, through the force of their personalities or presence. Individual chapters can ally together, etc. In a full scale engagement there are bound to be ships lost to boarding actions too. This just reinforces the need to keep the SM weak in space. You can't acknowledge all this and then say that it's perfectly fine to give SMs warfleets!
Except that 1 on 1, a Nova defeating a defense monitor is a mathematical impossibility unless they board. And lances are better against weapons platforms then WBs are, due to their +6 armor.
What the hell has 1 on 1 got to do with anything? Who takes a single escort?
Anyway, other races have WBs and lances. SMs have WBs and BC. So what you'd be replacing would be the BC, not the WBs. In which case you would lose efficiency by swapping. Even if you were to swap out the WBs for some reason, you still lose out against 6+ armour when on LO. The only gain when using lances is when not locked on against 6+ armour, and it's still minimal. And there's no way a SM ship would have lances and BCs anyway.
Except that Epic makes it clear that a lance is a pinpoint attack and other orbital bombardment weapons use a huge template. If you are using it for close fire support, the lance is much superior. Further, again, a strike cruiser is a first response vessel. It would be going into an unknown situation and must be able to deal with a variety of circumstances, which a lance does better then a BC.
Utter load of crap. Space Marine ships don't have lances. If Space Marine ships can make pinpoint orbital attacks then you don't need lances to make pinpoint attacks.
Also, what Epic calls a lance and what BFG calls a lance are surely different. A lance attack merely means a pinpoint attack. In 40k it's represented by ignoring armour above 12. In BFG it's represented by rolling a single die per point of strength which hits on a 4+, in orbital strikes it's represented by not using a template. It doesn't mean it's the same weapon! An actual anti-ship lance would be inappropriate for use as a an orbital strike, unless you wanted a particular building vaporised!
-
"With the precision typical of the Astartes, the three Strike Cruisers opened fire upon the co-ordinates given by Sebastius. Three blinding thunderbolts of pure white destruction speared down into the plaza with enough force to level a city block."
"The clean up operation was foul and difficult work. With the Daemon king reduced to nothing more then a smoking crater by the lance strikes from the Marines Vindicant spacecraft, the curse of the plague was lifted." - Planetstrike, pg 64
To throw a little more promethium on the fire, the mission was under the direct command of a lord inquisitor.
Sounds like a plasma cannon barrage to me. Besides, some crap from a random book is meaningless. As an anti-ship weapon SMs shouldn't get access to lances. Between bombardment cannon and their weapon batteries I'm certain they have more than enough orbital bombardment capabilities. The term Lance in BFG just means a weapon system capable of reaching out with a (relatively) pinpoint attack to cut through an enemy ship. Many different weapon types might constitute a lance. These are often described in many Xenos entries, such as those in the RT fleet list, Eldar, DE and Tau, etc. Different weapon systems that constitute a weapon type.
Other weapon systems, which are just as diverse in their make up, typically rely upon saturating an area to pull off their damage. When targeting a stationary object however (such as a ground target when in geosync orbit) then these weapon systems are actually just as accurate as those classified as lances.
-
I'd put forward that lance is a misnomer in that last sentence based on everything we know from other sources about lance strikes. Since it was enough force to level a city block, we aren't talking about precision weapons. Next, we know that such precise targeting of lances on targets that small is not possible (see epic, this has not been changed and is still official. Also IAV2 the original damacles strike always scatters). Finally we know from epic, BFG, and even the old damacles rules that the lance strike causes very little collateral damage. For example, the pinpoint attack doesn't harm other units even if they are in base contact. Also the ordnance template used in 40k is only slightly larger than a rhino. And in BFG lances are described as punching a hole in the target or cutting it in two not blowing up around it like WB.
Since the plantstrike fluff you posted is the only bit calling it a lance yet the description doesn't match with any of the existing descriptions of lance strikes, that means you either accept it's a lance and the description is wrong or that it's not a lance and the name is incorrect in the fluff.
-
I'd put forward that lance is a misnomer in that last sentence based on everything we know from other sources about lance strikes. Since it was enough force to level a city block, we aren't talking about precision weapons. Next, we know that such precise targeting of lances on targets that small is not possible (see epic, this has not been changed and is still official. Also IAV2 the original damacles strike always scatters). Finally we know from epic, BFG, and even the old damacles rules that the lance strike causes very little collateral damage. For example, the pinpoint attack doesn't harm other units even if they are in base contact. Also the ordnance template used in 40k is only slightly larger than a rhino. And in BFG lances are described as punching a hole in the target or cutting it in two not blowing up around it like WB.
Since the plantstrike fluff you posted is the only bit calling it a lance yet the description doesn't match with any of the existing descriptions of lance strikes, that means you either accept it's a lance and the description is wrong or that it's not a lance and the name is incorrect in the fluff.
This is my point, a 'lance' attack merely means that it's a precision attack for that game system. Not that it's the one weapon across all scales. A lance attack on the scale of 40k does not equal a lance attack on the scale of epic let alone a lance attack on the scale of BFG. So a 'lance' is not a particular weapon, it's a classification that differs according to scale.
-
I'd put forward that lance is a misnomer in that last sentence based on everything we know from other sources about lance strikes. Since it was enough force to level a city block, we aren't talking about precision weapons. Next, we know that such precise targeting of lances on targets that small is not possible (see epic, this has not been changed and is still official. Also IAV2 the original damacles strike always scatters). Finally we know from epic, BFG, and even the old damacles rules that the lance strike causes very little collateral damage. For example, the pinpoint attack doesn't harm other units even if they are in base contact. Also the ordnance template used in 40k is only slightly larger than a rhino. And in BFG lances are described as punching a hole in the target or cutting it in two not blowing up around it like WB.
Since the plantstrike fluff you posted is the only bit calling it a lance yet the description doesn't match with any of the existing descriptions of lance strikes, that means you either accept it's a lance and the description is wrong or that it's not a lance and the name is incorrect in the fluff.
Sebastius, the marine commander who calls in the strike survives, despite being fairly close, possibly only a few yards away, as well as other space marines with him, as the strike comes in. It hits a greater daemon of Nurgle. That's a much smaller target then a titan, admittedly, or it's a REALLY BIG daemon (description is unclear, though it picks up a landraider and squashes some people with it, and swats assault marines 'like flies'). Three separate strike cruisers are firing lances at the target. And three lances firing simultaneously would probably take out a city block, if one fired at the building on the end, one fired in the middle, an one hit the other end, though in this case they're all hitting the same target.
Strength of a weapon has little to do with it's precision: a plasma scalpel can burn right through you, but they're used in delicate surgery.
This is my point, a 'lance' attack merely means that it's a precision attack for that game system. Not that it's the one weapon across all scales. A lance attack on the scale of 40k does not equal a lance attack on the scale of epic let alone a lance attack on the scale of BFG. So a 'lance' is not a particular weapon, it's a classification that differs according to scale.
Well, let's see... it's a space marine strike cruiser... or three... firing their lances... at a ground target... which is vaporized.
Eldar did not pop out of the woodwork to fire brightlances. The text is VERY (for once) clear that this is a lance strike, fired by strike cruisers, not allied IN, not mysterious unknown escorts, and not a BC, and not the property of traitor marines. AND it's ENTIRELY SANCTIONED THE INQUISITION. It is not Black Library. It IS an offical canon GW rulebook. A NEW one even.
And since when are SCs equipped with plasma weapons (since a single plasma battery is a str 5 [at least] weapon? [And, more when was the last time a plasma weapon was used as a planetary bombardment weapon? Since according to fluff they're disrupted by a planets EM field, IIRC])
BTW: there is no lance strike for specifically for Planetstrike.
-
bastius, the marine commander who calls in the strike survives, despite being fairly close, possibly only a few yards away, as well as other space marines with him, as the strike comes in. It hits a greater daemon of Nurgle. That's a much smaller target then a titan, admittedly, or it's a REALLY BIG daemon (description is unclear, though it picks up a landraider and squashes some people with it, and swats assault marines 'like flies'). Three separate strike cruisers are firing lances at the target. And three lances firing simultaneously would probably take out a city block, if one fired at the building on the end, one fired in the middle, an one hit the other end, though in this case they're all hitting the same target.
then it cannot be a lance as such. Nothing refutes epic that pinpoint attacks, which are tied to BFG load outs as fairly synonymous with lances, are unable to target anything smaller than a baneblade on the surface as this is part of an official ruleset that has not been superseded by a later edition. the described strike also seems to hit with very little deviation if any at all which is again at odds with every type of orbital strike in 40k including the old damacles rules for a lance strike. If these are indeed lances the fluff is at odds with pre-existing explanation and since it is not isolated to just a conflict with the Epic pinpoint attack you have to declare that this does not fit with the rest of the canon.
The simplest explanation is that the writer or the observer of the event simply mis identified the bombardment as a lance strike or that it was later embellished to give the heroic stance as part of Imperial propaganda which, given the uplifting primer, is not far outside the realm of reason.
-
bastius, the marine commander who calls in the strike survives, despite being fairly close, possibly only a few yards away, as well as other space marines with him, as the strike comes in. It hits a greater daemon of Nurgle. That's a much smaller target then a titan, admittedly, or it's a REALLY BIG daemon (description is unclear, though it picks up a landraider and squashes some people with it, and swats assault marines 'like flies'). Three separate strike cruisers are firing lances at the target. And three lances firing simultaneously would probably take out a city block, if one fired at the building on the end, one fired in the middle, an one hit the other end, though in this case they're all hitting the same target.
then it cannot be a lance as such. Nothing refutes epic that pinpoint attacks, which are tied to BFG load outs as fairly synonymous with lances, are unable to target anything smaller than a baneblade on the surface as this is part of an official ruleset that has not been superseded by a later edition. the described strike also seems to hit with very little deviation if any at all which is again at odds with every type of orbital strike in 40k including the old damacles rules for a lance strike. If these are indeed lances the fluff is at odds with pre-existing explanation and since it is not isolated to just a conflict with the Epic pinpoint attack you have to declare that this does not fit with the rest of the canon.
The simplest explanation is that the writer or the observer of the event simply mis identified the bombardment as a lance strike or that it was later embellished to give the heroic stance as part of Imperial propaganda which, given the uplifting primer, is not far outside the realm of reason.
Or, if you stop and read the daemon's description, which makes it about the size of a warhound titan, since it picks up and tosses aside a landraider and is using a tree as a one handed club. A lance strike can hit an object as big as a warhound, last I checked.
-
Why would a warhound use a tree as a club when it could use a landraider as a club, way heavier and harder.
Poor writing....
-
Why would a warhound use a tree as a club when it could use a landraider as a club, way heavier and harder.
Poor writing....
It uses the landraider to smash some people when it first appears, possibly for dramatic effect.
And landraiders are also awkwardly shaped to be clubs. I think the daemon made the right call here.
Since the SM calls in co-ordinates, like they do in 40k for a lance strike, and it hits a giant object, like in epic, I would say that it is a lance strike.
And, a warlord titan sized object might bludgeon something with a landraider, but a warhound is a bit too small...
-
Simplest explanation: the author is wrong. Period. Just like a lot of authors have been wrong.
-
Books are one thing, but its funny that every codex/rulebook blurb with a lance on an SM ship is shrugged off as 'well, he didn't mean a LANCE lance, you know'. Its getting really funny.
Horizon, who is writing the anti-lance portion of 'should lances be allowed on space marine capital ships'?
-
No portions. Different articles.
So far no one stepped up. :)
It is getting funny how any small tidbit is turned into: Marine capital ships should get lances. ;)
-
LS, it's not just "shrugged off" if you even read my post you can see that it doesn't align with the rest of the canon descriptions of lance strikes or gameplay depictions. Now, what that tells us is if the use of one word in a single sentence in a single piece of fluff doesn't align with the body of evidence about what a lance does or how it targets, then that single piece of fluff is most likely incorrect. It's the simplest solution regardless of where it comes from.
Now there's a bit of play back and forth as to the size of the daemon which could help the case, but again, even with the tossing of a land raider or using a tree as a club, that's not really an indication of size when Chaos is involved.
-
LS, it's not just "shrugged off" if you even read my post you can see that it doesn't align with the rest of the canon descriptions of lance strikes or gameplay depictions. Now, what that tells us is if the use of one word in a single sentence in a single piece of fluff doesn't align with the body of evidence about what a lance does or how it targets, then that single piece of fluff is most likely incorrect. It's the simplest solution regardless of where it comes from.
Now there's a bit of play back and forth as to the size of the daemon which could help the case, but again, even with the tossing of a land raider or using a tree as a club, that's not really an indication of size when Chaos is involved.
Since the captain calls in coordinates, how is that different from how a lance targets? If I'm understanding the description in epic of how an orbiting starship hits targets in epic, they're using a ships on-board sensors to target a WM, since that's the smallest target they can see from orbit. In this he calls in a map reference, which wouldn't really require them to be able to see it, just to fire on that point on the map.
It is getting funny how any small tidbit is turned into: Marine capital ships should get lances. ;)
Horizon, the argument against them having them is supposedly based on fluff.
I have seen exactly ONE piece of fluff that might vaguely indicate that lances are restricted, from nearly a decade ago.
I've seen MANY brought forward of a much more recent vintage that state that they do allow lances, and the best defense I've seen mustered was 'well the authors made a mistake' or 'well, they don't really mean lances' or 'well, the lances on board a strike cruiser in 28mm 40k are not the same as the lances onboard a strike cruiser in BFG and Epic.'
I'm seeing a whole lot of fancy verbal footwork on this last one, to the point I'm waiting for Sigoroth to claim that "Well, it depends on what the definition if 'is' is..."
"An Astartes strike cruiser was a powerful ship, excelling in actions of surface bombardment and blockade-running. In void warfare it was a dread enemy, for while it lacked the offensive capability of a battle-barge or heavy cruiser of the Imperial Navy, because of its armaments and dense shielding, it would make short work of most vessels of a similar size. Had the Exalted joined the orbital battle above Solace by lending the fury of the Covenant’s lances and weapons batteries..." - Soulhunter, pg 45
-
Well, let's see... it's a space marine strike cruiser... or three... firing their lances... at a ground target... which is vaporized.
Eldar did not pop out of the woodwork to fire brightlances. The text is VERY (for once) clear that this is a lance strike, fired by strike cruisers, not allied IN, not mysterious unknown escorts, and not a BC, and not the property of traitor marines. AND it's ENTIRELY SANCTIONED THE INQUISITION. It is not Black Library. It IS an offical canon GW rulebook. A NEW one even.
And since when are SCs equipped with plasma weapons (since a single plasma battery is a str 5 [at least] weapon? [And, more when was the last time a plasma weapon was used as a planetary bombardment weapon? Since according to fluff they're disrupted by a planets EM field, IIRC])
BTW: there is no lance strike for specifically for Planetstrike.
Wow. You're missing the point. What they called down they may describe as a lance strike. 'Lance' is an adjective meaning 'precise'. So they want a pinpoint hit on a certain target. Weapon batteries consist of a good deal of different weapon types, including plasma, laser, projectile, etc. Then there's bombardment cannon on top of these, even more weaponry. Any of these could have been used for the bombardment you mention.
It doesn't mean that space marines have anti-ship guns. In fact, the fact that they don't have lances on their ship says that those bombardments are not performed by BFG scale lances. They're performed by weapon batteries instead. Weaponry that acts like a lance strike in BFG would be far too powerful to perform such a similar action in the scale of 40k.
Also, where do you get that a single plasma battery is minimum str 5? What does that even have to do with anything? Surely they'd just fire 1 gun from the battery.
-
Since the captain calls in coordinates, how is that different from how a lance targets? If I'm understanding the description in epic of how an orbiting starship hits targets in epic, they're using a ships on-board sensors to target a WM, since that's the smallest target they can see from orbit. In this he calls in a map reference, which wouldn't really require them to be able to see it, just to fire on that point on the map.
Since the largest thing the sensors can pick out is a WE and can't fire into point on the map, I'd gather from that there is some reason why the lance batteries are unable to pick out coordinates and can only target object. It's not spelled out, but the lack of being able to input a set of coordinates to target like you do with the battery barrages seems to indicate the lance targeting systems work in a different and incompatible method. It could have something to do with the batteries affecting an area of space and targeting a set of coordinates while the lances lock onto and track objects. It's just not explained and could be any number of reasons.
There's not a lot of fancy footwork. just look at all the described sources and then look at what you posted from planetstrike. Planet strike is the odd man out. BTW, isn't that quote you just posted in reference to the Black Legion or Nightlords controlled ship? That would put it outside the realm of this discussion and could very well be retrofitted with lances. It's just not clear if the covenant is the strike cruiser or if it is a chaos vessel capable of intercepting the strike cruiser.
Regardless of newer fluff in relation to possible lances being right or wrong, there is one thing that NOTHING you've posted can refute: standard pattern Strike Cruisers are not equipped with lances. We know this because the fluff is in the BFG books and that both epic and bfg do not equip lances on marine vessels by default. If lances do exist on strike cruisers, they are very rare because all the fluff references you post still refer to just a handful of ship compared to thousands controlled by the Marines. Now from a gameplay perspective, we know people like lances and tend to take them when they can so to make sure these lances stay rare on strike cruisers there are only a few ways to do this. First you can set a limit (0-1) which isn't very good because it makes the upgrade better at low point games and worse at high point games. You can also limit them by ratio which we have now and scales to high or low point games. None of those discourage people from taking as many as they can though, so upping the cost to be less competitive remains to keep the lances rare since most people will avoid them.
-
Horizon, the argument against them having them is supposedly based on fluff.
I have seen exactly ONE piece of fluff that might vaguely indicate that lances are restricted, from nearly a decade ago.
I've seen MANY brought forward of a much more recent vintage that state that they do allow lances, and the best defense I've seen mustered was 'well the authors made a mistake' or 'well, they don't really mean lances' or 'well, the lances on board a strike cruiser in 28mm 40k are not the same as the lances onboard a strike cruiser in BFG and Epic.'
I'm seeing a whole lot of fancy verbal footwork on this last one, to the point I'm waiting for Sigoroth to claim that "Well, it depends on what the definition if 'is' is..."
"An Astartes strike cruiser was a powerful ship, excelling in actions of surface bombardment and blockade-running. In void warfare it was a dread enemy, for while it lacked the offensive capability of a battle-barge or heavy cruiser of the Imperial Navy, because of its armaments and dense shielding, it would make short work of most vessels of a similar size. Had the Exalted joined the orbital battle above Solace by lending the fury of the Covenant’s lances and weapons batteries..." - Soulhunter, pg 45
The only SC lances have come from BL books with bad editors. I think it is to a point of: they really don't care. What is worse: letting such a thing slip or simply don't care enough?
And yes, Marines can do a pin point orbital attack: They call in the Nova or a Venerable Battle Barge with lances.
Since the fluff war won't be won due heavy entrenchments I call this:
Why on earth give Marines lances from a game balance point of view: NONE AT ALL.
Giving them and Bombardmant and regular batteries and resilient ordnance (assault boats and bombers!!!) and hit&run bonus and boarding bonus and good leadership and fast ships and manouevrable AND LANCES.... is a Marine fanboi thing come true.
The kewl cool Marines get everything....! yeyayayay
-
Horizon does have a point. I wonder what they were thinking when they designed the fleet?
"Lets make marines in space, they'll be the fastest, most heavily armored, have tough ordinance, have the best boarding modifier, and a new special weapon that's a lance, but does crits like crazy."
"What about the engines moving heavy armor?"
"Well the SMs remembered that engines powerful enough to move 6+ armor on every side exist, because they win at memory."
I don't get the argument that Endeavors with a 6+ prow needs 45' turns because they are too massive, when a CL with 6+ all around has it.
-
Horizon does have a point. I wonder what they were thinking when they designed the fleet?
"Lets make marines in space, they'll be the fastest, most heavily armored, have tough ordinance, have the best boarding modifier, and a new special weapon that's a lance, but does crits like crazy."
"What about the engines moving heavy armor?"
"Well the SMs remembered that engines powerful enough to move 6+ armor on every side exist, because they win at memory."
I don't get the argument that Endeavors with a 6+ prow needs 45' turns because they are too massive, when a CL with 6+ all around has it.
QFT
-
Horizon, the argument against them having them is supposedly based on fluff.
I have seen exactly ONE piece of fluff that might vaguely indicate that lances are restricted, from nearly a decade ago.
And I have seen ZERO response in answer to the question of whether SM NEEDS lances from a game balance point of view.
-
The only SC lances have come from BL books with bad editors. I think it is to a point of: they really don't care. What is worse: letting such a thing slip or simply don't care enough?
And yes, Marines can do a pin point orbital attack: They call in the Nova or a Venerable Battle Barge with lances.
Since the fluff war won't be won due heavy entrenchments I call this:
Why on earth give Marines lances from a game balance point of view: NONE AT ALL.
Planetstrike isn't a BL book, it's a GW 40k expansion rulebook. So, your assertion that it only comes from BL books is untrue. (One would hope the editing standards are higher)
As far as why SM need lances: As many people have complained: BC use the gunnery table. Lances do not. All hail the blast marker.
Since the largest thing the sensors can pick out is a WE and can't fire into point on the map, I'd gather from that there is some reason why the lance batteries are unable to pick out coordinates and can only target object. It's not spelled out, but the lack of being able to input a set of coordinates to target like you do with the battery barrages seems to indicate the lance targeting systems work in a different and incompatible method. It could have something to do with the batteries affecting an area of space and targeting a set of coordinates while the lances lock onto and track objects. It's just not explained and could be any number of reasons.
Except that the old Damocles command rhino fluff describes it working exactly that way, feeding information to orbiting starships from the SM commander. Since it also states that they use it for heavy support 'as a last resort...reserved for the most dangerous of foes...' I would state that it's almost a textbook example of it.
There's not a lot of fancy footwork. just look at all the described sources and then look at what you posted from planetstrike. Planet strike is the odd man out. BTW, isn't that quote you just posted in reference to the Black Legion or Nightlords controlled ship? That would put it outside the realm of this discussion and could very well be retrofitted with lances. It's just not clear if the covenant is the strike cruiser or if it is a chaos vessel capable of intercepting the strike cruiser.
The Covenant of Blood is a NL strike cruiser. It and it's sister SC Excoriator, apparently of the same class, are both lance fitted SCs that predate the heresy. Most of Soulhunter and Throne of Lies take place aboard her. Granted, outside of our discussion, except that it's implied that the NL 10th company have not even taken the time to recruit new members since the heresy, let alone refit the ship, some sections of it becoming dangerous due to lack of repair and refit.
There is an interesting commentary on the difference in time, for the crew of Covenant of Blood it's only been a hundred years or so since the Heresy, despite it having been 10,000 for the galaxy.
Regardless of newer fluff in relation to possible lances being right or wrong, there is one thing that NOTHING you've posted can refute: standard pattern Strike Cruisers are not equipped with lances. We know this because the fluff is in the BFG books and that both epic and bfg do not equip lances on marine vessels by default. If lances do exist on strike cruisers, they are very rare because all the fluff references you post still refer to just a handful of ship compared to thousands controlled by the Marines. Now from a gameplay perspective, we know people like lances and tend to take them when they can so to make sure these lances stay rare on strike cruisers there are only a few ways to do this. First you can set a limit (0-1) which isn't very good because it makes the upgrade better at low point games and worse at high point games. You can also limit them by ratio which we have now and scales to high or low point games. None of those discourage people from taking as many as they can though, so upping the cost to be less competitive remains to keep the lances rare since most people will avoid them.
A chapter can have a maximum of 10 Strike cruisers. Given that there are supposedly 1000 chapters, this means that there are approx 10,000 loyalist SCs in existence, give or take. However, variants would not be even throughout the chapters, due to individual chapters favoring differing combat doctrines. Chapters such as the Minotaurs would favor boarding torps and thawks, as they primarily engage in anti-ship operations and close assaults, where as a chapter known for it's precision strikes might favor lances and teleporters.
I do not disagree that the lance is NOT the standard pattern of SC. What I disagree with is the instance that they do not exist at all, when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. I feel that the requirement that half of all the SC MUST be the standard type accurately reflects this, but also allows more variety in SCs. I would also limit SC to no more then 10 total, as this is the max any one chapter CAN field, with the possible exception of the BTs, as fluff also states that each company has it's own SC.
However, I might also point out that, at least in the example in Planetstrike, the chapter in question has three of them. Which would match up with the HA's requirement of one normal SC for every variant, as this would mean that about 1/3 of the entire chapters SC are fitted with lances.
Further, as far as your assertion about the targeting ability of lances: the old Damocles command rhino fluff describes it working exactly that way, feeding information to orbiting starships from the SM commander. Since it also states that they use it for heavy support 'as a last resort...reserved for the most dangerous of foes...' I would state that it's almost a textbook example of it. I would suggest that the scatter in 40k the 40k version is due to them calling coordinates rather then locking on to a single target. It's not that it can't, it's that it isn't as accurate.
As long as a hit is rolled, the max scatter is only about 20 feet to scale in 40k. The lances in 40k, despite assertions to the contrary, do, apparently suffer attenuation, being only a Str 10 ap1 hit when fired from orbit, but a str D ap 1 hit when fired from the ground at a target. (See defense laser stats for apoc by GW)
-
Except that the old Damocles command rhino fluff describes it working exactly that way, feeding information to orbiting starships from the SM commander. Since it also states that they use it for heavy support 'as a last resort...reserved for the most dangerous of foes...' I would state that it's almost a textbook example of it.
While I can only conjecture to reconcile the differences in the Damocles fluff and the Epic rules, it is worth noting that the damocles fluff has been since adjusted while epic remains in effect. My best guess on the matter is that the damocles uses special equipment to translate the targeting data on smaller objects to the orbiting ships in a form they can use since it's built for command and control purposes while most field commanders would have to rely on the sensor aboard the ships to acquire ground targets with the lances limiting them to larger war engines. In any event, since it does require a specialized vehicle to pull off I don't think it reflects the standard bombardment ability of lances.
except that it's implied that the NL 10th company have not even taken the time to recruit new members since the heresy, let alone refit the ship, some sections of it becoming dangerous due to lack of repair and refit.
That's all well and good, but it is still a pre-heresy SC and one that belongs to a traitor legion so it really doesn't matter much referencing more modern strike cruisers or loyalist marine affairs.
On that last section (I don't care to quote the whole thing).
If even 1% of all strike cruisers were equipped with lances you are only looking at 100 out of 10k possible ships. While there could in theory be 10-20 chapters that have multiple lance boats, that's an exceptionally tiny fraction. One that is not accurately represented by allowing half of the strike cruisers to swap a lance out for free. Limiting it to half and making the upgrade expensive accurately depicts the rarity while allowing for the odd chapter than totes around the galaxy with three such craft. Even at 20 points for the upgrade and taking three you only slightly impact the amount of ships you'd be taking (cost of a single nova for all intents and purposes) otherwise.
You have your ability to take lances and we have our rarity, though I'd insist for gameplay reasons and rarity sake it's not something that needs to be in the marine list.
-
I do not disagree that the lance is NOT the standard pattern of SC. What I disagree with is the instance that they do not exist at all, when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence at all. Everything you have listed is either describing an orbital strike, in which the term does not apply to BFG weaponry, or is completely unreliable fluff. Not only is this an issue of nomenclature but the use of extremely dubious fluff to make these tenuous links. Any fluff that posits pre-heresy SCs is just bogus to begin with, regardless of how official.
Secondly, even if they made clear, official fluff that described one or more chapters having sanctioned anti-ship weaponry which would be called lances in BFG then that fluff would just be wrong. It doesn't match up with the political climate of the Imperium.
Lastly, the reason why you want lances isn't to justify orbital bombardments, as that can be done with existing weaponry, but just to use against ships. This puts you in the SM fanboi category, for which you should be shot, just on general principle but which would, at the very least, completely invalidate your argument. Space Marines are supposed to suck against ships. While we fudge this for play balance (rather than just saying "tough titties, go get some IN ships") there is no reason why we should do so by specifically breaking fluff and logic.
Currently SMs are a little weak. They can be made balanced by flavourful adjustments, which can being accomplished by adding shields and turrets. They're a bit boring to play, so variants are being added. On top of the base SC there are 3 other variants which are flavourful (torp/BC variants, CVL variant). We do not need to add unfluffy lances to the SMs to make them balanced. We do not need them to get an interesting fleet list. We do not need them.
-
There is no evidence at all. Everything you have listed is either describing an orbital strike, in which the term does not apply to BFG weaponry, or is completely unreliable fluff. Not only is this an issue of nomenclature but the use of extremely dubious fluff to make these tenuous links. Any fluff that posits pre-heresy SCs is just bogus to begin with, regardless of how official.
Secondly, even if they made clear, official fluff that described one or more chapters having sanctioned anti-ship weaponry which would be called lances in BFG then that fluff would just be wrong. It doesn't match up with the political climate of the Imperium.
Lastly, the reason why you want lances isn't to justify orbital bombardments, as that can be done with existing weaponry, but just to use against ships. This puts you in the SM fanboi category, for which you should be shot, just on general principle but which would, at the very least, completely invalidate your argument. Space Marines are supposed to suck against ships. While we fudge this for play balance (rather than just saying "tough titties, go get some IN ships") there is no reason why we should do so by specifically breaking fluff and logic.
In otherwords: 'I refuse to acknowledge any evidence, even if it exists, that my view is flawed. I will go to Orwellian extremes of doublethink to not admit it exists."
Sigoroth, while I respect Vaaish for making a reasonable, though I don't agree with his stance, argument against my position, this entire rant here is just the forum equivalent of stomping your feet, pouting, and calling people dirty names. It does not advance your cause.
You have actually insisted that a weapon fired by a space ship in orbit is not the same as the same weapon fired by the same space ship at another space ship. Epic makes it very clear that these are the same weapons. This argument of yours is invalid, and has been for some time.
And I play IN. Can't say I actually own a single space marine... anything, come to think of it, since I sold that Emp Champ on ebay. I have a nice IG army, and I think tolerable IN and Chaos fleet, but I am am not fond of two things: FAI and gimping other people's armies out of a sense of pique. I get that you hate space marines, in a 'Two minutes' hate' sort of way. I follow this.
But you're wrong. You may not wish to admit it (even if the Emperor and Rick Preistly both came to your house with an engraved tablet that said so), but the facts do not support your hypothesis.
While I can only conjecture to reconcile the differences in the Damocles fluff and the Epic rules, it is worth noting that the damocles fluff has been since adjusted while epic remains in effect. My best guess on the matter is that the damocles uses special equipment to translate the targeting data on smaller objects to the orbiting ships in a form they can use since it's built for command and control purposes while most field commanders would have to rely on the sensor aboard the ships to acquire ground targets with the lances limiting them to larger war engines. In any event, since it does require a specialized vehicle to pull off I don't think it reflects the standard bombardment ability of lances.
Incorrect: the lance strike remains an option from Codex: Witchhunters with the same rules, and the (in)accuracy rule has redacted in that codex latest FAQ. The fluff itself was left unchanged, but the lance strike was removed in favor of the generic 'orbital bombardment'.
On that last section (I don't care to quote the whole thing).
If even 1% of all strike cruisers were equipped with lances you are only looking at 100 out of 10k possible ships. While there could in theory be 10-20 chapters that have multiple lance boats, that's an exceptionally tiny fraction. One that is not accurately represented by allowing half of the strike cruisers to swap a lance out for free. Limiting it to half and making the upgrade expensive accurately depicts the rarity while allowing for the odd chapter than totes around the galaxy with three such craft. Even at 20 points for the upgrade and taking three you only slightly impact the amount of ships you'd be taking (cost of a single nova for all intents and purposes) otherwise.
You have your ability to take lances and we have our rarity, though I'd insist for gameplay reasons and rarity sake it's not something that needs to be in the marine list.
I would ask how you derived 1% when approx 12% of actual descriptions of SCs in combat allude to lances. However, this is taken largely from running a word search through BL novels, as the accounts of SC firing in rule books and codecies are rare, which skews the data toward numbers as high as 37%, due to the limited sample. I would suggest 12% is probably the more accurate of the two, though this result is also not the most accurate due to the amount of Ultramarines novels that Vae Victus appears in.
-
It occurs to me, I'd like to see some arguments from the anti-lance-on-capital-ship crowd. So far its been purely arguing against the quotes and fluff sources of the other side.
So, please, some quotes or references that cause this anti-lance-on-cap-ship zeal?
-
Incorrect: the lance strike remains an option from Codex: Witchhunters with the same rules, and the (in)accuracy rule has redacted in that codex latest FAQ. The fluff itself was left unchanged, but the lance strike was removed in favor of the generic 'orbital bombardment'.
If the WH codex rules haven't been changed then you can't reconcile the differences. You can't deny epic is official and it specifically states that the pinpoint attack can't target anything smaller than a WE. Since the new FAQ has removed the lance strike you have to fall back on epic as being correct and the WH codex rules representing something other than such a strike since they now represent a generic bombardment.
Side note: the inaccuracy rule has been removed but it has been replaced with 2d6 deviation from the designated point which makes it more inaccurate most times.
I would ask how you derived 1% when approx 12% of actual descriptions of SCs in combat allude to lances. However, this is taken largely from running a word search through BL novels, as the accounts of SC firing in rule books and codecies are rare, which skews the data toward numbers as high as 37%, due to the limited sample. I would suggest 12% is probably the more accurate of the two, though this result is also not the most accurate due to the amount of Ultramarines novels that Vae Victus appears in.
It was a random number for ease of calculation. 1% assumes that at least 50 chapters deviate from the codex and operate at least two lance armed strike cruisers.
I would dispute that 12% is anywhere near accurate. What may constitute 12% of the descriptions doesn't represent 12% of the total SC force. We have very few actual SM SC firing lances in descriptions, assuming they all are speaking of lances, in relation to the total number of SC we estimate to exist. Even if they factor highly in every novel with each having a different vessel described we are still an extremely small percentage of that estimated 10k SC.
LS... we already posted that but you ignored it or dismissed it off hand. Our sources are the BFG rulebook specifically the Nova description. It is the logical conclusion of a comparative analysis of the differences in the Gladius, noted as the most numerous Marine escort, and the Nova, noted as the most rare and most objected to with the IN. It is also a conclusion reinforced by the lack of lance options on strike cruisers in the Codex marine list and the C:SM notes that only a very small number of chapters do not adhere to the codex. The lack of lances is further noted by the lack of pinpoint attacks on epic marine spacecraft.
-
I havn't ignored anything. If I missed something, I just missed it. I really havn't seen a shred of anything beyond trying to debunk the pro-lance evidence, and personal opinions on how the Imperium should react. If there is something, please enlighten me.
"It is also a conclusion reinforced by the lack of lance options on strike cruisers in the Codex marine list and the C:SM notes that only a very small number of chapters do not adhere to the codex."
Is the no-lance policy in the Codex Astartes? I thought it as just an Imperial policy.
A current lack of options doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.
Its as if an argument had occurred a few years ago that 'battleships cant power 6 lances on a broadside', because the Apocalypse had not come out yet.
"The lack of lances is further noted by the lack of pinpoint attacks on epic marine spacecraft."
We all agree it wouldn't be a common SC build, but thats like saying Imperials don't have nova cannons because epic doesn't give them an option to lob one down from orbit, or 'marines have only one fist, because they don't have two melee attacks per model'.
"It is the logical conclusion of a comparative analysis of the differences in the Gladius, noted as the most numerous Marine escort, and the Nova, noted as the most rare and most objected to with the IN"
So the line of thought here is 'because there are more gladius than novas, there would be no lances on SM capital ships'?
I hope you are drawing your line of thought from more than the Nova entry, because the wording there is very soft, more nervousness than promised retribution. Nothing in the entry indicates that having a lance on an SC over a Nova would be grounds for serious action.
Actually, the IN take exception to the Nova because it is a pure lanceboat, an SC with a couple lances would be far more reasonable, by the logic of the Nova's description as to why other factions don't like it. Also, lances are the same power, whether or not they are on an escort or an SC, the Nova actually can deliver the payload much faster. Someone had mentioned it being far deadlier on a capital ship, which is why I mention that.
-
Is the no-lance policy in the Codex Astartes? I thought it as just an Imperial policy.
A current lack of options doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.
We can't base arguments on what might happen in the future. However we can say that since the codex astartes list, as it's called in Armada, doesn't have access to lances, lances are not an option available to SC based on the codex astartes.
We all agree it wouldn't be a common SC build, but thats like saying Imperials don't have nova cannons because epic doesn't give them an option to lob one down from orbit, or 'marines have only one fist, because they don't have two melee attacks per model'.
Incorrect. Epic is a source. the fact that they aren't given pinpoint attacks reinforces the fact that the codex list in armada doesn't have access to them either. Saying, they might, is pure conjecture that doesn't heed the facts we have.
So the line of thought here is 'because there are more gladius than novas, there would be no lances on SM capital ships'?
No. The line of thought is this: what make the nova different from the galdius. Since the gladius is a very common craft the IN must not have issue with it. So what's the difference? The nova has a lance and a slight bit more speed. Since the difference between an uncomfortable IN and one that take no issue with the gladius is for all intents and purposes the lance we have to conclude that the IN is uncomfortable with lances in the possession of the marine fleet. This is reinforced by the nova entry itself where it says that the lance is one of the defining points of the Nova being a gunboat. Following that, if the IN take issue with lances on marine escorts, why would they accept them on capital ships, especially capital ships they are building to give to Marine chapters? Capital ships are a much greater threat because they are much more difficult to eliminate than an escort.
Now with the crusade list we, grudgingly, have an option for a lance. Given that most chapters follow the codex and most chapters are equipped with SC built by the admech to codex specifications, we can safely conclude that such an option should be rare and expensive if necessary at all in the scope of BFG. That's what we have now. A single lance that costs 20 points and replaces s3 BC. Now you say that's too much, it's not worth it. But think about this, if you take 6 strike cruisers, you've used over half your points in a 1500 point list. That means you can take three lances which costs you another 60 points. At the end of the day, all it costs you is about the price of a single escort to break as far from codex as you can with extra lances. Maybe not the most competitive, but the option is there if you insist on it.
-
Did LS just really posted he did not see a single argument?
Sand in your eyes! Jeeee.....
-
In otherwords: 'I refuse to acknowledge any evidence, even if it exists, that my view is flawed. I will go to Orwellian extremes of doublethink to not admit it exists."
NO! It is you who refuse to accept evidence. You think that the only possible evidence is fluff! You ignore the fact that what you posit would be internally inconsistent with canon and so if it were to be true would make a mockery of the ENTIRE 40k universe!
Since accepting this fluff would make all fluff worthless then the only logical choice remains to reject the fluff. Therefore there is no fluff you can provide that can prove your case. You would have to reconcile the inconsistencies first, which you have not done.
Sigoroth, while I respect Vaaish for making a reasonable, though I don't agree with his stance, argument against my position, this entire rant here is just the forum equivalent of stomping your feet, pouting, and calling people dirty names. It does not advance your cause.
That you mistake a call to think for pouting just shows that you're unclear as what is required. Let me establish what you would need in order to win this argument:
Evidence of game imbalance
Clear evidentiary support for the concept
Rationalising the possibility against known Imperial policy
For the first of these lances are not needed to achieve. Therefore your argument is up shit creek to begin with. For the second of these you've shown unclear support, from dubious sources using inference and playing upon the author's ignorance of what constitutes a lance in BFG.
You have actually insisted that a weapon fired by a space ship in orbit is not the same as the same weapon fired by the same space ship at another space ship. Epic makes it very clear that these are the same weapons. This argument of yours is invalid, and has been for some time.
So you're saying that the authors of these books and rules decided that Space Marines had to have anti-ship guns in order to be able to properly execute an orbital strike? If so, then who gives a flying fuck what these monkey brained morons decided!? All fluff and sources stating that SMs have lances on their Strike Cruisers and Battlebarges is henceforth rejected as retarded. Done.
Now, if they didn't say that SMs need an anti-ship gun for an orbital bombardment and what they actually decided was that SMs need a precision bombardment then this can be achieved via existing weaponry. No need to add lances.
The FACT is that lances are not a weapon, but a category of weapon. It is even a term that spans the different scales of 40k, from giant shipboard weapons in BFG to man portable weapons on the ground. The term 'lance' simply means pinpoint attack. What constitutes a pinpoint attack on the scale of BFG would not be the same as that in 40k.
So while it may be possible for SMs to make a pinpoint orbital strike in just what manner should this transfer across to pinpoint anti-ship attacks? Because of the nomenclature used? Don't you find this to be the biggest stretch ever? Try it from this point of view, replace all instances of the word 'lance' in all fluff and rules with 'pinpoint attack'. A rose by any other name ... as the saying goes. So, now do you think that what constitutes a pinpoint attack on the scale of 40k (ie, a handheld weapon) is the same thing as a pinpoint attack from orbit (which is a shipboard weapon)? Similarly, does firing a pinpoint attack against a target measured in the metres or, at most, tens of metres a few hundred kilometres away amount to the same as a pinpoint attack against a target up to 5km long some 30,000 kms away? Again, the scale is simply too different. If you fired one of these weapons as an orbital strike you'd vaporise a building, if not a city block, not a single man or vehicle.
And I play IN. Can't say I actually own a single space marine... anything, come to think of it, since I sold that Emp Champ on ebay. I have a nice IG army, and I think tolerable IN and Chaos fleet, but I am am not fond of two things: FAI and gimping other people's armies out of a sense of pique. I get that you hate space marines, in a 'Two minutes' hate' sort of way. I follow this.
I actually do own a Space Marine army and a Space Marine fleet. I have argued to try to improve the SM fleet. I campaigned for greater variety and extra survivability. I also argue for cheaper escorts. So how am I a SM 'hater'? The fact is that SMs are not gimped by the absence of lances. You have also argued using false pretences. You've argued that SMs should get lances for fluff reasons. In actual fact you want them simply so that they get more efficient gunnery. This is unfluffy and unnecessary.
But you're wrong. You may not wish to admit it (even if the Emperor and Rick Preistly both came to your house with an engraved tablet that said so), but the facts do not support your hypothesis.
Logic does not support your hypothesis, therefore yours is wrong. it's inescapable. If Rick Priestly came on here and stated that SMs have lances then he would be wrong. This is because it is incompatible with what he has already said. So he was either wrong then or wrong now, so either way he's wrong. If I make up a universe that runs according to a set of rules and then introduce something that breaks those rules then others are just as capable of pointing out my mistake as I am of doing the same in this case.
-
You know, I've just figured out a way to give SMs lances. What we do is create a WB type weapon called a "Lance" and then rename the lance category of weaponry to something else. Then SMs can have "lances".
The fact is that there is no evidence at all that Space Marines have this category of purely anti-ship weaponry.
-
If the WH codex rules haven't been changed then you can't reconcile the differences. You can't deny epic is official and it specifically states that the pinpoint attack can't target anything smaller than a WE. Since the new FAQ has removed the lance strike you have to fall back on epic as being correct and the WH codex rules representing something other than such a strike since they now represent a generic bombardment.
Side note: the inaccuracy rule has been removed but it has been replaced with 2d6 deviation from the designated point which makes it more inaccurate most times.
Not sure I'm following, the C:WH FAQ didn't change it's options, so one orbital strike is still the lance strike, unlike the Damocles. This is due to the WH's ability to call down Pske-out warheads, so their ability was left alone to avoid breaking it. Since they're still calling in co-ordinates to an orbiting starship, I do not see how that invalidates my position. And, converted to real world terms, it would scatter about ten yards on average
It was a random number for ease of calculation. 1% assumes that at least 50 chapters deviate from the codex and operate at least two lance armed strike cruisers.
I would dispute that 12% is anywhere near accurate. What may constitute 12% of the descriptions doesn't represent 12% of the total SC force. We have very few actual SM SC firing lances in descriptions, assuming they all are speaking of lances, in relation to the total number of SC we estimate to exist. Even if they factor highly in every novel with each having a different vessel described we are still an extremely small percentage of that estimated 10k SC.
True, as I said, the results are being skewed by a small sample. We have very few descriptions of SC at all, when you get down to it. Emperor's Finest and Soulhunter provide about the best descriptions.
The only interesting item of note is that the Blood Angels have at least one SC the same class as the Covenant, the Malevolent. One of the Blood Angels that board her in Soulhunter mentally comments on how he is able to navigate the ship from memory, having just left the Malevolent and makes a comparison. "On board the Malevolent, this room was a chapel to the Emperor of Mankind. On the Covenant, it looked to be some kind of communal haven for slaves." - Soulhunter, chapter 20
Known loyalist variant strike cruisers from fluff:
Llyan (Storm Warriors, Lance) [The Emperor's Will, Inferno]
Tigris (Storm Warriors, Lance) [The Emperor's Will, Inferno]
Malevolant (Blood Angels, probable lance) [Soul Hunter]
Fidelis (Blood Angels, specialized mine layer system [LB alt?]) [Blood Angels Omnibus]
Vae Victus (Ultramarines, additional weapon: forward torpedoes) [Ultramarines Omnibus]
Aurora (Imperial Fists, Lance) [Rynns World]
Verde (Imperial Fists, Lance)[Rynn's World]
Vulcan's Wrath (Salamanders, planetary landing capability[clarification: not drop pods, the ENTIRE SHIP landing, though it crashes in the novel, it is stated to be able to take off again, under normal circumstances]) [not unknown in fluff for 40k ships, surprisingly, though uncommon in a ship the size of a light cruiser.] [Salamander]
Three unnamed strike cruisers (Marines Vindicant, Lance) [Planetstrike]
From canvassing fluff, the only one I haven't found any sign of is the carrier variant with extra LBs.
Did LS just really posted he did not see a single argument?
Sand in your eyes! Jeeee.....
Vaaish presents some logical argument. Sigoroth... well, it's easy to miss Vaaish in Sigoroths ranting walls of text.
So you're saying that the authors of these books and rules decided that Space Marines had to have anti-ship guns in order to be able to properly execute an orbital strike? If so, then who gives a flying fuck what these monkey brained morons decided!? All fluff and sources stating that SMs have lances on their Strike Cruisers and Battlebarges is henceforth rejected as retarded. Done.
You know, you're just digging yourself deeper. Since it's those 'monkey brained morons' that decide what is and is not canon. Not you. Not me. And they're the same guys that decide what does and does not get approved for BFG.
Further, refusing all evidence of lances and item 3 in your earlier statement makes your whole argument circular logic.
The FACT is that lances are not a weapon, but a category of weapon. It is even a term that spans the different scales of 40k, from giant shipboard weapons in BFG to man portable weapons on the ground. The term 'lance' simply means pinpoint attack. What constitutes a pinpoint attack on the scale of BFG would not be the same as that in 40k.
So while it may be possible for SMs to make a pinpoint orbital strike in just what manner should this transfer across to pinpoint anti-ship attacks? Because of the nomenclature used? Don't you find this to be the biggest stretch ever? Try it from this point of view, replace all instances of the word 'lance' in all fluff and rules with 'pinpoint attack'. A rose by any other name ... as the saying goes. So, now do you think that what constitutes a pinpoint attack on the scale of 40k (ie, a handheld weapon) is the same thing as a pinpoint attack from orbit (which is a shipboard weapon)? Similarly, does firing a pinpoint attack against a target measured in the metres or, at most, tens of metres a few hundred kilometres away amount to the same as a pinpoint attack against a target up to 5km long some 30,000 kms away? Again, the scale is simply too different. If you fired one of these weapons as an orbital strike you'd vaporise a building, if not a city block, not a single man or vehicle.
Um, Siggy, a lance in tabletop 40k DOES vaporize a building sized area. You're confusing eldar lances with Imperial lances. In 40k, an Imperial lance strike a large template weapon and, despite attenuation from the atmosphere, is still a str 10 ap 1 hit.
-
Not sure I'm following, the C:WH FAQ didn't change it's options, so one orbital strike is still the lance strike, unlike the Damocles. This is due to the WH's ability to call down Pske-out warheads, so their ability was left alone to avoid breaking it. Since they're still calling in co-ordinates to an orbiting starship, I do not see how that invalidates my position. And, converted to real world terms, it would scatter about ten yards on average
Basically we have two contradictory rule sets. Epic is still an official rule set which very specifically states that pinpoint attacks just can't target anything smaller than a war engine similar in size to a baneblade. You also have WH which says you can just send up the coordinates and have a lance strike wherever you wish. Both are somewhat inaccurate. Epic giving you 16% odds or so of a miss and only 33% odds of doing full damage while WH just scatters 2d6. Since neither is more official than the other we can't easily reconcile the differing methods. There is a possibility that what you have happening is the epic strikes are more accurate because the cogitators are capable of locking a target while the WH strikes are more representative of what happens when you can't actually lock a target causing the strikes to be more scattered. 30 feet is a pretty good ways to miss a target by.
The only interesting item of note is that the Blood Angels have at least one SC the same class as the Covenant, the Malevolent. One of the Blood Angels that board her in Soulhunter mentally comments on how he is able to navigate the ship from memory, having just left the Malevolent and makes a comparison. "On board the Malevolent, this room was a chapel to the Emperor of Mankind. On the Covenant, it looked to be some kind of communal haven for slaves." - Soulhunter, chapter 20
All I can say is that Blood Angels are one of the old legions so it's not unlikely they would be operating similar craft at the time. This whole thing only came into effect after the heresy. Whether the ship is still in service is another issue and if so, such a craft would likely fall under the purview of the VBB rules. In fact, a good portion of those examples you list belong to the original legions. My point in all this is that while there could be the possibility these older chapters would have lance armed strike cruisers they won't be a strike cruiser in the sense of what BFG uses and fall neatly under the VBB category. Anything else would be so rare as to be virtually non-existent in wider picture which is something the 20 point price ensures.
-
Basically we have two contradictory rule sets. Epic is still an official rule set which very specifically states that pinpoint attacks just can't target anything smaller than a war engine similar in size to a baneblade. You also have WH which says you can just send up the coordinates and have a lance strike wherever you wish. Both are somewhat inaccurate. Epic giving you 16% odds or so of a miss and only 33% odds of doing full damage while WH just scatters 2d6. Since neither is more official than the other we can't easily reconcile the differing methods. There is a possibility that what you have happening is the epic strikes are more accurate because the cogitators are capable of locking a target while the WH strikes are more representative of what happens when you can't actually lock a target causing the strikes to be more scattered. 30 feet is a pretty good ways to miss a target by.
Ok, that makes sense then. Neither is totally irreconcilable, it's just two different methods of targeting. A man on the ground feeding targeting co-ordinates isn't going to be as accurate as a cogitator the size of a city block at calculating relative speed and position.
And, when you're firing a ten foot bullet, 30 feet isn't a big miss. Though the men on the ground might feel differently.
All I can say is that Blood Angels are one of the old legions so it's not unlikely they would be operating similar craft at the time. This whole thing only came into effect after the heresy. Whether the ship is still in service is another issue and if so, such a craft would likely fall under the purview of the VBB rules. In fact, a good portion of those examples you list belong to the original legions. My point in all this is that while there could be the possibility these older chapters would have lance armed strike cruisers they won't be a strike cruiser in the sense of what BFG uses and fall neatly under the VBB category. Anything else would be so rare as to be virtually non-existent in wider picture which is something the 20 point price ensures.
Ok, that still wouldn't make sense though because the Imperial Fists had no ships left after the Heresy. The ones not destroyed in the defense of Terra were taken by the Black Templars when Dorn's legion broke up, other then the Phalanx. The Marines Vindicant had the most, and they aren't a second founding chapter, and they don't appear in any other sources. It can be conjectured, due to their having a landraider Redeemer, that they may be a chapter that is urban combat oriented from a later founding. Which would explain the lances, as flattening the area just means more cover for the enemy when fighting an entrenched army.
-
And, when you're firing a ten foot bullet, 30 feet isn't a big miss. Though the men on the ground might feel differently.
tell that to the squad of terminators that it scatters off. :) 30 feet is more than enough to miss whatever is at the coordinates. In fact 30 feet is almost enough to miss a warhound or baneblade.
Ok, that still wouldn't make sense though because the Imperial Fists had no ships left after the Heresy. The ones not destroyed in the defense of Terra were taken by the Black Templars when Dorn's legion broke up, other then the Phalanx. The Marines Vindicant had the most, and they aren't a second founding chapter, and they don't appear in any other sources. It can be conjectured, due to their having a landraider Redeemer, that they may be a chapter that is urban combat oriented from a later founding. Which would explain the lances, as flattening the area just means more cover for the enemy when fighting an entrenched army.
I was referring to the total number of variants not just suspected lance boats. Marines vindicant are still suspect to me. No information means they could just as well be one of the unnamed 2nd founding utramarine chapters and lances wouldn't make sense on them if they want to flatten areas. Bombardment cannons and weapons batteries do a much better job of that kind of thing.
What I wrote does still apply. The modern strike cruiser doesn't just magically appear one day. There had to be some development of the class preheresy culminating in the specialized ship we see becoming standard after the heresy ended. Since during the heresy the class had lances, it seems reasonable that some of these made it to chapters before the codex became accepted eventually becoming venerated if they survived. The IF had to get more ships from somewhere if the BT ran off with the entire fleet (which seems rather petty of them to not leave some vessels for their parent chapter) so it's possible that they had a couple of older style craft transferred from other chapters or a few left when the BT took the fleet.
-
I was referring to the total number of variants not just suspected lance boats. Marines vindicant are still suspect to me. No information means they could just as well be one of the unnamed 2nd founding utramarine chapters and lances wouldn't make sense on them if they want to flatten areas. Bombardment cannons and weapons batteries do a much better job of that kind of thing.
What I wrote does still apply. The modern strike cruiser doesn't just magically appear one day. There had to be some development of the class preheresy culminating in the specialized ship we see becoming standard after the heresy ended. Since during the heresy the class had lances, it seems reasonable that some of these made it to chapters before the codex became accepted eventually becoming venerated if they survived. The IF had to get more ships from somewhere if the BT ran off with the entire fleet (which seems rather petty of them to not leave some vessels for their parent chapter) so it's possible that they had a couple of older style craft transferred from other chapters or a few left when the BT took the fleet.
I was going to suggest Salamanders or Imperial Fists. They paint their armor black to seek death in battle at one point, have a landraider that's a very very recent pattern, making it less then a century old, and the hunt-and-slay pattern point to those two founding chapters.
Personally, I figure that, since they were at Terra, having Mars build them new ones while they repaired the defenses would make sense. And Dorn pretty much gave away the farm when he finally agreed, giving each of the successors pretty much whatever they wanted, including his own side arm at one point, apparently.
My theory is that the current SC was common among the Ultramarines. If their ships follow the pattern of the rest of their equipment, a successor chapter tries to emulate their parent chapter's equipment as closely as possible. Since the HLoT tend to favor using Ultramarines for new foundings, logically the majority of those chapters would embrace patters favored by the Ultramarines.
Personally, I always liked the idea of, if not chapter specific fleets, fleet lists based on first founding chapters. This would allow for a lot of interesting variants without treading too hard on the fluff.
-
Vaaish presents some logical argument. Sigoroth... well, it's easy to miss Vaaish in Sigoroths ranting walls of text.
What!? My arguments are based entirely upon logic. It's just that you aren't qualifying logic as a valid argument!
You know, you're just digging yourself deeper. Since it's those 'monkey brained morons' that decide what is and is not canon. Not you. Not me. And they're the same guys that decide what does and does not get approved for BFG.
Further, refusing all evidence of lances and item 3 in your earlier statement makes your whole argument circular logic.
You obviously have no idea what circular means. An example of a circular argument would be: I know God exists because the bible tells me so. I know the bible is true because it's the word of God. Note, this does not mean that God does not exist, merely that the argument is unconvincing.
The fact is you refuse to accept other forms of evidence. You only accept fluff, regardless of the implications of that fluff, though you sure do pad your own argument on a whole lot of inference. Logic is of greater importance.
Oh, and no, those monkey brained morons do not get to decide what is canon. To qualify as canon, fluff has to be from an authoritative source to begin with. This discounts the vast bulk of the fluff you present. Novels are not authoritative sources. On top of this however, the fluff has to be plausible and also internally consistent with pre-established fluff. An example of implausible fluff is the death of Eldrad Ulthran. So even if an authoritative source backed your stance then it would still be wrong.
I'll give you an example. If I wrote a fictional universe setting wherein I laid down a ground rule of two particular races being genetically incompatible and then, some point down the track forget this and had a half-breed character then that would be flat out wrong. That is to say, you can't hold them both to be true at once. "Ahah! This canonical fluff says that they can't interbreed, so there are no half-breeds" "Ahah! This canonical fluff says that there is a half-breed". Therefore fluff coming from an authoritative source does not, in itself make it canonical. It is a necessary requirement, but not a sufficient one.
So when I reject your continual presentation of bad fluff then I am rejecting a nonsensical argument. All you're doing is asserting (poorly) the "half-breeds exist" argument.
Um, Siggy, a lance in tabletop 40k DOES vaporize a building sized area. You're confusing eldar lances with Imperial lances. In 40k, an Imperial lance strike a large template weapon and, despite attenuation from the atmosphere, is still a str 10 ap 1 hit.
That "large template" is about the size of land raider. Hardly building smashing. But either way, any other weaponry could be used to this effect. So why should other weaponry be used rather than lances? Because in the rules for Battlefleet Gothic a lance is an anti-ship weapon. Space Marines should not have anti-ship weapons. If we called lances, I don't know, space squirrels, and made 'lances' a form of weapon battery type weapon then Space Marines could have 'lances'. They could not have 'space squirrels' however. There is no fluff to suggest that Space Marines should have pure anti-ship weapons, so your entire argument is one of nomenclature.
All of this on top of the fact that your argument is terribly dubious to begin with, even if you bought into the premise that you could hold two pieces of contradictory fluff to be simultaneously true.
-
Let us say the people who want lances get their way, what would you want to give up? I have to say as a Dark Angel player I can see the fluff allowing some chapter variance within in the Imperium. I can also see heresy being declared against any chapter who are seen as a chaotic threat who threaten the main stream and have to be made examples of. Changes within the armies of the Space Marines allows versitility on the battle ground and can be seen from a generals perspective as a tactical necessity. For the Imperium to ignore the SM navy building up in its strength from a transportation navy to it having true antiship capacity would be seen as a viable threat and would be dealt with in a most infamous fashion as that chapter is burnt from the pages of the Imperiums histories so that others would never again make the same mistake. The Imperials will never again allow the SM from rebelling again even at the cost of the Empire.
-
The fact is you refuse to accept other forms of evidence. You only accept fluff, regardless of the implications of that fluff, though you sure do pad your own argument on a whole lot of inference. Logic is of greater importance.
Oh, and no, those monkey brained morons do not get to decide what is canon. To qualify as canon, fluff has to be from an authoritative source to begin with. This discounts the vast bulk of the fluff you present. Novels are not authoritative sources. On top of this however, the fluff has to be plausible and also internally consistent with pre-established fluff. An example of implausible fluff is the death of Eldrad Ulthran. So even if an authoritative source backed your stance then it would still be wrong.
I'll give you an example. If I wrote a fictional universe setting wherein I laid down a ground rule of two particular races being genetically incompatible and then, some point down the track forget this and had a half-breed character then that would be flat out wrong. That is to say, you can't hold them both to be true at once. "Ahah! This canonical fluff says that they can't interbreed, so there are no half-breeds" "Ahah! This canonical fluff says that there is a half-breed". Therefore fluff coming from an authoritative source does not, in itself make it canonical. It is a necessary requirement, but not a sufficient one.
So when I reject your continual presentation of bad fluff then I am rejecting a nonsensical argument. All you're doing is asserting (poorly) the "half-breeds exist" argument.
Actually, I might point out that back in first edition, halfbreeds were possible and did exist, and there are actually 2 examples of it. It's AFTER that they Eldar and humans became incompatible. Chronology is backwards there.
Further: your statement was: evidence will not be accepted - evidence must be provided. Ahem: prove to me your prime directive is not your prime directive. And in that you are correct, it's a paradox, not circular logic.
If novels are not authoritative sources, and codecies are not authoritative sources and rulebooks are not authoritative sources, then there are no authoritative sources on 40k, and therefor there are no authoritative sources that lances are prohibited.
That "large template" is about the size of land raider. Hardly building smashing. But either way, any other weaponry could be used to this effect. So why should other weaponry be used rather than lances? Because in the rules for Battlefleet Gothic a lance is an anti-ship weapon. Space Marines should not have anti-ship weapons. If we called lances, I don't know, space squirrels, and made 'lances' a form of weapon battery type weapon then Space Marines could have 'lances'. They could not have 'space squirrels' however. There is no fluff to suggest that Space Marines should have pure anti-ship weapons, so your entire argument is one of nomenclature.
All of this on top of the fact that your argument is terribly dubious to begin with, even if you bought into the premise that you could hold two pieces of contradictory fluff to be simultaneously true.
Sigoroth, punching a 20 foot hole through a building from top to bottom is pretty building smashing, even on a good sized building that might not immedaitly collapse from it.
As far as SM having lances: the fact that they should not is your opinion, backed by a single piece of fluff and you idea of what the Imperium MUST be. This does not necessarily align with other people's ideas of what the Imperium MUST be. I might point out that the Imperium according to you would quickly cease to exist because if the high lords were that paranoid about Space Marines, they'd have declared them all heretics and had them eliminated millennia ago.
Let us say the people who want lances get their way, what would you want to give up? I have to say as a Dark Angel player I can see the fluff allowing some chapter variance within in the Imperium. I can also see heresy being declared against any chapter who are seen as a chaotic threat who threaten the main stream and have to be made examples of. Changes within the armies of the Space Marines allows versitility on the battle ground and can be seen from a generals perspective as a tactical necessity. For the Imperium to ignore the SM navy building up in its strength from a transportation navy to it having true antiship capacity would be seen as a viable threat and would be dealt with in a most infamous fashion as that chapter is burnt from the pages of the Imperiums histories so that others would never again make the same mistake. The Imperials will never again allow the SM from rebelling again even at the cost of the Empire.
barras, I still have yet to see anyone show that strike cruisers trading a BC (which is a hideously powerful anti-ship weapon) for a lance (which is a less powerful but more accurate anti-ship weapon) is going to suddenly change the fact that IN outnumbers them.
According to canon, there are about 28,000 sectors in the Imperium. Each sector fleet is said to average around 40 ships.
This means that there are about 1,120,000 IN warships as opposed to 10,000 space marine ships, approx. This means they are out numbered 100 to 1. In fact, I might point out that this means there is approx one IN warship for every loyalist space marine in existence, if all 1000 chapters were at full strength.
For some reason people seem to be equating swapping the BC for lances with swapping the BC for a non-scattering novacannon with no minimum range mounted F/L/R
-
Actually, I might point out that back in first edition, halfbreeds were possible and did exist, and there are actually 2 examples of it. It's AFTER that they Eldar and humans became incompatible. Chronology is backwards there.
Is this meant to be some clever argument by analogy or are you just lost?
Further: your statement was: evidence will not be accepted - evidence must be provided. Ahem: prove to me your prime directive is not your prime directive. And in that you are correct, it's a paradox, not circular logic.
Again we run into the problem of what you consider evidence. I said that fluff would not be accepted. Not that evidence would not be. I then stipulated that the onus was on you to prove that SMs should get lances. If you consider this an impossible task, then that's fine. I do too.
No amount of fluff can do what you suggest. Without reconciliation with pre-established fluff then all such evidence is immediately tainted. So, the evidence you provide would have to be logical in nature as to why the SMs could and should get lances in BFG. On top of this there would have to authoritative souces for such fluff.
If novels are not authoritative sources, and codecies are not authoritative sources and rulebooks are not authoritative sources, then there are no authoritative sources on 40k, and therefor there are no authoritative sources that lances are prohibited.
Firstly, since SMs don't have any lances on their ships in the BFG rules you would require more than "not prohibited" as an argument for change. Secondly, novels are not authoritative sources. Neither is Forgeworld stuff nor White Dwarf. Codices and rulebooks are. However, as I said, to be canonical requires more than being just authoritative. That is required, but not sufficient. It also has to be plausible and consistent with pre-established fluff.
So for a start, throw out every piece of fluff that you've got from a novel. It's worthless. So that leaves codex descriptions of such and such fleet with such and such ship, blah blah, and rules on top.
Sigoroth, punching a 20 foot hole through a building from top to bottom is pretty building smashing, even on a good sized building that might not immedaitly collapse from it.
The large template is woefully small to represent an actual lance. It'd be at least 2 to 3 times that size. As Barras points out too, it'd shear through the ground and create a rather large hole. Also, apparently the powers that be realised their mistake and changed it from a lance strike to an orbital bombardment. But so what? This is all nitpicking.
Let us assume that the authors of these rules meant lances. Let's assume that the authors of the fluff pieces in codices and rulebooks also meant lances. Why did they give them lances? I put it to you that 'lances' are the easiest weapon to write into a piece of fiction or as a simple name for a rule. The alternatives are "weapon batteries". 'Weapon' is a generic term that covers a slew of options and sounds bad. 'Lance' is also a generic term that covers a slew of options but it is more evocative. So it's the natural choice for someone looking to incorporate a ship based weapon into 40K or Epic rules.
In itself it means nothing. It doesn't tell us if the authors really thought that Space Marines had to have anti-ship weapons. If we assume that they intended SMs to have lances then they'd have chosen lances. If we assume that they were clueless then they'd have chosen lances. It tells us nothing.
As far as SM having lances: the fact that they should not is your opinion, backed by a single piece of fluff and you idea of what the Imperium MUST be. This does not necessarily align with other people's ideas of what the Imperium MUST be. I might point out that the Imperium according to you would quickly cease to exist because if the high lords were that paranoid about Space Marines, they'd have declared them all heretics and had them eliminated millennia ago.
It's not an "opinion" it's a reasoned argument. The "fluff" that it is based upon is the entire premise of the 40K universe. This is supported by a piece of fluff that is superior to all the fluff you have provided. It is superior because it is from the actual game system in question and shows the rules framers intentions clearly in the field of SMs getting anti-ship weapons (you've only come at it obliquely from a non-BFG standpoint using tertiary evidence of orbital bombardment and a rather tenuous link between that weapon and BFG weaponry!). It is also superior because it is consistent with the rest of the 40k universe.
And yes, the Imperium would have annihilated the SMs millennia ago if they didn't need them. So they are left with having this great rabid dog defending them. Are they going to just let it off the leash to do whatever it wants? No. If they have to have it they're going to do the best they can to control it! What you are suggesting is tantamount to letting the dog off the leash and letting your kids play with it. After already having lost one baby to the dog in the first place!
barras, I still have yet to see anyone show that strike cruisers trading a BC (which is a hideously powerful anti-ship weapon) for a lance (which is a less powerful but more accurate anti-ship weapon) is going to suddenly change the fact that IN outnumbers them.
According to canon, there are about 28,000 sectors in the Imperium. Each sector fleet is said to average around 40 ships.
This means that there are about 1,120,000 IN warships as opposed to 10,000 space marine ships, approx. This means they are out numbered 100 to 1. In fact, I might point out that this means there is approx one IN warship for every loyalist space marine in existence, if all 1000 chapters were at full strength.
For some reason people seem to be equating swapping the BC for lances with swapping the BC for a non-scattering novacannon with no minimum range mounted F/L/R
Why do you compare the overall numbers of IN ships to SM ships? No one war involves the entire IN. Those IN ships have a whole lot more area to cover. You say a sector fleet numbers around 40 ships? Well a single chapter, which could very easily be located in a single sector, could match that ship for ship. Not to mention their influence over IG and IN commanders. A single sector fleet should be able to handle a renegade chapter, with minimal reinforcements called in from surrounding sectors.
Now, you mention the BC. Remember, we made a balance concession to make SM ships viable in games of BFG. They shouldn't be this good. A SM player should basically be playing IN with a few SM ships thrown in for specific scenarios. However, even when we are overpowering the SM we can do it in a fluffy way. We can accentuate their strengths. Survivability, boarding, blockade running, anti-defence weaponry. Against defences WBs + BC is superior to WBs + lances. Against ships WBs + lances is superior, due to BM interference.
Let's face it, the SMs only got the BC because they don't have lances. Why are you even trying to give them lances on top of this? Why do SMs need lances? Why should they get "a more accurate anti-ship weapon"? They shouldn't! This is exactly what we don't want them to have!
-
The BC is for all purposes was built as an anti plantet weapon system. Do you agree with this statement? The fact that it can be used in an anti shipping role is secondary to it's purpose. Placing lances on board a SM vessel is declaring in a loud and provocative manor that we, US, the mightiest warriors of the galaxy are preparing to improve our navy. As a paranoid politician I ask to ask why would you be trying to do this? It this a military build up toward later expansion? And if nothing else I would send out the inquisitors to investigate this breach of the Codex.
I will give you an example. The 88mm flack gun of the german army.
Primary role - AA gun.
It found a secondary role as an awesome anti tank gun under certain circumstances.
When the Germans began arming tanks with this gun it became a whole different monster of a gun all together.
There were alot of flaws in the German war machine but the Tiger I tank is arguably one of the best tanks of the war with its only true flaw being production costs which limited its numbers. The cannon it fired was and will never be one of its flaws. though it did contribute to them.
Now think of Germany in 1920s and early 30s. The allies have the military build up of 1945. Do you really think the allies would allow the Germans the Tiger I tank with all this excess of military hardware? Do you really think the Germans would violate the Treaty of Varsallies if this was the senario.
Now the SM are a defeated people. They are under a superpowers treaty conditions who believe them to be a reluctant ally at best and at worst a traitio waiting to be exposed. Seen as the enemy waiting to show their true colours can you really see the SM doing anything to bring down the wrath of this overseeing juggernaut?
-
This scenario is a fairly accurate one, with the exception that the SMs don't see themselves as traitors, defeated people, etc. This is why they chafe under the constrictions of the codex, because they see the restrictions as being unnecessary, insulting, etc. However, small infractions of the codex to let off some steam and assert their own personality is a far cry from loading up on anti-ship weapons. The SMs might resent being suspected of perfidy, but they have the track record for it and they know it. They'd be sensitive to their own appearances. They'd know what message they'd be sending if they did this. They'd also know the consequences.
-
... you guys don't know much about 40k at all, do you?
Sigoroth, basically, you're insisting that I'm only to refer to those parts of Armada that agree with you, and not allowed to point out the parts that don't, let alone other books that don't, such as Planetstrike, Apocalypse, Codex:WH, Codex: DH, Codex: BT and so on...
BTW: the aperture of a ground based defense laser (the ones in blue book) is only four feet. It's a str 3 60cm lance.
Achem: further, the first Inquisitors were Space Marines (and some space marines apparently occasionally become Inquisitors to this day). (Early Inq SM even came from the traitor legions, such as Captain Nathaniel Garro of the Death Guard). Following the Heresy, despite being broken up, the entirety of the Imperium's military still answered to a Space Marine primarch, Guilliman, when he became the first Lord Commander Militant.
I'd like to think that if Space Marines were the mind numbing threat to the Imperium that you paint them, the commanders immediately following the Heresy would never have tolerated this. However, they wholly embraced it.
Since then, other Space Marines have been invited to serve as a member of the High Lords of Terra in the past, filling the same position. Again, this does not bare out your suppositions of the role of Space Marines. If Space Marines where the grand threat you claim, they would be closely monitored, which fluff does not bare out.
The few times that there have been attempts to bring a space marine chapter to heel, have generally ended badly for all parties involved.
Further: I would like to imagine that the High Lords of Terra are wise enough to realize that regular humans, not space marines, are the greatest threat to the Imperium. After all, regular humans have done things like split the Imperium in half for 900 years during M35, created the Reign of Blood, frequently cast off Imperial rule, joining in with Chaos and the Tau, and generally run amok.
You have the admech, who only sort of worship the emperor, with their private armies, titan legions, private fleets and nearly no oversight. Oh, and half of them defected to Chaos and laid siege to Terra. Man, that sounds familiar somehow...
If the Space Marines were a defeated adversary, Ultramar would not exist as a semi-independent state, it would have been absorbed into Ultama Segmentum command. Further, the Relictors would have been exterminated the FIRST time they were caught consorting with the Ruinous Powers, rather then just censured.
You decry my use of fluff, and are not the first ones to tell me to stop using those dirty 'facts' to punch holes in neat theories, as many graduate students have found out, it's a nice theory, but history (in this case the fictional history of the Imperium) does not bare out your suppositions. The History of the Imperium clearly shows that no such actions have taken place. Since the end of the Heresy, only a handful of chapters have ever been purged, and then only for things such as taking up arms against the Imperium, gross mutation, and taking up arms against the Imperium. And occasionally not even that. The Space Wolves did, after all, slaughter the Ecclesiarchy when they tried to force their way onto Fenris. The Dark Angels have mysteriously annihilated entire worlds and never been asked to explain themselves.
These re not the actions of the dynamic you describe. Your model is inaccurate.
-
I am officially going to step foreword and say that the current rules for the VBB are insane. A strength 20 bombardment cannon broadside? are you guys nuts!?
Giving this ship such firepower will land it squarely in a position of "most powerful vessel" in the game.
-
Yeah, I'm surprised they went that high. I probably would've done 8 or 10 side bombards, but eh.
Lets see.....
if 1 bombard=1.5 wbs (average against armor, but probably higher with extra crits) at 30 cm then it should be about str 8. However with the sacrifice of range I could see it going to strength 10.
Didn't Nate say the PDF was completed a while ago?
-
your still getting stupid huge power hitting from them, exceeding that of even the Tombship, an ideal shot from this damned thing gives you 18 dice, that hit and crit on fours.
Freaking stupid.
-
Can we first decide the purpose of the SM fleet? Is it a ship to ship engagement fleet? Is it a blockade running fleet? Is it a transport fleet? Is it a pirate fleet? Can we get a concensus on what the fleet is designed to do before arming to the teeth and making it virtually invulnerable. What should be the movement speed and turn rate of a ship be, whos name sake is a barge? The word venerable should have a game meaning of hard to kill over fire power out the wazoo! It means commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity , character, or position. Note the word respect. It does not say scare the shit out of your enemy with the most firepower of any ship in the game! If you up scale the fire power of a venerable in such a way you might as well paint the model with a bulls eye on it. It is a target that the enemy must focus upon when efficiency to the target is met. How on earth is a BB ever going to make it to old age with that much fire power on board? I have the choice between firing at a venerable and a normal BB. Which would you shoot? Lowering the fire power and upping the shields would allow a venerable to make it to its veteran status. Consider what the loss of each SM vessel means to its chapter with regards to its transportable resources inside it. Consider that soft points in the design of the fleet such as engines, weapons, coms, sheild arrays, AC bays and turrets. Each add to the lowering of the armour in that area. It is the reason modern tanks do not have any sponson weaponary. Also consider that each time you up the armour you create difficulties in manouvering and engine difficulties.
To the people designing the new SM Navy please consider these points before redeveloping the SM list. I really dont care about what the final fleet is. I only care that if you are going to design a fleet to forfill a role it does its role effectively and does not overlap too much into other specialist fleets roles.
-
I did not call the SM enslaved. I called them defeated. Their way of life was destroyed by the Horus Heresy. They chose to accept the treaties offered too them and disolve into smaller chapters from the great legions. They chose to accept this manor of their reintergration within the Empire. They chose to allow penalties to be inflicted for breaching the Codex Astartes. They allowed Imperium to have supremacy over them. The legions are no longer the masters of their own destiny. Their way of life and the old laws by which they lived have been anulled. It is by this definition that I call them defeated.
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Space Marines were an ally to the Imperium, a protector. Now they are trapped by it and the knowledge of what heresy would mean for the Empire. SM are a part of the empire. To keep the whole strong, the SM have made themselves weak to the point of being subserviant to the Empire. They do not want civil war within the Empire. The Empire does not trust anyone. They see enemies everywhere. Look at what little it takes for a planet to be cleansed. All of those resources lost. The Empire is full of paranoia. There is only us and them. The Imperials will do anything to mantain control. Change from a group outside of the Empires direct control must be seen as a threat. Each Space Marines chapter is outside the Empires direct control, choosing to do the Empires bidding.
You need to read the Dark Angel fluff if you can't understand where I am coming from. A SM chapter can choose to cut the Empire out of its activities. However it opens itself up to fury of the paranoid Empire who will interfere with it at every opportune moment and wipe that chapter from its history and its records at the first hint of it being a threat to the Empire.
-
I did not call the SM enslaved. I called them defeated. Their way of life was destroyed by the Horus Heresy. They chose to accept the treaties offered too them and disolve into smaller chapters from the great legions. They chose to accept this manor of their reintergration within the Empire. They chose to allow penalties to be inflicted for breaching the Codex Astartes. They allowed Imperium to have supremacy over them. The legions are no longer the masters of their own destiny. Their way of life and the old laws by which they lived have been anulled. It is by this definition that I call them defeated.
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Space Marines were an ally to the Imperium, a protector. Now they are trapped by it and the knowledge of what heresy would mean for the Empire. SM are a part of the empire. To keep the whole strong, the SM have made themselves weak to the point of being subserviant to the Empire. They do not want civil war within the Empire. The Empire does not trust anyone. They see enemies everywhere. Look at what little it takes for a planet to be cleansed. All of those resources lost. The Empire is full of paranoia. There is only us and them. The Imperials will do anything to mantain control. Change from a group outside of the Empires direct control must be seen as a threat. Each Space Marines chapter is outside the Empires direct control, choosing to do the Empires bidding.
You need to read the Dark Angel fluff if you can't understand where I am coming from. A SM chapter can choose to cut the Empire out of its activities. However it opens itself up to fury of the paranoid Empire who will interfere with it at every opportune moment and wipe that chapter from its history and its records at the first hint of it being a threat to the Empire.
I have read the Dark Angels fluff and this was not the impression I got at all. Or from the Black Templar's fluff, who actually have marginally more to hide.
Barras: the Imperium offered no treaties. The decision to break up was done internally to the Space Marines, and was not universal (I point to the Space Wolves here, since, technically, their legion never broke up). Most of them were already so badly mauled in the fighting on Terra or Isstvan III that only one or two chapters broke off from the original legion. (Or, in the case of the Dark Angles, the internal war on Caliban)
And, again, you are using the lens of a single chapter, that has, among other things, annihilated entire planets to keep a secret, as well as attacked other space marine chapters. I would suggest that killing entire planets for no known reason is a good way to get Inquisitorial attention.
And, actually things have to get quite bad before a world is cleansed. Unless the Inquisitor is mad, or it's part of a scorched earth defense against the Tyrannids.
'Just as pronouncement of Exterminatus, it is our greatest failure when it comes to pass'. - Inq Felroth Gelt on the Ad Mech excommunicating a world, Creatures Anathema, pg 14
As far as what the Sm fleet is:
The real problem is the role of Strike Cruisers. An SC is the first ship on scene, in advance of all other Imperial forces. It has to be armed to meet whatever it might encounter. It's primary mission will be to neutralize system defenses, including defense monitors and other starships, where possible, then drop the marines on strategic points to pave the way for an IG landing and provide fire support for those landings where needed.
Anyone wish to argue that his is not common procedure?
It's more likely that one would see escorts accompanying battle barges to offset their lack of mobility, or on long range patrols in areas that are interdicted rather then accompanying SC on the off chance they encounter something. Almost all the fluff on the subject has SC traveling alone or in pairs. Only in situations were large numbers of SM are being deployed do you tend to see them in fleet actions.
As far as the VBB: Fire the Wave Motion gun. I figured they'd make us miss the old SO.
-
your still getting stupid huge power hitting from them, exceeding that of even the Tombship, an ideal shot from this damned thing gives you 18 dice, that hit and crit on fours.
Freaking stupid.
Yep... That's why it should probably be total FP 16, a less intimidating 14 dice on optimal shooting.
-
"The Ultramarines also added pure gunboats (albeit in limited number) to their fleet, something that they had always eschewed as incompatible with the Codex Astartes and their holy purpose." Battlefleet Gothic Magazine issue 15, Pg 23.
To me, this line, from a Battlefleet Gothic source, again suggests that the main reason is the Codex. But it also implies the codex is not inflexible in this area, as the Ultramarines are more likely to slit their own throats then deviate from it.
-
Well the SO can get 20, but its a character ship. 16 max does sound more reasonable.
-
Well the SO can get 20, but its a character ship. 16 max does sound more reasonable.
Between this and FW's new BFG ships they've announced, I expect any semblance of balance in SM lists is boned.
-
New BFG ships? Don't worry, the HA can have their way with those too :p
-
New BFG ships? Don't worry, the HA can have their way with those too :p
Not just new ships, new fleet lists too. Given how it's about the Badab war, what do you want to bet that they're SM lists?
-
New BFG ships? Don't worry, the HA can have their way with those too :p
Have they actually announced these? Officially?
Not just new ships, new fleet lists too. Given how it's about the Badab war, what do you want to bet that they're SM lists?
Ugh.... Hopefully they'll make something not-marine with their lot. Maybe some renegades or IN vessels.
-
Okay kiddies, It's time for us 'not 40k' players to give you all some reference about space marines.
First things first, After the horus heresy, the space marines were removed from their place of power (for damn good reason) and had two major checks and balances placed on them. Number one is the Imperial Guard (who can still crush entire chapters under sheer numbers) and Number Two is the Imperial Navy (which are better equipped, better led, and have vastly greater numbers).
In the current fluff, space marines are surgical strike teams. In everyone's favorite 40k, they do extremely well, because this is the scale they were MEANT to fight with greater focus. In Epic Armageddon, they function very differently, being able to focus huge power in small areas, but can be overwhelmed by other enemies. It takes a VERY skilled commander to win with Space Marines alone in Epic.
In BFG, The punishment for the horrors of the Heresy is their removal from the running of the empire and their restrictions to glorified troop transports as space craft. It is testimony to their great skill that they use them in space combat with such effectiveness. When it comes to pure ship destroying firepower, they must rely on their escorts (which are amazing to begin with).
This Leaves us with some facts established in the genuine fluff (codex's only, none of the black library fanwank)
1. The Imperial authority in space is the Imperial Navy. In every engagement, they should have an advantage against a space marine commander. Space marines must rely on their unorthodox strengths to win against such an opponent, because weapons alone WILL NOT SAVE YOU!
2. The Space Marines are the authority on planetary assault and exterminatus for the Imperial fleets. They are AMAZING at it, and should reflect this in their rules.
3. Lances are one of the major balancing factors which the Imperial Navy and AdMech keep a very close eye on. The Navy does NOT like the Nova frigate, since it threatens their principle advantage against the Space Marines and the threat of another Heresy. These should never be common.
4. Space marines are perfect for hit and run attacks and boarding actions. They should always be amazing in such circumstances.
5. Space marine fleets should NOT have access to imperial navy ships as a -normal- part of their fleet. Reserves, yes, normal part, no. This goes for Chaos ships as well, aside from the venerable battle barge listed in the Forces of Chaos list. I don't care what your black library says. It's not common, and the Imperial Navy would NOT stand to allow any chapter to hold on to battleships, even if it was 'a gift from the emperor' (I am looking at YOU space wolves!). AFTER the Heresy, they would be more likely to blow it to atoms then let a less-then-trustworthy chapter hold such incredible power. Also, they would not field such a rare treasure in such small scale engagements that we are throwing down.
6. Space Marines get their skill from discipline and constant training. This does not equate to a high attack rating however. They should have superb leadership, but a poor attack rating.
7. Space Marines -do not follow orders- from Inquisitors. They can go along with their plans, but no marine has to follow the orders of an inquisitor. Grey Knights work with the Inquisition because it suits their purposes.
8. On this scale, chapter differences mean squat in boarding actions and leadership values. On average, 2000 points of Space Wolves will cause JUST AS MUCH CARNAGE as 2000 points of Ultramarines, Blood Angels, Blood Ravens, Space Sharks, Astral Knights or Rainbow Warriors. We are fighting on a scale that can BARELY be converted to 40k scale. This is why there are no fancy rules per chapter.
9. No single ship in the Space Marines list should be more powerful overall then an imperial counterpart. Barges cannot be stronger then Battleships, Strike Cruisers cannot be more powerful then cruisers. Venerable vessels and escorts are the ONLY exception to this rule (as escorts are allowed to carry combat level firepower and venerable vessels hail from an ancient time where they were permitted long range firepower)
10. Bombardment cannons are ship combat weapons by accident, far less then purpose. They were meant to bombard fortified enemy positions on a broad and messy scale. It is a sign of the incredible power of marine gunners that they can be used against enemy ships. They should not be so potent as they are against ordnance though :P
11. Thunderhawks are good, but not super-good. They are just-fine-where-they-are.
-
New BFG ships? Don't worry, the HA can have their way with those too :p
Have they actually announced these? Officially?
Not just new ships, new fleet lists too. Given how it's about the Badab war, what do you want to bet that they're SM lists?
Ugh.... Hopefully they'll make something not-marine with their lot. Maybe some renegades or IN vessels.
SM fleet with marks of chaos?
-
GNYAAAAAAARGH!
-
I have read the Dark Angels fluff and this was not the impression I got at all. Or from the Black Templar's fluff, who actually have marginally more to hide.
Barras: the Imperium offered no treaties. The decision to break up was done internally to the Space Marines, and was not universal (I point to the Space Wolves here, since, technically, their legion never broke up). Most of them were already so badly mauled in the fighting on Terra or Isstvan III that only one or two chapters broke off from the original legion. (Or, in the case of the Dark Angles, the internal war on Caliban)
And, again, you are using the lens of a single chapter, that has, among other things, annihilated entire planets to keep a secret, as well as attacked other space marine chapters. I would suggest that killing entire planets for no known reason is a good way to get Inquisitorial attention.
And, actually things have to get quite bad before a world is cleansed. Unless the Inquisitor is mad, or it's part of a scorched earth defense against the Tyrannids.
'Just as pronouncement of Exterminatus, it is our greatest failure when it comes to pass'. - Inq Felroth Gelt on the Ad Mech excommunicating a world, Creatures Anathema, pg 14
As far as what the Sm fleet is:
The real problem is the role of Strike Cruisers. An SC is the first ship on scene, in advance of all other Imperial forces. It has to be armed to meet whatever it might encounter. It's primary mission will be to neutralize system defenses, including defense monitors and other starships, where possible, then drop the marines on strategic points to pave the way for an IG landing and provide fire support for those landings where needed.
Anyone wish to argue that his is not common procedure?
It's more likely that one would see escorts accompanying battle barges to offset their lack of mobility, or on long range patrols in areas that are interdicted rather then accompanying SC on the off chance they encounter something. Almost all the fluff on the subject has SC traveling alone or in pairs. Only in situations were large numbers of SM are being deployed do you tend to see them in fleet actions.
As far as the VBB: Fire the Wave Motion gun. I figured they'd make us miss the old SO.
Lets see. I said the SM offered terms. The Empire accepted. The codexes of the various chapters are the binding treaties by which the SM live. The Empire has the right to investigate and enforce breaches of the codexes. The SM do not have to cooperate with these investigations as the are not under direct control of the Empire which creates suspicion. One man being able to kill billions by his word alone is what I would call too easy and a result of narcissism and paranoia displayed within the Empire! Honestly to understand the pyschological situation of the Empire in 40k do some research on the spanish inquisitions.
SCs are already overgunned for your argued role.
The system defense systems that you are talking about do not include the black stone fortress. They are small one hit defenses. A single thunder hawk will take them down. It is not a ship to ship engagement platform. It is a transport. It has fast speed and good armour. It can take on escorts but almost any other ship on equal terms must envoke a fallback response unless mission requirements dictate they can not do so. Then the SC must rely on its defenses rather than its fire power to complete its mission unlike other fleets.
@Zelnik Here here mate!
-
It is SO easy to point at the space marines and say "I want more", Mostly because SO many people play them and SO many people love them. It's hard to tell obsessed children that their heroes are not what their propaganda plays out to be, especially when the creators of said heroes stated that everything they write is hit with a healthy dose of propaganda.
For example, Space marines killing a craftworld? Uh, probably not. It was more likely a Haven Spire they invaded.
-
Have they actually announced these? Officially?
Yes, but not what type of ships
Ugh.... Hopefully they'll make something not-marine with their lot. Maybe some renegades or IN vessels.
Possible lists, based on the War in question: Combined fleet for Tyrant of Badab, Inq Intervention force, character ships for involved chapters.
SM fleet with marks of chaos?
Sadly, entirely possible, given the war in question.
Lets see. I said the SM offered terms. The Empire accepted. The codexes of the various chapters are the binding treaties by which the SM live. The Empire has the right to investigate and enforce breaches of the codexes. The SM do not have to cooperate with these investigations as the are not under direct control of the Empire which creates suspicion. One man being able to kill billions by his word alone is what I would call too easy and a result of narcissism and paranoia displayed within the Empire! Honestly to understand the pyschological situation of the Empire in 40k do some research on the spanish inquisitions.
SCs are already overgunned for your argued role.
The system defense systems that you are talking about do not include the black stone fortress. They are small one hit defenses. A single thunder hawk will take them down. It is not a ship to ship engagement platform. It is a transport. It has fast speed and good armour. It can take on escorts but almost any other ship on equal terms must envoke a fallback response unless mission requirements dictate they can not do so. Then the SC must rely on its defenses rather than its fire power to complete its mission unlike other fleets.
@Zelnik Here here mate!
Barras, there is only one Codex Astartes, and quite a few chapters don't follow it.
And... I hate to say it, but not a single system defense would die to one thawk. Please check your blue book.
And, sadly, I'm quite familiar with the operations of the 'real world' Inquisition and most of the other crimes of humanity.
And, again, please note that a SDF monitor, an escort, outguns the SC, and is the most likely escort for it to encounter several of. A standard space station is more then one SC can handle on it's own.
It is SO easy to point at the space marines and say "I want more", Mostly because SO many people play them and SO many people love them. It's hard to tell obsessed children that their heroes are not what their propaganda plays out to be, especially when the creators of said heroes stated that everything they write is hit with a healthy dose of propaganda.
For example, Space marines killing a craftworld? Uh, probably not. It was more likely a Haven Spire they invaded.
Actually, it is conceivable to do so with a surgical strike against the craftworlds infinity circuit. According to Planetstrike, if the infinity circuit of a maiden world (the proper term escapes me) is destroyed, within hours every eldar on the planet lays down and dies. If one could do such a thing to a craftworld, it's conceivable that it would meet the same fate.
AS far as your other points:
1) The primary advantage of the IN is how grotesquely they outnumber the SM. Remember that a 2k point game represents the bulk of an entire chapter's forces, but a small fraction of what the local IN can bring to bare. Further, the majority of the time, a chapter of space marines might only be abel to field a handful of ships due to being scatered across several warzones. Even if the SM ships were better then thier IN equivalents, the advantage, at least in the 'real world' of 40k as opposed to the abstraction of BFG, would lay with IN due to sheer overwhelming numbers.
2) True
3) True and false. The major balance is the number of SM ships. Lances would take a back seat to that by a wide margin. No source I can find suggests that the Admech monitor the SM at all other then monitoring their geneseed.
4)True
5)Problematic, as to defy the command of the Emperor is heresy, but occasionally he passed out presents way above what In feels safe with now. And, frankly, how is SO a VBB? It was modified to it's current configuration during the first Tyrannic war. That's only 200 years BCE in 40k. There are frigates more 'venerable' then that.
And, again, you forget that we're looking at the bulk of an entire chapter's forces.
6) Hard to say. Part of attack rating is the ability to formulate strategy, which, unfortunately, their hundreds of years of experience give them an edge in.
7) True, though some may have sworn oaths to do so.
8) I disagree somewhat here, as there are specialist chapters who are experts in exactly the sort of ship to ship boardings that we're talking bout, and that level of expertise should have some impact.
9)More powerful, probably not, as powerful, sure.
10)That's like saying 'Well, we use this nuclear device for clearing rockslides, but it does a dandy number on cities, too!'
11)Agreed, however, I also sort of agree with the new rule for them only autokilling an escort on a +4
-
Baron, i am glad you more agree then disagree. Now, you need to remove YOUR bias from this just as I have, only from the opposite direction.
Lances are the most efficient anti-capitol ship weapon at the disposal of the Imperial navy. The fact that it is restricted from the Space Marines is a well documented measure to prevent space marines from sweeping the Imperium aside. Allow me to show you the description for the Nova Frigate
"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."
This is about as telling as possible.
The strike at the infinity circuit etc is SUCH trash, considering maiden worlds by their very definition don't have infinity circuit's... Mostly because they are ruled by Exodites... who do not have the same problems their dark and craftworld cousins do... infinity circuits are unique to craftworlds, and is established in just about every bit of fluff out there... Also, considering the level of defense craftworlds have, the idea that they destroyed one is purest fanwank and almost certainly propaganda.
You are constantly associating this game with 40k. time to stop that. the codex astartes? guess what, it means nothing at this scale. It's simply too big, too broad. specializations mean NOTHING at this scale, because in the end, they are still space marines. just because they are better at going through corridors then some others will be mitigated by the others specialization in other areas.
In the end, all of the training and specializations are reduced to a simple 2+ bonus. What your not getting is that is REALLY awesome, and you should be happy for it.
It's not just numbers, Space marine ships are NOT designed for fleet engagements, and they never will be. The Mars class hull, along with the old imperial design have a different mission objective then the space marine vessels. The naval vessels are designed (effectively) to engage and destroy the enemy, albeit in two different ways (torpedo phalanx and squadron combat vs strong independent and fast vessels).
Space marine vessels are made to do the following mission: Transport space marines to a target safely, effectively, and provide heavy air support when units are in the field. Boarding actions and teleport attacks are NOT part of their normal combat actions, but damn if they are good at it! They CAN engage in fleet actions, but they are grossly out matched by other combat vessels (and rightly so)
when it comes to attack rating: Space marines are not trained for space combat. Nuff said.
Ship to ship boarding chapters are not only rare, but they have a very short lifespan.. think the Astral Knights here.
And yes... it is dandy against rock slides and cities.. and so they use it for both. :P
The Emperor also lived in a time where there was no chaos taint. In the end, the Emperor was wrong, he died, and chaos erupted all over the empire. The High lords and especially the Admiralty know better then to give space marines emperor battleships. Lets not forget, blowing it up to keep it out of the hands of the untrustworthy is part of the imperial doctrine.
And all the high lords have to say is "it's the emperors will". and viola, no more emperor.
-
Lances are the most efficient anti-capitol ship weapon at the disposal of the Imperial navy. The fact that it is restricted from the Space Marines is a well documented measure to prevent space marines from sweeping the Imperium aside. Allow me to show you the description for the Nova Frigate
"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."
This is about as telling as possible.
Now, here is where we don't see eye to eye. I see the emphasis on the idea of pure gunboats, with no ability to land marines. You see it as being on the weapon system that they carry.
The strike at the infinity circuit etc is SUCH trash, considering maiden worlds by their very definition don't have infinity circuit's... Mostly because they are ruled by Exodites... who do not have the same problems their dark and craftworld cousins do... infinity circuits are unique to craftworlds, and is established in just about every bit of fluff out there... Also, considering the level of defense craftworlds have, the idea that they destroyed one is purest fanwank and almost certainly propaganda.
The Exodite worlds have what's called a world spirit, which is for all intents and purposes, a planetary infinity circuit. And this is established in Codex: Eldar (2nd and 4th editions)
And, given their artificial nature, it doesn't matter how big it is as long as you hit it in the right places. Even the largest structure can be demolished with explosives planted in key places.
You are constantly associating this game with 40k. time to stop that. the codex astartes? guess what, it means nothing at this scale. It's simply too big, too broad. specializations mean NOTHING at this scale, because in the end, they are still space marines. just because they are better at going through corridors then some others will be mitigated by the others specialization in other areas.
In the end, all of the training and specializations are reduced to a simple 2+ bonus. What your not getting is that is REALLY awesome, and you should be happy for it.
So the Black Templars having more then 10 strike cruisers would have no bearing at all on their fleet? The Phalanx would be a simple Fortress monastery (That's no moon, it's a space marine fortress monastery....)? Pardon me if I seem incredulous, but the idea that experienced superhuman warriors with equipped with specialized gear can't be more effective then less experienced supermen without specialized gear at effectively conducting a task seems a bit implausible to me. The idea that a chapter that is not bound by the codex, and it is made clear in BFG that what ships a chapter fleet contains is a codex issue, would fight and have exactly the same ships as one that does follow the codex seems a bit off, particularly in the case of chapters known to have at least some large scale manufacturing capability.
I have a hard time with the idea that Space Marines, being the consummate warriors that they are, would not use the best weapon for the task, and if they could not procure one, attempt to fabricate it themselves.
It's not just numbers, Space marine ships are NOT designed for fleet engagements, and they never will be. The Mars class hull, along with the old imperial design have a different mission objective then the space marine vessels. The naval vessels are designed (effectively) to engage and destroy the enemy, albeit in two different ways (torpedo phalanx and squadron combat vs strong independent and fast vessels).
Space marine vessels are made to do the following mission: Transport space marines to a target safely, effectively, and provide heavy air support when units are in the field. Boarding actions and teleport attacks are NOT part of their normal combat actions, but damn if they are good at it! They CAN engage in fleet actions, but they are grossly out matched by other combat vessels (and rightly so)
And yet, supposedly, simply by changing a BC to a lance, they instantly become combat monsters that destroy every ship they look at, to judge people's response here. All it takes is that lance and they transform into Optimus Norris.
when it comes to attack rating: Space marines are not trained for space combat. Nuff said.
Ship to ship boarding chapters are not only rare, but they have a very short lifespan.. think the Astral Knights here.
The Minotaurs have been around since the Cursed Founding. So, that's a 4-5k year run.
And yes... it is dandy against rock slides and cities.. and so they use it for both. :P
The Emperor also lived in a time where there was no chaos taint. In the end, the Emperor was wrong, he died, and chaos erupted all over the empire. The High lords and especially the Admiralty know better then to give space marines emperor battleships. Lets not forget, blowing it up to keep it out of the hands of the untrustworthy is part of the imperial doctrine.
And all the high lords have to say is "it's the emperors will". and viola, no more emperor.
One problem with that, the landraider. Originally, all branches of the Imperial service had access to the Landraider, before the Heresy. During the Heresy, due to most of the forgeworlds producing them falling to chaos or opting to sit on the fence, they were restricted to space marines as a means to combat the supply shortages. After the Heresy, and never in all the time since then, have the high lords been willing to alter the Imperial decision to restrict them so, even though it's clear to all parties that it was meant as a temporary measure.
If they're not willing to alter a relatively minor decision like that, one that, if he were to suddenly stand up off the throne and ask for an accounting, he would likely have no problem with, how much more so would they be reluctant to change a decision where he personally gave his word? Further, at least one party in the High Lords, the AdMech rep, has a vested interest in the High Lords never turning over one of the Empror's decisions, as that is all that keeps the preisthood of Mars effectively independent from the greater Imperium. After all, if they started repealing the Emperor's decrees in this, what would keep them from overturning the Treaty of Mars?
-
The way you see it is not how the story demands it. Tough.
And if you don't see the emphasis in marine landing, your not reading the space marine planetary assault and exterminatus rules for them. They get significant bonuses to LANDING space marines.
Yes, the most cherished and protected object on a world full of super psychic, super high tech aliens would clearly be so ill defended that a group of marines could destroy it. Like I said, it is Fanwank. The answer is: No it didn't happen, but the space marines WISHED it happened, and probably claim it happens to keep them in high standing.
The black templars modify their ships to allow for greater troop capacity. Interesting how they are NOT known for their space combat prowess.
It is also Tech Heresy to fabricate weapons, especially new ones. Fortress Monistaries? they are called "space stations". Again, no need for new Ramilies star fort rules.
Also, most Space marine chapters suffer significant 'turn around'. Marines Die, they die A LOT. Mostly because they fight a LOT. Just because a Chapter is around for a long time does not mean it's marines are. Only the truly lucky or skilled survive for long periods.
The Minotaurs are -one- chapter. Having talent at fleet actions is nice, it's why space marines get LD 8-9-10.
all of your arguments just got invalidated because you used a 40k reference in BFG. the landraider means NOTHING in this scale. an entire division of land raiders does not compare to even a lowly cobra destroyer.
What keeps them from overturning the treaty of mars... hmm.. maybe because the ad mech are the ONLY ones who know how to make the technology work. It would suck if every single machine in the imperium suddenly stopped working.
You want space marines to be the major power in all sectors of all of the games. Even GW realized this was not the case, and there are places where space marines are weak. In huge scale battles space marines suffer from lack of numbers and poor staying power. In fleet engagements, having that 3+ save means nothing when the ship your on just exploded. The Imperium is powerful, and mighty... what you need to realize is that Space marines are NOT. They are NOT a faction, they are NOT important in the grand scheme of things. They are a tool used by a much bigger and more powerful faction... which we all know as the Imperium of Man.
Why are they not important? It's time to think. Space Marines are not responsible for keeping trade lanes safe, nor are they responsible for the majority of planetary defense. They are too few to hold any sort of territory securely. They are utterly incapable of complete planetary domination for the same reason, and require the Imperial Guard for just that job. Their entire existence is due to the fact that they are useful, and the moment they become NOT useful is the moment they are exterminated.
Space Marines are used as a surgical scalpel, destroying a single vital target so the greater attack force can function more effectively. They are a -tool-, they hold -zero- power on the whole. Want examples of how poorly space marines fare against real threats when people like Matt Ward and Goto are writing? Try reading Imperial Armor 3, where two space marine chapters were defeated by the Tau, or the Tyranid Codex where Calgar was killed by the Swarm Lord.
They are NOT mighty heroes of space battles, they are NOT groomed and talented fleet admirals. Their job is on the ground. Not in space. They do NOT get the best and the most advanced. Even the Grey Knights, who get the most advanced ships next to the Admech are restricted to vessels with identical operational parameters to the most backwater and shady chapter.
If you want to view a space marine battle in a realistic sense... think of it in these terms: Something went WRONG. For some reason the escorting fleet of Imperial navy vessels were destroyed... or the hidden movements of the fleet were leaked by traitorous hands. The Space marines now must fight for their lives and mission against an enemy that should not be there.
-
Baron you are quite right in what you said about the codex astartes. My thoughts were of the adaption of this within the various chapters and the many differences within the armies. I wrote this very badly. Forgive my error when I simplified this down to the "various codexes" in my head and didn't think to quantify this at the time of writing or posting.
Page 141 of the blue book. High orbit defenses. One wave of thunder hawks will destroy these single hit platforms 75% if the time. A single TH will destroy these defenses 25% of the time. So once again I apologise for over simplifying and not clarifying my statement.
Can I ask you the three best reasons why you want the ability to take lances? Is it game balance? Is it because of the fluff? Is it you just don't like vanilla marines and feel you should be able to make the fleet adaptable? If you let them how will you balance them against other fleets?
I have always said I am not against SM getting lances I'm against SM primarly being a fleet engagement navy and keeping balance which at the moment is against SM and needs changes.
-
Just for the record, Zelnik, Marines are highly capable in most situations, including space. They can do more with what they are given than your typical IN officer. Its why they have +1 leadership.
-
Yes, the most cherished and protected object on a world full of super psychic, super high tech aliens would clearly be so ill defended that a group of marines could destroy it. Like I said, it is Fanwank. The answer is: No it didn't happen, but the space marines WISHED it happened, and probably claim it happens to keep them in high standing.
Why not? Tyrannids just about did it, dark eldar HAVE done it, so it's not inconceivable that space marines might pull it off. High degree of difficulty: oh, yes. Impossible: no. Remember that space marines also are responsible for clearing space hulks, which can be just as big, and much more heavily populated with aggressive xenoforms.
The black templars modify their ships to allow for greater troop capacity. Interesting how they are NOT known for their space combat prowess.
Except for in the Third War for Armageddon: and, I don't think so, as they'd have a larger bonus to landings and boarding actions if they did that. (given the difference in numbers, it would be something like +8 or so.)
It is also Tech Heresy to fabricate weapons, especially new ones. Fortress Monistaries? they are called "space stations". Again, no need for new Ramilies star fort rules.
No, sorry, Phalanx is a ship. It's just a really huge one. (supposedly it's armament is equivalent to a small fleet) Descriptions of The Rock, for example, indicate that it's much larger then a Ramilies.
Again, I point to the Landraider, in this case, Redeemer and Crusader, that were fabricated by the Space Marines long before they were approved by the Admech.
Also, most Space marine chapters suffer significant 'turn around'. Marines Die, they die A LOT. Mostly because they fight a LOT. Just because a Chapter is around for a long time does not mean it's marines are. Only the truly lucky or skilled survive for long periods.
The Minotaurs are -one- chapter. Having talent at fleet actions is nice, it's why space marines get LD 8-9-10.
Logically, where there is 'one' chapter there are probably 'more' chapters. Only 200 odd of the 1000 chapters are even named.
all of your arguments just got invalidated because you used a 40k reference in BFG. the landraider means NOTHING in this scale. an entire division of land raiders does not compare to even a lowly cobra destroyer.
What keeps them from overturning the treaty of mars... hmm.. maybe because the ad mech are the ONLY ones who know how to make the technology work. It would suck if every single machine in the imperium suddenly stopped working.
It does not invalidate my argument, as it shows the decision making process of the Imperium. They did not decide to do or not do something based on if it was the tactically sensible thing to do, but rather because the Emperor said so, and to suggest to do otherwise is 'heresy'.
Further, it is from a codex. You know, the things that people stated that the information had to come from?
As far as the treaty of Mars goes: you assume two things: that the every techpriest is loyal to Mars over the Imperium, and that the Inquisition could never make the admech talk.
The first is untrue, as the Inquisition has found out in the past, and the second... anyone will talk, you just need the right pressure.
You want space marines to be the major power in all sectors of all of the games. Even GW realized this was not the case, and there are places where space marines are weak. In huge scale battles space marines suffer from lack of numbers and poor staying power. In fleet engagements, having that 3+ save means nothing when the ship your on just exploded. The Imperium is powerful, and mighty... what you need to realize is that Space marines are NOT. They are NOT a faction, they are NOT important in the grand scheme of things. They are a tool used by a much bigger and more powerful faction... which we all know as the Imperium of Man.
Why are they not important? It's time to think. Space Marines are not responsible for keeping trade lanes safe, nor are they responsible for the majority of planetary defense. They are too few to hold any sort of territory securely. They are utterly incapable of complete planetary domination for the same reason, and require the Imperial Guard for just that job. Their entire existence is due to the fact that they are useful, and the moment they become NOT useful is the moment they are exterminated.
If space marines are not doing those things, how is Ultramar possible? Since it's made clear they do those things there, and even serve as the heads of government. Come to think of it, how was Blackheart able to take over an entire sector without that capability? There are entire chapters in fluff with the responsibility to interdict certain regions of space. How would they do that without patrolling?
Space Marines are used as a surgical scalpel, destroying a single vital target so the greater attack force can function more effectively. They are a -tool-, they hold -zero- power on the whole. Want examples of how poorly space marines fare against real threats when people like Matt Ward and Goto are writing? Try reading Imperial Armor 3, where two space marine chapters were defeated by the Tau, or the Tyranid Codex where Calgar was killed by the Swarm Lord.
They are NOT mighty heroes of space battles, they are NOT groomed and talented fleet admirals. Their job is on the ground. Not in space. They do NOT get the best and the most advanced. Even the Grey Knights, who get the most advanced ships next to the Admech are restricted to vessels with identical operational parameters to the most backwater and shady chapter.
If you want to view a space marine battle in a realistic sense... think of it in these terms: Something went WRONG. For some reason the escorting fleet of Imperial navy vessels were destroyed... or the hidden movements of the fleet were leaked by traitorous hands. The Space marines now must fight for their lives and mission against an enemy that should not be there.
.... did you just suggest that CS Goto, mr Multilazors himself, should be the example we should all follow???? o_0
Baron you are quite right in what you said about the codex astartes. My thoughts were of the adaption of this within the various chapters and the many differences within the armies. I wrote this very badly. Forgive my error when I simplified this down to the "various codexes" in my head and didn't think to quantify this at the time of writing or posting.
Page 141 of the blue book. High orbit defenses. One wave of thunder hawks will destroy these single hit platforms 75% if the time. A single TH will destroy these defenses 25% of the time. So once again I apologise for over simplifying and not clarifying my statement.
Can I ask you the three best reasons why you want the ability to take lances? Is it game balance? Is it because of the fluff? Is it you just don't like vanilla marines and feel you should be able to make the fleet adaptable? If you let them how will you balance them against other fleets?
I have always said I am not against SM getting lances I'm against SM primarly being a fleet engagement navy and keeping balance which at the moment is against SM and needs changes.
... you do realize that unless you roll a crit that deals damage, that 1 hit planetary defenses don't blow up like escorts, right?
1) I want SM to have more, VIABLE, choices. Without options, you end up fighting with or against, the same fleets over and over. There's little possible creativity for fleet design and still be viable. VIABLE lances make for a more interesting game against a space marine player. (more ships would be better, but I'll take what I can get)
2)I feel that people are misinterpreting (when not outright claiming it doesn't exist) the fluff. Putting a single lance on a SC does not magically transform it from a landing support ship to a gunboat anymore then putting a 12 inch Armstrong Whitworth on a submarine made it a battleship.
3)The existing lance option is not balanced with the other options for the same ship. It was deliberately made imbalanced to keep players from using them and enjoying the game, and not by the game designers. It's like when you were a kid, and you got a shiny new present, only to open it to find that your siblings had stepped on it and broke it before you got it.
As far as balance goes: a str 2 lance is balanced with the str 3 BC it's replacing.
-
A full marine chapter does sound like it could take on a small craftworld, since most are considerably smaller and less well defended than the big 5.
Especially if the attendant fleet was unable to stop many ships getting in close.
-
Space marines do not have that power. They never have, and they never will. Dark eldar have never attacked and destroyed a craftworld, what lore are you reading? The Tyranids FAILED to destroy the craftworld, and overwhelmed the maiden worlds because they do not have space defenses... also you should know that very FEW maiden worlds were lost, before the tyranid invasion was stopped. This is compared to the hundreds of worlds lost by the imperium.
Ultramar exists for two important reasons.
1. Imperial control does not exist in that sector ASIDE from the ultramarines. They are forced to do the job because the Navy does not have the resources to do so. Also, the Realm of Ultramar is doomed to fall, since the astronomicon no longer reaches their territory.
2. Because Ultramarines are Matt Wards lovechild.
These special ships you refer to exist in black library writings, which are viewed through significant propaganda lenses(which GW confessed is present in EVERY writing. Nothing is the exact truth). When they say "power of a battlefleet" i do NOT take it seriously. ever. Period.
I used Goto because he is one of the best known, not because i like his writings.
More Viable choices? Play Segmentum Solar, you can take IN ships seamlessly with them. NO ONE HAS EVER GIVEN ME A GOOD REASON WHY THE HAVE NOT JUST USED THIS FLEET! If you want to use more effective space ships, just use the list that is already available to you and STOP begging for new stuff!
They are not getting lances because the Inquisition and the Navy say "no". The space marines do not have the authority to use them aside from the Nova's.
This has EVERYTHING to do with balance. Your bombardment cannons are already better then lances, and yet you want them. Your not getting them because you have a better weapon as it stands. If you so desperately want lances, take the Nova Destroyer, which is the best lanceboat the imperium can field.
-
I can't help but give a good natured smile when bits of fluff are cherry picked as being 'invalid due to the author liking what he wrote'
From purely fluff interest, why does the Astronomicon no longer reach there?
-
From the 5th edition rulebook, it states that it can barely be seen in the realm of ultramar.
-
From the 5th edition rulebook, it states that it can barely be seen in the realm of ultramar.
Which is weird because the rulebook also shows marine chapters crusading far out past the eastern fringe.... ugh.
(http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/e/1/1/600_17291793.jpeg)
-
Lets be fair though, The fleets going east are the Black Templars (who tend to not care exactly where they turn up so long as there is a fight to have... seriously, they are more orky then human :P). So.. if they find they can't come back... well then clearly they need to keep going around finding a new fight.
No one knows much about the Omega Marines.. aside from liking dreadnaughts.
-
From the 5th edition rulebook, it states that it can barely be seen in the realm of ultramar.
Which is weird because the rulebook also shows marine chapters crusading far out past the eastern fringe.... ugh.
(http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/e/1/1/600_17291793.jpeg)
I think he assumed that Ultima Macharia is in Ultramar. In fact it's on the opposite side of the Galaxy, marking the furthest extent of Macharius's conquests in Pacificus. While astropathic contact with Macragge has become intermittent, this is quite possibly due to the lingering effects of the Shadow in the Warp.
And, despite the doomsaying, humans got through the warp just fine before the astronomicon was built. Point of fact, there are archeotech cogitators, called void abaci, that are specifically designed to make calculated jumps further then 5 LY without a navigator. While not actually proscribed, they're rare, and the navigator houses make a point to eliminate them where possible. Rogue traders that travel beyond the emperor's light on a regular basis anyway occasionally make use of them.
-
yes, they did BEFORE... but currently the problem is NOW. NOW those devices are rare, NOW the houses of the navigators are in control, and NOW the space marines DO NOT HAVE THEM nor do they understand them enough to make more.
And I continue my point: No one has explained why they have not just used segmentum solar to solve their fleet woes for space marines. Even when i bring it up, it is ignored.
-
What, the segmentum? What about it?
-
...
Segmentum Solar is a fleet where you can take both space marine and Imperial navy vessels.
No space marine player has explained to me why they don't use this fleet to solve their balance woes.
-
yes, they did BEFORE... but currently the problem is NOW. NOW those devices are rare, NOW the houses of the navigators are in control, and NOW the space marines DO NOT HAVE THEM nor do they understand them enough to make more.
And I continue my point: No one has explained why they have not just used segmentum solar to solve their fleet woes for space marines. Even when i bring it up, it is ignored.
He's referring to the Armageddon list where you can take both Marines and IN ships. Other then it not being fluffy outside the segmentum solar, you're basically demanding that we do away with SM lists all together, rather then make them balanced with IN. SM have on more then one occasion fought their own battles in space without the aid of IN, I might point to the defense of Ultramar against the Warsmith Honsu of the Iron Warriors as an example, who, by the way, had a mix of Chaos and Imperial ships, as well as renegade strike cruisers.
And, for fun, I'll point out that a void abacus is less rare and poorly understood then teleporters. Which, it seems, Space Marines have in spades.
-
quite the contrary. I have no problem having a space marine fleet, I have a problem when people complain about issues that do not exist. If you want variety, take the segmentum solar list, and say it's from somewhere else if you must.
If you want a challenge, do raw space marines.
You have plenty of variety, your just not willing to accept it because it doesn't have huge shoulder pads and power armor.
-
Oh, come on. Just because you think something should be in the game, doesn't mean you are having a fanboy nerdrage because it doesn't exist.
It doesn't even add anything to the marine list if there was the swapout, so how can you make those accusations and assumptions?
-
quite the contrary. I have no problem having a space marine fleet, I have a problem when people complain about issues that do not exist. If you want variety, take the segmentum solar list, and say it's from somewhere else if you must.
If you want a challenge, do raw space marines.
You have plenty of variety, your just not willing to accept it because it doesn't have huge shoulder pads and power armor.
Yes, because it wouldn't be rude at all of me to tell my opponents 'Your four ship fleetlist and predictable tactics bore me. Play IN.' I rate statements like that right up there with 'If you want to play in this tournament, you have to remove all your resin bits from your IG minis because they're not GW IP." as though the resin bedrolls on their backpacks were somehow un-40k.
We will not speak of what happened when one member of our gaming club brought in custom greenstuff FSMs to gamesday a few years back.
-
Then deal with the fact that your going to be upset a LOT.
This is NOT 40k, where space marines get six of every toy in the game. This is BFG, where space marines are NOT important. They are a small part of a much bigger faction, their ships work almost entirely the same as said faction as well.
If your so desperate for variety, use Segmentum Solar, which is established and known to be balanced, OR you can use the new Inquisition fleet list.
I find it disgusting that you think space marines need more variety when Dark eldar have a grand sum of two ships.
-
Then deal with the fact that your going to be upset a LOT.
This is NOT 40k, where space marines get six of every toy in the game. This is BFG, where space marines are NOT important. They are a small part of a much bigger faction, their ships work almost entirely the same as said faction as well.
If your so desperate for variety, use Segmentum Solar, which is established and known to be balanced, OR you can use the new Inquisition fleet list.
I find it disgusting that you think space marines need more variety when Dark eldar have a grand sum of two ships.
Didn't say that DE didn't need more ships. Though, frankly, no one has ever brought a dark eldar fleet against me. So I really can't say that I'd be bored with it.
And, frankly, sorry that I have manners and still practice good sportsmanship, but telling the people that play SM 'Quit whining about it being broken and play a real fleet' is not an answer to the balance or lack of options issues. It's sort of like a necron player saying 'See, I lost an escort annihilating your fleet! So, see, it's balanced!'
-
Zelnik, your hate of 40k marines is dated anyway. They are outshone these days, definitly not '6 of every toy'
Don't let your bitterness over 40k marines, or whatever it is, allow you to see anymore than a debate on if some strike cruisers could have lances.
Its a weaker option, therefore its not some desperate desire for a shiny toy. Use common sense.
-
I am not going to stop pounding you with the established facts until you stop ignoring them.
Yes, i hate space marines as a concept, but i have a very large fleet of them and enjoy playing them a great deal.
One of the reasons why I enjoy BFG is that space marines are NOT important on this scale, and it annoys me when people scream to make them just as tricked out as they are in 40k.
No. your not getting lances. If you want them, take a reserve Gothic, take Nova frigates, or take a VBB from the FOC list.
Strike cruisers and barges are NOT getting lances. you have Bombardment cannons. Even if it's a 10cm lance that needs a 5 to hit, your not getting it.
What I find even more vulgar is that 20 bombardment cannons on a broadside is just not enough for you.
So to put it simply: You can't have it. your not getting it.
-
I am not going to stop pounding you with the established facts until you stop ignoring them.
Yes, i hate space marines as a concept, but i have a very large fleet of them and enjoy playing them a great deal.
One of the reasons why I enjoy BFG is that space marines are NOT important on this scale, and it annoys me when people scream to make them just as tricked out as they are in 40k.
No. your not getting lances. If you want them, take a reserve Gothic, take Nova frigates, or take a VBB from the FOC list.
Strike cruisers and barges are NOT getting lances. you have Bombardment cannons. Even if it's a 10cm lance that needs a 5 to hit, your not getting it.
What I find even more vulgar is that 20 bombardment cannons on a broadside is just not enough for you.
So to put it simply: You can't have it. your not getting it.
Reality and Zel have just parted company. (Since I might point out that I was one of the people complaining that SO is even more powerful then it was when everyone complained that it was brokenly powerful.)
Zel, what facts, other then you hate space marines, have you established? While I grant that the primary role of a battlebarge is as a support platform for a ground assault, the fact that, by purpose and design, a Strike cruiser has to enter a potentially hot LZ with little to no intel on what they might be facing would be a very good reason for it to carry anti-ship weapons.
Every source I have been able to lay hands on, including Armada, states that the SC is usually the first imperial ship to enter a potentially hostile system and, like combat engineers on a beachhead, is supposed to clear the way for the IN fleet coming in behind them. The idea that they cannot mount anti-ship weapons, when their purpose is to subdue an area which may contain hostile ships, is an absurdity.
And why is it that people against improving SC all immediately claim to own a SM fleet and accuse their opponents of being SM fanboys? Neither statement advances the idea that SM do not have lances.
-
Because you are one.
While a Space Marine Chapter only rarely employs the might of its battle
barges, Adeptus Astartes strike cruisers are a more common, although still
rare, sight. Often the arrival of a Space Marine strike cruiser is enough to
quell a rebellious system. The Space Marines are quick to act if their
enemies’ surrender is not immediately forthcoming.
Strike Cruisers are fast, lightly-armed vessels which mass slightly less than
the Imperial Navy’s Dauntless class light cruisers. 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 cruisers appear to carry approximately one full company of Space
Marines (including support vehicles) and have been observed to deploy
them within twenty minutes of arrival in orbit.
Most rebellious systems DO NOT HAVE fleets defending them, they also have the speed and the toughness to AAF to planet surfaces and launch assaults.
-you have not explained why you aren't using segmentum solar OR the inquisition list either, so don't claim someone is 'invalid' just because they disagree with you-
Baron, it's cute you want more for space marines, but you have NOT given me ONE piece of evidence that suggests that they should.
-
The anti-lance side of this debate needs to get reasonable real fast, or I'm going to be tempted to take the flame-bait they are trolling.
Stop fucking saying fanboy. Stop the stupidity of assuming reasons behind arguments. This is an argument about lances on strike cruisers, and neither side has any reason to debate anything but the pure question, nor should they use the impossibility of accurately guessing intent.
Make your argument worth its salt on its own. Friggin idiocy.
-
Because you are one.
While a Space Marine Chapter only rarely employs the might of its battle
barges, Adeptus Astartes strike cruisers are a more common, although still
rare, sight. Often the arrival of a Space Marine strike cruiser is enough to
quell a rebellious system. The Space Marines are quick to act if their
enemies’ surrender is not immediately forthcoming.
Strike Cruisers are fast, lightly-armed vessels which mass slightly less than
the Imperial Navy’s Dauntless class light cruisers. 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 cruisers appear to carry approximately one full company of Space
Marines (including support vehicles) and have been observed to deploy
them within twenty minutes of arrival in orbit.
Most rebellious systems DO NOT HAVE fleets defending them, they also have the speed and the toughness to AAF to planet surfaces and launch assaults.
-you have not explained why you aren't using segmentum solar OR the inquisition list either, so don't claim someone is 'invalid' just because they disagree with you-
Baron, it's cute you want more for space marines, but you have NOT given me ONE piece of evidence that suggests that they should.
Again, what's funny is you highlight one sentence and absolutely ignore the very next sentence. And, amusingly enough, even with a str 2 lance, the ship would carry less firepower then a lance dauntless.
And, actually, most systems have their own SDF, ranging in firepower from the system defense monitor up through Grand Cruisers. For a rebellion in system to have gained any traction at all, they would have to subvert the SDF, which means that said ships will probably be lurking in wait along expected routes through the system.
And, an SDF monitor carries nearly twice as much firepower as a SC with 2 shields and +6 armor. And it has a lance. It's slow as hell, but an SC would have ot come in range of it to attack it.
(http://coolminiornot.com/pics/pics14/img4bde5b10ba59f.jpg) Please, tell me of my marine fanboism.
-
The fact is that SMs do not need lances. They have bombardment cannon. The interaction between BC and WBs (ie, the placement of a BM) makes the two weapon systems less efficient against ships than WB + Lances. More efficient against static defences than WBs + Lances and more efficient against 6+ armour static defences than Lances + bombardment cannons when on LO.
This is fluffy. The IN don't want the competition. Fluffy. SMs aren't meant to fight warfleets soooo ... fluffy. If they had lances then they would never have been given bombardment cannon. If they had lances this weapon would be removed from the game. It was only given to them as a replacement. A good thing too, since it is more fluffy this way. They already have a lance analogue, don't need lances.
System Defence Monitors? Slow as crap, AAF past them, they'll never catch you, land the troops, you're good. Otherwise, um, Thunderhawks, you're good. Or, fuck it, board the prick. You're good. Even direct fire at close range when locked on could do the trick, which isn't bad when you consider how well defended the SDM is. This is just with 1 SC. Back it up with a couple of Novas or Hunters and you're good to take out anything but the most heavily defended of systems.
The fact is that SMs are supposed to deal with whatever they may find with the tools they've got at hand. They're not supposed to be given anti-ship weapons on the off chance that they run into a warfleet or they're too piss weak to deal with a few system defence ships.
So, what about variety? Am I against variety? No. In fact, I have suggested that the SC have its prow launch bay dropped to strength 1 in exchange for the extra shield (solving the believability problem of the model and maintaining low cost) while simultaneously adding a launch bay variant SC (replacing WBs with 1TH each side for +15pts). Maximum of half SCs as this latter variant. This adds variety of ship, maintains the option to keep the current number of total AC while being cheaper, albeit with less supporting WB firepower. It also gives the option of a more gun focussed fleet by not taking maximum carrier variants. On top of this a TH for BC swap and a TH for torp swap gives a total of 4 different SC variants. This could potentially be raised to 6 variants if the carrier version could also swap prow TH with either torps or BC (just that no more than half the SCs could have broadside launch bays).
Similarly, variants for the battlebarges could be proposed. So there's no SM hating going on. We want a balanced and interesting fleet. It's just that this can and should be done sans lances. There is zero call for lances on SM ships. They simply don't need them, shouldn't have them, and have an alternative weapon system to make up for the loss.
To ask for them on top of what they already have as well as what they're already getting and what has already been proposed smacks of fanboyism. Baron, you say you're not a fanboy because you don't have a SM army or fleet. Well you don't need to own SMs to be a fanboy, you've just got to buy into the more outrageous fluff. You seem to buy into every piece of fluff without any of it passing through an internal plausibility checker in your brain. Your knowledge seems encyclopaedic (and this assumes that it's right, I know that some of it I and others have been unable to check, and still others have found fault with) but like an encyclopaedia it seems to be presented with no regard for sense. Just vomited forth wholly.
Mind you, you don't have to hate SMs to hate the more extreme fluff they're involved in. According to which it wouldn't be too hard for a SM to destroy all of Chaos, Eldar, Orks, etc as well as reorder all of the Imperium in their own image while playing bridge with their spare hand. This crap makes a mockery of the SM and it's understandable why people get short with any more calls for super SMs, particularly in BFG where they're supposed to be a very minor player. (In truth they're supposed to be directly supported by the IN and if they go in alone then that's their lookout - their objective is to land troops, not dominate space.)
-
Fleet wise, I don't see a need for lances. WB and BC are fired together, so no interference of WB BM (correct me if I got this wrong). And a right shift if within 15 cm. Hitting on 4+ and criticals on 4+. The BC is short ranged as is all weaponry aboard SM ships. SM capitals get their 'extra' shield and turret.
As for lances, fluff wise, I would say that there can be lances on some ships outside the nova. CAN is the key here, as in rare, adapted vessels with a very specific goal in mind. IMO, those in favour of lances should discuss a point drop to SM lances from +20 points to +15 or +10 points.
-
Lastspartacus, the anti-lance side has been very reasonable. Unfortunately the pro-lance side keeps on pushing things to the point where evidence mainly from books are being used. The anti-lance side has proposed changes which are fitting for SM by fluff and by what they have in the rules, the main gist of which is they need survivability more than they need upgrading their offense. The BC is almost as good as the lance already. That's quite enough esp since they can gang up on another ship.
Sorry but Sigoroth has already pointed things out. Everything is now going round and round which is why I have not answered back anymore. It's useless to go further unless the pro-lance side provides conclusive proof that the SM NEEDS lances which I have asked for twice now as well as by some other people. No answer has been forthcoming.
Note: NEED.
-
Fleet wise, I don't see a need for lances. WB and BC are fired together, so no interference of WB BM (correct me if I got this wrong). And a right shift if within 15 cm. Hitting on 4+ and criticals on 4+. The BC is short ranged as is all weaponry aboard SM ships. SM capitals get their 'extra' shield and turret.
There has definitely been talk of "simultaneous" fire. I don't know if it's become official. I sincerely hope not and hope that it never becomes official. It's a stupid rule.
As for lances, fluff wise, I would say that there can be lances on some ships outside the nova. CAN is the key here, as in rare, adapted vessels with a very specific goal in mind. IMO, those in favour of lances should discuss a point drop to SM lances from +20 points to +15 or +10 points.
Oh yeah, they CAN get lances. Of course, if they did they'd then be hunted down by the IN, but if they're fine with that then sure. If Chaos ever get the option to take SM ships then they can have lances. Hell, Chaos should get access to Nova Cannon before SMs get lances. At least that's sensible.
Lastspartacus, the anti-lance side has been very reasonable. Unfortunately the pro-lance side keeps on pushing things to the point where evidence mainly from books are being used.
Sorry but Sigoroth has already pointed things out. Everything is going round and round which is why I have not answered back anymore. It's useless to go further unless the pro-lance side provides proof that the SM NEEDS lances which I have asked for twice now as well as by some other people.
Note: NEED.
Indeed, I've asked for this too. Apparently we have to wait till they produce their Warp Rift article to get this one answered. It must be a truly compelling reason for us to have to wait so long.
-
The fact is that SMs do not need lances. They have bombardment cannon. The interaction between BC and WBs (ie, the placement of a BM) makes the two weapon systems less efficient against ships than WB + Lances. More efficient against static defences than WBs + Lances and more efficient against 6+ armour static defences than Lances + bombardment cannons when on LO.
Not really as effective if the defenses are squadroned. 150 pts of squadroned defenses (str 6 lance, str 12 60cm WB, str 6 torp) > 160 points of SC.
This is fluffy. The IN don't want the competition. Fluffy. SMs aren't meant to fight warfleets soooo ... fluffy. If they had lances then they would never have been given bombardment cannon. If they had lances this weapon would be removed from the game. It was only given to them as a replacement. A good thing too, since it is more fluffy this way. They already have a lance analogue, don't need lances.
Except, in fluff, they did and they were. And from fluff in rulebooks, even, neverminding the fluff from Battlefleet Gothic Magazine.
System Defence Monitors? Slow as crap, AAF past them, they'll never catch you, land the troops, you're good. Otherwise, um, Thunderhawks, you're good. Or, fuck it, board the prick. You're good. Even direct fire at close range when locked on could do the trick, which isn't bad when you consider how well defended the SDM is. This is just with 1 SC. Back it up with a couple of Novas or Hunters and you're good to take out anything but the most heavily defended of systems.
The fact is that SMs are supposed to deal with whatever they may find with the tools they've got at hand. They're not supposed to be given anti-ship weapons on the off chance that they run into a warfleet or they're too piss weak to deal with a few system defence ships.
3 SFM = Str 24 WB (f/l/r) and Str 3 lance (turret massing = 5 turrets) 180pts against 1 SC (str 2 sheilds) Str 4 wbs, str 3 bc, 2 thawks. 160pts
Yes, very weak. Particularly since they count as escorts on the gunnery table, so unless they're closing with you, you'll never have firepower greater then 2 against them, which is how many shields they have. Thawks getting through is a long shot, but possible. Given both sides ranges, they're going to get a left shift if you try to make the hit with them closing. You can board, but in the attempt the SC will probably get plastered by the other two defense monitors, and be in trouble if they successfully brace, or worse, roll higher then you do in the boarding attempt.
Now, swap that Str 2 BC for Str 2 lance: Now the SC can effectively deal with the SDMs without having to board them. It's still going to take a pounding, but it's odds are much better.
So, what about variety? Am I against variety? No. In fact, I have suggested that the SC have its prow launch bay dropped to strength 1 in exchange for the extra shield (solving the believability problem of the model and maintaining low cost) while simultaneously adding a launch bay variant SC (replacing WBs with 1TH each side for +15pts). Maximum of half SCs as this latter variant. This adds variety of ship, maintains the option to keep the current number of total AC while being cheaper, albeit with less supporting WB firepower. It also gives the option of a more gun focussed fleet by not taking maximum carrier variants. On top of this a TH for BC swap and a TH for torp swap gives a total of 4 different SC variants. This could potentially be raised to 6 variants if the carrier version could also swap prow TH with either torps or BC (just that no more than half the SCs could have broadside launch bays).
Sigoroth, you blast lances for being against fluff, and then propose a carrier version? o_0?
Similarly, variants for the battlebarges could be proposed. So there's no SM hating going on. We want a balanced and interesting fleet. It's just that this can and should be done sans lances. There is zero call for lances on SM ships. They simply don't need them, shouldn't have them, and have an alternative weapon system to make up for the loss.
To ask for them on top of what they already have as well as what they're already getting and what has already been proposed smacks of fanboyism. Baron, you say you're not a fanboy because you don't have a SM army or fleet. Well you don't need to own SMs to be a fanboy, you've just got to buy into the more outrageous fluff. You seem to buy into every piece of fluff without any of it passing through an internal plausibility checker in your brain. Your knowledge seems encyclopaedic (and this assumes that it's right, I know that some of it I and others have been unable to check, and still others have found fault with) but like an encyclopaedia it seems to be presented with no regard for sense. Just vomited forth wholly.
And ignored mostly. The fluff for them having lances in Planetstrike makes perfect sense. We have a situation were, by inquisitorial decree, there is to be as little collateral damage as possible, ad they opt to use a precision weapon rather then a bombardment cannon.
And, bluntly, nothing to do with space marines is plausible, so I just assume the warp did it. Seriously, have you ever looked into the biology of it? They should be toothless and dead.
Mind you, you don't have to hate SMs to hate the more extreme fluff they're involved in. According to which it wouldn't be too hard for a SM to destroy all of Chaos, Eldar, Orks, etc as well as reorder all of the Imperium in their own image while playing bridge with their spare hand. This crap makes a mockery of the SM and it's understandable why people get short with any more calls for super SMs, particularly in BFG where they're supposed to be a very minor player. (In truth they're supposed to be directly supported by the IN and if they go in alone then that's their lookout - their objective is to land troops, not dominate space.)
See above statements. And, you have a problem translating the ideal to the reality there. As an example, with no IN in Ultramar, wouldn't they have a very good reason to possess pure gunboats? Or in the case of BT, the fact that they frequently go crusading without support from other Imperial organizations?
And, again, the fluff for SCs is they are the first responders, in system BEFORE IN. IN takes months (or even years) to mobilize against threats. Look at the difficulty they had during the early stage of the Gothic War. If SM had to wait for IN support, then the Imperium would have fallen long ago.
-
What's the SC being the first one to respond got to do with SM getting lances? The reason why it is scary is because of the SMs dropping on the planet and thereby wiping out any uprising. One ship is not going to make a difference, regardless of whether it is IN or SM if there is a fleet surrounding the planet. The SMART thing would be to jump back out and then ask for reinforcements. Even SM are not THAT dumb. And so the Gothic War was won because the IN played it smart. They couldn't be in multiple places at once so they gathered their strength and struck at a more opportune time and place. The SM were not much of a factor in the Gothic War.
And you're really giving SDMs a lot of credit. Squadron? So? It's not like you don't have multiple ships in an SM fleet. Shoot at the SDMs. Once they BFI, so much for squadroning them.
-
The Calvary has arrived...
I am also going to make the point that the fluff has made errors in regards to ship based weapons. One of my favorites was the description of an Emperor battleship firing lances at a ground target.
-
What's the SC being the first one to respond got to do with SM getting lances? The reason why it is scary is because of the SMs dropping on the planet and thereby wiping out any uprising. One ship is not going to make a difference, regardless of whether it is IN or SM if there is a fleet surrounding the planet. The SMART thing would be to jump back out and then ask for reinforcements. Even SM are not THAT dumb. And so the Gothic War was won because the IN played it smart. They couldn't be in multiple places at once so they gathered their strength and struck at a more opportune time and place. The SM were not much of a factor in the Gothic War.
And you're really giving SDMs a lot of credit. Squadron? So? It's not like you don't have multiple ships in an SM fleet. Shoot at the SDMs. Once they BFI, so much for squadroning them.
Would the anti-lance faction please make up their minds what unbelievable fluff they're believing? First it's impossible for them to kill a eldar craftworld with a whole chapter, but we're putting down a rebelling planet with one company.
Second: Dart, the point was that a single SC taking on the ships that it is supposed to be able to clear easily wouldn't. And why in the name of god would you ever BFI SDMs against a SC? That's like a SDM going BFI against a Nova. It can't do more then your shields worth of damage under most circumstances. Granted, if the SC is abeam and the SDMs are closing, you'll get enough firepower to maybe kill one, but probably not, as you'll be firing through a BM at an escort. You could try for a left shift inside 15cm, but you'll probably get your teeth kicked in by that wb 24 if you aren't successful.
The Calvary has arrived...
I am also going to make the point that the fluff has made errors in regards to ship based weapons. One of my favorites was the description of an Emperor battleship firing lances at a ground target.
Um, not sure how old your fluff is, but IIRC once upon a time the Emperor did have lances, before BFG came out. Also the reason I haven't pointed out the Imperial Fists Gothic Class Battleship Imperial Power or the Ultramarines Tyrant Class battleship from the beginning of Chaos Gate.
-
there is to be as little collateral damage as possible, ad they opt to use a precision weapon rather then a bombardment cannon.
The bombardment cannon can be used as a precision weapon as noted by the targeting and destruction of the hidden bunker in Nightbringer. I'd wager based on epic and nightbringer and BFG that the BC can be fired to cover an area or target more specific coordinates since it's actually firing a projectile which could have some limited guidance capabilities.
-
there is to be as little collateral damage as possible, ad they opt to use a precision weapon rather then a bombardment cannon.
The bombardment cannon can be used as a precision weapon as noted by the targeting and destruction of the hidden bunker in Nightbringer. I'd wager based on epic and nightbringer and BFG that the BC can be fired to cover an area or target more specific coordinates since it's actually firing a projectile which could have some limited guidance capabilities.
It flatted an entire wing of the Imperial Palace, a building measured in kilometers. Of the four-five shots fired, two missed, one by 900 km. Uriel goes on to think about how a full bombardment, without the reduced payloads, would have flattened everything for 50km.
-
If i remember correctly, this fluff i refer to is either in the 5th edition 40k book, or the current space marine codex. Damn them for being so out of date!
-
The anti-lance side of this debate needs to get reasonable real fast, or I'm going to be tempted to take the flame-bait they are trolling.
Eh, what? The pro-lance side needs to stop using every dumb hole a BL writer/editor has opened.
Jeez, LS. That was an unneeded call on your part.
Lance is anti-ship.
No anti-ship weapons for Marines.
Older chapters saved some Vbb's with lances. Nice for them. They aren't allowed newer ones.
They build the Nova. A maze in the Imperial rulings. A small gunboat. Met with great scrutiny by everyone. Go bigger and be exterminated.
Sigoroth, the simultaneous rules is FAQ2010 and will be official. And I think it is an awesome great rule to enhance bombardment cannons and heavy gunz without altering game play, rules and profiles.
-
I agree, Now bombardment cannons and heavy gunz are FAR more viable options
-
Would the anti-lance faction please make up their minds what unbelievable fluff they're believing? First it's impossible for them to kill a eldar craftworld with a whole chapter, but we're putting down a rebelling planet with one company.
And again, what has that got to do with SCs getting lances? Again, the fear of the uprising planet (read the leaders of the uprising) is the SM getting groundside and hunting them down. You cannot easily kill the leaders of the uprising from space. You have to get groundside, look for the rot and tear it out.
If there is an enemy battlefleet upstairs supporting the uprising, what's one ship going to do? So now you believe that one ship supplied with lances will merrily dispatch said fleet when it couldn't do the same with the existing BC setup? Seriously?
Second: Dart, the point was that a single SC taking on the ships that it is supposed to be able to clear easily wouldn't. And why in the name of god would you ever BFI SDMs against a SC? That's like a SDM going BFI against a Nova. It can't do more then your shields worth of damage under most circumstances. Granted, if the SC is abeam and the SDMs are closing, you'll get enough firepower to maybe kill one, but probably not, as you'll be firing through a BM at an escort. You could try for a left shift inside 15cm, but you'll probably get your teeth kicked in by that wb 24 if you aren't successful.
First you have your BCs which hit on a 4+ regardless of its armor and shields. 2 SCs give you 6 BCs. 3 SCs give you 9. You seriously wouldn't brace your SDM? Then you'd have the THs (4-6 at the existing setup) ripping out every system inside that ship. You still don't want to BFI?
Look right now, we're down to the question I have asked 3x now. Do the SM REALLY NEED Lances? You still haven't answered that.
-
It flatted an entire wing of the Imperial Palace, a building measured in kilometers. Of the four-five shots fired, two missed, one by 900 km. Uriel goes on to think about how a full bombardment, without the reduced payloads, would have flattened everything for 50km.
my mistake, I'm a little disconnected from my materials at the moment.
-
First you have your BCs which hit on a 4+ regardless of its armor and shields. 2 SCs give you 6 BCs. 3 SCs give you 9. You seriously wouldn't brace your SDM? Then you'd have the THs (4-6 at the existing setup) ripping out every system inside that ship. You still don't want to BFI?
Look right now, we're down to the question I have asked 3x now. Do the SM REALLY NEED Lances? You still haven't answered that.
Again, D'Art, yes, when you have three times the points values of a ship, you probably will win. And, why would you need a battlefleet? System defenses are more then capable to tearing even three SCs apart.
Let's add other defenses to the crop, since we're upping the points to 480.
1 Space Station
(ringed with)
Platforms: squadroned
2 lance platforms (
2 WB platforms
1 torp platform
(Guarded by)
3 SDMs (squadroned)
(Now I have ordinance and launchbays too. Ho Ho ho.)
D'art, I'm going to assume that you squadroned the SC's, otherwise, I still wouldn't have to brace for impact. However, even added together, their firepower is reduced to 4 abeam. While now I would have to brace, you probably should be firing at the stations and batteries you will have to come in range of to engage them. Since the stations fighters will probably reduce 6 thawks to 4, and you'll want to keep 1 of them on cap anyway against that str 6 torp hit, I'm still not too worried about the thawks.
And, further, last I checked, BCs do not ignore shields, only armor.
And again, what has that got to do with SCs getting lances? Again, the fear of the uprising planet (read the leaders of the uprising) is the SM getting groundside and hunting them down. You cannot easily kill the leaders of the uprising from space. You have to get groundside, look for the rot and tear it out.
If there is an enemy battlefleet upstairs supporting the uprising, what's one ship going to do? So now you believe that one ship supplied with lances will merrily dispatch said fleet when it couldn't do the same with the existing BC setup? Seriously?
Well, using the odds between one SC and 3 SDMs, yes, it would have marginally better odds. With the new simultaneous fire rule, that will improve them against static targets, but it does little to help them against the SDM, which is the vessel they're SUPPOSED to be able to neutralize easily. (Taking 1 cruiser per one monitor is not easily).
As far as that one goes, the simple and most expedient means is to shoot down the drop pods with ground fire. (which has worked in fluff in the past)
If that is not available: position camouflaged artillery emplacements so that when the space marines attack your (hopefully) empty command post, which always seems to be the first target, you won't be there (though one should always leave behind enough troops to maintain the illusion), but the incoming fire of dozens of artillery batteries and mortar teams will be pre-ranged on that target.
For extra fun, rig the command post itself for remote detonation. Once the second lowest level is penetrated, blow the reactor as the signal for all artillery to open fire.
-
Again, D'Art, yes, when you have three times the points values of a ship, you probably will win. And, why would you need a battlefleet? System defenses are more then capable to tearing even three SCs apart.
Let's add other defenses to the crop, since we're upping the points to 480.
1 Space Station
(ringed with)
Platforms: squadroned
2 lance platforms (
2 WB platforms
1 torp platform
(Guarded by)
3 SDMs (squadroned)
(Now I have ordinance and launchbays too. Ho Ho ho.)
D'art, I'm going to assume that you squadroned the SC's, otherwise, I still wouldn't have to brace for impact. However, even added together, their firepower is reduced to 4 abeam. While now I would have to brace, you probably should be firing at the stations and batteries you will have to come in range of to engage them. Since the stations fighters will probably reduce 6 thawks to 4, and you'll want to keep 1 of them on cap anyway against that str 6 torp hit, I'm still not too worried about the thawks.
And, further, last I checked, BCs do not ignore shields, only armor.
Are you that bad a tactician that you would let your SCs engage all of those at one go? No wonder you want lances. Sorry but I would use my SCs and take out the more important threats one at a time. I would most likely go against the SDMs first. If they don't want to come out and fight that's fine. I send my SCs out behind the planet away from where the more heavily concentrated platforms are and start landing troops (assuming this is a Planetary Assault or Exterminatus) and take out the platform there.
System Defenses are dangerous. They are not as dangerous as mobile warships though. I don't even get what you mean by 4 Abeam since one always rolls against on the Defense column. So with 6 BCs, you are rolling 5 dice. With 9 BCs, you're rolling 8 dice. And you still won't brace your platforms?
So let's say 1 SC going up against what? 5 Lance platforms for a worst case scenario. So I send my THs in first to try and mess up the Lance platforms. Take out the weapons (which can be done if they roll on the prow/port/starboard/dorsal weapons damage) of 2 or 3 lances platforms then I charge my SC in and then start clearing the platforms. I'm a bit unsure here since platforms don't have crit tables so I still have to check if they suffer like escorts when they get crit so I assume follow table for now. Regardless, you don't just rush headlong into them.
Well, using the odds between one SC and 3 SDMs, yes, it would have marginally better odds. With the new simultaneous fire rule, that will improve them against static targets, but it does little to help them against the SDM, which is the vessel they're SUPPOSED to be able to neutralize easily. (Taking 1 cruiser per one monitor is not easily).
Have you even TRIED it yet? 1 SC will go up only against 2 SDMs considering the points. I send my TH to handle one SDM and I attack the other with my SC. It's not complicated. It's still a 1 hp Escort. Any AB rolling 4+ on it will still destroy it unless it braces. So what are you going to do? What are you even afraid of?
As far as that one goes, the simple and most expedient means is to shoot down the drop pods with ground fire. (which has worked in fluff in the past)
If that is not available: position camouflaged artillery emplacements so that when the space marines attack your (hopefully) empty command post, which always seems to be the first target, you won't be there (though one should always leave behind enough troops to maintain the illusion), but the incoming fire of dozens of artillery batteries and mortar teams will be pre-ranged on that target.
For extra fun, rig the command post itself for remote detonation. Once the second lowest level is penetrated, blow the reactor as the signal for all artillery to open fire.
And you think the SM that you highly regard would not have thought about this yet? that they just jump in without any rhyme or reason or plan on how to solve the problems above? And again, you think lances would solve all the problems above?
-
Are you that bad a tactician that you would let your SCs engage all of those at one go? No wonder you want lances. Sorry but I would use my SCs and take out the more important threats one at a time. I would most likely go against the SDMs first. If they don't want to come out and fight that's fine. I send my SCs out behind the planet away from where the more heavily concentrated platforms are and start landing troops (assuming this is a Planetary Assault or Exterminatus) and take out the platform there. System Defenses are dangerous. They are not as dangerous as mobile warships though.
No, D'Art, I'm good enough to force my opponent to with torp volleys though. Though if you want, we could do 480 points of SDMs. That WOULD eat the SCs.
Have you even TRIED it yet?
How well does str 2 do against 2 shields? Since WB 4 is reduced to 1 and the BC is reduced to 1 unless they're closing. While the SC is maneuverable enough to do it, a smart player will force you to fire at them abeam as much has possible, where they have the advantage.
And you think the SM that you highly regard would not have thought about this yet? that they just jump in without any rhyme or reason or plan on how to solve the problems above? And again, you think lances would solve all the problems above?
While blasting the command bunker with a lance WOULD actually be the best way to avoid this, if you're just going to land troops and go after the leadership, then, YES, this is a good way to bag yourself a space marine company. The only real trick of it is to give enough of an impression of resistance to sell the bait, and not do anything to give it away, like firing prematurely or leaving obvious demo charges in the upper levels of the base. Most of the time a trap is successful if it doesn't LOOK like a trap. (Have a double of the rebellious governor make a broadcast from the bunker, for example).
-
No, D'Art, I'm good enough to force my opponent to with torp volleys though. Though if you want, we could do 480 points of SDMs. That WOULD eat the SCs.
Sorry, this is an illogical argument in every aspect
1. From a "Fluff" point of view it it is useless as there are usually no "fair" matches: first principle of warefare: don't attack if you can't win. If the commander of an attacking strike cruiser (or a fleet of them) has the impression that the given system has to tought orbital defences, he'll ask for help from the IN. Causa finita. SM aren't supposed to do the Job of the IN nor they are supposed to fight lagre scale Space battles. Everything SM ship should do is to deliver its "freight" of Marines - no need for lances at all
2. Gamewise (some) orbital/Planetary defences are superior to most ships in most fleets. Yes, 480 Points system defences eat their equivalent in strike Cruisers -but they'll eat up most other ships too. But the answer is quite simple: you can't play a "fleet" of sytsem defences. they are strictly scenario-based.
General: no need for lances: as sig said, they have bombard cannons, which are technically (rulewise) a far more elegant solution than lances. An if there is one thing that the game does not need, then it is more lances. At all they are already far to common.
-
No, D'Art, I'm good enough to force my opponent to with torp volleys though. Though if you want, we could do 480 points of SDMs. That WOULD eat the SCs.
Really? How? I just send in my 9 THs to eat your 8 SDMs one at a time by rolling 3+ to kill them. When they get down to 4 or less SDMs, the SCs now charge in and assist with the eating. Really, it's obvious you don't know how to deal with SDMs using SCs.
How well does str 2 do against 2 shields? Since WB 4 is reduced to 1 and the BC is reduced to 1 unless they're closing. While the SC is maneuverable enough to do it, a smart player will force you to fire at them abeam as much has possible, where they have the advantage.
The SDMs maneuver like a pregnant pig on ice. Spd 10 and 45' turns! What are you on? The SMART SM player sends his THs against the SDMs and kill them one at a time. The SMART SM player will send his SCs to the rear of the SDMs. They're ESCORTS for heaven's sake with ONE (1) count em ONE (1) HP. What kind of super SDMs are you talking about anyway?
While blasting the command bunker with a lance WOULD actually be the best way to avoid this, if you're just going to land troops and go after the leadership, then, YES, this is a good way to bag yourself a space marine company. The only real trick of it is to give enough of an impression of resistance to sell the bait, and not do anything to give it away, like firing prematurely or leaving obvious demo charges in the upper levels of the base. Most of the time a trap is successful if it doesn't LOOK like a trap. (Have a double of the rebellious governor make a broadcast from the bunker, for example).
You're missing the point. The SM have been fighting for almost 10,000 years. You think they wouldn't know how to deal with that problem by now or seen something similar at least once? Even then SM will have backup plans ready just in case things do go south. They still wouldn't need lances to deal with the problem you described.
-
Look right now, we're down to the question I have asked 3x now. Do the SM REALLY NEED Lances? You still haven't answered that.
I believe it has not been answered, because the issue is not a question of need.
-
Look right now, we're down to the question I have asked 3x now. Do the SM REALLY NEED Lances? You still haven't answered that.
I believe it has not been answered, because the issue is not a question of need.
Of course it's a question of need. SMs already have BCs in lieu of the lances. It is now a question of whether they need it in addition to the BCs. Sorry LS but that's all it boils down to now. The pro lance crowd must justify it.
-
Are you talking a gameplay need or...what exactly?
-
Gameplay as well as fluff.
-
Marines don't need lances for gameplay purposes, no. To me, this only makes it easier for them to have examples of them comfortably, as it fills no gameplay weakness. All I myself am arguing is the possibility of examples of strike cruisers with lances in the 40k setting, and my suggestion is one free str3 BC l/r/f for str2 lance front on an SC, per 750 or 1k points.
-
surely the instances of SMs having lances on SCs are so few and far between, that if you are desperate for lances you can just house rule it? why the desperate need to have a rulebook tell you you can have lances? to justify your arguments thus far?
you should be identifying the need, then putting forward a solution. right now you have already decided on your solution and youre trying to justify it every which way you can, its backwards. if you can state a specific problem that the space marines have which can be solved better by a lance than anything else, then you have an argument. until then, youre trying to fix what aint broke.
-
Really? How? I just send in my 9 THs to eat your 8 SDMs one at a time by rolling 3+ to kill them. When they get down to 4 or less SDMs, the SCs now charge in and assist with the eating. Really, it's obvious you don't know how to deal with SDMs using SCs.
Um, D'Art, 3 SCs carry 6 Thawks, not 9 (last I downloaded the FAQ, anyway). Second, if you're playing keep away, that just means that I can use WBs to kill three (or more) thawks as they come up, and turret massing will do the rest.
The SDMs maneuver like a pregnant pig on ice. Spd 10 and 45' turns! What are you on? The SMART SM player sends his THs against the SDMs and kill them one at a time. The SMART SM player will send his SCs to the rear of the SDMs. They're ESCORTS for heaven's sake with ONE (1) count em ONE (1) HP. What kind of super SDMs are you talking about anyway?
The ones in the back of blue book. Do the math: Str 24 wb against ord followed by 5 turrets (assuming that I can't fire lances at it). I'm rolling 13 dice against them before they close.
While they do plod along and turn like a pregnant sow, as people like to remind me, you only have a 6 x 4 area to maneuver in. Eventually I will corner one SC against something and close. SCs aren't necrons, you can't magic them out of the battlefield and win.
You're missing the point. The SM have been fighting for almost 10,000 years. You think they wouldn't know how to deal with that problem by now or seen something similar at least once? Even then SM will have backup plans ready just in case things do go south. They still wouldn't need lances to deal with the problem you described.
You cannot plan for a surprise. You can only plan on being surprised. It's kind of like a landmine. Yeah, people have seen them for a long time, but you have to know it's there. If you discover it the hard way, there is no PLAN that will save you. You'll ether live by dumb luck or not.
-
a clever SM player would launch ordnance, hold back out of SDM range for 1 ordnance turn, move 20cm closer after enemy move, then another 20cm after SM move. 40cm covered, no WB return fire.
still, this doesnt justify a need for lances. this is just bickering about theoryhammer.
-
a clever SM player would launch ordnance, hold back out of SDM range for 1 ordnance turn, move 20cm closer after enemy move, then another 20cm after SM move. 40cm covered, no WB return fire.
still, this doesnt justify a need for lances. this is just bickering about theoryhammer.
That assumes that the SDMs don't move to close with the ord and that you have a nice neat distance to cover divisible by 20. If it turns out you're 42 cm away, they're screwed. But it is a much better plan then D'Arts, and has a chance of actually working.
And, my question would be, what evidence would the anti-lance faction be willing to accept? Because so far the answer has been 'none'.
Fluff has been refused, mathematics are not accepted, and battle-reports are rebuffed with 'well it's obvious the player sucked, since he didn't take 3000 points of ships to a 1k point game.' (ironically, by someone who, a least if my DL is correct, doesn't know what the stats are for the ship he's arguing for)
I have not seen the anti-lance side produce any hard evidence of their position, other then to point at one line in one book, and scream 'And They Shall Know No Lances'. (despite the fact that it isn't what it says).
-
Nobody wins these what if battles. Every time it comes up you can always find a way to one up the other guy. All that matters is battle reports. I'd suggest dropping the whole line of conversation since it's turning into a red herring.
-
Ok, then can we turn the argument to purely balance related, since you don't have to take the option if you don't want to?
-
Marines don't need lances for gameplay purposes, no. To me, this only makes it easier for them to have examples of them comfortably, as it fills no gameplay weakness. All I myself am arguing is the possibility of examples of strike cruisers with lances in the 40k setting, and my suggestion is one free str3 BC l/r/f for str2 lance front on an SC, per 750 or 1k points.
If there is no need for game play then why ask for it?
-
Because some marine players want a few examples to flesh out the fluff of their fleet. I don't understand the hostility towards that. You likely won't ever have to face it, and if you do, it wouldn't be OP. Its why I think that unless there is a huge and very obvious fluff example denying it, I say let those who want a couple SC in their unorthodox fleets have their fun.
-
Nobody wins these what if battles. Every time it comes up you can always find a way to one up the other guy. All that matters is battle reports. I'd suggest dropping the whole line of conversation since it's turning into a red herring.
That's fine. I went out and bought 2 SCs and 4 hunters (all they had) and we'll do up some battlereports.
If there is no need for game play then why ask for it?
Because we were given it and certain people demanded that it must be made to suck because they didn't like it. Which isn't really fair to the players that have no idea that this debate is even going on, or the fact that not everyone agrees with that assessment. Again, a 12 inch gun on a submarine is not a battleship.
-
Um, D'Art, 3 SCs carry 6 Thawks, not 9 (last I downloaded the FAQ, anyway). Second, if you're playing keep away, that just means that I can use WBs to kill three (or more) thawks as they come up, and turret massing will do the rest.
Whoops yes. 6. So? Use the WBs if you want. You're still rolling on the Escort column. I'm sure as hell not sending them in as one wave. Most likely in waves of 2. So that's 2 dice to roll needing 6+. Sure you can fire as a squadron. Try it and if you hit, good for you. If not, you're SDMs are dead. Mass away. Sooner or later you'll miss one or two and those one or two will start whittling the SDMs down.
The ones in the back of blue book. Do the math: Str 24 wb against ord followed by 5 turrets (assuming that I can't fire lances at it). I'm rolling 13 dice against them before they close.
So what about FP24 WB? You're still using the Escort column to roll against the THs needing 6+. Again, I'm not sending everything in one wave. So the WBs get to fire only once assuming you can get the THs in the correct arc. After which you then need 4+ for the 4 turrets, not 5 since you are talking about 3 ships. What's the issue with that? Sooner than later, one SDM will die so now you go down to 3 2 SDMs at FP16 and 3 turrets. aside from which the SCs can now charge in and go for the kill.
While they do plod along and turn like a pregnant sow, as people like to remind me, you only have a 6 x 4 area to maneuver in. Eventually I will corner one SC against something and close. SCs aren't necrons, you can't magic them out of the battlefield and win.
Seriously? You think you can corner a speed 25 cm 90' turning ship on a 6' x 4' table with Spd 10 cm 45' turning models? SM might not be Necrons but you sure don't know SM capabilities. Dude, I suggest you proxy and play them first before you even start thinking about asking for goodies for SM.
You cannot plan for a surprise. You can only plan on being surprised. It's kind of like a landmine. Yeah, people have seen them for a long time, but you have to know it's there. If you discover it the hard way, there is no PLAN that will save you. You'll ether live by dumb luck or not.
Yeah and the nice thing about having a backup plan is you have it. So that if the **** hits the fan, you have a fallback plan that will allow you to counter the enemy moves to succeed in the assault or you can extricate if the situation is that hot. Better to have a backup plan than none at all. Unless you're the type who prefers not to have any at all.
Which still doesn't answer the question of SM needing lances.
-
That assumes that the SDMs don't move to close with the ord and that you have a nice neat distance to cover divisible by 20. If it turns out you're 42 cm away, they're screwed. But it is a much better plan then D'Arts, and has a chance of actually working.
Really? You don't even know what my exact plans are. The point of my plan is you use the THs to handle the SDMs. How I do it, whether I use a plan similar to skating tortoises is up to me to execute.
And, my question would be, what evidence would the anti-lance faction be willing to accept? Because so far the answer has been 'none'.
Present it but it better be compelling. Why don't you just do so instead of asking what we're willing to accept. Because so far the answer to the question of "need" has been NONE as well.
Fluff has been refused, mathematics are not accepted, and battle-reports are rebuffed with 'well it's obvious the player sucked, since he didn't take 3000 points of ships to a 1k point game.' (ironically, by someone who, a least if my DL is correct, doesn't know what the stats are for the ship he's arguing for)
I have not seen the anti-lance side produce any hard evidence of their position, other then to point at one line in one book, and scream 'And They Shall Know No Lances'. (despite the fact that it isn't what it says).
So I made 1 mistake. And I wouldn't harp about it as the tactic is sound but it is much more obvious that you don't play SM and do not know their strengths and weaknesses and so are not in a position to judge what they need. You've presented a battle report? Really? I haven't read one yet with SM involved much less SDMs and if you're really having a problem with SDMs, then you're having a much more serious problem than SMs needing lances.
-
Because some marine players want a few examples to flesh out the fluff of their fleet. I don't understand the hostility towards that. You likely won't ever have to face it, and if you do, it wouldn't be OP. Its why I think that unless there is a huge and very obvious fluff example denying it, I say let those who want a couple SC in their unorthodox fleets have their fun.
Why wouldn't anyone take it if the option is there? Even at +20, people will be willing to take it. Then surround it/them with lance escorts and you now have a serious fleet engagement list. Again the question still is do the SM need it knowing they have the BCs which performs like a lance although not exactly in number and range beyond 30 cm. The BC is bad if the target is in the Abeam profile but the SC is maneuverable enough that it can the target into the Closing or Moving Away profile and it performs much better than the Dauntless since it can now fire FP4 WBs and FP3 BCs onto the target. That's either 3+2 dice for closing or 2+2 dice for Moving Away per ship. Have 2 of them it jumps to 6+4 or 4+4 respectively. At 3 ships, it becomes 9+6 or 6+6.
What is it the SM really need? Do they need better offense? They already have a good arsenal. Weapon batteries, Bombardment Cannons, Resilient Thunderhawk Bombers and Assault Boats, Torpedoes, Boarding Modifiers, Hit & Run Bonus. Those are quite good already especially compared to the baseline IN fleet. Even the Escorts are better than their IN counterparts. You can even ram to your heart's content knowing you can survive the encounter much better.
How about defense? They do have 6+ all around armor but the fact is, their turrets and shields are below average compared to their IN counterparts. The SC hurts with 1 shield against opponents with lances. Even the Battle Barge can get mobbed.
Comparing the two sides of the coin, defense is where an upgrade is needed, as well as more variety in the capital ships so that the SM can field a not so boring fleet.
-
Because we were given it and certain people demanded that it must be made to suck because they didn't like it. Which isn't really fair to the players that have no idea that this debate is even going on, or the fact that not everyone agrees with that assessment. Again, a 12 inch gun on a submarine is not a battleship.
No, you are currently being proposed to be given it. You don't have it yet. Which is why we are trying to prevent it to maintain balance since SM were given BCs to compensate for the lack of lances. Which is why this debate is up and about. The problem is next time SM players will be demanding lances on the Battle Barge. Long range lances at that. You wish.
The problem is the 12 in gun is not on a submarine. It is on a cruiser. A very resilient cruiser which thus can be called a battlecruiser if not a battleship. The 12 in gun on a submarine is called a Nova and Firestorm. Those ought to be enough for you, esp since you can bring 3 of them for 1 lance SC and have more lances than you can ever have if you just field the lance SCs.
-
Yes, it must suck, because they were designed to suck at any other task then the ones they were specifically designed for.
If i see another moron say "space marines train for thousands of years!" I am going to break the universe. Most space marines do not survive being a scout, much less make it to tactical marine status, or higher. Most space marines live a few hundred years before their geneseed is destroyed, lost, or corrupted.
It is a RARE marine that lives a thousand years.
Space marines are trained to be combat specialists, surgical strikers on the ground and inside enemy vessels. Specialization breeds weakness, and that manifests itself in their low combat rating, and forced restriction from most heavy vessels.
-
Note I said "fighting" and the knowledge and experience would have been transferred down from one generation of marine to another, via combat experience or machines which transfer combat knowledge to a new marine via machine.
-
Because some marine players want a few examples to flesh out the fluff of their fleet. I don't understand the hostility towards that. You likely won't ever have to face it, and if you do, it wouldn't be OP. Its why I think that unless there is a huge and very obvious fluff example denying it, I say let those who want a couple SC in their unorthodox fleets have their fun.
Why wouldn't anyone take it if the option is there? Even at +20, people will be willing to take it. Then surround it/them with lance escorts and you now have a serious fleet engagement list. Again the question still is do the SM need it knowing they have the BCs which performs like a lance although not exactly in number and range beyond 30 cm.
What is it the SM really need? Do they need better offense? They already have a good arsenal. Weapon batteries, Bombardment Cannons, Resilient Thunderhawk Bombers and Assault Boats, Torpedoes, Boarding Modifiers, Hit & Run Bonus. Those are quite good already especially compared to the baseline IN fleet. Even the Escorts are better than their IN counterparts.
How about defense? They do have 6+ all around armor but the fact is, their turrets and shields are below average compared to their IN counterparts. The SC hurts with 1 shield against opponents with lances. Even the Battle Barge can get mobbed.
Comparing the two sides of the coin, defense is where an upgrade is needed, as well as more variety in the capital ships so that the SM can field a not so boring fleet.
I don't understand, Admiral. In fluff, Imperial factions don't like lances in SM fleets. On the tabletop though, How could you think that they would gain a big boost? In actual play, Bombardment Cannon is an even greater weapon than lances against ships.
How would a tradeoff for an inferior weapon be seen as OP? Its not an argument of need, but flavor.
Also, marine escorts are very expensive next to Imperial ones, a lot of novas is extremely points prohibitive for the punch you get.
Edit: I want to know if you are opposed to this:
'For every 750 points, one standard Strike Cruiser may replace its str3 bombardment cannon with a str2 30cm forward firing lance battery'
Its obviously a weaker option than the l/r/f BC, and yet still not completely pointless. While a much weaker option, in the event of an abeam, blast-marker shrouded target in the prow arc, it will give you one more 4+ shot than the BC option, though without the 4+ critical.
Weaker, not completely pointless, and limited. Hopefully that is an option everyone can agree on, from fluff and balance purposes.
-
Whoops yes. 6. So? Use the WBs if you want. You're still rolling on the Escort column. I'm sure as hell not sending them in as one wave. Most likely in waves of 2. So that's 2 dice to roll needing 6+. Sure you can fire as a squadron. Try it and if you hit, good for you. If not, you're SDMs are dead. Mass away. Sooner or later you'll miss one or two and those one or two will start whittling the SDMs down.
Not now that you have to roll 3+ to kill a escort with an aboat. Since it's 13 dice, odds are good for at least 2 sixes.
So what about FP24 WB? You're still using the Escort column to roll against the THs needing 6+. Again, I'm not sending everything in one wave. So the WBs get to fire only once assuming you can get the THs in the correct arc. After which you then need 4+ for the 4 turrets, not 5 since you are talking about 3 ships. What's the issue with that? Sooner than later, one SDM will die so now you go down to 3 2 SDMs at FP16 and 3 turrets. aside from which the SCs can now charge in and go for the kill.
Granted, for some reason I was thinking 4 in a squadron instead of 3 when I did the turret math. Since the entire WB is f/l/r gettign them in the right arc is not as big a problem as you might think.
Seriously? You think you can corner a speed 25 cm 90' turning ship on a 6' x 4' table with Spd 10 cm 45' turning models? SM might not be Necrons but you sure don't know SM capabilities. Dude, I suggest you proxy and play them first before you even start thinking about asking for goodies for SM.
Don't insult my intelligence. While yes, against one slow moving herd you can't corner them. Against three slow moving herds, yes, you can. Otherwise defeating necrons would be impossible as IN.
Really? You don't even know what my exact plans are. The point of my plan is you use the THs to handle the SDMs. How I do it, whether I use a plan similar to skating tortoises is up to me to execute.
Um, D'Art, you told the plan in detail.
Really? How? I just send in my 9 THs to eat your 8 SDMs one at a time by rolling 3+ to kill them. When they get down to 4 or less SDMs, the SCs now charge in and assist with the eating. Really, it's obvious you don't know how to deal with SDMs using SCs.
The SMART SM player sends his THs against the SDMs and kill them one at a time. The SMART SM player will send his SCs to the rear of the SDMs.
Which, again, would mean that your plan was to sit at the back of the THs and throw in waves until you whittled them down and then tried to maneuver aft of them and fire. The problem is, again, you're only FP 2 if they're moving away. With a lance this plan is somewhat more viable, as you get that str 2 lance as long as they're in range.)
Why wouldn't anyone take it if the option is there? Even at +20, people will be willing to take it.
Only if they're willing to deliberatly cripple their fleet to be fluffy. Good for casual games, not good for the tourney scene.
What is it the SM really need? Do they need better offense? They already have a good arsenal. Weapon batteries, Bombardment Cannons, Resilient Thunderhawk Bombers and Assault Boats, Torpedoes, Boarding Modifiers, Hit & Run Bonus. Those are quite good already especially compared to the baseline IN fleet. Even the Escorts are better than their IN counterparts. You can even ram to your heart's content knowing you can survive the encounter much better.
Um, actually, their WBs aren't that good. Most are short ranged and fairly weak, with exceptions like SO. Further, not every list has all those things.
How about defense? They do have 6+ all around armor but the fact is, their turrets and shields are below average compared to their IN counterparts. The SC hurts with 1 shield against opponents with lances. Even the Battle Barge can get mobbed.
And I agree that the Sc should get +1 shield. Your point?
No, you are currently being proposed to be given it. You don't have it yet. Which is why we are trying to prevent it to maintain balance since SM were given BCs to compensate for the lack of lances. Which is why this debate is up and about. The problem is next time SM players will be demanding lances on the Battle Barge. Long range lances at that. You wish.
The problem is the 12 in gun is not on a submarine. It is on a cruiser. A very resilient cruiser which thus can be called a battlecruiser if not a battleship. The 12 in gun on a submarine is called a Nova and Firestorm. Those ought to be enough for you, esp since you can bring 3 of them for 1 lance SC and have more lances than you can ever have if you just field the lance SCs.
Wow, D'art, did hyperbola just run wild in your post there or what? Tell me, how adding that str 2 lance will make it the equal of an Apoc or an Armageddon class, I'm curious there. Particularly since the common Gothic seems to clean it's clock.
And, again, it's not about 'Well, take this other ship instead' it's about options on the SC. Tell me how giving the SC a lance makes it broken. I have not see you present one shred of information to back up the idea that an SC with a str 2 lance is suddenly some sort of super ship killer. None.
And, frankly, what you idiots have done with SO is far worse then if it had kept it's Str 6 lances. We did proxy that one up. It crossed the T against an Apoc that failed it's BFI and while, it didn't quite one shot it, it was reduced to three HP and received shields down, smashed bridge, on fire, thrusters hit, and an engine hit. Needless to say, it did not live out the next turn when the SO burned retros.
A Desolater, universes nastiest lance boat, couldn't pull that off. I think your cries of 'balance' ring rather hollow in the face of that.
Yes, it must suck, because they were designed to suck at any other task then the ones they were specifically designed for.
If i see another moron say "space marines train for thousands of years!" I am going to break the universe. Most space marines do not survive being a scout, much less make it to tactical marine status, or higher. Most space marines live a few hundred years before their geneseed is destroyed, lost, or corrupted.
It is a RARE marine that lives a thousand years.
Space marines are trained to be combat specialists, surgical strikers on the ground and inside enemy vessels. Specialization breeds weakness, and that manifests itself in their low combat rating, and forced restriction from most heavy vessels.
Part of the question is: Since a Strike Cruiser is designed as a first responder, it is going to require a certain amount of anti-ship weaponry. The Ultramarines, who are the very posterboys of being a Codex chapter use torps on their SCs. I do not see the difference between a torpedo, which is by it's very nature as anti-ship as it gets, and a lance battery, other then the the fact that the chapter is required to produce less ordinance.
Two hundred years seems to be fairly common though. Certain chapters have a tendency toward longer lifespans (Blood Angels) and have more members above the five century mark.
-
I don't understand, Admiral. In fluff, Imperial factions don't like lances in SM fleets. On the tabletop though, How could you think that they would gain a big boost? In actual play, Bombardment Cannon is an even greater weapon than lances against ships.
How would a tradeoff for an inferior weapon be seen as OP? Its not an argument of need, but flavor.
Even if it were flavor, as you pointed out, IN don't like lances in SM fleets and grudgingly accept the ones on escorts which they prefer to keep that way. To make BCs work well, the SM needs to have the target in the Closing or Moving Away profile. So it makes things harder to use while still retaining the deadliness. That's something IN can live with as going abeam would help minimize the threat. So whether game play or fluff, there is still no need or requirement in flavor for it.
Also, marine escorts are very expensive next to Imperial ones, a lot of novas is extremely points prohibitive for the punch you get.
I don't think so. IN Firestorms are only 10 points less. SM actually gets quite a lot for those 50 points. +10 cm speed advantage at the expense of 1 turret and then the SM rules.
Edit: I want to know if you are opposed to this:
'For every 750 points, one standard Strike Cruiser may replace its str3 bombardment cannon with a str2 30cm forward firing lance battery'
Its obviously a weaker option than the l/r/f BC, and yet still not completely pointless. While a much weaker option, in the event of an abeam, blast-marker shrouded target in the prow arc, it will give you one more 4+ shot than the BC option, though without the 4+ critical.
Weaker, not completely pointless, and limited. Hopefully that is an option everyone can agree on, from fluff and balance purposes.
Yes. Why? Because you already pointed out, BCs can be better than lances. So why would SM have to get the lance? It's already enough that SM get the BCs. It is just trickier but no less deadly in the right circumstances especially now that the BM problem looks like it will get resolved the way it is. It works with the fluff while giving SM a chance to win fleet action. In your proposal 2 lances in 750 points in a fleet where it can take 145 point 6+ armor, 25 cm speed, 90' turn SCs are significant. In 1500 point matches, That's 4 lances supported by BCs and WBs and lances on Novas if the player wanted to include escorts. That's a serious threat to IN. It is NOT pointless. That is the point. It's not weaker since it makes things easier for SM. A ship targeted by WBs, BCs and lances would be neutralized and unless a fleet brings lots of lances, the opposing fleet would have a hard time striking back. You almost always have to compare every race to IN which is one of the more basic races. Adding lances to the SM even in limited amounts would tilt things to SM significantly.
-
Sigoroth, the simultaneous rules is FAQ2010 and will be official. And I think it is an awesome great rule to enhance bombardment cannons and heavy gunz without altering game play, rules and profiles.
Which is EXACTLY what it shouldn't do. I can tell you flat out I'll never play this rule. Both SMs and Orks should suffer the interference caused by having 2 different gunnery weapons. There is no simultaneity of fire with different weapon systems or different squadrons/markers in BFG. This is not a simultaneous game. It is purely sequential. This should not be broken to artificially boost 2 races for whom it is wholly unfluffy to be boosted in this way!
-
Not now that you have to roll 3+ to kill a escort with an aboat. Since it's 13 dice, odds are good for at least 2 sixes.
How are you getting 13 dice? You're only getting 2 dice per SDM. So with 3 SDMs, you're getting 6 dice total. Odds are good you will roll sixes yes but that's hitting 1 wave out of 2 or 3. The other wave(s) then gets in and attacks your ships since you can't fire back at them anymore with your WBs and are now relying on your turrets.
Granted, for some reason I was thinking 4 in a squadron instead of 3 when I did the turret math. Since the entire WB is f/l/r gettign them in the right arc is not as big a problem as you might think.
See? I'm not the only fallible one. you make mistakes too.
It's not hitting the THs in the right arc. It's getting all 2 or 3 waves. You won't be able to get the other waves once you finish firing against 1 wave since you can only fire your WBs once per Shooting phase. You can split the WB fire sure. Means rolling lower dice against each wave you target.
Don't insult my intelligence. While yes, against one slow moving herd you can't corner them. Against three slow moving herds, yes, you can. Otherwise defeating necrons would be impossible as IN.
Even against 3 slow moving herds, you will still have a hard time cornering them all. 3 SCs at 485 points vs 8 SDMs at 480. You divide that into 3 and guess what? I now send my THs against the one with 2 SDMs. I just keep whittling away with my THs. Sooner than later your SDMs will be down to half and you still won't be touching my SCs because I will just keep dancing them out of your FP24 WBs until I have whittled them down to WB8.
Um, D'Art, you told the plan in detail.
Really? How? I just send in my 9 THs to eat your 8 SDMs one at a time by rolling 3+ to kill them. When they get down to 4 or less SDMs, the SCs now charge in and assist with the eating. Really, it's obvious you don't know how to deal with SDMs using SCs.
The SMART SM player sends his THs against the SDMs and kill them one at a time. The SMART SM player will send his SCs to the rear of the SDMs.
Which, again, would mean that your plan was to sit at the back of the THs and throw in waves until you whittled them down and then tried to maneuver aft of them and fire. The problem is, again, you're only FP 2 if they're moving away. With a lance this plan is somewhat more viable, as you get that str 2 lance as long as they're in range.)
Exactly. However I do it is up to me. I can send them in one big wave. I can send them in 2 or 3 smaller waves. The point being, I still use the THs to clear out some of the SDMs first before I send my SCs in. 2 dice out of FP3 is quite ok already considering crits will kill escorts as well as the shot from the BC unless you brace.
Only if they're willing to deliberatly cripple their fleet to be fluffy. Good for casual games, not good for the tourney scene.
You think? You haven't even tried SM yet having just gotten your fleet. I win with SM. Difficult yes, but I win. Adding lances will just make things easier.
Um, actually, their WBs aren't that good. Most are short ranged and fairly weak, with exceptions like SO. Further, not every list has all those things.
The fact is you have those options to choose from. Not every IN fleet has ordnance. not every IN fleet has NCs. Not every IN fleet has everything. WBs are as good as the IN. WBs are not that good beyond 30 cm. You lose dice from the range because of the column shift then you lose dice further depending on the target profile. WBs work BEST in the 30 cm band. Which means SM WBs are working at their optimal conditions and can only get better by going under 15 cm which their ships can do with regularity.
And I agree that the Sc should get +1 shield. Your point?
The point being SM don't need to get the lance. They don't need an upgrade to their offense. Their defense is the one which needs upgrading.
Wow, D'art, did hyperbola just run wild in your post there or what? Tell me, how adding that str 2 lance will make it the equal of an Apoc or an Armageddon class, I'm curious there. Particularly since the common Gothic seems to clean it's clock.
The heck are you talking about? You're the one who started the hyperbole with 12 in guns on subs. The Graf Spee was basically a cruiser with 11 in guns. It's considered a pocket battleship though it is closer to an oversized cruiser or even battlecruiser than a true battleship at the time. That's what I meant about the SC being considered a "battlecruiser" since you were using real life examples. That's what the Deutschland's were. Similarly, the SC in the game has more weapons and defensive qualities than any light cruiser chassis has any right to have making them in effect oversized cruisers nearing battlecruiser status.
The reason why the Gothic can clean the SCs clock is because of the 4 lances per broadside but let's say we go 1:1 with the SC. What's the Gothic going to do against the THs? I would keep using the THs to crit a lot of the Gothic's systems then charge in with the SC preferably when one of its broadsides are out and attack on that angle. Once the BCs get hits in, more crits will happen. It's actually almost a fair fight. You just have to play SMARTLY and not rush the SC headlong into the welcoming arms of its broadside lances.
And, again, it's not about 'Well, take this other ship instead' it's about options on the SC. Tell me how giving the SC a lance makes it broken. I have not see you present one shred of information to back up the idea that an SC with a str 2 lance is suddenly some sort of super ship killer. None.
Really? We've already gone through so many things. The lances combine well with WBs. SMs like IN work best in groups. So WBs and BCs hitting against one target will then be further hurt by lances getting through it. The problem with BCs is that you need to have the right target profile to make max use out of it thereby making things harder for SM. Lances makes things easy. Point and shoot. Doesn't matter what the target's profile is. That's how it becomes a ship killer though not necessarily na super ship killer. The Dauntless is the closest example to the SC with lances you can get. We know how bad that momma can be so we know what we are talking about when people ask for lances on the SC which is a more survivable ship than the Dauntless will be.
You still haven't provided any reason why SM needs lances. That's what now? 6 or 7 times I asked? Still counting.
And, frankly, what you idiots have done with SO is far worse then if it had kept it's Str 6 lances. We did proxy that one up. It crossed the T against an Apoc that failed it's BFI and while, it didn't quite one shot it, it was reduced to three HP and received shields down, smashed bridge, on fire, thrusters hit, and an engine hit. Needless to say, it did not live out the next turn when the SO burned retros.
Many people are complaining about it. While I have not playtested it yet, being busy with work, it's not final yet and can still be subject to revisions if the situation warrants. And one game does not a conclusion make. Try it out 5 or 10 times, then come back with your results. However, look at your results:
1. SO managed to cross the T. Quite doable but I wonder what the IN player was doing not presenting the Apocs broadside when the SO was in range.
2. Apoc failed BFI check. Now try that again with successful BFI.
3. Your got the Shield's Collapse crit which no doubt helped in the demise of the Apoc. Now try it without the Shields Collapse Crit.
A Desolater, universes nastiest lance boat, couldn't pull that off. I think your cries of 'balance' ring rather hollow in the face of that.
Which is why the ship is still in a draft. Provide your playtest result to Nate and it may yet be changed.
Part of the question is: Since a Strike Cruiser is designed as a first responder, it is going to require a certain amount of anti-ship weaponry. The Ultramarines, who are the very posterboys of being a Codex chapter use torps on their SCs. I do not see the difference between a torpedo, which is by it's very nature as anti-ship as it gets, and a lance battery, other then the the fact that the chapter is required to produce less ordinance.
Being first on scene does not mean you attack any ship or fleet orbiting the planet just because you're SM. Play smart. Fight smart. If you're just one ship, you won't be able to beat a fleet easily. One on one, it IS possible even with BCs. Just hard.
You don't see the difference bet a torp required to breach the armor value vs a weapon that can hit a ship regardless of what armor it has on a 4+? Maybe that's the problem.
-
The fact is that SMs do not need lances. They have bombardment cannon. The interaction between BC and WBs (ie, the placement of a BM) makes the two weapon systems less efficient against ships than WB + Lances. More efficient against static defences than WBs + Lances and more efficient against 6+ armour static defences than Lances + bombardment cannons when on LO.
Not really as effective if the defenses are squadroned. 150 pts of squadroned defenses (str 6 lance, str 12 60cm WB, str 6 torp) > 160 points of SC.
Um, yes, WB+BC is more effective against defences than WB+Lance even when the defences are squadroned. When we're comparing defences against SCs, keep in mind that defences can't move. They also generally have only 1 hit. And they are supposed to be defences. They're not supposed to be defencelesses. SMs are optimised to take them out, which doesn't mean they can do so without effort.
Except, in fluff, they did and they were. And from fluff in rulebooks, even, neverminding the fluff from Battlefleet Gothic Magazine.
This is not their mandate. They are not meant to fight warfleets. Whether they do or not is up to them. They want to go into a battle they're not suited for then so the fuck what? They may want lances, but so what? They may want battlecruisers too, but again, so what? They aren't getting them.
Also, the only reason BC exist is because SMs don't have lances. They don't have lances. No lances. If they had lances there'd be no such thing as BC.
3 SFM = Str 24 WB (f/l/r) and Str 3 lance (turret massing = 5 turrets) 180pts against 1 SC (str 2 sheilds) Str 4 wbs, str 3 bc, 2 thawks. 160pts
Well, let's take your 480 pt example of 8 SDM vs 3 SC (2 THs, 2 shields, 160 pts). In this example you're clustering your SDMs to maximise massed turrets. It is quite possible for the SM player to annihilate this force without taking a single shot in return.
Step 1 - launch 2 x 3 THs and reload (optional)
Step 2 - set your THs and SCs 41cm away from oncoming SDMs, end turn
Step 3 - he moves forward 5-10cm, is out of range, your turn
Step 4 - AAF, contact 1st base, land on 2nd or 3rd base. Ram x 3. Board x 3 (+3 modifier). Mop up with THs
That's 8 dead SDM, with maybe 1 damage from the ram attempt. It is possible to lose the boarding action if you roll a 1 and he rolls a 5 or 6, but it's unlikely and he'll only have that 1 escort left out of 8. It's also possible that with 6 dice on the ram you won't roll a 6, so maybe he'll have 1 escort left from that. Not likely to have 2 left. Note, if you have even 1 extra escort (a Nova for example) to be able to place a single BM you'll likely get it into contact with all 3 enemy ships making it even less likely that one will survive the boarding attempt.
All this is without even firing a shot, lances or otherwise. So the SC is more than capable of holding its own against these terribly slow and ponderous vessels. Now, let's look at lances vs BCs. Undoubtedly the SDM will be pointed at the SCs. They are slow and lumbering and their lance is forward only. So the SC could move to within normal range, present broadsides and get 2 BC dice and 1 WB dice, so it is possible to win 1 on 1. This assumes BM interference. If they had an acute approach angle they could get this without having to turn, and so could be on LO. A lance equipped ship would get +1 WB dice. If the SC could get from being out of range to close range in 1 turn (which they certainly can) then there is no difference between the lances and BC at all (except that the BC get 4+ crits and 4+ hits on AC, which only comes into play against other defences).
When circling each other the SC will always find rear armour at close range, and this situation is the same as the normal range scenario above. That is to say BM interference will give 2 BC dice and 1WB dice, whereas lances would get +1WB dice. In return the SDM will be shooting at an abeam ship and have 4WB dice (needing 3 hits at least to do anything). All the while the SC has THs too.
So in some circumstances the lance variant gets 1 extra dice. This isn't a uniform increase and presupposes no support and doesn't come close to making up for the loss of firepower against static defences. SMs would not arm their ships so. The IN wouldn't allow them to arm their ships so. The SMs would not want to challenge the IN in this particular. Sure they're stubborn and like getting their own way, but they know how far to push it.
Sigoroth, you blast lances for being against fluff, and then propose a carrier version? o_0?
Yes. There is nothing to say that SMs can't have THs. However, they can't have anti-ship weapons. This is a consistent stance.
And ignored mostly.
Yes, this is my point. It is ignored because it is rubbish.
The fluff for them having lances in Planetstrike makes perfect sense. We have a situation were, by inquisitorial decree, there is to be as little collateral damage as possible, ad they opt to use a precision weapon rather then a bombardment cannon.
Firstly, an accurate orbital barrage has naught to do with lances in BFG. Lances in BFG are accurate anti-ship weapons. There is nothing to suggest that WBs cannot do accurate orbital barrages.
And, bluntly, nothing to do with space marines is plausible, so I just assume the warp did it. Seriously, have you ever looked into the biology of it? They should be toothless and dead.
Yes, yes, we all know this. They have fused ribcages, supposedly for extra protection. They simply wouldn't be able to breathe. Obviously a good deal of specifics are hand waived. The same is true of the laws of physics. The point is that they have to be internally consistent. You couldn't have one piece of fluff describing all the modifications that the SMs get and another stating how anyone with a fused ribcage couldn't breathe and would die. They are mutually exclusive. Hence the Eldrad Ulthran fluff is nonsense, the SMs destroying a craftworld is nonsense and the SMs have anti-ship weaponry is nonsense.
And, you have a problem translating the ideal to the reality there. As an example, with no IN in Ultramar, wouldn't they have a very good reason to possess pure gunboats? Or in the case of BT, the fact that they frequently go crusading without support from other Imperial organizations?
And, again, the fluff for SCs is they are the first responders, in system BEFORE IN. IN takes months (or even years) to mobilize against threats. Look at the difficulty they had during the early stage of the Gothic War. If SM had to wait for IN support, then the Imperium would have fallen long ago.
You seem to have a problem separating a need from reality there as well. OK, the Ultramarines could use a warfleet. The BTs would love to be able to crush flotillas of xenos or Chaos warships. Tough. They can't. They have to make do with what they've got. I'm sure the Tau would love to have complete access to Eldar tech too. Tough, they're not getting it. The Eldar aren't giving it to them. The Imperium aren't giving the SM warships either. If the SM take or make warships then they're the enemy of the Imperium. It may take them a century to catch on, but once they do then that's that.
Also note, torpedoes are an anti-defence weapon. Like WBs they get better the slower the target. Since defences are immobile they cannot dodge out of the way. On top of this some exterminatus weapons are loaded into torpedo warheads. This is in line with SMs realm of influence. Lastly boarding torps are yet another delivery system for the SMs into the enemy defences. So of course torpedoes are perfectly allowable. There is only 1 specifically anti-ship weapon in the game. Lances. And SMs get BCs instead.
-
Even if it were flavor, as you pointed out, IN don't like lances in SM fleets and grudgingly accept the ones on escorts which they prefer to keep that way. To make BCs work well, the SM needs to have the target in the Closing or Moving Away profile. So it makes things harder to use while still retaining the deadliness. That's something IN can live with as going abeam would help minimize the threat. So whether game play or fluff, there is still no need or requirement in flavor for it.
I think he was talking about people's own custom chapters. It's a common thing in this game we call Warhammer 40k that we seem to get a lot of new players crossing over from. They have this funny idea from all those rulebooks, BL novels, audio books, comics, and video games printed after Armada that Space Marine ships have lances.
I again notice how you do not talk about BC's ridiculous deadliness against ships, far above what lances are. I have a hard time swollowing that the IN are opposed to weapons that burn neat holes in ships in favor of weapons that gut them from end to end, with, in all but the more extreme circumstances, exactly the same accuracy against ships.
'Admiral, we're here at the Aberdeen System to test out weapons on ships. For our target we have an old Dauntless that's been decommissioned. Let's start with a lance. *lance burns hole in dauntless for two damage.* Now for this bombardment cannon! *Dauntless explodes into debris as the hull is breached and internal bulkheads collapse*
'Now, Admiral, aren't we so much safer since that bombardment cannon is so much weaker then the lance?'
Yes. Why? Because you already pointed out, BCs can be better than lances. So why would SM have to get the lance? It's already enough that SM get the BCs. It is just trickier but no less deadly in the right circumstances especially now that the BM problem looks like it will get resolved the way it is. It works with the fluff while giving SM a chance to win fleet action. In your proposal 2 lances in 750 points in a fleet where it can take 145 point 6+ armor, 25 cm speed, 90' turn SCs are significant. In 1500 point matches, That's 4 lances supported by BCs and WBs and lances on Novas if the player wanted to include escorts. That's a serious threat to IN. It is NOT pointless. That is the point. It's not weaker since it makes things easier for SM. A ship targeted by WBs, BCs and lances would be neutralized and unless a fleet brings lots of lances, the opposing fleet would have a hard time striking back. You almost always have to compare every race to IN which is one of the more basic races. Adding lances to the SM even in limited amounts would tilt things to SM significantly.
Yes, a battleship would be neutralized by being hit by an entire 1500 point SM fleet. How unlike now where they're simply neutralized by a str 20 BC hit from a single 450 point ship! And, my god, they would have to bring lots of lances, something MOST OF THEM DO ANYWAY (Unless you think the Lunar and Gothic are uncommon ships in IN fleets).
How are you getting 13 dice? You're only getting 2 dice per SDM. So with 3 SDMs, you're getting 6 dice total. Odds are good you will roll sixes yes but that's hitting 1 wave out of 2 or 3. The other wave(s) then gets in and attacks your ships since you can't fire back at them anymore with your WBs and are now relying on your turrets.
Because I'm firing three squadrons at the waves rather then the SDMs individually. Str 24 wb becomes str 5, str 16 becomes 3 assuming no left shift. When you say waves I assume that means you're combining six squadrons into two waves. Under the new FAQ I only have to roll one six to eliminate the entire wave rather then reduce it's str by 1.
See? I'm not the only fallible one. you make mistakes too.
It's not hitting the THs in the right arc. It's getting all 2 or 3 waves. You won't be able to get the other waves once you finish firing against 1 wave since you can only fire your WBs once per Shooting phase. You can split the WB fire sure. Means rolling lower dice against each wave you target.
However, I'm still combining WBs from three squadrons. So I can target 3 waves individually.
Even against 3 slow moving herds, you will still have a hard time cornering them all. 3 SCs at 485 points vs 8 SDMs at 480. You divide that into 3 and guess what? I now send my THs against the one with 2 SDMs. I just keep whittling away with my THs. Sooner than later your SDMs will be down to half and you still won't be touching my SCs because I will just keep dancing them out of your FP24 WBs until I have whittled them down to WB8.
I don't have to corner them all, just one at a time, since you seem to not be squadroning them, the dancing in and out is not much of a threat due to their weak WBs and BC against escorts.
The squadron with 2 goes in the center of the formation. By all means, attack it. That's why it's there, since the idea is that anything that comes in range at 30cm is in range of both larger squadrons on the flank. If you funnel thawks toward it, I get to fire lances at them as well.
Further, if I brace I lose some forward momentum. If you brace, you lose the ability to reload ord.
You think? You haven't even tried SM yet having just gotten your fleet. I win with SM. Difficult yes, but I win. Adding lances will just make things easier.
While I grant that I, personally, have not previously used SM, I have had a lot of fun with IN and chaos, and killed some space marines before. I liek to think that seeing how they died horribly at my hands, I might have some input.
The fact is you have those options to choose from. Not every IN fleet has ordnance. not every IN fleet has NCs. Not every IN fleet has everything. WBs are as good as the IN. WBs are not that good beyond 30 cm. You lose dice from the range because of the column shift then you lose dice further depending on the target profile. WBs work BEST in the 30 cm band. Which means SM WBs are working at their optimal conditions and can only get better by going under 15 cm which their ships can do with regularity.
I'm quite familiar with them trying to close like that. Except with Chaos. Then I usually don't let them. Or against IN. Then it's good time torps and lances for everybody.
The heck are you talking about? You're the one who started the hyperbole with 12 in guns on subs. The Graf Spee was basically a cruiser with 11 in guns. It's considered a pocket battleship though it is closer to an oversized cruiser or even battlecruiser than a true battleship at the time. That's what I meant about the SC being considered a "battlecruiser" since you were using real life examples. That's what the Deutschland's were. Similarly, the SC in the game has more weapons and defensive qualities than any light cruiser chassis has any right to have making them in effect oversized cruisers nearing battlecruiser status.
The reason why the Gothic can clean the SCs clock is because of the 4 lances per broadside but let's say we go 1:1 with the SC. What's the Gothic going to do against the THs? I would keep using the THs to crit a lot of the Gothic's systems then charge in with the SC preferably when one of its broadsides are out and attack on that angle. Once the BCs get hits in, more crits will happen. It's actually almost a fair fight. You just have to play SMARTLY and not rush the SC headlong into the welcoming arms of its broadside lances.
I'm familiar with the Duetschland class, I was referring to the M class submarine the RN built as an example of just because a ship has weapon (whatever) doesn't mean that it automatically becomes whatever the weapon is more commonly mounted on.
As far as the Gothic V SC: AAF and ram it with the power ram. Depending on if you stop as you hit or pass her you'll either get a broadside angle or a shot with your torps if end the movement in base contact.
Really? We've already gone through so many things. The lances combine well with WBs. SMs like IN work best in groups. So WBs and BCs hitting against one target will then be further hurt by lances getting through it. The problem with BCs is that you need to have the right target profile to make max use out of it thereby making things harder for SM. Lances makes things easy. Point and shoot. Doesn't matter what the target's profile is. That's how it becomes a ship killer though not necessarily na super ship killer. The Dauntless is the closest example to the SC with lances you can get. We know how bad that momma can be so we know what we are talking about when people ask for lances on the SC which is a more survivable ship than the Dauntless will be.
You still haven't provided any reason why SM needs lances. That's what now? 6 or 7 times I asked? Still counting.
The first and foremost is their efficiency against escorts is going to be compromised by the new rules for aboats and the Wolfpack list being made official. Lances would go some distnce to off setting this.
Many people are complaining about it. While I have not playtested it yet, being busy with work, it's not final yet and can still be subject to revisions if the situation warrants. And one game does not a conclusion make. Try it out 5 or 10 times, then come back with your results. However, look at your results:
1. SO managed to cross the T. Quite doable but I wonder what the IN player was doing not presenting the Apocs broadside when the SO was in range.
2. Apoc failed BFI check. Now try that again with successful BFI.
3. Your got the Shield's Collapse crit which no doubt helped in the demise of the Apoc. Now try it without the Shields Collapse Crit.
The SO was not unhit, however it only took 4 damage leading up to this.
D'Art, even without the shields collapse crit, it would still have taken about eq to a str 6 lance hit. It would have been dead, just differing in it's degree of dead.
As far as the successful BFI: It would have taken half as many hits, leaving it only crippled and with only 3ish crits instead of five. It might do a little more damage to the SO, but I'd say that it's probably going to die in the next turn or so.
Which is why the ship is still in a draft. Provide your playtest result to Nate and it may yet be changed.
The SM stuff is stamped 'final'.
Being first on scene does not mean you attack any ship or fleet orbiting the planet just because you're SM. Play smart. Fight smart. If you're just one ship, you won't be able to beat a fleet easily. One on one, it IS possible even with BCs. Just hard.
You don't see the difference bet a torp required to breach the armor value vs a weapon that can hit a ship regardless of what armor it has on a 4+? Maybe that's the problem.
Against IN ships one hits on a +4 and one hits on a +5 on most facings. The str 2 lance would do on average one hit, the str 6 torp on average 2 (since thawks are fighters and can suppress turrets). So, again, how is the torp not an anti-ship weapon when the lance is?
Well, let's take your 480 pt example of 8 SDM vs 3 SC (2 THs, 2 shields, 160 pts). In this example you're clustering your SDMs to maximise massed turrets. It is quite possible for the SM player to annihilate this force without taking a single shot in return.
Step 1 - launch 2 x 3 THs and reload (optional)
Step 2 - set your THs and SCs 41cm away from oncoming SDMs, end turn
Step 3 - he moves forward 5-10cm, is out of range, your turn
Step 4 - AAF, contact 1st base, land on 2nd or 3rd base. Ram x 3. Board x 3 (+3 modifier). Mop up with THs
That's 8 dead SDM, with maybe 1 damage from the ram attempt. It is possible to lose the boarding action if you roll a 1 and he rolls a 5 or 6, but it's unlikely and he'll only have that 1 escort left out of 8. It's also possible that with 6 dice on the ram you won't roll a 6, so maybe he'll have 1 escort left from that. Not likely to have 2 left. Note, if you have even 1 extra escort (a Nova for example) to be able to place a single BM you'll likely get it into contact with all 3 enemy ships making it even less likely that one will survive the boarding attempt.
All this is without even firing a shot, lances or otherwise. So the SC is more than capable of holding its own against these terribly slow and ponderous vessels. Now, let's look at lances vs BCs. Undoubtedly the SDM will be pointed at the SCs. They are slow and lumbering and their lance is forward only. So the SC could move to within normal range, present broadsides and get 2 BC dice and 1 WB dice, so it is possible to win 1 on 1. This assumes BM interference. If they had an acute approach angle they could get this without having to turn, and so could be on LO. A lance equipped ship would get +1 WB dice. If the SC could get from being out of range to close range in 1 turn (which they certainly can) then there is no difference between the lances and BC at all (except that the BC get 4+ crits and 4+ hits on AC, which only comes into play against other defences).
When circling each other the SC will always find rear armour at close range, and this situation is the same as the normal range scenario above. That is to say BM interference will give 2 BC dice and 1WB dice, whereas lances would get +1WB dice. In return the SDM will be shooting at an abeam ship and have 4WB dice (needing 3 hits at least to do anything). All the while the SC has THs too.
So in some circumstances the lance variant gets 1 extra dice. This isn't a uniform increase and presupposes no support and doesn't come close to making up for the loss of firepower against static defences. SMs would not arm their ships so. The IN wouldn't allow them to arm their ships so. The SMs would not want to challenge the IN in this particular. Sure they're stubborn and like getting their own way, but they know how far to push it.
I actually considered ignoring you entirely, but:
Never minding that 'why on earth would I bunch them together rather then set them up to provide supporting fire if someone tries to close or get behind one or more squadrons':
2: How are you moving your SC's during the Ordinance phase? You would either have to not move your AC for both your and my ord phase, which means they will be out of range if you AAF, or you're moving with them infront of you, meaning they're going to be in range of my wbs.
4: the sheer number of things that can go wrong here...
In order of likelihood:
1)You fail to roll between 10 and 12 on 4d6 meaning you either stop short or overshoot on your ram attempt. Overshooting would be bad, stopping short would be much worse. Overshoot and I have to BFI one squadron, and have a 50/50 chance of losing one SDM. Fall short and you're closing, within 15 cm, and looking at a str 24 wb and str 3 lances. I'd brace if I were you at this point.
2)All of my squadrons are not actually exactly the same distance away from you.
3)I successfully BFI against you at one or more points in this plan.
-
I think he was talking about people's own custom chapters. It's a common thing in this game we call Warhammer 40k that we seem to get a lot of new players crossing over from. They have this funny idea from all those rulebooks, BL novels, audio books, comics, and video games printed after Armada that Space Marine ships have lances.
So? As Zelnik has pointed out, 40k does not translate to BFG well. Whatever traits SM have they are irrelevant in the BFG scheme of things. I agree, they have this FUNNY idea. Reality is however, they DO NOT HAVE lances on their cap ships.
I again notice how you do not talk about BC's ridiculous deadliness against ships, far above what lances are. I have a hard time swollowing that the IN are opposed to weapons that burn neat holes in ships in favor of weapons that gut them from end to end, with, in all but the more extreme circumstances, exactly the same accuracy against ships.
BCs are not as deadly compared to lances in that it is trickier to use, unlike lances which are simpler. BCs need to get the right profile for them to excel. Something the opponent can deny.
'Admiral, we're here at the Aberdeen System to test out weapons on ships. For our target we have an old Dauntless that's been decommissioned. Let's start with a lance. *lance burns hole in dauntless for two damage.* Now for this bombardment cannon! *Dauntless explodes into debris as the hull is breached and internal bulkheads collapse*
The same effect can be realized with the Lances. The crits are only easier with the BCs. Really, play with your SM fleet first before coming here and mouthing off something which you do not have any experience of.
Yes, a battleship would be neutralized by being hit by an entire 1500 point SM fleet. How unlike now where they're simply neutralized by a str 20 BC hit from a single 450 point ship! And, my god, they would have to bring lots of lances, something MOST OF THEM DO ANYWAY (Unless you think the Lunar and Gothic are uncommon ships in IN fleets).
Again if you're nice enough to allow your opponent a closing profile and fail your BFI saves and get the right crits, yes, you should get your head handed to you. But this is not about the SO which I have already said I haven't checked out thoroughly yet and I already pointed out people are having an issue with. Now if you think it is overpowered then give your report to Nate.
Because I'm firing three squadrons at the waves rather then the SDMs individually. Str 24 wb becomes str 5, str 16 becomes 3 assuming no left shift. When you say waves I assume that means you're combining six squadrons into two waves. Under the new FAQ I only have to roll one six to eliminate the entire wave rather then reduce it's str by 1.
You're really confused about the rules aren't you? Using Direct Fire (ergo WBs, BCs or lances) to shoot at a wave of 2 squadrons, you only get one shot since you are targeting that particular wave. Not all 3 waves of 2 squadrons. It's never been reducing the strength by 1. Once a Direct Fire weapon hits a wave of ordnance, on a 6+ the entire wave is gone.
However, I'm still combining WBs from three squadrons. So I can target 3 waves individually.
Assuming all 3 SDM squadrons have the TH waves in their range. How much do you want to bet that I can make sure not all of them get a chance to shoot at all 3 TH waves?
I don't have to corner them all, just one at a time, since you seem to not be squadroning them, the dancing in and out is not much of a threat due to their weak WBs and BC against escorts.
Really, play first. This is getting ridiculous already. Squadroned or not the SCs can play around the table and you wouldn't be able to catch them.
The squadron with 2 goes in the center of the formation. By all means, attack it. That's why it's there, since the idea is that anything that comes in range at 30cm is in range of both larger squadrons on the flank. If you funnel thawks toward it, I get to fire lances at them as well.
If they're in the center then I will attack the ones on the flanks and attack from the rear.
Further, if I brace I lose some forward momentum. If you brace, you lose the ability to reload ord.
Why am I going to brace? Again TH attacks. Once you're whittled down, I then send in the SCs to mop up.
While I grant that I, personally, have not previously used SM, I have had a lot of fun with IN and chaos, and killed some space marines before. I liek to think that seeing how they died horribly at my hands, I might have some input.
Then again, you still need to play them before you can figure out whay's wrong with them.
I'm quite familiar with them trying to close like that. Except with Chaos. Then I usually don't let them. Or against IN. Then it's good time torps and lances for everybody.
Good for you then.
I'm familiar with the Duetschland class, I was referring to the M class submarine the RN built as an example of just because a ship has weapon (whatever) doesn't mean that it automatically becomes whatever the weapon is more commonly mounted on.
True but depending on the platform, in the case of the Deutschlands and Scharnhorsts, it can be.
As far as the Gothic V SC: AAF and ram it with the power ram. Depending on if you stop as you hit or pass her you'll either get a broadside angle or a shot with your torps if end the movement in base contact.
Ram away if you think I'd let the SC get into ramming distance of the Gothic. Again, TH in, mess up the Gothic, then SC in and kill the Gothic.
The first and foremost is their efficiency against escorts is going to be compromised by the new rules for aboats and the Wolfpack list being made official. Lances would go some distnce to off setting this.
And why would BCs not work against the problem above?
The SO was not unhit, however it only took 4 damage leading up to this.
D'Art, even without the shields collapse crit, it would still have taken about eq to a str 6 lance hit. It would have been dead, just differing in it's degree of dead.
As far as the successful BFI: It would have taken half as many hits, leaving it only crippled and with only 3ish crits instead of five. It might do a little more damage to the SO, but I'd say that it's probably going to die in the next turn or so.
Probably. Try it first though.
The SM stuff is stamped 'final'.
You can still complain. They still haven't released the final PDFs yet and as experience goes with PP, we know what's stamped final might not be final.
Against IN ships one hits on a +4 and one hits on a +5 on most facings. The str 2 lance would do on average one hit, the str 6 torp on average 2 (since thawks are fighters and can suppress turrets). So, again, how is the torp not an anti-ship weapon when the lance is?
Because it's actually quite easy to avoid torps unlike lances. All the weapons in BFG are in a sense anti-ship but there are some more anti-ship than others.
-
I think he was talking about people's own custom chapters. It's a common thing in this game we call Warhammer 40k that we seem to get a lot of new players crossing over from. They have this funny idea from all those rulebooks, BL novels, audio books, comics, and video games printed after Armada that Space Marine ships have lances.
Again, we do not pander to SM fanboys here. Nor to the dictates of whatever tosspot BL author happens to be spinning the latest load of crap.
I again notice how you do not talk about BC's ridiculous deadliness against ships, far above what lances are. I have a hard time swollowing that the IN are opposed to weapons that burn neat holes in ships in favor of weapons that gut them from end to end, with, in all but the more extreme circumstances, exactly the same accuracy against ships.
Because this is a game, not just a fluff playground, we give people a balanced fleet list. So that at a given point value SM can actually go toe to toe against whomever. However this is not what they're meant to be able to do according to their backstory. If they do manage to do it in some piece of crap fluff or some notable Codex story or whatever, that is a case of them overcoming the odds in true heroic fashion, not a case of them having warships out the wazoo.
So, since we had to balance SM ships for play purposes, then the way in which that was done was by simply accentuating their strengths. We did NOT give them holofields. We did NOT give them auto-repairing hulls. We did NOT give them Daemonships. We did NOT give them lances.
Yes, in reality they should have shitter ships. These ships, or these points costs, are uber compared to what they should have. They don't however have what they should not.
Because I'm firing three squadrons at the waves rather then the SDMs individually. Str 24 wb becomes str 5, str 16 becomes 3 assuming no left shift. When you say waves I assume that means you're combining six squadrons into two waves. Under the new FAQ I only have to roll one six to eliminate the entire wave rather then reduce it's str by 1.
He also said 'waves', plural, which means you'd have to split that firepower.
However, I'm still combining WBs from three squadrons. So I can target 3 waves individually.
The SCs are 2.5 times faster than the SDMs and the THs are 4 times faster. They will control the engagement. The THs won't even get shot on the way in. You will have zero dice against them. In which case the SCs can just form a single wave of 6 and guarantee a kill per turn, all the while staying out of range of the SDMs.
I don't have to corner them all, just one at a time, since you seem to not be squadroning them, the dancing in and out is not much of a threat due to their weak WBs and BC against escorts.
The SDMs will never corner the SCs.
The squadron with 2 goes in the center of the formation. By all means, attack it. That's why it's there, since the idea is that anything that comes in range at 30cm is in range of both larger squadrons on the flank. If you funnel thawks toward it, I get to fire lances at them as well.
You don't seem to understand. You will never get to shoot at the TH. You will only have turrets against them. That's it.
Further, if I brace I lose some forward momentum. If you brace, you lose the ability to reload ord.
You can't brace.
Against IN ships one hits on a +4 and one hits on a +5 on most facings. The str 2 lance would do on average one hit, the str 6 torp on average 2 (since thawks are fighters and can suppress turrets). So, again, how is the torp not an anti-ship weapon when the lance is?
What? How are the THs suppressing turrets against torps?
Never minding that 'why on earth would I bunch them together rather then set them up to provide supporting fire if someone tries to close or get behind one or more squadrons':
You yourself said you were massing turrets to prevent death by TH. If you don't mass like this then I won't AAF, I'll just stay out of range while killing your ships with THs.
2: How are you moving your SC's during the Ordinance phase? You would either have to not move your AC for both your and my ord phase, which means they will be out of range if you AAF, or you're moving with them infront of you, meaning they're going to be in range of my wbs.
You must have missed something. Let me reiterate. I finish my movement 41 cms away from your ships. If you move your maximum of 10cm I will be 31cm away, putting me outside your reach. If you move your minimum I'll be 36cm away. So now in your ordnance phase I move my THs 20cm towards you, putting them 11-16cm away. My turn. Now I AAF, needing at most 12cm to ram, 15cm to end in base contact with the next ship back (or just 12cm if your ship is in base contact to the side, rather than behind).
This gives me one ship rammed and one ship boarded per SC. Now in my ordnance phase the THs come in to mop up the remaining SDMs.
4: the sheer number of things that can go wrong here...
In order of likelihood:
1)You fail to roll between 10 and 12 on 4d6 meaning you either stop short or overshoot on your ram attempt. Overshooting would be bad, stopping short would be much worse. Overshoot and I have to BFI one squadron, and have a 50/50 chance of losing one SDM. Fall short and you're closing, within 15 cm, and looking at a str 24 wb and str 3 lances. I'd brace if I were you at this point.
Yep, if your roll fails to make average (which is 14 on 4d6) then you're in for a fight rather than just auto-killing them. But since they're equal points wouldn't you expect that it's possible for them to come out on top? To overshoot you'd have to roll something like a 20+ or something. Not likely.
Secondly, you can't BFI. You can only reload ordnance. That's your only special order.
2)All of my squadrons are not actually exactly the same distance away from you.
Well, depending upon your level of dispersion the tactics are altered. If it's not much then the THs just go for the outer ships. If you're really dispersed, as in, not getting much in the way of massed turrets, then I'll just stay out of range and let the THs kill you. A wave of 3 for each SDM if in a squad of 2, a wave of 4 then 2 if in a squad of 3.
3)I successfully BFI against you at one or more points in this plan.
You can't BFI.
-
He also said 'waves', plural, which means you'd have to split that firepower.
He can do 2 waves of three or three waves of two. If he does three waves of 2, he won't be able to beat turrets. If he goes with two waves of three, he can be turrets but opens them to being offed by the sheer number of dice I'm rolling to get a single six against each.
The SCs are 2.5 times faster than the SDMs and the THs are 4 times faster. They will control the engagement. The THs won't even get shot on the way in. You will have zero dice against them. In which case the SCs can just form a single wave of 6 and guarantee a kill per turn, all the while staying out of range of the SDMs.
At some point they will be within 30cm because they can only move 20 in a given ord phase. Remember that I have a range of 30.
Which also is nice, because it means that for the SC to hit me, they have to come in range of my guns too. They can move around as much as they like, but remember that a SC only has enough firepower to take down my shields in any position but closing. If he squadrons them, and ends up having to BFI, then the whole squadron BFI's, which means no ord reload.
The SDMs will never corner the SCs.
Again, if this were true, Necrons would be invincible.
You can't brace.
Yes, I can.
"Stationary defenses and vessels used as planetary defenses such as Defense Monitors or system ships do not roll for leadership or have a leadership value just as other normal planetary defenses do not, with the exception that they reload ordnance (where applicable) on a nominal leadership of 7 unless specifically stated otherwise in their fleet lists or special rules. This means that they cannot take on any special orders except Reload Ordnance, though they may also attempt to Brace For Impact against this same leadership. They also make all other leadership checks they may have to make against Ld7, such as for navigating celestial phenomena and for ignoring closest targets." -FAQ2010, pg 15
What? How are the THs suppressing turrets against torps?
Mistyped. What I meant was tht they game you a choice between either getting a hit and run or eating the torps. Since turrets can only target one or the other in a given turn.
You yourself said you were massing turrets to prevent death by TH. If you don't mass like this then I won't AAF, I'll just stay out of range while killing your ships with THs.
Massing three of them still give you 4 turrets.
You must have missed something. Let me reiterate. I finish my movement 41 cms away from your ships. If you move your maximum of 10cm I will be 31cm away, putting me outside your reach. If you move your minimum I'll be 36cm away. So now in your ordnance phase I move my THs 20cm towards you, putting them 11-16cm away. My turn. Now I AAF, needing at most 12cm to ram, 15cm to end in base contact with the next ship back (or just 12cm if your ship is in base contact to the side, rather than behind).
This gives me one ship rammed and one ship boarded per SC. Now in my ordnance phase the THs come in to mop up the remaining SDMs.
Yeah, I followed you except the part where I'm 30cm away and you roll average on your check, putting you 10 cm aft of me. Or the part where both your Sc and thawks are all exactly 41cm away. And, btw: if you're moving to 41cm, and launching ord from your forward LBs, wouldn't the Thawks be at 40cm, and, then, when I close 10cm, be at 30 cm?
"Attack craft waves must be assembled into the smallest circumference possible, such as a block of four, two rows of three, etc. For example, a single wave of eight ordnance markers cannot be stretched out into a single-file line eight markers long" - FAQ2010.
Yep, if your roll fails to make average (which is 14 on 4d6) then you're in for a fight rather than just auto-killing them. But since they're equal points wouldn't you expect that it's possible for them to come out on top? To overshoot you'd have to roll something like a 20+ or something. Not likely.
Secondly, you can't BFI. You can only reload ordnance. That's your only special order.
Not with new FAQ 2010! It brightens! It Whitens! It Braces for Impact!
And, depending on what I do, you'd just have to roll average.
Well, depending upon your level of dispersion the tactics are altered. If it's not much then the THs just go for the outer ships. If you're really dispersed, as in, not getting much in the way of massed turrets, then I'll just stay out of range and let the THs kill you. A wave of 3 for each SDM if in a squad of 2, a wave of 4 then 2 if in a squad of 3.
I don't give your THawks good odds here. I'd have to fail two 50% throws, and that's assuming that I never get a WB shot off.
-
Or the part where both your Sc and thawks are all exactly 41cm away. And, btw: if you're moving to 41cm, and launching ord from your forward LBs, wouldn't the Thawks be at 40cm, and, then, when I close 10cm, be at 30 cm?
Move t-hawks to the side in turn of launch not front. Keeping in mind that the SDM must come closer. Thus keeping that +30cm thing in mind. In the ordnance phase of the SDM's the T-Hawks are moved up (below 20cm) and then in the Marine turn they'll make the attack run.
So no chance to shoot with the SDM's.
But what are we talking here? Two entities up to the same value. It should be relative balanced on who would win. A 80-20 result would be bad.
But all in all I think the Strike Cruisers will take the lead in most of these encounters due speed & turns & special attacks.
Waves of 2 can still beat turrets. Turrets can roll 3's and all.
Also, the t-hawks could be placed in such a wave (front arc.side arcs) that the SDM will touch the t-hakws during their movement phase thus having no massed turrets.
Due the 45* turning this placement of t-hawks is pretty easy to achieve.
-
Or the part where both your Sc and thawks are all exactly 41cm away. And, btw: if you're moving to 41cm, and launching ord from your forward LBs, wouldn't the Thawks be at 40cm, and, then, when I close 10cm, be at 30 cm?
Move t-hawks to the side in turn of launch not front. Keeping in mind that the SDM must come closer. Thus keeping that +30cm thing in mind. In the ordnance phase of the SDM's the T-Hawks are moved up (below 20cm) and then in the Marine turn they'll make the attack run.
So no chance to shoot with the SDM's.
But what are we talking here? Two entities up to the same value. It should be relative balanced on who would win. A 80-20 result would be bad.
But all in all I think the Strike Cruisers will take the lead in most of these encounters due speed & turns & special attacks.
Waves of 2 can still beat turrets. Turrets can roll 3's and all.
Also, the t-hawks could be placed in such a wave (front arc.side arcs) that the SDM will touch the t-hakws during their movement phase thus having no massed turrets.
Due the 45* turning this placement of t-hawks is pretty easy to achieve.
Hmm... No, there is way to get the shot in: turn 45 degress and move 5 cm opposite the side that he moves the wave to. That make the Thawks about 43cm away since the base of the SC is 2 cm across and for him to be make the thawks a wave all three have to be in base to base contact, and to pull off his ramming attack they have to be side by side, more or less. He could move two waves to both sides, but he risks me being able to fire on one wave or the other because they wouldn't be exactly 41 cm anymore, the distance would be more like 38 and 44
-
Hi,
your adding my things:
Marine turn: T-Hawks at 41cm (no matter position of Strike Cruiser).
SDM turn: SDM moves max of 10cm, min 5cm. Range to t-hawk 31cm or 36cm = no hit. Agreed? (Half speed must).
SDM turn ordnance phase: T-Hawks move 20cm -> distance 11-16cm.
marine turn = THawks hit SDM
or!
marine place t-hawks (waves of 2 in this case) at less then 5cm from your position. With a 45* turn on the SDM I can cover all angles easily. I can leave an open end to the opposite side = move away from Strike Cruisers = Opening rear to Strike Cruisers = toast.
So SDM turn = moving and is either BR (less dice, no closing, movement less then 5cm is count as defence) or move into t-hawk wave without massed turrets.
BFI = less dice again to shoot at other t-hawk waves.
Note: no ram attacks from me.
Either way the Strike Cruiser will, can and must dictate the flow of the battle.
-
He can do 2 waves of three or three waves of two. If he does three waves of 2, he won't be able to beat turrets. If he goes with two waves of three, he can be turrets but opens them to being offed by the sheer number of dice I'm rolling to get a single six against each.
He could do 1 wave of 6 but you'll never get a shot at it.
At some point they will be within 30cm because they can only move 20 in a given ord phase. Remember that I have a range of 30.
OK, you do know that 20cm speed equates to 40cm per turn right? I launch them and on my turn I move them to 41cm away from you. Now I end my turn. Now it's your turn, you move as fast (or as slow) as you can, putting you no closer than 31 cm and no further than 36cm from my THs. You can't shoot. Now in your ordnance phase I move 20cm straight towards you, putting me no more than 16cm away. Now it's my turn. My ships can AAF for the ram/board thing or they could stay at range, and my THs move in for the kill. You don't ever get to shoot at the THs.
Which also is nice, because it means that for the SC to hit me, they have to come in range of my guns too. They can move around as much as they like, but remember that a SC only has enough firepower to take down my shields in any position but closing. If he squadrons them, and ends up having to BFI, then the whole squadron BFI's, which means no ord reload.
Of course you're going to be closing. He's only going to get into range when things are beneficial to him. Such as having smooshed half your SDMs with THs. Most likely he'll be locked on too. Possibly at close range (equal firepower to lances). Otherwise he'll be ramming and boarding.
Again, if this were true, Necrons would be invincible.
Utter nonsense. The Necrons need a special order to maintain their speed and they need to be in range to shoot. The opponent can also use special orders to try to catch him, as well as relying upon longer range and reasonable speed to cover a fairly large proportion of the board. In this scenario the SM player has the clear advantage of speed, manoeuvrability, range (THs) and the opponent has no recourse to special orders to try to catch him, as well as having a pathetically small area to try to deny. The SM player would annihilate the SDMs while never being shot at.
Yes, I can.
"Stationary defenses and vessels used as planetary defenses such as Defense Monitors or system ships do not roll for leadership or have a leadership value just as other normal planetary defenses do not, with the exception that they reload ordnance (where applicable) on a nominal leadership of 7 unless specifically stated otherwise in their fleet lists or special rules. This means that they cannot take on any special orders except Reload Ordnance, though they may also attempt to Brace For Impact against this same leadership. They also make all other leadership checks they may have to make against Ld7, such as for navigating celestial phenomena and for ignoring closest targets." -FAQ2010, pg 15
Bah, hoisted by this crappy FAQ. Not that this change is crappy, but I dislike the tremendous length of the document and the fact that it keeps some overly complex rules around when a simpler solution is readily available. And it seems its going to make "official" certain crappy rules that were hitherto merely a bad idea. In short, I haven't read the FAQ (refuse to is a better translation). But yes, you will shortly be able to brace. Doesn't matter though, you're going to still get eaten by THs.
Mistyped. What I meant was tht they game you a choice between either getting a hit and run or eating the torps. Since turrets can only target one or the other in a given turn.
Ah, well it more a case of the torps making the THs better rather than the other way around. No one elects to shoot at AC over torps.
Massing three of them still give you 4 turrets.
Yes, and I'd send in a wave of 4 THs against the 1st target and 2 THs against the 2nd. Reasonable chance of killing both. With the 1st one dead then the second one drops turrets to 3, meaning that if it didn't get 2 hits it's likely dead too. However, with them able to BFI I'd just knock out 1 SDM at a time.
Yeah, I followed you except the part where I'm 30cm away and you roll average on your check, putting you 10 cm aft of me. Or the part where both your Sc and thawks are all exactly 41cm away. And, btw: if you're moving to 41cm, and launching ord from your forward LBs, wouldn't the Thawks be at 40cm, and, then, when I close 10cm, be at 30 cm?
"Attack craft waves must be assembled into the smallest circumference possible, such as a block of four, two rows of three, etc. For example, a single wave of eight ordnance markers cannot be stretched out into a single-file line eight markers long" - FAQ2010.
If you moved minimum distance there is a small chance I'd fall short. However this scenario was in response to you saying you'd get 5 turrets each ship through massing. Which meant 3 allies in base contact with each ship. The only way to do this is to form a cluster, which would make the overall base size a very large target. So moving at minimum speed makes it very unlikely to overshoot. Moving at maximum speed makes it a definite possibility, but then I'd be behind you and you'd not get a lance shot at me. I think I would rely on my armour and shields for turn, particularly as you've just likely lost 3 escorts from the ram and probably 2 more from the THs.
As for the THs being 41cm away, don't forget that after I release them I can move them that turn. I'd just move back to 41cm.
I don't give your THawks good odds here. I'd have to fail two 50% throws, and that's assuming that I never get a WB shot off.
Well against a squadron of 2 in BtB contact that's 3 turrets. So with 3 THs you'd need to hit with all 3 turrets to prevent the H&R attack. With them able to BFI I'd throw 4TH against the 1st and 2 against the 2nd. Pretty good odds of killing at least 1. Either way it matters not. Eventually they'll get through. The SDM will on the other hand never get a shot off.
-
So SDM turn = moving and is either BR (less dice, no closing, movement less then 5cm is count as defence) or move into t-hawk wave without massed turrets.
Can't BR.
-
Ah yeah, pretty noodles to me. Makes the placement even more worthwhile to forgo massed turrets.
On BFI & defences:
That was FAQ2007 already iirc.
-
marine place t-hawks (waves of 2 in this case) at less then 5cm from your position. With a 45* turn on the SDM I can cover all angles easily. I can leave an open end to the opposite side = move away from Strike Cruisers = Opening rear to Strike Cruisers = toast.
Except then the SDM counts as moving away, which means the SC does not have firepower greater then 2 unless squadroned. (something I know you'r reluctant to do do to the squadron BFI rules)
Further, I can take the 45 degree turn at the beginning of my movement phase and move less then 5 cm toward them. If they are not perfectly aligned with the front arc of the squadron they're aiming for, I may actually gain range, and if they are, I'll only move 2.5cm closer. If they're dead on, I may lose a single ship. The whole concept depends on the thawks having perfect alignment, and me moving directly forward rather then turning before I move.
My usual formation stalking a faster and more agile adversary is a V rather then an echelon, with the centermost squadron taking up the rear. With the farthest distance apart 15cm this gives me a 15cm overlap and let's me fire on anything trying to, say, hit a squadron in the rear or close within 15cm.
Sigoroth: even if I mass together: I take the 45 degree turn and you'll have to move forward 10cm to realign or BR and cross your fingers for next turn.
However, we're off on a tangent here at this point.
-
i dont see how all this theoryhammer being flung back and forth (but if you did A, i could do B and win, so there) proves that SCs need the addition of lances.
-
i dont see how all this theoryhammer being flung back and forth (but if you did A, i could do B and win, so there) proves that SCs need the addition of lances.
As I said, it was something of a tangent. The point was that even though simultaneous fire is now in, with some of the near 'all escorts' lists that are now going to be legal, SC's generally poor performance against escorts will become a liability that lances will partially offset.
-
i dont see how all this theoryhammer being flung back and forth (but if you did A, i could do B and win, so there) proves that SCs need the addition of lances.
As I said, it was something of a tangent. The point was that even though simultaneous fire is now in, with some of the near 'all escorts' lists that are now going to be legal, SC's generally poor performance against escorts will become a liability that lances will partially offset.
I don't see any reason which can show this to be true. While SCs do not have lances, they have THs which are deadly against Escorts in addition to WB+BCs which are also quite deadly against escorts.
-
I don't see any reason which can show this to be true. While SCs do not have lances, they have THs which are deadly against Escorts in addition to WB+BCs which are also quite deadly against escorts.
thawks are no longer as deadly. And wb and bc are only str 1 each against escorts. Which are just as fast and much more maneuverable, so it's more likely that it will be the SC that's getting attacked at disadvantageous angles.
-
eh they are still pretty deadly. 3+ to kill is a pretty good average.
-
eh they are still pretty deadly. 3+ to kill is a pretty good average.
66.6% of the time against targets without a bonus to Hit and run. IIRC though it's only 50% against other SM, since both have the same bonus to hit and run it cancels each other out.
-
Yeah, so? Marine vs Marine is the same? That is hardly making a point.
On your "tangent", I thought about you turning 45* at once and move less then 5cm. But less then 5cm would be illegal due half speed ruling.
-
Yeah, so? Marine vs Marine is the same? That is hardly making a point.
On your "tangent", I thought about you turning 45* at once and move less then 5cm. But less then 5cm would be illegal due half speed ruling.
Incorrect: the ship still moves a full 5cm, but what it's not doing is moving 5cm toward the thawks. Depending on their relative orientations, I'd end up moving between 2.5cm closer to 2.5cm farther away, since I'm moving at an angle to them instead of directly at them. Most people assume that you can't end up farther away then you started on a 45 degree turn, but you actually can gain ground that way. At 41 cm, it's hard to spot a 1 or 2 cm deviation from true, since you can't order your opponent to put on their ship compass for you to line up your AC run, but I can spot it quite easily when I put on my ship compass to make the turn.
Since the thawks cannot be on my exact centerline if they're lining up a ram or have to shift them due to the SC being at exactly 41cm, the rules say that the wave has to stay together in the smallest circumference possible. This gives me the 2cm of the diameter of the SC's base leeway if I turn to the opposite side and move 5cm. I do this rather then move 10, as the difference is not as noticeable until you measure it, which tends to suck people in.
-
66.6% of the time against targets without a bonus to Hit and run. IIRC though it's only 50% against other SM, since both have the same bonus to hit and run it cancels each other out.
Yes, and? 3+=~66% I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Either way still puts the odds in your favor of killing an escort with a Thunderhawk. Much better than the 33% to 50% odds of landing hits with gunnery and it only requires one successful roll rather than two in most cases.
No matter, it just boils down to smart playing will win over ponderous craft or static defenses.
-
66.6% of the time against targets without a bonus to Hit and run. IIRC though it's only 50% against other SM, since both have the same bonus to hit and run it cancels each other out.
Yes, and? 3+=~66% I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Either way still puts the odds in your favor of killing an escort with a Thunderhawk. Much better than the 33% to 50% odds of landing hits with gunnery and it only requires one successful roll rather than two in most cases.
No matter, it just boils down to smart playing will win over ponderous craft or static defenses.
Actually, it requires me to fail to kill it with turrets, then fail the BFI roll then you get to roll +3.
Using an escort with one turret against 1 squadron of thawks (for simplicity of math): Odds that I will make one or both of the +4 rolls I need: 75%. Odds that the thawk hits: 66%.
Odds that I fail both rolls and you make the hit: 16.65%
-
Hi,
I think your underestimating the placement. Good, you keep distance at 43cm:
SDM turn ordnance phase = thawks moving to 23cm
Marine turn ordnance phase = thawks moving to 3cm
SDM turn = move through t-hawks without massed turrets.
And remember SDM's need to come closer to the Strike Cruisers to do something. Strike Cruisers can play a waiting game and use T-Hawks from distance. Plus if you move away, again, SC dictates and move to rear.
-
I dream for the day when these kinds of arguments could be converted into an actual game of BFG... The fireworks would be spectacular.
-
I dream for the day when these kinds of arguments could be converted into an actual game of BFG... The fireworks would be spectacular.
And we'd be telling the story for generations.
I think I'm going to start taking bets on when this thread will finally die. I'm betting when it's 97 pages.
-
Hi,
I think your underestimating the placement. Good, you keep distance at 43cm:
SDM turn ordnance phase = thawks moving to 23cm
Marine turn ordnance phase = thawks moving to 3cm
SDM turn = move through t-hawks without massed turrets.
And remember SDM's need to come closer to the Strike Cruisers to do something. Strike Cruisers can play a waiting game and use T-Hawks from distance. Plus if you move away, again, SC dictates and move to rear.
Um, no, you move to 3cm, I turn 5 degrees and move 5cm and fire. And, again, not concerned about SC in any facing but closing. Them trying to get behind me within 15cm for the left shift would force them to close into the guns of the trailing squadron at less then 15cm.
I dream for the day when these kinds of arguments could be converted into an actual game of BFG... The fireworks would be spectacular.
Agreed.
-
Uhm no.
3 waves of 2 cover all your options. So before you'll fire one wave (at least) would hit you.
-
Uhm no.
3 waves of 2 cover all your options. So before you'll fire one wave (at least) would hit you.
Ok, not quite sure I follow, since there's two situations you could be talking about, but:
1) you break squadrons into 3 wave of two and position them so that one wave is going to be in range no matter which way I turn. One will reach me during your ord phase, however, a str 2 wave would have to beat 4 turrets + me bracing if that fails. However, both of the other two would be within 15cm.
2)You could move it ahead of my ships to try and force me to fly my leftmost ship into it, but there nothing that says that I can't turn the closest farther and shift it to the opposite side of the squadron, since they're escorts and turn at any point in their movement.
So, yes, you could wing one str 2 wave into me, but that's a real Hail Mary there for it damaging (about a 10% chance).
-
I don't see any reason which can show this to be true. While SCs do not have lances, they have THs which are deadly against Escorts in addition to WB+BCs which are also quite deadly against escorts.
thawks are no longer as deadly. And wb and bc are only str 1 each against escorts. Which are just as fast and much more maneuverable, so it's more likely that it will be the SC that's getting attacked at disadvantageous angles.
Really? And how will lances be better than BCs or THs? BCs can be as good as lances. You just have to learn how to get the most out of them. Now if you can't understand that FP3 giving 2 dice in the Closing or Moving Away is the same as Str 2 lance without the crit effect which you will most likely get on an LC chassis, if you can't even be bothered to find a way to get that advantage, if you can't even realize that if the SC can get within 15 cm, it can attack with WBs, BCs, THs, teleport attacks or even ramming, then its no use asking for lances because there will not be a significant difference in the outcome.
-
I don't understand, Admiral. In fluff, Imperial factions don't like lances in SM fleets. On the tabletop though, How could you think that they would gain a big boost? In actual play, Bombardment Cannon is an even greater weapon than lances against ships.
How would a tradeoff for an inferior weapon be seen as OP? Its not an argument of need, but flavor.
Even if it were flavor, as you pointed out, IN don't like lances in SM fleets and grudgingly accept the ones on escorts which they prefer to keep that way. To make BCs work well, the SM needs to have the target in the Closing or Moving Away profile. So it makes things harder to use while still retaining the deadliness. That's something IN can live with as going abeam would help minimize the threat. So whether game play or fluff, there is still no need or requirement in flavor for it.
Like I pointed out, right. The text no where states the strong 'if it shows up on a capital ship the chapter is toast' sentiment that some seem to follow. While abeam, the lance option gets an extra shot, yes, though not with the triple-crit-threat that BC has.
If its a balance problem you are worried about, front fire only further decreases the value of the lances.
While you may see no need or requirement for it, some players do, and that the fluff of their chapter would have SC lance examples.
I would point out that there isn't much need or requirement from fluff to keep them from it. The idea 'lances can only go on escorts'
is one that was hypothesized, not one that is found anywhere in fluff. Actually, it is mentioned that exception is taken to the Nova because it is a pure gunboat, and an SC with lances is far more diverse. Zero evidence to suggest that only escorts would be allowed lances, or that they would be any more deadly on capital ships.
Also, marine escorts are very expensive next to Imperial ones, a lot of novas is extremely points prohibitive for the punch you get.
I don't think so. IN Firestorms are only 10 points less. SM actually gets quite a lot for those 50 points. +10 cm speed advantage at the expense of 1 turret and then the SM rules.
Edit: I want to know if you are opposed to this:
'For every 750 points, one standard Strike Cruiser may replace its str3 bombardment cannon with a str2 30cm forward firing lance battery'
Its obviously a weaker option than the l/r/f BC, and yet still not completely pointless. While a much weaker option, in the event of an abeam, blast-marker shrouded target in the prow arc, it will give you one more 4+ shot than the BC option, though without the 4+ critical.
Weaker, not completely pointless, and limited. Hopefully that is an option everyone can agree on, from fluff and balance purposes.
Yes. Why? Because you already pointed out, BCs can be better than lances. So why would SM have to get the lance? It's already enough that SM get the BCs. It is just trickier but no less deadly in the right circumstances especially now that the BM problem looks like it will get resolved the way it is. It works with the fluff while giving SM a chance to win fleet action. In your proposal 2 lances in 750 points in a fleet where it can take 145 point 6+ armor, 25 cm speed, 90' turn SCs are significant. In 1500 point matches, That's 4 lances supported by BCs and WBs and lances on Novas if the player wanted to include escorts. That's a serious threat to IN. It is NOT pointless. That is the point. It's not weaker since it makes things easier for SM. A ship targeted by WBs, BCs and lances would be neutralized and unless a fleet brings lots of lances, the opposing fleet would have a hard time striking back. You almost always have to compare every race to IN which is one of the more basic races. Adding lances to the SM even in limited amounts would tilt things to SM significantly.
Actually BC are deadlier against IN than other fleets, in that their armored prows are not only useless, as with against lances, but they are actually a liability. And its not like lances are even always better at ship killing. Its just another weapon in the game, one that sacrifices number of potential damage for greater chance at singlular damage. If you wanted lances, youd take novas, 3 for the pricfe of 2, and more agile.
-
Uhm no.
3 waves of 2 cover all your options. So before you'll fire one wave (at least) would hit you.
Ok, not quite sure I follow, since there's two situations you could be talking about, but:
1) you break squadrons into 3 wave of two and position them so that one wave is going to be in range no matter which way I turn. One will reach me during your ord phase, however, a str 2 wave would have to beat 4 turrets + me bracing if that fails. However, both of the other two would be within 15cm.
2)You could move it ahead of my ships to try and force me to fly my leftmost ship into it, but there nothing that says that I can't turn the closest farther and shift it to the opposite side of the squadron, since they're escorts and turn at any point in their movement.
So, yes, you could wing one str 2 wave into me, but that's a real Hail Mary there for it damaging (about a 10% chance).
eh.
I'd position all waves (3) within 5cm of you. That is possible.
2 T-Hawks in contact with 1 (s)DM ;) during movement.
2 turrets = per average 1 death T-Hawk.
T-Hawk on a 3+ = 66% hit chance
BFI = 50%
(s)DM has a chance of being destroyed by 2 t-hawks : 33%.
even if failed attack, squadron (s)DM on BFI = good for Marines & other t-hawk waves.
-
Like I pointed out, right. The text no where states the strong 'if it shows up on a capital ship the chapter is toast' sentiment that some seem to follow. While abeam, the lance option gets an extra shot, yes, though not with the triple-crit-threat that BC has.
If its a balance problem you are worried about, front fire only further decreases the value of the lances.
So why would you insist on fighting Abeam? Go for the Closing or Moving Away profile which the SC can do quite regularly.
While you may see no need or requirement for it, some players do, and that the fluff of their chapter would have SC lance examples.
I would point out that there isn't much need or requirement from fluff to keep them from it. The idea 'lances can only go on escorts'
is one that was hypothesized, not one that is found anywhere in fluff. Actually, it is mentioned that exception is taken to the Nova because it is a pure gunboat, and an SC with lances is far more diverse. Zero evidence to suggest that only escorts would be allowed lances, or that they would be any more deadly on capital ships.
Hypothesized? It's in Armada. I hardly think that's hypothesizing. The players who want to have the lances are the ones hypothesizing relying on fluff which is highly questionable at best. Not more deadly? You haven't been using lance Dauntlesses have you?
Actually BC are deadlier against IN than other fleets, in that their armored prows are not only useless, as with against lances, but they are actually a liability. And its not like lances are even always better at ship killing. Its just another weapon in the game, one that sacrifices number of potential damage for greater chance at singlular damage. If you wanted lances, youd take novas, 3 for the pricfe of 2, and more agile.
But the IN is the more important comparison here as they should be the ones winning against an SM fleet regularly. So now you admit that taking Novas would be better than an SC with lances. So stick to those.
-
So why would you insist on fighting Abeam? Go for the Closing or Moving Away profile which the SC can do quite regularly.
Firstly, just because you are more mobile, doesn't mean you will always get the arc you want.
Secondly, the BC variant still has the double advantage of the safer Abeam facing, while focusing prow and side fire into one arc.
Hypothesized? It's in Armada. I hardly think that's hypothesizing. The players who want to have the lances are the ones hypothesizing relying on fluff which is highly questionable at best. Not more deadly? You haven't been using lance Dauntlesses have you?
Where in Armada does it say that, Admiral? And the Dauntless argument is completely irrelevant, because you get more lances for your points than escorts with the Dauntless. 3 lances for 110 vs 2 lances for 145.
But the IN is the more important comparison here as they should be the ones winning against an SM fleet regularly. So now you admit that taking Novas would be better than an SC with lances. So stick to those.
What? I know the IN are the comparison, I was telling you that BC actually have more edge on IN over lances than, say, against chaos.
And of course I admit novas are better, its why I don't understand the opposition to somebody wanting an inferior SC variant.
-
And of course I admit novas are better, its why I don't understand the opposition to somebody wanting an inferior SC variant.
But they already can have that per FAQ2010, at +20 points :P ;)
-
heh heh @ commander.
LS,
3 lances on a 5+ armour vessel with 1 shield, 1 turret.
2 lances on a 6+ armour vessel with 1 shield (+1 optional), 2 turrets, better Ld, better boarding, attack craft.
There is a difference...
Strike Cruiser must not have lances. Fluffwise, Gamewise, Sensewise, Balancewise, Coolwise, Doctrinewise, Everythingwise.
(having 1 lance for +20pts is the farthest I go. :) ).
-
We are talking ease of getting lances on the table, and delivery system, Horizon. Thats the issue, therefore whatever else tags along is irrelevant, or else you would be saying Overlords are better lance boats because they have a couple lances as well as the rest of their armament.
As to your last sentence, I know you are probably joking based on personal feeling, but I know that you have not a single quote from any book to back that up. :) As to balancewise, you'l need to explain that one, because I see no innate imbalance.
-
We are talking ease of getting lances on the table, and delivery system, Horizon. Thats the issue, therefore whatever else tags along is irrelevant, or else you would be saying Overlords are better lance boats because they have a couple lances as well as the rest of their armament.
Yes we are talking that for 30 pages now....
Marines have lances due Nova's & VBB's. Dot com Stop /end thread.
As to your last sentence, I know you are probably joking based on personal feeling, but I know that you have not a single quote from any book to back that up. As to balancewise, you'l need to explain that one, because I see no innate imbalance.
lol, ain't joking at all. I give rats about BL books and what they think. (See again at what happens with Defence Monitors). There is no proper background supporting lances on strike cruisers but Armada gives enough examples and reasons against lances on strike cruisers.
If you do not understand the unbalancing fact of allowing lances (for cheap as you wish) on strike cruisers that's a problem. Perhaps you should read back those 30 pages then? ;)
It also has to do with the and and and and effect I described earlier and all other weapon systems for Marines.
That's Balance.
-
Yes we are talking that for 30 pages now....
Marines have lances due Nova's & VBB's. Dot com Stop /end thread.
And you have absolutely zero evidence or half a quote to back up that distinction.
lol, ain't joking at all. I give rats about BL books and what they think. (See again at what happens with Defence Monitors). There is no proper background supporting lances on strike cruisers but Armada gives enough examples and reasons against lances on strike cruisers.
If you do not understand the unbalancing fact of allowing lances (for cheap as you wish) on strike cruisers that's a problem. Perhaps you should read back those 30 pages then? ;)
It also has to do with the and and and and effect I described earlier and all other weapon systems for Marines.
That's Balance.
Not even talking about BL books at this point. Again, no proper background specifying no lances on strike cruisers.
Armada gives no examples or reasons as to why an SC wouldnt have lances, if a Nova does. Zero, not a word.
And I don't understand the imabalancing fact of lances, at least the lances I proposed, because there is none.
Its 30 pages of personal feeling.
-
Thus: no word on allowing lances on Strike Cruisers as well per your point of view.
The Nova entry is so friggin clear on the matter it makes me wonder why you dismiss it as such.
Again: and and and -> you want EVERYTHING for Marines. On top of it, you want the 'missing' bit: the anti-ship weapon called a lance!
-
"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. Inevitably, the wrangling over interpretation of a ship’s ‘primary role’ leads to some chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets than the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with."
battlebarge:
+1 planetary assault
3+ exterminatus weapons
thunderhawk gunships
boarding torpedoes
bombardment cannons
ie. transport, delivery, and suppression.
strike cruiser:
+1 planetary assault
thunderhawks
bombardment cannons
trnasport, delivery and suppression.
Escorts:
gunboats, some of them more questionable than others. WB aid suppression, boarding torpedoes for overwhelming defences, and the lance on the nova... not really something you can use to give massive covering fire to ground troops with, is it?
with a lance, the SC loses the whole suppresion thing, and its role arguably becomes anti-ship. THIS is against fluff.
admittedly it also states some fleets are more flexible than the navy would like. this is a result of the BC being rather handy when used cleverly, and access to regular torpedoes. this may also apply to the nova.
i dont see anything here that screams 'SCs should have lances' and in the end if no side can present an overwhelming argument, things stay as they are.
creative use of BL fluff: i can probably find a bit of fluff somewhere that mentions a squad of marines destroying an entire ship single handedly. so why is the boarding modifier only +2? it should be +6! deathwatch marines have been known to use xenos technology to further their cause - so why not a holofield option for SCs? for every bit of fluff there is counter fluff. this is the law of fluff.
-
^ Good post! :)
Well, there was a BL book with an Imperial Cruiser being 20000 metres long.
Official canon (FFG/Rogue Trader) now has it at 5000 metres.
(While fandom had it at 2500-3000 metres!).
-
Thus: no word on allowing lances on Strike Cruisers as well per your point of view.
The Nova entry is so friggin clear on the matter it makes me wonder why you dismiss it as such.
Again: and and and -> you want EVERYTHING for Marines. On top of it, you want the 'missing' bit: the anti-ship weapon called a lance!
Right, no word either way. But based on some reasonable thoughts, its not a stretch. There is definitly none of your 'no not ever' talk.
The nova actually disproves many of your thoughts.
I want a limited amount of something marines could have, for players who want it. What in the nova entry is clear? It basically makes the Imperium nervous. And its a dedicated gunboat, which a lance bearing SC wouldnt be. Quote me something, there aint nothin there that doesnt lend weight to the lance-on-SC argument. Tell me Horizon, why would the Imperium take more exception to an SC with a couple lances than a dedicated lance escort?
-
"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. Inevitably, the wrangling over interpretation of a ship’s ‘primary role’ leads to some chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets than the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with."
battlebarge:
+1 planetary assault
3+ exterminatus weapons
thunderhawk gunships
boarding torpedoes
bombardment cannons
ie. transport, delivery, and suppression.
strike cruiser:
+1 planetary assault
thunderhawks
bombardment cannons
trnasport, delivery and suppression.
Escorts:
gunboats, some of them more questionable than others. WB aid suppression, boarding torpedoes for overwhelming defences, and the lance on the nova... not really something you can use to give massive covering fire to ground troops with, is it?
with a lance, the SC loses the whole suppresion thing, and its role arguably becomes anti-ship. THIS is against fluff.
admittedly it also states some fleets are more flexible than the navy would like. this is a result of the BC being rather handy when used cleverly, and access to regular torpedoes. this may also apply to the nova.
i dont see anything here that screams 'SCs should have lances' and in the end if no side can present an overwhelming argument, things stay as they are.
creative use of BL fluff: i can probably find a bit of fluff somewhere that mentions a squad of marines destroying an entire ship single handedly. so why is the boarding modifier only +2? it should be +6! deathwatch marines have been known to use xenos technology to further their cause - so why not a holofield option for SCs? for every bit of fluff there is counter fluff. this is the law of fluff.
I didn't know you wanted lances,tortoise! Thanks for bringing my point home. :p
As to BL fluff, it is questionable, yes. But its something. I'd be more worried about finding any evidence to this 'no-not-ever' thinking.
And the notion that a bc/lance swap takes away its primary role is ridiculous. It is still an assault ship with thunderhawks, drop pods, and marines. Fluff gives marines a dedicated lance boat. A mixed purpose SC with lances? No leg to argue that one on.
-
Right, no word either way. But based on some reasonable thoughts, its not a stretch. There is definitly none of your 'no not ever' talk.
Reasonable thought = no lances on strike cruisers.
The nova actually disproves many of your thoughts.
It proves every single bit of the "anti-lance" sentiment.
I want a limited amount of something marines could have, for players who want it.
And and and and :/
What in the nova entry is clear? It basically makes the Imperium nervous. And its a dedicated gunboat, which a lance bearing SC wouldnt be. Quote me something, there aint nothin there that doesnt lend weight to the lance-on-SC argument. Tell me Horizon, why would the Imperium take more exception to an SC with a couple lances than a dedicated lance escort?
If you fail to understand the difference I can not help you. Just read what you are comparing. Escort =/= Strike Cruiser. Escort = no threat to the Imperial Navy. Strike Cruiser = can be a threat to the Imperial Navy especially with a couple of lances.
also: read skating post.
-
Reasonable thought = no lances on strike cruisers.
No evidence anywhere but in your mind, my friend :) There is no distinction anywhere in the fluff for that, and no amount of willpower will change that.
It proves every single bit of the "anti-lance" sentiment.
We all knew that. That in itself proves nothing in this argument though. Not liking something doesn't dictate how something is handled.
Or else the Nova wouldn't exist at all.
If you fail to understand the difference I can not help you. Just read what you are comparing. Escort =/= Strike Cruiser. Escort = no threat to the Imperial Navy. Strike Cruiser = can be a threat to the Imperial Navy especially with a couple of lances.
You can't help me, because that would mean quoting, and nothing in there says 'we allow lanceboats but no lances on strike cruisers'
or even 'the Imperium is anything more than concerned about this'. Long way away from chapter purging ^^
FYI, lances are just as powerful when housed in escorts. The idea that escorts aren't a threat is silly. Much less of a resource investment to the chapter as well.
also: read skating post.
I did, great bit of fluff supporting unorthodox fleet layouts.
-
You really accused others of trolling? :P
Heck, the pro-lancers need to come with evidence!!! Not the anti-lancers.
Escorts cannot do planetary assaults like Strike Cruisers can = Marines primary job.
Denouncing Skating's post like that is, well, I better stop typing...
You better come up with a good show. This is just silly.
The (s)DM vs Strike Cruiser debate is much more fun.
-
You really accused others of trolling? :P
Yes, hardcore. I'm not attacking anyone, just their arguments.
Heck, the pro-lancers need to come with evidence!!! Not the anti-lancers.
I say there should be lances on some SC because there is nothing saying it can't, and lances are already allowed in SM fleets.
You are saying they can't because 'No lances are allowed on strike cruisers'. I'd say the basis of your argument should require some evidence.
Escorts cannot do planetary assaults like Strike Cruisers can = Marines primary job.
Like you say, lance strike cruisers' primary role would still be planetary assault, much closer to approved statlines than the Nova. A pure gunboat, as mentioned in fluff, is what causes the most dislike from the IN. Both points fluff verified.
Denouncing Skating's post like that is, well, I better stop typing...
He quoted fluff that supported the idea of lance strike cruisers, I pointed it out. I didn't beat him on the head with a hammer, be reasonable.
[/quote]
-
You're too funny. jeeeeeez.
I say there should be lances on some SC because there is nothing saying it can't
That is a horrid point of view.
I say there should be an Armageddon Gun on the Apocalypse BB. There is nothng saying it can't.
I say there should be shields on Necrons.
I say there should be escorts with nova cannons.
I say there should be Orks with 60cm speed
I say there should be armoured prows on Chaos vessels
I say there should be 60cm Ion Cannons on Tau vessels
etc
etc
There is nothing denouncing them.
He did not post fluff to support lances on strike cruisers. THIS IS AGAINST FLUFF was in capitals. afais.
-
You may not realize it, Horizon, but your point of view is more 'feelings' based than mine is.
All of those ridiculous examples you gave clearly go against fluff. Lances in a fleet that already is allowed lances, on a ship whose primary role is still planetary assault, has nothing to do with spd 60cm orks. If you had quoted my full sentence, you would remember that I am still waiting on anything besides you saying that strike cruisers shouldn't have lances.
Tortoise may have been arguing against the idea, but that fluff blurb clearly states that what exactly marines can do in their fleets is vague.
-
Hi everyone! I'm sorry I've dropped off the planet for a bit, but we've had a blizzard and all, and I'm trying to get the 2010 FAQ pushed out the door while it's still 2010! However, due to the small flurry of personal e-mails I have received on the subject concerning Space Marine strike cruisers and lances, I thought I should address the subject.
In ten years, SM strike cruisers did NOT have access to lances. As the Space Marine fleet hasn't suffered in popularity due to this shortcoming, it is doubtful the absence of this weapon has been a big game-changer for this fleet. It was the game designer's intent that lances (a fleet-engagement weapon with little utility concerning saturation planetary bombardment) be rare for the Space Marines, as both a fluff-based pserspective and as an intended character flaw the fleet has that must be worked around by the use of tactics. Rare by no means is the same thing as absent; the Nova escort is the only escort in the entire game with a L/F/R lance!
Yes, it's true we at one time investigated this as an option. The fault is entirely mine- I thought it would be a characterful upgrade. I then discovered in a min-max (read:munchkinized) playtest, adding lances to this fleet completely negated much of the character built into the fleet by NOT giving them lances in the first place unless we restricted this to the point of absurdity. However, it is true that some insular Chapters revel in "giving it to the Man" to an extent when the greater Imperium is concerned, and it is entirely plausible that an un-salvagable Nova's L/F/R lance might be refitted to the occassional SC. To emphasize occassional, we made the refit expensive, which means fleets that want it for character can have it, but it is self-restricting by its point cost. If a player REALLY want's to have lances (and 60cm ones to boot!), keep in mind that a Space Marine fleet can take any Imperial or Chaos battleship in the game as a venerable battlebarge, and even when adding +35 points these ships are in every case except one cheaper than SM battlebarges as well.
Aside from all of this, I am failing to understand how a popular fleet that has needed only minor tweaks in the last ten years is suddenly creating such uproar over not being given a weapon system it never had in the first place! The Space Marines are a great fleet, even if its capital ships don't have lances. There isn't anything preventing players from cooking homebrew rules and fleet lists that allow strike cruisers and even SM batlle barges from taking lances. Heck, feel free to use the old abominable Seddition Oppimiere profile if you want and your opponent lets you! However, we aren't going to be making it official.
Smile, game on and enjoy!
- Nate
-
Actually, it requires me to fail to kill it with turrets, then fail the BFI roll then you get to roll +3.
There is a slight procedural difference, the BFI roll would come after the thawk successfully rolls since there isn't anything to brace against beforehand. Doing it before the thawk rolls is basically giving yourself an extra turret roll. Should end up with a similar result, but fewer dice needing to be thrown.
On your example, I understand the ease of using 1 thawk, but I think the situation would be more likely a wave of two to three. That would give a pretty high odds of at least one getting through unless you are massing, which is a whole other discussion. If you want to brace, then that's your prerogative but it makes it easier for the SC to pound you since you effectively lose the weapons on half your ships.
You may not realize it, Horizon, but your point of view is more 'feelings' based than mine is.
That is patently untrue. His, and my, position is based in part around the only time lances specifically detailed in relation to a marine fleet in the printed rulebooks. It is the completely logical conclusion based on the facts presented in that section. This is supported by comparative analysis of the gladius stats with the nova stats and confirmed in the description of the nova itself as to why it constitutes a gunboat by listing the addition of the lance as a primary reason. This proves that the difference between an escort that the IN doesn't care about and doesn't have a problem being numerous and one that it doesn't want to see more of is the lance. It is further the ONLY conclusion you can draw without bending the fluff as written there. This is because you can't simply conclude the IN wouldn't care about a capital ship since they take exception to the nova and would like to see numbers remain low. The logical conclusion is they would take exception on a SC as well. Since Armada is still an official, active source regarding 40k space fleets, in fact I'd posit THE source since the entire game revolves around the spacecraft of 40k, you can't just throw it out the window. You have to compare all other fluff to it and reconcile the differences compared to it or toss things that can't be reconciled.
At the very best you've shown there MIGHT be a few modern SCs out there with a lance on them although they don't really function like lances in the descriptions of both BFG and EPIC, which are both active, official rulesets. Everything else fits nicely into the VBB category. What you currently have in the document is accurate for a very rare and controversial retrofit onto a SC.
EDIT: Hi Nate! You ninja'd me! We almost got stuck in that blizzard on the way back from PA a couple of days ago. Hope you guys got through it alright.
-
"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. Inevitably, the wrangling over interpretation of a ship’s ‘primary role’ leads to some chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets than the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with."
battlebarge:
+1 planetary assault
3+ exterminatus weapons
thunderhawk gunships
boarding torpedoes
bombardment cannons
ie. transport, delivery, and suppression.
strike cruiser:
+1 planetary assault
thunderhawks
bombardment cannons
trnasport, delivery and suppression.
Escorts:
gunboats, some of them more questionable than others. WB aid suppression, boarding torpedoes for overwhelming defences, and the lance on the nova... not really something you can use to give massive covering fire to ground troops with, is it?
with a lance, the SC loses the whole suppresion thing, and its role arguably becomes anti-ship. THIS is against fluff.
admittedly it also states some fleets are more flexible than the navy would like. this is a result of the BC being rather handy when used cleverly, and access to regular torpedoes. this may also apply to the nova.
i dont see anything here that screams 'SCs should have lances' and in the end if no side can present an overwhelming argument, things stay as they are.
creative use of BL fluff: i can probably find a bit of fluff somewhere that mentions a squad of marines destroying an entire ship single handedly. so why is the boarding modifier only +2? it should be +6! deathwatch marines have been known to use xenos technology to further their cause - so why not a holofield option for SCs? for every bit of fluff there is counter fluff. this is the law of fluff.
I don't have to go to BL fluff when I can use a Games Workshop rulebook that says the same thing, aka Planetstrike. Last I checked Rulebook trumps BL AND earlier rulebooks.
As far as the BC goes: that's like suggesting that a thermonuclear weapon is ideal for close support. The area that it does damage in is too great. Softening up defenses to enable landing, it's good. Close support for marines on the ground, or against hardened targets, it sucks. It takes several hits to take out the hardened bunker with a BC in Nightbringer (leveling a kilometer sized area in the process despite the marines reducing the payload to try and minimize damage), it takes one shot from a lance to take out a similar bunker in Cain's Last Stand with relatively little damage to the surrounding area (broken windows and debris falling).
Even in Epic, the scale of the template makes the blast several hundred meters to a kilometer across.
Somehow I doubt that they mean the commanders are clever when they talk about some fleets being more flexible then others, since they also state that some chapters claim that their ships role is planetary support, not a gunboat, no matter what it might be armed with. Reading through the fluff given on fighting space marines in Armada, the IN seems to actually expect that any marine commander will be clever any only fight on favorable terms.
Heck, the pro-lancers need to come with evidence!!! Not the anti-lancers.
Horizon, the basis of your argument, at the beginning of all this, was that lances and strike cruisers were mutually exclusive due to the fluff saying so in your opinion. The pro-lance faction has brought forward fluff evidence that this is not the case. From Games Workshop rulebooks, no less, and not that were in any way open to interpretation, despite some allegations that that the Inquisition had to be mistaken in their records of something they were on hand for, and that would never ever have been made public, or that starships must have some other weapon that is also called a lance that just has never appeared in any book anywhere.
Since this evidence has been brought forward, the anti-lance faction has switched to demands that a in game 'need' must be proven, even though previously they acknowledged that the str 2 lance would be balanced. Which is what led to the DM debate.
Let me use your own numbers:
2 thawks against 1 DM = 33% chance of a kill, currently.
Previously it was 50%
That's a loss of effectiveness of nearly half.
Admittedly, this is an extreme case, as the DM has more turrets and less maneuverability and speed then other escorts. Most escort squadrons would just turn 90 and AAF to a safe range and then turn and try to kill the ac with guns or ord next turn. The SC itself is likely to never have a combined fp greater then 2 against them.
On the DM v SC debate:
eh.
I'd position all waves (3) within 5cm of you. That is possible.
2 T-Hawks in contact with 1 (s)DM ;) during movement.
2 turrets = per average 1 death T-Hawk.
T-Hawk on a 3+ = 66% hit chance
BFI = 50%
(s)DM has a chance of being destroyed by 2 t-hawks : 33%.
even if failed attack, squadron (s)DM on BFI = good for Marines & other t-hawk waves.
Horizon, you can't move a thawk more then 20 cm in one ord phase to put one more then 5 degrees past my center line, though you can bring all of them to 5cm (in this case to my right, for purposes of visualization) however, again, since you're coming from the right, there's nothing that says I can't turn left 10 or 15 degrees and not come into base contact. Against a cruiser, yes, this would work. Against an escort, it doesn't since there's no minimum forward distance I have to travel to turn.
Ah, Nate, at last.
Hi everyone! I'm sorry I've dropped off the planet for a bit, but we've had a blizzard and all, and I'm trying to get the 2010 FAQ pushed out the door while it's still 2010! However, due to the small flurry of personal e-mails I have received on the subject concerning Space Marine strike cruisers and lances, I thought I should address the subject.
In ten years, SM strike cruisers did NOT have access to lances. As the Space Marine fleet hasn't suffered in popularity due to this shortcoming, it is doubtful the absence of this weapon has been a big game-changer for this fleet. It was the game designer's intent that lances (a fleet-engagement weapon with little utility concerning saturation planetary bombardment) be rare for the Space Marines, as both a fluff-based pserspective and as an intended character flaw the fleet has that must be worked around by the use of tactics. Rare by no means is the same thing as absent; the Nova escort is the only escort in the entire game with a L/F/R lance!
Yes, it's true we at one time investigated this as an option. The fault is entirely mine- I thought it would be a characterful upgrade. I then discovered in a min-max (read:munchkinized) playtest, adding lances to this fleet completely negated much of the character built into the fleet by NOT giving them lances in the first place unless we restricted this to the point of absurdity. However, it is true that some insular Chapters revel in "giving it to the Man" to an extent when the greater Imperium is concerned, and it is entirely plausible that an un-salvagable Nova's L/F/R lance might be refitted to the occassional SC. To emphasize occassional, we made the refit expensive, which means fleets that want it for character can have it, but it is self-restricting by its point cost. If a player REALLY want's to have lances (and 60cm ones to boot!), keep in mind that a Space Marine fleet can take any Imperial or Chaos battleship in the game as a venerable battlebarge, and even when adding +35 points these ships are in every case except one cheaper than SM battlebarges as well.
Aside from all of this, I am failing to understand how a popular fleet that has needed only minor tweaks in the last ten years is suddenly creating such uproar over not being given a weapon system it never had in the first place! The Space Marines are a great fleet, even if its capital ships don't have lances. There isn't anything preventing players from cooking homebrew rules and fleet lists that allow strike cruisers and even SM batlle barges from taking lances. Heck, feel free to use the old abominable Seddition Oppimiere profile if you want and your opponent lets you! However, we aren't going to be making it official.
Smile, game on and enjoy!
- Nate
Nate, the problem is three fold. The first is that, for ten years, thawks have been a very nearly sure kill weapon against escorts, and for ten years, the wolfpack list was not official. This has changed and is no longer true. Since the BC uses the gunnery table, under most normal circumstances, the SC now has pitiful amounts of firepower against escorts. As Horizon helpfully pointed out earlier, the odds of two thawks killing one DM is now only 33%.
The second is that you tested it with a minmaxed fleet against a balanced fleet, I'm guessing. I'll point out that ANY minmaxed fleet is going to do well against a balanced fleet. I hold up the 'all nightshades' fleet as an example of this, or your own tests with massed NC fire.
The third is that in the last ten years, GW has changed the fluff for Space Marines. (and not just the Lamentors suddenly now being subject to the curse of Sanguinus) Andy Chambers has been replaced by Andy Hoare, who's been putting lances on just about every Strike Cruiser he comes across, even those in official rulebooks such as Planetstrike and the various Deathwatch rulebooks.
-
Last I checked Rulebook trumps BL AND earlier rulebooks.
Not quite, GW rulebooks only trump earlier rulebooks of the same type or you start saying rulebooks from other GW games trump games they don't even relate to. So, yes, 4th edition C:SM trumps 3rd edition, but it doesn't trump BFG or EPIC since they are different game systems. That's why you have to reconcile the differences when it comes to what's talked about rather than chuck what you don't like. I.E. why WH can call in lance strikes on things smaller than WE or why the BFG and Epic rulebooks don't give marines lances while fluff in planet strike mentions them.
-
Hi BaronI,
assault boats needed to get weaker against escorts, thus t-hawks as well.
Marines do need lances. Hi Nate, thanks and all!
Fun to see how people turn it around.
If you want something for fleet: prove it is viable, prove it is balanced, etc.
Thus you want a lance for Marines: prove it!
So far everything to do so failed.
-
Yes, it's true we at one time investigated this as an option. The fault is entirely mine- I thought it would be a characterful upgrade. I then discovered in a min-max (read:munchkinized) playtest, adding lances to this fleet completely negated much of the character built into the fleet by NOT giving them lances in the first place unless we restricted this to the point of absurdity. However, it is true that some insular Chapters revel in "giving it to the Man" to an extent when the greater Imperium is concerned, and it is entirely plausible that an un-salvagable Nova's L/F/R lance might be refitted to the occassional SC. To emphasize occassional, we made the refit expensive, which means fleets that want it for character can have it, but it is self-restricting by its point cost. If a player REALLY want's to have lances (and 60cm ones to boot!), keep in mind that a Space Marine fleet can take any Imperial or Chaos battleship in the game as a venerable battlebarge, and even when adding +35 points these ships are in every case except one cheaper than SM battlebarges as well.
I've been sitting here thinking about it, and, the only way to minmax this with strike cruisers would be to take 10SCs and a desolator as a VBB at 2k points.
Lances: str 14 (10 l/r/f, 4 l/r)
WB: 46 ( 40 l/r, 6 l/f/r)
BC: 15
Thawks: 20
Torps: str 9
This gives you a possible lance str of 14 grand total, 29 if you're counting bcs as a lance.
Now, let's actually minmax a SM fleet for lances with the same 2k:
Nova (4) x8
Desolator VBB
Lances: 36 (32 l/r/f, 4 l/r)
WB:70 (l/r/f)
Torps str 9
If you were minmaxing a SM fleet for lances with str 2 lance turrets on scs, you're doing it wrong.
Thus you want a lance for Marines: prove it!
So far everything to do so failed.
Later tonight we're going to try to use SC against escorts and then minmax lances with SC in a 1k point game tonight against a escort fleet once I can get someone over. (and, yes, on a 6x4 table)
-
Baron, drop it. your not getting what you want. the space marine segment was finalized, the door is closed. Do not waste your time.
-
In ten years, SM strike cruisers did NOT have access to lances. As the Space Marine fleet hasn't suffered in popularity due to this shortcoming, it is doubtful the absence of this weapon has been a big game-changer for this fleet. It was the game designer's intent that lances (a fleet-engagement weapon with little utility concerning saturation planetary bombardment) be rare for the Space Marines, as both a fluff-based pserspective and as an intended character flaw the fleet has that must be worked around by the use of tactics. Rare by no means is the same thing as absent; the Nova escort is the only escort in the entire game with a L/F/R lance!
Hi nate, thanks for chiming in. Glad I can finally stick a fork in the fluff debate.
Yes, it's true we at one time investigated this as an option. The fault is entirely mine- I thought it would be a characterful upgrade. I then discovered in a min-max (read:munchkinized) playtest, adding lances to this fleet completely negated much of the character built into the fleet by NOT giving them lances in the first place unless we restricted this to the point of absurdity. However, it is true that some insular Chapters revel in "giving it to the Man" to an extent when the greater Imperium is concerned, and it is entirely plausible that an un-salvagable Nova's L/F/R lance might be refitted to the occassional SC. To emphasize occassional, we made the refit expensive, which means fleets that want it for character can have it, but it is self-restricting by its point cost. If a player REALLY want's to have lances (and 60cm ones to boot!), keep in mind that a Space Marine fleet can take any Imperial or Chaos battleship in the game as a venerable battlebarge, and even when adding +35 points these ships are in every case except one cheaper than SM battlebarges as well.
We agree on the existence of lances in marine fleets. What we don't agree on, and what the issue is, is the way you limit them.
Make it 1 for every full 1k points or 3-4 SC if need be, but a 15% points increase for an equal swap is not the way to go. I maintain that simply making things more expensive to promote rarity isn't the best game design. I thought you admitted that yourself about something else in another thread.
Aside from all of this, I am failing to understand how a popular fleet that has needed only minor tweaks in the last ten years is suddenly creating such uproar over not being given a weapon system it never had in the first place! The Space Marines are a great fleet, even if its capital ships don't have lances. There isn't anything preventing players from cooking homebrew rules and fleet lists that allow strike cruisers and even SM batlle barges from taking lances. Heck, feel free to use the old abominable Seddition Oppimiere profile if you want and your opponent lets you! However, we aren't going to be making it official
Theres no uproar, I would never use these rules if they existed. The simple point is that your current rules are not needed. Heavily restrict the amount of the SC with lances, and you have your rarity, with zero worries of imbalance. How does that not work? I ended up arguing over the unfounded arguments that SC shouldn't have lances, but now I see you agree with us on the fluff side of it, the real meat of it is that 20 points is not the way to go man! :)
-
Theres no uproar, I would never use these rules if they existed. The simple point is that your current rules are not needed. Heavily restrict the amount of the SC with lances, and you have your rarity, with zero worries of imbalance. How does that not work? I ended up arguing over the unfounded arguments that SC shouldn't have lances, but now I see you agree with us on the fluff side of it, the real meat of it is that 20 points is not the way to go man! :)
I agree, the rules as written don't make them rare, they make them useless. You can still take just as many of them, it just makes it less appealing to do so.
Baron, drop it. your not getting what you want. the space marine segment was finalized, the door is closed. Do not waste your time.
If that's the case, I will enjoy watching SM fleets not based on Novas or SO slide below Dark Eldar in the tournament standings.
However, given how much bitching has been going on about SO, I would suggest that one more re-write is probably in the works or we'll end up with a NetEpic/Epic scenario. So fr just about anyone who's playtested it has deemed it imbalanced. Heck, in my own it easily eliminated an Apoc in just two turns of shooting.
-
Whats netepic? I always wanted to get into epic, just didnt know if it was good or not.
My standing is that this has kind of become an ego war. I think its ridiculous to say a few lances on one SC out of a few is imabalanced in a fleet that already has access to cheaper lances.
At the same time, I also don't think the marines will be hurt at all if the option didn't exist. All I'm arguing right now is this silly 20 point thing. Silly! :P
Balance by limitation, not balance by points imbalance.
-
Whats netepic? I always wanted to get into epic, just didnt know if it was good or not.
My standing is that this has kind of become an ego war. I think its ridiculous to say a few lances on one SC out of a few is imabalanced in a fleet that already has access to cheaper lances.
At the same time, I also don't think the marines will be hurt at all if the option didn't exist. All I'm arguing right now is this silly 20 point thing. Silly! :P
Balance by limitation, not balance by points imbalance.
Once upon a time, the Epic community split over changes to the game. One plays the GW endorsed ruleset and one plays the NetEpic ruleset based off IIRC Epic 3rd ed.
Epic has been largely dead ever since, though some people still play it, I haven't really seen it at events like Gencon for some time.
-
Reports of epic's death are greatly exaggerated. :) Netepic is the updated space marine (2nd edition) ruleset that was created when Epic 40,000 came out and basically created a very abstract and streamlined game that chucked most of what made Space Marine an interesting game although there was tons of variety with the model lines. If it's any indication of how badly things went with epic40k, support only lasted around 6 months. Following epic 40k, Epic Armageddon came out which fixed many of the problems with Epic40k and remains as the active Epic rules. Most people I know now play both netepic and Epic armageddon.
Over in the UK there is a regular tournament circuit for Epic:A and I see a few here and there in the US. IIRC there's one coming up at adepticon this year.
-
So I take it Epic:A is the best game.
-
So I take it Epic:A is the best game.
That's an item of preference. Some like one, some like the other. Epic: A is the 'official' game.
-
Dark Eldar already come above Space Marines.....and all others.... ;)
Dark Eldar won Adapticon 2010. (Maaksel played them).
-
Dark Eldar already come above Space Marines.....and all others.... ;)
Dark Eldar won Adapticon 2010. (Maaksel played them).
Was not aware of that, Last I had heard, Tau were on top and DE were near the bottom.
-
Winners from latest to oldest :
Dark Eldar
Tau ECF (Armada)
Tau ECF (Armada
Orks (Deadshane's Terror Gallore)
Orks (Deadshane's Terror Gallore)
Funny isn't it? How Both DE & Orks, generally seen as weak fleets score good if you take a certain kind of fleet.
Orks => Terrorz
Dark Eldar =>
Maaksel @ dakkadakka:
I believe my fleet for that tournament was:
Dark Archon, 2 rerolls
Torture - Bays
Torture - Bays
Torture - Bays
3 Escorts - Assault Module
3 Escorts - Assault Modules
3 Escorts - Lance
3 Escorts - Lance
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/329780.page#2172347
Deadshane is going to take Chaos next time he is going. His fleet ain't much of a secret:
Desolator, 2x Acheron, 2x Devestation, 2x Carnage.
Back to Marines:
BaronI, why do you see Marines slipping "lower" or downhill without SO or Nova's?
Per draft 2010 they gained the following:
* extra shield option (=> big improvement!).
* vbb's
* Thunderhawk Bombers (=> extra improvement => resilient fighter-bombers in addition to resilient assault boats).
* A Heavy Bombardment Cannon SC variant
* A Torpedo option on SC (to overwhelm turrets).
* Per FAQ2010: BC improvement due simultaneous firing.
I mean, I only see improvements. You?
-
That's because Ork Fighta-Bommaz according to FAQ 2007 were much better than standard bombers. Now they are about 80% as effective (about where they should be). I don't think that we'll be seeing any more Orks winning adepticon.
It goes to say that the winner of Adepticon tends to have an ordinance heavy list.
-
Note: it's late and I'm tired, so this isn't well written.
IN: Myself
Experience: Moderate with IN
Gold - Swords (4)
Sword -Swords (4)
Juno - Swords (4)
Utah -firestorms (4)
Omaha - firestorms (4)
‘Saint Lo’ – Gothic (FA, RS)
SM: Jimmerson
Experience: Some but not with SM
SCs
1 (+1 s)
2 (+1s)
3 (+1s)
4 (+1s)
5 (+1s)
6
Starting distance: 60cm
Formation:
IN: Eschelon, Gothic center with gold and sword squadrons flanking, Juno leading, Utah and Omaha trailing.
SM: line abeam, SC 6 on far left flank.
IN Turn 1 (Imp): AAF: Juno (28cm to contact) Saint Lo (30cm to contact) Gold (31 cm to contact) Sword (28cm to contact) Utah (35 cm to contact) Omaha (31 cm to contact)
SM turn 1: turn 45 degrees and move into line astern, bringing 1 into range Sword and one into range of Juno. Squadron Juno successfully braces, Squadron Sword does not, however, they only score a single hit against squadron Sword, due to some measuring and determining that the member of Sword in range is actually abeam.
SCs launch thawks in 3 waves of 4 which close on IN to a range of 10, 15, and 10 respectively.
IN Turn 2: Sword squadron turns and avoids the nearest Thawk squadron to engage hindmost SC (6), while Juno, Gold and Utah maunver to fire on thawks. Omaha and Saint Lo move to follow up Swords attack on SC (6).
Juno, Gold, Omaha and Utah use weapon batteries to eliminate all three waves of Thawks. SC 6 BFIs, however it still ends up taking 2 hits from Sword (one negated by shield), and 5 from the Saint Lo, and both Utah and Omaha Squadron.
SM Turn 2: SC (5 )burns retros to turn in place, aligning with Utah Squadron. SCs (1-4) Move 10 cm and turn, going abeam of In fleet. (1, 3, and 4 reload ord, 2 fails its check) SCs (1,2,4) fire is ineffectual as they are firing abeam at Escorts outside of 15cm, though Gold Squadron braces under fire from 2 and 4, they end up taking only 2 hits (one is negated). SC (3) is inside 15 of Utah Squadron and forces Utah Squadron to brace, and inflicts 3 hits, destroying one firestorm. SC 5 fires on Sword squadron, inflicting one hit.
SC launch thawks. Thawks from SCs (3) and (4) successfully eliminate another firestorm from Utah Squadron. Thawks from SC (5) are killed by turret fire when they contact Sword squadron. (Came into Base contact on its way to Utah Squadron) and Thawks from (1) are killed by turrets from Gold Squadron
IN Turn 3:
Sword squadron moves aft of SC 5 while Juno moves to screen Utah. Omaha, Utah and Gold shift aim to SC 3 while Saint Lo moves to follow Sword Squadron, presenting its lances to SC (5). Juno, Saint Lo and Sword squadron fire on SC (5). SC (5) braces and takes 3 damage (5 hits, 2 negated by shield). SC 3 fails to brace and takes 5 damage (7 hits 2 negated by shield)
SM Turn 3:
SC (3) rams Omaha Squadron, destroying one firestorm, however it also ended up taking a point of damage itself. SC (2 and 4) come into base to base contact with Gold and Juno, respectively and reload ord.
SC (5) tries to turn and get free of Sword Squadron and moves to consolidate with SC (1, 2, 4). SC (1) moves to fire on Omaha Squadron and reloads ord.
SC (2) and 4 fire on each other’s targets. SC (4) gets 3 damage on Gold Squadron, which destroys one sword. SC (2) gets one hit on Juno, negated by shields. SC (5) takes a parting shot at Sword Squadron which does nothing, and fires its opposite broadside at Juno squadron, which does nothing.
SC 1 locks on and fires at Omaha Squadron but only scores 1 hit.
SCs (1) and (4) launch Thawks, (4)’s immediately coming into contact with one of the two remaining firestorms of Utah squadron, and is removed by turrets.
(1)’s Thawks hit, but Omaha Squadron bfi’s and makes their save.
SC (4) boards Juno Squadron (tie) SC(2) Boards Gold Squadron (SM win) and eliminates one sword.
IN Turn 4:
Saint Lo AFFs and rams SC (5) [braces] dealing it 2 unsaved hits +1 automatic from the ramspike, and takes one damage in return before coming to a halt slightly aft of SC (2). Remnants of Gold turn and go aft of SC (2). Juno goes aft of SC (4) and turns, crossing the T. Omaha turns toward SC (2) Sword moves aft of SC (4) and Locks on. Remnants of Utah move on SC (2) and lock on.
SC (4) braces and takes 1 hit (2 stopped by shields, one saved against.)
SC (2) takes fire from Utah Squadron and braces, taking 1 hits from Utah, 1 hit from Omaha, 1 hit from Gold and two hits from the Saint Lo and a fire critical.
SC (2) puts fire out at end of turn.
SM turn 4:
SC (4) moves and turns abeam of Sword and Juno. SC (1) moves forward and locks on to Omaha Squadron. SC (2) disengages.
SC (1) fires on Omaha Squadron, which fails to brace and takes 2 damage, eliminating one firestorm.
SC (4) fires at Utah Squadron to no effect.
IN turn 5:
Saint Lo comes to new heading pointing at SC (1), Sword and Juno turn toward SC (1), Utah locks on to SC (1) Omaha comes to new heading to orient toward SC(1). Gold turns abeam of SC (1)
SC(1) braces taking fire from all the above but the Saint Lo, taking 3 unsaved hits past shields.
Saint Lo launches torpedoes.
Torps inflict 1 unsaved hit
SM turn 5: SC (1) disengages, SC (4) disengages.
Totals:
SM
3 SC hulked: 240pts
2 crippled and disengaged: 80pts
1 disengaged: 16pts
IN
2 swords: 35pts
4 firestorms: 80pts
So, 130 points of frigs were lost, though when I asked why he had burned retros with SC(5), his response was that he was going to go for a ram and board against both firestorm squadrons but I forced him to brace SC (5) with the Gothic.
-
Heya,
Your IN fleet is weird --> better to have squadrons of 3.
Marine fleet --> needs escorts (Hunter/Gladii)
Turn 1: Marine should have kept str 2 waves tHawks at all times.
Why did he ram in turn 3?? Where all the teleport attacks? Where are the boarding actions vs escorts?
I think his lack in experience is what killed him.
Strike Cruiser Ram & Board --> poor idea.
* To ram you need to AAF. When ramming AAF move needs to be done completely!
So getting into base to base contact with AAF = impossible unless an exact dice roll is done of 4d6.... as said: nonsense !
-
Right, no word either way. But based on some reasonable thoughts, its not a stretch. There is definitly none of your 'no not ever' talk.
The nova actually disproves many of your thoughts.
I want a limited amount of something marines could have, for players who want it. What in the nova entry is clear? It basically makes the Imperium nervous. And its a dedicated gunboat, which a lance bearing SC wouldnt be. Quote me something, there aint nothin there that doesnt lend weight to the lance-on-SC argument. Tell me Horizon, why would the Imperium take more exception to an SC with a couple lances than a dedicated lance escort?
No, you're right, it's not a stretch for the SMs to have lances, it's a BREAK!!! They should NEVER have lances. There is no fluff that would both allow this and match up with the pre-established 40k universe.
Now let me get something clear, the IN's opposition to the Nova is not because it's a gunboat, it is because it has a lance. The IN have no problems with the Gladius. This is a pure gunboat. The only difference between it and the Nova is the lance. This is what they are so annoyed with.
Regarding the THs and the SDMs, the THs have a 25cm movement. There is no avoiding them no matter how you turn. Park 41cm away, your shot, you turn then move then they move 25cm towards you. My turn they catch you, you're dead.
-
Heya,
Your IN fleet is weird --> better to have squadrons of 3.
Marine fleet --> needs escorts (Hunter/Gladii)
Turn 1: Marine should have kept str 2 waves tHawks at all times.
Why did he ram in turn 3?? Where all the teleport attacks? Where are the boarding actions vs escorts?
I think his lack in experience is what killed him.
Strike Cruiser Ram & Board --> poor idea.
* To ram you need to AAF. When ramming AAF move needs to be done completely!
So getting into base to base contact with AAF = impossible unless an exact dice roll is done of 4d6.... as said: nonsense !
My IN had 4 so I could mass 5. That's why he went for more powerful waves instead of str 2s.
This was meant as a control to show the difference when tomarrow we do it with the str 2 lance swap. To do the max amount of minmaxing with SC lances, we needed 6 SCs.
Why he rammed on turn 3 I asked too. His reasoning why he went ahead and did it, even though SC (5) was braced was the firestorm has 1 hp, so with armor 6, the odds of him having taken that point of damage were low. His plan was to kill the firestorm, pass through, since I was unlikely to divide my forces to chase him and then disengage.
Because a ship on special orders cannot teleport attack? I didn't notice any point where a shield was down, he was within 10cm, and not on a special order already.
On Turn 3, given the angles, he might have thought he could come into contact with the opposite squadron with SC (5) (passing through Utah into base contact with Omaha) but I'm guessing.
Now let me get something clear, the IN's opposition to the Nova is not because it's a gunboat, it is because it has a lance. The IN have no problems with the Gladius. This is a pure gunboat. The only difference between it and the Nova is the lance. This is what they are so annoyed with.
Um, Sigoroth, I might point out the ban is on gunboats. The book says it over and over again. Far more then it mentions lances.
-
Sigoroth is right, they were allowed only escorts to be true warships, read their intro section again, Baron.
-
Um, Sigoroth, I might point out the ban is on gunboats. The book says it over and over again. Far more then it mentions lances.
So why don't they give a rats arse about Gladii? The problem with the Nova is the lance. That's that.
-
Sigoroth is right, they were allowed only escorts to be true warships, read their intro section again, Baron.
*sigh* not this again. Zel, go back eight pages, Sigoroth is arguing in a circle. HIs logic is that lances make it a warship, and that other weapons do not. If this was true, they could have non-scattering nova cannon (F/L/R) SCs with 90 degree turns and 35 cm speed and they would not be warships, but if it has a str 1 lance on it, it's a warship.
Again:
'Admiral, we're here at the Aberdeen System to test out weapons on ships. For our target we have an old Dauntless that's been decommissioned. Let's start with a lance. *lance burns hole in dauntless for two damage.* Now for this bombardment cannon! *Dauntless explodes into debris as the hull is breached and internal bulkheads collapse*
'Now, Admiral, aren't we so much safer since that bombardment cannon is so much weaker then the lance?'
So why don't they give a rats arse about Gladii? The problem with the Nova is the lance. That's that.
Probably because all the Gladius is, is a slightly faster version of the sword, the IN's weakest, most dirt common ship. And by dirt common, I mean you can buy them on the open market. It's the lasgun of warships.
-
Sigoroth's circle is more correct then your aka pro-lance circle reasonings.
PROVE the Marines need lances.
BC = not anti-ship (bm interference, gunnery chart). Yes it has a crit hit bonus but lances are stronger in ship to ship duel.
-
*sigh* not this again. Zel, go back eight pages, Sigoroth is arguing in a circle. HIs logic is that lances make it a warship, and that other weapons do not. If this was true, they could have non-scattering nova cannon (F/L/R) SCs with 90 degree turns and 35 cm speed and they would not be warships, but if it has a str 1 lance on it, it's a warship.
This just shows how you've not understood this whole time. The lance is purely an anti-ship weapon. There can be warships without lances, but lances only go on warships. As SMs are not meant to have warships they have zero business having lances at all. For balance purposes in BFG we have to make SM ships compete with warfleets. We need not do this by giving them anti-ship weaponry.
What you are trying to do is say that descriptions of orbital bombardments in rules and books gives SMs the right to have anti-ship weapons. This is quite obviously a croc of shit. If lances in BFG were an anti-defence weapon rather than an anti-ship weapon then I would say yes, they can have lances. They aren't, so they can't. WBs would be far more appropriate for orbital bombardment than lances, which are far too powerful for the job.
You intimate that the Imperium is so toothless that the would not dare try to say boo to whatever the SM want to do. If that were the case then there would be no limits on them. The Imperium at large, and the IN in particular, wish to curtail the SM potential. Whether you lot think that there's no difference between a lance on an escort or a capital ship is neither here nor there. The IN do not see SM escorts as a threat. They can have pure gunboats, and even a lance boat, though grudgingly. This is their concession. Putting lances on cap ships is over the top, and this is when the IN would be forced to take action.
From a game perspective there is so little difference between BCs and lances that there is no balance reason to include them. Since there's no reason to include them, good reason why they shouldn't have them and the fact that they get a replacement weapon for them then there is no reason they should be included. Ever.
-
Sigoroth's circle is more correct then your aka pro-lance circle reasonings.
PROVE the Marines need lances.
BC = not anti-ship (bm interference, gunnery chart). Yes it has a crit hit bonus but lances are stronger in ship to ship duel.
Horizon, I've brought forward direct, without question, SC WITH LANCES information from GW rulebooks (not BL), written by the man who, if there ever will be a BFG 2, would probably be writing the fluff for it, and has been writing the fluff for it over at FFG.
I've shown, both mathematically and in battle reports that strike cruisers have very little effective ability to kill Escorts now (though, I do grant that Jimerson did more or less throw SC 5 away. Mathematically, he might have pulled off the ram on turn 3, since it blowing up was only a one in six shot and it was definitely dead my next turn if it stayed where it was, but SC 5 struck me as an odd move too).
Granted, Jimerson was inexperienced with SM, but he lost 4 times as many points worth of ships as I did. (granted, again, one was something of a throw away) but frankly, i suspect I could have been playing against Maaksel and done the same and you'd still claim it was not proof.
This just shows how you've not understood this whole time. The lance is purely an anti-ship weapon. There can be warships without lances, but lances only go on warships. As SMs are not meant to have warships they have zero business having lances at all. For balance purposes in BFG we have to make SM ships compete with warfleets. We need not do this by giving them anti-ship weaponry.
What you are trying to do is say that descriptions of orbital bombardments in rules and books gives SMs the right to have anti-ship weapons. This is quite obviously a croc of shit. If lances in BFG were an anti-defence weapon rather than an anti-ship weapon then I would say yes, they can have lances. They aren't, so they can't. WBs would be far more appropriate for orbital bombardment than lances, which are far too powerful for the job.
No, again, a lance is not a purely anti-ship weapon. Further, there is no 'other' weapon on a ship named a lance that can only be fired at the ground. And while there are many types of lances, from the STC Titanforge Lance to the arechotech Staravar, they are all shipboard lances. They all work the same way, and in absolutely no information I have found ANYWHERE is there any suggestion that a ship is firing anything BUT it's shipboard lance batteries at the ground target when a lance strike occurs in the ground!. Hell, when a Lunar in epic fires it's lances at a ground target, it is a lance strike! It even differentiates between it firring it's lances and its WB (which are more akin to a nuke) In the fluff in C:WH it talkes about the orbiting starship firing it's lances to support the ground troops. Lure of the Expanse for RT (where, again, it's a space ship game, and there is only one 'lance') goes into detail when a Firestorm starts firing it's lance at ground targets.
-
That batrep of yours contains no valuable information at all. To me at least.
An experienced or relative ok one would not have been as easily defeated (though keep in mind in a fleet engagement the IN should have the upper hand vs Marines!).
It starts with the fleet selection. Which was already skewed.
I don't know Maaksel and his Marine experience so I cannot speak for him.
No one doubted lances doing orbital strikes. They can (pin-point). However Marines have BC's which are more suited to that role for their purpose.
Who are referring to as fluff writer?
-
Hey, Baron, give it a rest bro. The HA agrees with us, let them think what they want :)
-
And where did they agree? That an occassional Marine ship may have it? That a ship may have 1 lance @ +20pts? That's what Nate said.
More lances on Strike Cruisers? Old Seditio?
This is what Nate said:
However, we aren't going to be making it official.
And so be it. :)
-
That batrep of yours contains no valuable information at all. To me at least.
An experienced or relative ok one would not have been as easily defeated (though keep in mind in a fleet engagement the IN should have the upper hand vs Marines!).
It starts with the fleet selection. Which was already skewed.
Of course it was skewed. To produce a control we needed the same number of the same type of ship that would be in the experiment, which is Nate's minmaxed SC lance group.
By their nature, all minmaxed lists are skewed.
Personally, I expected them to loose, but not that badly.
No one doubted lances doing orbital strikes. They can (pin-point). However Marines have BC's which are more suited to that role for their purpose.
Actually that's exactly what Sigoroth has been arguing is that orbital lance strikes are not done by the same lances that they use on other ships. Several people have explained it now that they are, but he keeps coming back to it.
And, BCs are excellent for paving the way for large scale invasions, but for close support FIBUA they're much inferior, given the size of the blast radius and the relative lack of penetration. Against an enemy in the open, they're fine, but, and, granted, I'm using examples from fluff and their stats from Epic and 40k, the BC takes too many hits to penetrate a hardened bunker, and misses seem to happen fairly regularly. 1/3 of the shots fired in Nightbringer missed the target, one by 900km and it took four hits to penetrate the FC bunker.
A lance can eliminate the building fire is coming from, a BC flattens the whole block. If the objective is more valuable to you intact, which is better?
Who are referring to as fluff writer?
Andy Hoare. If you read the credits, he turns up in just about every GW and FFG product with space ship fluff in it as an author. He is also writing the Rogue Trader series for BL which covers the Damocles Gulf Crusade.
-
Baron, were you a marine yourself, you would be commended for fighting to the bitter end. However, its still a losing battle. The answer is no. There is no further reason to argue, the decision was made, that's that. Can an op lock this thread?
-
Baron, were you a marine yourself, you would be commended for fighting to the bitter end. However, its still a losing battle. The answer is no. There is no further reason to argue, the decision was made, that's that. Can an op lock this thread?
Zel, have it however you want, but SCs are pitifully weak against escorts now. The str 2 lance swap would be a viable solution. SC cannot outmanuver escorts, so they cannot have them always closing. This means that in most circumstances, they will only ever be firepower 2. thawks are NOT the all powerful escort slayers they used to be, and the SC's firepower against escorts needs to be rebalanced to reflect this. A lance is less useful against cap ships then a BC is, due to the gunnery table and BC crit rules, whereas a lance is equally effective against both.
If you want them rare, make them 1 per 750 points in addition to requiring them to take a regular SC. Making the weapon swap weak and cost 20 points does not make them any more rare then the +1 shield for 15 points makes that upgrade rare. Everyone and their brother will take it.
-
sad+panda
-
You are right, Baron, but I'd just argue personally with Nate. He agrees with us on fluff, so don't bother convincing those who wish to stick their heads in dirt. Its all about how the fluff is conveyed, right now its shittily. Just pm the guy, and back away slowly from the emoti-baters.
-
You are right, Baron, but I'd just argue personally with Nate. He agrees with us on fluff, so don't bother convincing those who wish to stick their heads in dirt. Its all about how the fluff is conveyed, right now its shittily. Just pm the guy, and back away slowly from the emoti-baters.
Dude take your own advice. If that's what you believe then just say PM Nate and be done with it instead of adding the lines after "personally with Nate." You're just as similarly described and just as much guilty of the lines after.
-
Zel, have it however you want, but SCs are pitifully weak against escorts now. The str 2 lance swap would be a viable solution. SC cannot outmanuver escorts, so they cannot have them always closing. This means that in most circumstances, they will only ever be firepower 2. thawks are NOT the all powerful escort slayers they used to be, and the SC's firepower against escorts needs to be rebalanced to reflect this. A lance is less useful against cap ships then a BC is, due to the gunnery table and BC crit rules, whereas a lance is equally effective against both.
You really need to define what an Escort slayer is because every race was affected by the new rules of escorts being more survivable vs H&R attacks. Even then I don't see a lot of races with access to a lot of crit generating attacks from one ship. The SC has:
1. The BC shot supported by the WB shot;
2. TH attacking as ABs only instead of a normal crit it is a 3+ attack;
3. Crits from H&R attacks via teleporting; and
4. Crits from Boarding Actions if the SC wants to do it.
I don't see how getting a Str 2 lance swap, esp the one LS proposes where it is Front Arc only and most likely proposition given that it was the original proposal from the HA, would be a more viable outcome than the one above given that now, the broadsides would suck against escorts as there is no more mutual support from the weapons. What's that going to do? At best kill ONE escort in one turn and that's assuming it fails it's BFI roll. And you can't do that with the stuff above esp with the WBs and BCs supporting each other and TH support to boot?
A Lunar would have a hard time against escorts.
A Gothic would fare better but SCs aren't getting 4 lances that's for sure.
A Dictator would have problems even with bombers.
A Tyrant would have problems.
A Dominator would have problems.
A Lance Dauntless would almost fare as well as a Gothic but still only 1 escort as a sure kill.
A Torp Dauntless would far less than a Lance Dauntless.
A Murder would have a hard time against escorts but will fair well on the approach because of the 60 cm lances. It will still have problems though.
A Carnage might be better but still would have a problem with column shifts unless within 30 cm at which point it will get good chances in one arc.
A Slaughter will perform better than the Murder and Carnage IMHO but it will still have problems.
A Devastation is probably the best bet here for Chos with long range lance AND bomber OR AB support.
Terror Ships might far better but still has problems.
Same with a Kill Krooza.
The Hero and the Merchant would have similar difficulties and maybe unique problems of their own.
Eldar (both flavors) and Necron probably are the best Escort hunters.
Pitifully weak? Comparing the SCs to the above ships, I don't see it as pitifully weak. Are you really sure you're doing the right stuff? However, if you really want to defend against escorts, then best advice is to bring your own escorts. Nothing stopping you there.
I don't even think the Escort argument is a serious argument because assuming you do get lances on the SC, are you seriously telling me you're going to waste the lance shots on escorts instead of using them to help kill capital ships and just let your escorts handle the enemy escorts?
Lastly, your battle report so far is you still attacking an SM fleet. Next time play the SM fleet.
-
Zel, have it however you want, but SCs are pitifully weak against escorts now. The str 2 lance swap would be a viable solution. SC cannot outmanuver escorts, so they cannot have them always closing. This means that in most circumstances, they will only ever be firepower 2. thawks are NOT the all powerful escort slayers they used to be, and the SC's firepower against escorts needs to be rebalanced to reflect this. A lance is less useful against cap ships then a BC is, due to the gunnery table and BC crit rules, whereas a lance is equally effective against both.
You really need to define what an Escort slayer is because every race was affected by the new rules of escorts being more survivable vs H&R attacks. Even then I don't see a lot of races with access to a lot of crit generating attacks from one ship. The SC has:
1. The BC shot supported by the WB shot;
2. TH attacking as ABs only instead of a normal crit it is a 3+ attack;
3. Crits from H&R attacks via teleporting; and
4. Crits from Boarding Actions if the SC wants to do it.
I don't see how getting a Str 2 lance swap, esp the one LS proposes where it is Front Arc only and most likely proposition given that it was the original proposal from the HA, would be a more viable outcome than the one above given that now, the broadsides would suck against escorts as there is no more mutual support from the weapons. What's that going to do? At best kill ONE escort in one turn and that's assuming it fails it's BFI roll. And you can't do that with the stuff above esp with the WBs and BCs supporting each other and TH support to boot?
A Lunar would have a hard time against escorts.
A Gothic would fare better but SCs aren't getting 4 lances that's for sure.
A Dictator would have problems even with bombers.
A Tyrant would have problems.
A Dominator would have problems.
A Lance Dauntless would almost fare as well as a Gothic but still only 1 escort as a sure kill.
A Torp Dauntless would far less than a Lance Dauntless.
A Murder would have a hard time against escorts but will fair well on the approach because of the 60 cm lances. It will still have problems though.
A Carnage might be better but still would have a problem with column shifts unless within 30 cm at which point it will get good chances in one arc.
A Slaughter will perform better than the Murder and Carnage IMHO but it will still have problems.
A Devastation is probably the best bet here for Chos with long range lance AND bomber OR AB support.
Terror Ships might far better but still has problems.
Same with a Kill Krooza.
The Hero and the Merchant would have similar difficulties and maybe unique problems of their own.
Eldar (both flavors) and Necron probably are the best Escort hunters.
Pitifully weak? Comparing the SCs to the above ships, I don't see it as pitifully weak. Are you really sure you're doing the right stuff? However, if you really want to defend against escorts, then best advice is to bring your own escorts. Nothing stopping you there.
I don't even think the Escort argument is a serious argument because assuming you do get lances on the SC, are you seriously telling me you're going to waste the lance shots on escorts instead of using them to help kill capital ships and just let your escorts handle the enemy escorts?
Lastly, your battle report so far is you still attacking an SM fleet. Next time play the SM fleet.
1) A lunar, under most circumstances, is twice as good as an SC against escorts.
2) A dictator is comparable.
3) A tyrant can engage out of escort range.
4) I have never seen a dominator have a problem getting at least 1, possibly 2 escort kills per turn as long as they were not abeam.
5) agreed, Lance daunt fairs pretty well.
6) torp daunt depends on if you invested in special torps. Guided are great for clearing out escorts.
7) Actually, considering the Murder's 45cm range and 25 cm speed, it does quite a bit better then the sc, that has to close within thier range to engage them. Or you could take the lance options.
8)Agreed on carnage.
9) I can say that it's a rare day I've seen a slaughter have problems with IN escorts.
10) Agreed, Devastation is pretty effective. I've seen them wipe out whole squadrons in one turn.
11)Ork ships just have problems in general. Hopefully this simultaneous fire buisness clears that up.
12) I haven't tried out the changes to Tau yet, so I'm unsure on this one.
13) Agreed on necrons and eldar.
I've never had a hard time with any of the above ships against their own value in escorts. SCs can't win against their own point value. That's what I'm driving at here. None of the above ships have trouble with their own point values worth of IN escorts, with the noted exception of the Dictator. All of these ships (except the aforementioned and torp daunts) can swing at least a str 3 shot per turn against escorts, (though, granted, the lance daunless has to be closing). The fact is that SC are balanced to use thawks to kill escorts and their gunnery against other cap ships. This balance has changed. Due to the gunnery table, most of the time, it's just a str 1 bombardment cannon hit on shields.
-
Again BI, you just don't get it.
OK, so people who wrote rules for other game systems or wrote fiction thought that it would be thematic to say 'lance'. Sure, it's more thematic than saying 'Weapon Battery'. However, when they wrote those rules or that fiction, did they know that a lance was an anti-ship gun in BFG? Were they directly saying that Marines have anti-ship capabilities? Or is it more likely that they just wanted something that represents 'accurate' for their bombardment? If it's the latter, and all they're really saying is 'accurate bombardment' then Weapon Batteries can do that just as well. From the description of the Sword class frigate we can see that lasers are used as weapon batteries. This is far more representative of the "lance" rules used in orbital bombardments. After all, there is still a chance of survival in those game systems even when a 'hit' is scored. A bit unlikely if it were a real lance when a lance can vaporise 24 Mantas in a single shot!
What you are doing is using orbital bombardment rules from other game systems to justify anti-ship weaponry in BFG due to a fluke of nomenclature! Hypothetically speaking (you know, pretend), if lances in BFG were renamed something else, such as Space Squirrels, then there would be no case to put forward. "Well SMs are described as having lances in Epic so should get Space Squirrels in BFG". See, it doesn't work. What this tells us is that you have no argument beyond the name of the weapon for SMs to get anti-ship weaponry. Nor is there one.
The "SMs have lances as shown by these orbital strike rules" argument goes directly contrary to the "IN don't want SMs to have lances" argument. You have fluff supporting your stance, we have fluff supporting ours. Ours trumps yours. I'll list why:
1. - General background of the game prohibits SMs from having warships, lances are purely anti-ship weapons, therefore any ship with them is a warship, therefore SMs can't have them.
2. - Specific fluff mentioning that the IN really don't like the SM having the Nova (because of lance)
3. - Specific fluff mentioning that the IN don't mind SM escort sized warships (combined with their acceptance of the Gladius means Nova controversial due to lance armament).
Your fluff does not mention anti-ship capability, nor is it BFG specific. Therefore when reconciling these two incongruencies you have to come down in favour of the BFG specific fluff.
I put it to you that the authors of the orbital strike rules are either unaware of the role of lances in BFG or are unaware of what the consequences would be to SMs having anti-ship weaponry.
If in BFG a lance represented a weapon capable of incinerating whole battlefleets then your argument would suggest that SMs should get them despite them clearly not having this capability. This is because your fluff only talks about lances as an orbital bombardment, and not what they represent in BFG. If you want to have SMs with lances then you'd have to redefine what a lance does in BFG. You're arguing nomenclature. Not role. Not demonstrable fleet engagement capability. Nomenclature. This is a piss poor argument.
If you think that there is a balance problem between SM ships and escorts then you should argue for fluffy fixes, not fanboy "I want everything" changes. As for my opinion, I think the reduction to 4+ for H&R attacks against escorts is a bad idea. Just make escorts cheaper, not assault boats useless.
-
Again BI, you just don't get it.
OK, so people who wrote rules for other game systems or wrote fiction thought that it would be thematic to say 'lance'. Sure, it's more thematic than saying 'Weapon Battery'. However, when they wrote those rules or that fiction, did they know that a lance was an anti-ship gun in BFG? Were they directly saying that Marines have anti-ship capabilities? Or is it more likely that they just wanted something that represents 'accurate' for their bombardment? If it's the latter, and all they're really saying is 'accurate bombardment' then Weapon Batteries can do that just as well. From the description of the Sword class frigate we can see that lasers are used as weapon batteries. This is far more representative of the "lance" rules used in orbital bombardments. After all, there is still a chance of survival in those game systems even when a 'hit' is scored. A bit unlikely if it were a real lance when a lance can vaporise 24 Mantas in a single shot!
What you are doing is using orbital bombardment rules from other game systems to justify anti-ship weaponry in BFG due to a fluke of nomenclature! Hypothetically speaking (you know, pretend), if lances in BFG were renamed something else, such as Space Squirrels, then there would be no case to put forward. "Well SMs are described as having lances in Epic so should get Space Squirrels in BFG". See, it doesn't work. What this tells us is that you have no argument beyond the name of the weapon for SMs to get anti-ship weaponry. Nor is there one.
The "SMs have lances as shown by these orbital strike rules" argument goes directly contrary to the "IN don't want SMs to have lances" argument. You have fluff supporting your stance, we have fluff supporting ours. Ours trumps yours. I'll list why:
1. - General background of the game prohibits SMs from having warships, lances are purely anti-ship weapons, therefore any ship with them is a warship, therefore SMs can't have them.
2. - Specific fluff mentioning that the IN really don't like the SM having the Nova (because of lance)
3. - Specific fluff mentioning that the IN don't mind SM escort sized warships (combined with their acceptance of the Gladius means Nova controversial due to lance armament).
Your fluff does not mention anti-ship capability, nor is it BFG specific. Therefore when reconciling these two incongruencies you have to come down in favour of the BFG specific fluff.
I put it to you that the authors of the orbital strike rules are either unaware of the role of lances in BFG or are unaware of what the consequences would be to SMs having anti-ship weaponry.
If in BFG a lance represented a weapon capable of incinerating whole battlefleets then your argument would suggest that SMs should get them despite them clearly not having this capability. This is because your fluff only talks about lances as an orbital bombardment, and not what they represent in BFG. If you want to have SMs with lances then you'd have to redefine what a lance does in BFG. You're arguing nomenclature. Not role. Not demonstrable fleet engagement capability. Nomenclature. This is a piss poor argument.
If you think that there is a balance problem between SM ships and escorts then you should argue for fluffy fixes, not fanboy "I want everything" changes. As for my opinion, I think the reduction to 4+ for H&R attacks against escorts is a bad idea. Just make escorts cheaper, not assault boats useless.
The differences between a laser macrobattery (such as the common Sunsear Laser Battery on a Sword) and a lance are covered quite in depth in Rogue Trader sourcebooks. And since these cover the exact same ships we use in BFG, and, while rules for supporting fire from a starship are not yet in game, examples of it have been used already, such as in Lure of the Expanse, where a dominator and a Firestorm both begin bombarding the planet the players are on. While the Dominator is flattening entire islands, the Firestorm is more selectively vaporizing structures. I would suggest that a Firestorm firing it's lance is most likely just what it says on the tin, since RT is also a Space Ships game rather then a ground based game.
And the fact that a lance hit can kill a wave of mantas is a fluke of BFG's rules attempting to balance AC with weapons, since the designers wanted Jutland, not Midway. It's sort of like Necrons phasing out when they've been curb stomping you the entire time only to have the last stand by a single squad of guardsmen kill that last necron needed to make their entire victorious army vanish and the IG win. In reality, the lance hit would probably kill one manta.
And, I'll point out something interesting for you: a lance fired from orbit in 40k has a chance for survival. A lance fired on the ground DOES NOT. This is due to the fact that dust particles in an atmosphere attenuate the power of lasers. The defense laser, which has stats for both 40k and BFG, (str 3, 60cm Lance) is a Str D weapon in 40k, and requires the power of an entire city to fire.
If you insist on fluff pointing out out anti-ship capability:
"Ranparre had several centuries of space battle experience behind him. Under his command, the ships of the Crimson Fists had saved over a dozen worlds without the need to drop any troops on the surface. Rebels, traitors, heretics, xenos, even warp-filth… Ranparre had beaten all kinds of enemy craft in high-orbital and deep-space combat. But he had never, in all his unnaturally long life, faced the kind of numbers that the Arch-Arsonist of Charadon was throwing at the planet now.
Even in the gaping black vastness of space, there seemed no quarter that was not under assault, filled with ork craft scything inwards on angry trails of glowing plasma.
“Order the Aurora and the Verde to close formation with us. I want the Aurora on our left flank, the Verde on our right. All forward batteries to target the command bridge of their flagship. If the beast Snagrod is aboard that vessel, we may still have a chance to end all this.â€
From a row of stations sunk into the metal floor on the bridge’s right, one of the weapons co-ordinators called out, “I have your forward firing solution, my lord. Permission to fire forward lances?â€
“Hold,†said Ranparre. “We fire together with the strike cruisers. If that monstrosity has shields, we must hope to overload them at the very least.â€
Seconds later, a comms-station operator on the left reported that the Aurora and the Verde had plotted their firing solutions, and were awaiting Ranparre’s order to engage.
“Give the signal,†barked Ranparre. “All forward batteries… open fire!â€
The central display screens in front of him crackled with blinding white energy as the massive weapons loosed their fury. Thick spears of light burned across ten thousand kilometres. A dozen small ork fighters and support craft caught between the two closing flagships were obliterated, simply wiped from existence. Then the lances stuck the ork flagship full in its gargantuan beast-like face." - Rynns World, Chapter 12.
-
1) A lunar, under most circumstances, is twice as good as an SC against escorts.
Really? How so? You get what? 1 extra dice for the WBs and 1 dice for the lance. Which still isn't that far off from the number of attacks an AC can bring to bear on Escorts (WB+BC+TH).
3) A tyrant can engage out of escort range.
And so? An escort on an abeam profile out of 30 cm range can only get you so many dice. You want to know how many? 2 dice.
4) I have never seen a dominator have a problem getting at least 1, possibly 2 escort kills per turn as long as they were not abeam.
So why would you have no problems getting the Escorts on a profile other than Abeam with a Dominator when you can do this much more easily with an SC? Hey, you're the one who is focusing on the difficulty of an SC killing an Escort because its Abeam. So now suddenly a Dominator can easily get an Escort into the Closing or Moving Away profile?
And it's still only 2 dice in the Abeam column.
6) torp daunt depends on if you invested in special torps. Guided are great for clearing out escorts.
So now you have to spend more just to kill those Escorts using torps?
7) Actually, considering the Murder's 45cm range and 25 cm speed, it does quite a bit better then the sc, that has to close within thier range to engage them. Or you could take the lance options.
I did say on the approach it would fare well (fair was a mistype). However, even with the lance option, still kinda hard to kill Escorts. Almost same efficiency as an SC.
I've never had a hard time with any of the above ships against their own value in escorts. SCs can't win against their own point value. That's what I'm driving at here.
Again, you haven't played SM yet. So your point here is still questionable.
None of the above ships have trouble with their own point values worth of IN escorts, with the noted exception of the Dictator. All of these ships (except the aforementioned and torp daunts) can swing at least a str 3 shot per turn against escorts, (though, granted, the lance daunless has to be closing). The fact is that SC are balanced to use thawks to kill escorts and their gunnery against other cap ships. This balance has changed. Due to the gunnery table, most of the time, it's just a str 1 bombardment cannon hit on shields.
I as a player can make things difficult for those ships. This is where player skill will come in of course. You might even be a better player than I am but I am pretty sure I can make things interesting with the maneuverability of Escorts going up against an equal number of points of any of those ships with the exception of Eldar or Necron.
Again, if you can find a way for a Dominator to get Escorts in arcs other than Abeam, you should be able to do so with the SC. Don't focus overly on the gunnery table. Rather focus more on the gaming table and your tactical maneuvering.
-
The differences between a laser macrobattery (such as the common Sunsear Laser Battery on a Sword) and a lance are covered quite in depth in Rogue Trader sourcebooks. And since these cover the exact same ships we use in BFG, and, while rules for supporting fire from a starship are not yet in game, examples of it have been used already, such as in Lure of the Expanse, where a dominator and a Firestorm both begin bombarding the planet the players are on. While the Dominator is flattening entire islands, the Firestorm is more selectively vaporizing structures. I would suggest that a Firestorm firing it's lance is most likely just what it says on the tin, since RT is also a Space Ships game rather then a ground based game.
If a laser can be a weapon battery then a weapon battery can be used for a pinpoint orbital strike. Therefore there is no need to use lances for pinpoint strikes. The inconsistencies remain, regardless of the above fluff. So either the entirety of the backstory for the 40K universe is wrong as well as the specific BFG references, or, the fluff that doesn't name SMs as having anti-ship weaponry is wrong. Since the former is specific and consistent and the latter is a matter of nomenclature and inconsistent then I wonder which argument should be turfed.
And the fact that a lance hit can kill a wave of mantas is a fluke of BFG's rules attempting to balance AC with weapons, since the designers wanted Jutland, not Midway. It's sort of like Necrons phasing out when they've been curb stomping you the entire time only to have the last stand by a single squad of guardsmen kill that last necron needed to make their entire victorious army vanish and the IG win. In reality, the lance hit would probably kill one manta.
Quite possibly, however if this is a fluke of game mechanics then so too is the fact that lances happen to be purely anti-ship weaponry. As I said before, if the name "lance" were given to mean "weapon batteries" and what we consider lances were renamed to something else then SMs would definitely have lances. Since in this case the fluff you've presented would not be inconsistent with known facts.
You just can't argue from orbital bombardment crap that SMs should have specifically anti-ship weaponry.
And, I'll point out something interesting for you: a lance fired from orbit in 40k has a chance for survival. A lance fired on the ground DOES NOT. This is due to the fact that dust particles in an atmosphere attenuate the power of lasers. The defense laser, which has stats for both 40k and BFG, (str 3, 60cm Lance) is a Str D weapon in 40k, and requires the power of an entire city to fire.
I don't imagine that lances would be purely laser weapons, but if what you describe here is true, and atmosphere does interfere with lance fire then what you have described is not the same as the BFG weapon. Lances in BFG do not lose effectiveness for firing through debris, gas or dust. Not the same weapon. A BFG lance would not be attenuated and is 3 times more powerful than a WB. WBs are far more likely to be used as an orbital barrage.
If you insist on fluff pointing out out anti-ship capability:
"Ranparre had several centuries of space battle experience behind him. Under his command, the ships of the Crimson Fists had saved over a dozen worlds without the need to drop any troops on the surface. Rebels, traitors, heretics, xenos, even warp-filth… Ranparre had beaten all kinds of enemy craft in high-orbital and deep-space combat. But he had never, in all his unnaturally long life, faced the kind of numbers that the Arch-Arsonist of Charadon was throwing at the planet now.
Even in the gaping black vastness of space, there seemed no quarter that was not under assault, filled with ork craft scything inwards on angry trails of glowing plasma.
“Order the Aurora and the Verde to close formation with us. I want the Aurora on our left flank, the Verde on our right. All forward batteries to target the command bridge of their flagship. If the beast Snagrod is aboard that vessel, we may still have a chance to end all this.â€
From a row of stations sunk into the metal floor on the bridge’s right, one of the weapons co-ordinators called out, “I have your forward firing solution, my lord. Permission to fire forward lances?â€
“Hold,†said Ranparre. “We fire together with the strike cruisers. If that monstrosity has shields, we must hope to overload them at the very least.â€
Seconds later, a comms-station operator on the left reported that the Aurora and the Verde had plotted their firing solutions, and were awaiting Ranparre’s order to engage.
“Give the signal,†barked Ranparre. “All forward batteries… open fire!â€
The central display screens in front of him crackled with blinding white energy as the massive weapons loosed their fury. Thick spears of light burned across ten thousand kilometres. A dozen small ork fighters and support craft caught between the two closing flagships were obliterated, simply wiped from existence. Then the lances stuck the ork flagship full in its gargantuan beast-like face." - Rynns World, Chapter 12.
Again, rubbish source. Apart from that, it doesn't show that SMs have purely anti-ship weapons. This is just yet another mistake in a long list of mistakes made by ignorant authors. There is no canonical fluff that describes SMs as having anti-ship weaponry. If there was then this would still have to be reconciled with the Imperial stance on the matter and specific BFG fluff. Ie, it would have to be explained just how they've managed to get away with having anti-ship weaponry without being exterminated/censured/brought to heel, etc.
-
I don't imagine that lances would be purely laser weapons, but if what you describe here is true, and atmosphere does interfere with lance fire then what you have described is not the same as the BFG weapon. Lances in BFG do not lose effectiveness for firing through debris, gas or dust. Not the same weapon. A BFG lance would not be attenuated and is 3 times more powerful than a WB. WBs are far more likely to be used as an orbital barrage.
Gas and dust clouds in outer space tend to have a density generally from 100 to 10,000 particles per cm3. Using Earth's atmosphere for a comparison, the atmosphere of a planet contains 2.5×10^19 particles per cm3. Even debris from a ship explosion is extremely rarefied by comparison, since the debris is traveling away from each other in an expanding cloud.
So, don't even try to compare firing a laser through a gas clouds such as a nebula in space to firing through a planets atmosphere. It's a testament to how absurdly powerful a lance is that it can do it at all, as it's more then 10^15 times as dense. It'd be like saying that firing a bullet through air is the same as firing a bullet through liquid magma.
Again, rubbish source. Apart from that, it doesn't show that SMs have purely anti-ship weapons. This is just yet another mistake in a long list of mistakes made by ignorant authors. There is no canonical fluff that describes SMs as having anti-ship weaponry. If there was then this would still have to be reconciled with the Imperial stance on the matter and specific BFG fluff. Ie, it would have to be explained just how they've managed to get away with having anti-ship weaponry without being exterminated/censured/brought to heel, etc.
*sigh* Rynns World has been canon so long it originally appeared in First Ed. It's been updated and fleshed out over time, and is hot on the heels of the 13th Black Crusade and the war for Armageddon as the best known battle of 'modern' 40k. When BL made a book of it, it was, quite possibly, one of the MOST scrutinized books BL has ever produced, and underwent three revisions (according to one source) before GW approved it.
-
Gas and dust clouds in outer space tend to have a density generally from 100 to 10,000 particles per cm3. Using Earth's atmosphere for a comparison, the atmosphere of a planet contains 2.5×10^19 particles per cm3. Even debris from a ship explosion is extremely rarefied by comparison, since the debris is traveling away from each other in an expanding cloud.
So, don't even try to compare firing a laser through a gas clouds such as a nebula in space to firing through a planets atmosphere. It's a testament to how absurdly powerful a lance is that it can do it at all, as it's more then 10^15 times as dense. It'd be like saying that firing a bullet through air is the same as firing a bullet through liquid magma.
Piffle.
*sigh* Rynns World has been canon so long it originally appeared in First Ed. It's been updated and fleshed out over time, and is hot on the heels of the 13th Black Crusade and the war for Armageddon as the best known battle of 'modern' 40k. When BL made a book of it, it was, quite possibly, one of the MOST scrutinized books BL has ever produced, and underwent three revisions (according to one source) before GW approved it.
Absolutely none of which stops it from being a rubbish source. This is a matter of nomenclature. If we renamed the weapon system in BFG from "lance" to something else and made "lances" a type of weapon battery then the SMs could have them. Hell, from the fluff that you're quoting combined with the history of 40K and the BFG fluff the best we can say is that this is probably what the designers of the game should have done in the first place. That then would make all those pieces of fluff align with each other.
Nothing of what you have said suggests that Space Marines should be armed with a specifically anti-ship weapon. All other weapons in the game that the SMs have access to either allow them to deliver their payload of marines or get better against defences. This latter part is important. Because it means that lances get better against non-defences, i.e., ships! The lance is an anti-ship gun. Space Marines should not get it. The designers of the game knew this, and instead of lances they gave Space Marines a gun that they use for "orbital bombardment" which also happens to hit on a 4+ but, unlike lances, does not get comparatively better against ships! There is your orbital bombardment, there is your lance alternative. You can do precision bombardments as well as area saturation bombardments. Job sorted.
All your continual productions of non-relevant fluff do is suggest that the game designers should have given "lances" different rules and renamed the current lance rules to something else. It is not an argument for SMs to get access to these weapons.
-
Did someone just wrote that Marines need lances to defeat escorts? 2 lances on a cruiser as well?
ahahhahahaah best opening of 2011. hahhahaha.
Give Orks lances too. Kill Kroozers & Savage escorts. They need lances to.
lollolol
-
Did someone just wrote that Marines need lances to defeat escorts? 2 lances on a cruiser as well?
ahahhahahaah best opening of 2011. hahhahaha.
Give Orks lances too. Kill Kroozers & Savage escorts. They need lances to.
lollolol
I dont see why anyone would need help beating escorts, especially not a fleet with abounding assault boats with a 16% better chance of causing murder. Once we see escorts taken in large numbers (outside of CE) and those lists having better than average win ratios, then it would be a problem.
Oh and about the Orks, have you seen Nate's latest pdf? Ugh... damages a critical part of Ork fluff, I.E. they have no idea how/why they should power lances, and only have them on the largest vessels with the most power left over. now you can take them on savages...
-
Space marines should not have lances. Why? Well, apart from the massive amount of evidence already provided that has not been effectvely debated by anyone, there is another point to be made.
Just because Space Marine ships can, without lances, still sink ships, it doesn't mean that they are designed too, as already shown extensively. Ergo, there is no reason to provide them with ship killing weaponary. One could say that this makes little sense because occasionally SM do need to kill ships. However, the same can be said for other fleets who lack certain kinds of weapons, Chaos and nova cannons, etc. Giving a frigate a lance is one thing (even though it is still undesirable) as one frigate is generally not a threat to a cruiser. Giving lances to a SC would change its role into being a cruiser killer, which it is not.
SC's are not "pitifully weak" against escorts. Giving them two lances will, at most, kill one escort a turn. One escort is not a threat. And if the escorts are still staying put in your next shooting phase to allow you to use your lances twice, then you can probably have outmanouevred them by this point. Plus, it is not really a question of game balance, rather, of fluff. No matter how much SM in BFG need a lance (they don't but anyway) they can't have one on normal SC's in any quantity. If they could have one on one SC, why not on them all? The Imperium is hardly likely to give an inch on this issue, based on the fear that the Horus heresy created. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
Yes, this puts them at an disadvantage in BFG, but not all fleets are created equal. If they were they'd be no need for fluff. Some fleets are harder to use for perfectly good fluff reasons, and I think thats great. If you want a game system where every fleet works equally well, then BFG ain't for you.
-
Piffle.
Sorry, Sig, not nonsense, Science.
Firing a beam through a medium such as air or water causes it to diffuse and lose power. Through a vacuum, this is not an issue.
I dont see why anyone would need help beating escorts, especially not a fleet with abounding assault boats with a 16% better chance of causing murder. Once we see escorts taken in large numbers (outside of CE) and those lists having better than average win ratios, then it would be a problem.
Actually, the odds of a 4 aboat wing getting a kill on a 3 ship squadron (assuming the escort has 2 turrets) now is 16%. The odds of one wb and a str 2 lance is about 25%.
-
would it be possible for people to summarise their reasons for/against lances on strike cruisers? and a summary = one sentence per point. and we dont need more justification, we need simple base reasons why they need to have them as an option. the reason i think we need this is that things seem to generally be spiralling into monkey dung flinging contests.
-
@BI. You are assuming with your AB scenario vs. escorts that the 3 escorts are able to combine turret fire. What you've outlined is the worst case scenario, which is true. But if the escorts are attacked individually and therefore unable to mass turrets then the lances are no better, and the AB fair MUCH better.
-
Just for lolz, list that massive evidence you were talking about, dark depths. all of it you can find.
-
See the previous 65 pages, and yes, I accept there is a counter-argument, but my 'gut' says no to lances, mostly. Thinking about this more seriously I accept that in rare circumstances an SC could have a lance. I'm just reluctant to make it anything other than a house rule, as I don't see how we can make it a fair option in the fleet list and please everyone.
-
Well, there is more evidence against lances on SC then for.
The +20pts for 1 lance is perfectly balanced and somehow still justified by fluff in a rare way.
-
I guess I'll take your word for it then, Horizon ;) Because thats all I've been able to do since this thread started.
20 points to lose 3bc for 1 lance is the stupidest thing in the game. It causes me to want to discount everything else you say about balance, in every other thread, if you believe that is balanced.
-
I agree, it isn't balanced. But its a compromise between two entrenched points of view.
-
LS,
interally it isn't balanced. Agreed.
But in the scope of the whole game called BFG it is balanced.
:)
-
See the previous 65 pages, and yes, I accept there is a counter-argument, but my 'gut' says no to lances, mostly. Thinking about this more seriously I accept that in rare circumstances an SC could have a lance. I'm just reluctant to make it anything other than a house rule, as I don't see how we can make it a fair option in the fleet list and please everyone.
Personally I liked the idea of limiting it to one per 750. It makes it rare rather then useless, and is both internally and externally balanced.
@BI. You are assuming with your AB scenario vs. escorts that the 3 escorts are able to combine turret fire. What you've outlined is the worst case scenario, which is true. But if the escorts are attacked individually and therefore unable to mass turrets then the lances are no better, and the AB fair MUCH better.
The only way to do it if your opponent knows what s/he's doing is to force them to come into contact on a move. This isn't as easy as it sounds against escorts, as they can turn 90s at any point in their move. Since I'm told the old epic bases are no longer correct and it's a square warhammer base for a single squadron, it's a lot easier to dodge them.
-
I must have missed that idea of one per 750. I could go with that, as long as it wasn't a straight swap out, but cost a few extra points (maybe 5-10?) as well to emphasise their rarity.
-
I must have missed that idea of one per 750. I could go with that, as long as it wasn't a straight swap out, but cost a few extra points (maybe 5-10?) as well to emphasise their rarity.
5 wouldn't be unreasonable. I could support that, as long as it's str 2 lance for the str 3 bc.
-
1 per 750pts, +5pts replacing BC, at ST2 lance, 30cm range. I think this is ok. Maybe mention in the fluff for the SC how this is very rare. I'd rather not see everyone do this, as that would be unfluffy.
-
Heh, well so a rule like:
You may only do this once per 10 games?
Or at a tournament? The organizer randomly gives them the lance option?
Nah, 1 per 750 will always see 2 per 1000. That's a given and that's the sad panda part about it.
-
Hence my reluctance. We could always say 1 per 1000?
-
Hence my reluctance. We could always say 1 per 1000?
I'd make it 1 per 1k isn't bad either. That's fine too.
-
Well, if its any use at all, i'd like to propose 1 per 1000, +5pts, st2 30cm lances an official option for the SC, as my prefferred option.
-
Instead of +5 points, my proposal was 1 per 1k points, str3 BC trades for str2 lances, but front fire only, not l/r/f like the BC.
-
Instead of +5 points, my proposal was 1 per 1k points, str3 BC trades for str2 lances, but front fire only, not l/r/f like the BC.
For use against escorts though it'd have to be l/f/r. Front mount it'd nerf it too far to be used effectively against escorts again.
So, yes, I agree to 1 per 1k at str 2 l/f/r for +5 points.
-
Bearing in mind they already have 90degree turns, they should be ok versus escorts. I think LFR is just too flexible. At least just firing forward we can argue they are designed for raiding and pinpoint plenet bombrdments, rather than fleet action.
-
Bearing in mind they already have 90degree turns, they should be ok versus escorts. I think LFR is just too flexible. At least just firing forward we can argue they are designed for raiding and pinpoint plenet bombrdments, rather than fleet action.
I tried that: fixed forward it's even more vulnerable against escorts, since in no firing angle can you ever roll more then 2 dice against them, which means that you only ever get a hit 25% of the time forward and a broadside shot actually becomes impossible due to the gunnery table. Everyone seems to forget that, while it has a 90 degree turn, it still has to travel 10 cm forward unless on SO.
For some reason, people seem to assume that escorts having a 90 degree turn and SC having a 90 degree turn is the same, when in reality the escorts will always dictate the combat angle.
-
I'm in two minds. I see what you're saying, and having done the maths for myself I do accept what you're saying. But making it LFR also makes it proportionately better vs. capital ships, which is one of the main issues with having an SM lance in the first place. But, saying that, its also quite rare at 1 per 1000, so actually, LFR is ok to me, just about. I'm not 100% happy, but then again, its all about compromise, so i'll say its ok. Maybe consider +10 pts if its LFR too?
So, now that we have a proposed, concrete idea, can we get people opinions please?
-
I'm in two minds. I see what you're saying, and having done the maths for myself I do accept what you're saying. But making it LFR also makes it proportionately better vs. capital ships, which is one of the main issues with having an SM lance in the first place. But, saying that, its also quite rare at 1 per 1000, so actually, LFR is ok to me, just about. I'm not 100% happy, but then again, its all about compromise, so i'll say its ok. Maybe consider +10 pts if its LFR too?
So, now that we have a proposed, concrete idea, can we get people opinions please?
Sounds good to me. This makes it rare but not uselessly unbalanced.
-
...and I still think it is weird.
a) Space Marins do not need lances on strike cruisers to fight escorts.
a1) I may put forth you change your tactics to accomodate. ;)
b) If you think lances are needed (noodles) then will one Strike Cruiser with lances in 1000pts make a difference?
b1) of course not. The reason to have lances because they need to fight escorts = daftness.
-
I think BC are awesome. I've said from the beginning its all about flavor for me. I in no way want lances to fill marine weaknesses. If you want lances in numbers, take novas or armageddon list. And I know str2 l/r/f lances are equal to str3 l/r/f BC, and 1 per 1k points should severely limit any worries of lance spam. I just figured it would be too much for the opposition, and I figured forward fire would let you take str2 lances on a couple SC and keep both sides relatively happy.
-
...and I still think it is weird.
a) Space Marins do not need lances on strike cruisers to fight escorts.
a1) I may put forth you change your tactics to accomodate. ;)
b) If you think lances are needed (noodles) then will one Strike Cruiser with lances in 1000pts make a difference?
b1) of course not. The reason to have lances because they need to fight escorts = daftness.
Horizon, I'd personally prefer 1 per 500, but I understand people's concerns with super marine lance spam. Though how it could be done better with SC then Nova's isn't clear to me, and so a compromise where A) the lance option is actually RARE, as opposed to brokenly expensive and useless, and helps ease escort pressure tactics against the newly nerfed SC, B) super lance massive mega munchkins can't really use it for beam spam, and C) Does not penalize the player for taking an option that fits their chapter's fluff.
-
Nerved Strike cruisers: ahahaha.
What world do you live in Baron?
Seriously.
Draft 2010:
I can take +1 shield = better protection vs enemy (escorts).
I can take variants with str 8 Bombardment.....
or just keep the str2 thawks w 3bc
or add torps.
Add in my teleport bonus, boarding bonus, high turn rate, high speed, highest leadership
Add very fast escorts to the fleet.
Add a good barge as well.
If you cannot beat escorts with that you are : a weak tactical player.
Seriously BaronI : I mean this.
T-Hawks are still 3+ vs escorts.
1 T-Hawk can kill an escort
1 Lance cannot
1 Teleport attack can kill an escort
1 Lance cannot
1 torpedo attack can kill an escort
1 Lance cannot
-
Baron, I think you're a decent guy, and in a way I agree with you.
If lances are included in SMs they should be close to balanced as far as real cost. They should pay a premium for them, because it's unfluffy to have them, but it shouldn't be something where one is shooting themselves in the foot to get it.
So to me it would look like this if lances were included: 2@30cm for +10 points (most people agree that 2@30 free swap is a loss of fp, so this only increases that by a little) Or 1@30cm for free (this is definitely a loss of firepower by any standards)
People don't generally take uncompetitive things very often. Look at 40k, and how marine players usually run what is best rather than fluffy (at least in my area), as in 'no my ultramarines are secret blood angels/spacewolves/soontobegreyknights'
Or Guard players, and how they don't run some units that really aren't bad, like the primaris psyker, because something is slightly better.
In my Ork fleet revision thread my thoughts on the 'Extra Powerfields' upgrade is that it is pretty much worthless not on a BB/BC, where having 3 shields is better than 2 on the most important ship in your fleet. However on a Cruiser? Not worth 25 points, and I don't know any Ork player who does it. (deadshane mentioned it only being occasionally useful on a terror ship if he had the warlord there.)
In my study of 126 ork fleets (which I really should dig out for more info) powerfields were used 42% of the time. 87% of the times that they were used it was on a large vessel (BB/BC). However this was more than any other upgrade, and is an interesting note. All the other warboss upgrades are either massively overcosted, (Mad meks!) or are not that useful on a ship that doubles its BV (Mega-Armored Nobs)
Although things are often overpriced, if they fill some hole in a fleet people will pay the extra points for them. And the whole paper I wrote last month on research done behind Ork fleets is actually a decent study into how people purchase upgrades/ships/whatnot according to relative cost. As well as how internet psychology on certain items influence what people purchase in BFG (as usually people come to a forum to ask what they should buy.)
That said, SM fleets don't have any need for lances, it doesn't fill a hole like Powerfields do in Orks, and therefore even the slightest overcostedness will push it to maybe.... 15-20% of lists, from those people who just hate the fp table or have some sort of lance-love or want a ship that's unique in their Imperial Fists fleet or whatnot.
-
Guys. I love that we can debate this point until we scream ourselves hoarse, but it's a moot point now. The rules for space marines are finalized, and are not likely to be updated for a long time to come. The first thing that is going to test these rules are the new forgeworld crack that appears out of IA10 this month (I am expecting an escort with six bombardment cannons and an Armageddon gun)
Needless to say, so long as the IA10 cheese doesn't ruin the current list, nothing will change for years to come. There is really no point on complaining or arguing aside from the desire to feel better then someone else.
-
@Zelnik. Yes, you are quite right that the final draft has been approved, so it is a moot point, from an official standpoint. But from the POV of creating house rules, debating this issue is useful as it makes any house rules we do come up with that much more likely to be viable.
-
Instead of +5 points, my proposal was 1 per 1k points, str3 BC trades for str2 lances, but front fire only, not l/r/f like the BC.
For use against escorts though it'd have to be l/f/r. Front mount it'd nerf it too far to be used effectively against escorts again.
So, yes, I agree to 1 per 1k at str 2 l/f/r for +5 points.
You wish.
-
I dont see why anyone would need help beating escorts, especially not a fleet with abounding assault boats with a 16% better chance of causing murder. Once we see escorts taken in large numbers (outside of CE) and those lists having better than average win ratios, then it would be a problem.
Actually, the odds of a 4 aboat wing getting a kill on a 3 ship squadron (assuming the escort has 2 turrets) now is 16%. The odds of one wb and a str 2 lance is about 25%.
What? Where the hell do you come up with this? The odds of a wave of 4 A-boats destroying a braced escort with 2 turrets and 2 more massed turrets is now 41.38%. For SMs this is 51.77%. Where the hell do you come up with 16%?
The odds of a single WB dice (at 5+ armour) and 2 lance dice destroying a 1 shield braced escort is 22.92%. Mind you, this is identical to what 1 WB dice and 2 BC dice would give you.
-
I dont see why anyone would need help beating escorts, especially not a fleet with abounding assault boats with a 16% better chance of causing murder. Once we see escorts taken in large numbers (outside of CE) and those lists having better than average win ratios, then it would be a problem.
Actually, the odds of a 4 aboat wing getting a kill on a 3 ship squadron (assuming the escort has 2 turrets) now is 16%. The odds of one wb and a str 2 lance is about 25%.
What? Where the hell do you come up with this? The odds of a wave of 4 A-boats destroying a braced escort with 2 turrets and 2 more massed turrets is now 41.38%. For SMs this is 51.77%. Where the hell do you come up with 16%?
The odds of a single WB dice (at 5+ armour) and 2 lance dice destroying a 1 shield braced escort is 22.92%. Mind you, this is identical to what 1 WB dice and 2 BC dice would give you.
Wrong: 50% of the aboats, on average will get through. that's 50%. Of those that get through 66% will hit. That's 33%. Of those, 50% will be stopped by the brace. So only 16% will hit.
And, you will never roll 2 bc and 1 wb, as 4 and 3 are more or less identical against escorts on the gunnery table. So it's either 2 and 2 or 1 and 1. With the lance you can roll 2 and 1.
Nerved Strike cruisers: ahahaha.
What world do you live in Baron?
Seriously.
Draft 2010:
I can take +1 shield = better protection vs enemy (escorts).
I didn't say that they hadn't improved defensively. In fact, in my little experiment, the 2 shielded SCs mostly lasted twice as long as the 1 shielded.
1 T-Hawk can kill an escort
1 Lance cannot
The odds of 1 thawk even killing a single 2 turret escort is about 8%
1 Teleport attack can kill an escort
1 Lance cannot
Sure, you can teleport if you aren't on SO and their shields are down. Against as single escort, it's quite doable. Against a squadron, less so, particularly against a lance squadron, as you're going to spend time braced or lose the SC.
1 torpedo attack can kill an escort
1 Lance cannot
33% of the time, though in reality much less, as 33% assumes that it impacts on the turn you launch and that you have not paid for guided torps. Beyond that range, against escorts it goes into the toilet.
If you cannot beat escorts with that you are : a weak tactical player.
Seriously BaronI : I mean this.
I'm not going to comment on this statement.
-
lol,
Regardless of %: 1 T hawk can kill an escort. 1 Lance cannot, (Lance chance is 0%).
You are grasping the need of lances because T-Hawks went from auto killers (vs escorts) to 3+ killers.
You can drop 1 shield on a squadroned escort and make that teleport attack. The BC variant is very good for this as it doesn't need to reload THawks.
I find it hard to believe you have such a hard time downing shields. ((again --> escorts in the marine fleet!). Marine escorts can easily hunt enemy escorts if your cruisers see juicier targets.
It seems as you are only thinking Strike Cruiser vs Escorts and have a mindset escorts are unbeatable by Strike Cruisers. This is odd.
4 Firestorms = 8 wb + 4lances prow on = hurtable to a 2shld Strike Cruiser. But not killing in one turn. Not even crippling in 2.
-
A fleet is a team, an SC alone might have the problems BI says, but two of them will be much stonger. The rule of squares and all that remember.
-
A fleet is a team, an SC alone might have the problems BI says, but two of them will be much stonger. The rule of squares and all that remember.
True, but, as in the battle report I gave, a combination of escorts and a single cruiser ground 3 scs to paste, crippled two more that disengaged, and the sixth disengaged. For a loss of 5 escorts and and the cruiser taking a single hit. Admittedly, the cruiser was a gothic, and SC (3) was lost due to an unlucky roll, but still it was rather one sided. I just focus fired the entire fleet on one SC at a time. The str 2 shields lasted a bit longer, but the problem was that the SCs could not make enough kills per turn to stem the tide.
Horizon: actually a single lance can, but only against necrons, eldar, and nids.
-
As far as mega-armor nobs go, I'd just include them in the explanation of the warlord as part of the reason you double the boarding value.
-
Hello BaronI,
we mean : a Space Marine team fleet: barges, strike cruisers, escorts working together.
Not 6 strike cruisers and otherwise nothing.
Against those ships you mention the T-Hawk still has a better chance.
(vs Eldar 3+ T Hawk. 2+ Holo or 4+ lance // 2+ holo).
Nids, kraken. Same.
Necron. Same.
So yes the lance could kill it in 1 shot but the THawks can still do it as well.
(Same like 3BC + 4wb or 8BC could do it as well).
-
Hello BaronI,
we mean : a Space Marine team fleet: barges, strike cruisers, escorts working together.
Not 6 strike cruisers and otherwise nothing.
Against those ships you mention the T-Hawk still has a better chance.
(vs Eldar 3+ T Hawk. 2+ Holo or 4+ lance // 2+ holo).
Nids, kraken. Same.
Necron. Same.
So yes the lance could kill it in 1 shot but the THawks can still do it as well.
(Same like 3BC + 4wb or 8BC could do it as well).
It'd have to be just escorts and the SC then. A BB takes too many points 1k or below since you can only take 2 sc and 1 nova squadron, or three nova squadrons. Against the five squadrons of 4 escorts IN can take (or seven of 3), either of those options can get peeled apart pretty quick unless the SM player spends the whole time matching speed with the BB. The first ship or squadron that breaks formation will probably get primaried in to little pieces, so going AAF is a mistake.
It'd end up being a long dance where both sides wait for the other to screw up and then pounce or drive them against a wall. The escorts will be slightly more forgiving of a mistake, the SM less so, due to the fact that losing the SCs or an SC and the novas, will leave the BB naked.
3 Escorts and 3 SCs could, in theory, go toe to toe with a gothic and 5 squadrons of escorts, but it would be a very nasty brawl and probably decided more by luck then skill.
-
So what's the problem? A crawl is good? And if the IN manages a 60-40 win it is fine as well fluffwise.
-
Seems ok to me to be honest. The IN should be easier to play vs. SM. Its still possible to win under your scenario. Therefore, the SC is ok for what it is supposed to be able to do.
And i'm surprised you lost that conclusively. Maybe play the game again a few times and see what the average result is?
-
Seems ok to me to be honest. The IN should be easier to play vs. SM. Its still possible to win under your scenario. Therefore, the SC is ok for what it is supposed to be able to do.
And i'm surprised you lost that conclusively. Maybe play the game again a few times and see what the average result is?
Actually I played the IN, since I didn't want people claiming I threw the game to make a point. I was surprised too. I had figured a more marginal win, since I had not played the new aboat rules before. Screening the firestorms with swords prooved effective, along with massing turret fire from four escorts per squadron rather then three (which, to my amusement, Horizon claims is 'weird') since then they either have to combine into 3 squadron waves or just get cut to ribbons.
-
Actually I played the IN, since I didn't want people claiming I threw the game to make a point.
Play the SM fleet and poist your battle report. We will know if you threw the game or not.
-
Screening the firestorms with swords prooved effective, along with massing turret fire from four escorts per squadron rather then three (which, to my amusement, Horizon claims is 'weird') since then they either have to combine into 3 squadron waves or just get cut to ribbons.
Read the vps rules for escorts ==> it is better to have uneven numbers in escort squadrons.
So either 3 or 5.
-
Wrong: 50% of the aboats, on average will get through. that's 50%. Of those that get through 66% will hit. That's 33%. Of those, 50% will be stopped by the brace. So only 16% will hit.
Wrong. Learn to math dude. I'll give you a chance to correct your own mistake before shooting you down.
And, you will never roll 2 bc and 1 wb, as 4 and 3 are more or less identical against escorts on the gunnery table. So it's either 2 and 2 or 1 and 1. With the lance you can roll 2 and 1.
3 BC vs closing escort = 2 dice, placing a BM. 4WB vs closing escort with BM = 1 dice.
If you cannot beat escorts with that you are : a weak tactical player.
Seriously BaronI : I mean this.
I'm not going to comment on this statement.
Even though it's true? With torps, THs, TH-As, TP attacks and BCs you can't win against escorts? You need lances too?
-
Actually I played the IN, since I didn't want people claiming I threw the game to make a point.
Play the SM fleet and poist your battle report. We will know if you threw the game or not.
I'm sure that BI did not throw the game, and I wouldn't want to insinuate that he did. But, poor die rolling, bad hair day, whatever; any playtesting scenario needs to be played several times for one to come up with a conclusive answer. Plus you should play both sides to see whether it was just a player thing.
Why should escorts be in odd numbered squadrons? Obviously you should have 3+ in a sqd., but why odd numbers? I re-read the rules but I still don't get why odd numbers help?
My main issue is that I don't see how lances would have significanty changed the outcome, if the SM's lost so badly?
-
That is what we have been telling him.
-
Why should escorts be in odd numbered squadrons? Obviously you should have 3+ in a sqd., but why odd numbers? I re-read the rules but I still don't get why odd numbers help?
Hi,
for the sake of victory points.
An escort squadron below half strength counts as cripplec (25%) for victory point purposes.
2str squadron -> 1 destroyed = crippled
3str squadron -> 2 destroyed = crippled
4str squadron -> 2 destroyed = crippled
5str squadron -> 3 destroyed = crippled
6str squadron -> 3 destroyed = crippled
Asume Firestorms = 40pts per ship.
A squadron of 3 = 120pts
A squadron of 4 = 160pts
If you destroy 2 of the "3" squad you will gain : 30vps
If you destroy 2 of the "4" squad you will gain : 40vps
A squadron of 5 = 200pts
A squadron of 6 = 240pts
If you destroy 3 of the "5" squad you will gain : 50vps
If you destroy 3 of the "6" squad you will gain : 60vps
So if you disengage at the right moment (before all escorts are gone) or manage to keep it alive a squadron of 3 & 5 will have given away less vps then squadrons of 4 & 6.
Then the remaining thing is: squads of 3 gives you more "objects" in your fleet, thus more targets for your opponent to choose = harder for opponent to surpress all objects in your fleet (eg outnumbering).
Clear?
:)
-
Horizon is completely correct. There is also another aspect that he has omitted. Special orders that halve your firepower (BFI, AAF, CTNH). Since you round up when you halve firepower it is beneficial to have odd squadron sizes. Compare 3 squads of 4 vs 4 squads of 3. When you brace 3 Firestorms you lose 1 lance and 3 WBs. So if you did this 4 times you'd lose 4 lances and 12 WBs. When you brace 4 Firestorms you lose 2 lances 4 WBs. Do this 3 times and you lose 6 lances 12 WBs. Therefore you lose less firepower in the smaller squadrons. This is on top of the fact that you'll likely not be forced to brace all squadrons, in which case bracing smaller ones is just a flat reduction in loss of firepower, without even considering the rounding effect.
In short, always run odd numbered escort squadrons. 3 is best I find, 5 in a pinch.
-
Ah, thanks. That does make sense, I was thinking about it the wrong way.
-
You half based on squadron? I thought you couldnt lose that one lance. This supposedly work on cap ship squadrons too?
-
People squadron capital ships? :D
Yes, but nearly all capital ships have even numbers of weaponry.
-
You half based on squadron? I thought you couldnt lose that one lance. This supposedly work on cap ship squadrons too?
Yep, BFI halving always on squadron basis.
3 Firestorms on BFI = 2 lances & 3 wb
4 Firestorms on BFI = 2 lances & 4 wb
Since very first FAQ (2001?).
Applies to capital ships squadroned as well.
-
Wrong: 50% of the aboats, on average will get through. that's 50%. Of those that get through 66% will hit. That's 33%. Of those, 50% will be stopped by the brace. So only 16% will hit.
Wrong. Learn to math dude. I'll give you a chance to correct your own mistake before shooting you down.
And, you will never roll 2 bc and 1 wb, as 4 and 3 are more or less identical against escorts on the gunnery table. So it's either 2 and 2 or 1 and 1. With the lance you can roll 2 and 1.
3 BC vs closing escort = 2 dice, placing a BM. 4WB vs closing escort with BM = 1 dice.
If you cannot beat escorts with that you are : a weak tactical player.
Seriously BaronI : I mean this.
I'm not going to comment on this statement.
Even though it's true? With torps, THs, TH-As, TP attacks and BCs you can't win against escorts? You need lances too?
Sigoroth, not sure how you're claiming my math is incorrect. Perhaps you'd like to explain?
And: Simultaneous fire equals no BM reducing that BC hit. Sorry.
Oh, and on that end part: if you want to troll me, you need to try harder.
People squadron capital ships? :D
Yes, but nearly all capital ships have even numbers of weaponry.
I do, but usually it's for some reason like LBs and a higher LD for reloads.
-
Sigoroth, not sure how you're claiming my math is incorrect. Perhaps you'd like to explain?
You can't just add the chances of a single Aboat :)
A chance is different from an “average resultâ€
For simplicity I'll show it without BFI first, as BFI makes the math a bit more complicated.
4 Aboats vs. an escort (2turrets) and additional 2 massed turrets are:
1 in 16 cases all 4 make it
4 in 16 cases 1 is shot down
6 in 16 cases 2 are shot down
4 in 16 cases 3 are shot down
1 in 16 cases 4 are shot down.
Marines destroy any escort on 3+ according to the new FAQ
If 4 make it the chance that a least 1 rolls a 3+ is 80/81
If 3 make it the chance that at least 1 rolls a 3+ is 26/27
If 2 make it the chance that at least 1 rolls a 3+ 8/9
If 1 make it the chance that at least 1 rolls a 3+ 2/3
Now multiply the chance of an event with its Frequency and add all together:
(1 x 80/81 + 4 x 26/27 + 6 x 8/9 x 4 x 2/3) / 16 = (1040/81) / 16 ~ 0.802
So unbraced there is an 80% chance to destroy the escort.
If braced, the thing gets a bit more complicated as you have to look on ever possible combination.
In this case it is a bit easier to count the results that doesn't end with the destruction of the escort and subtract them from 1 :
no ship makes it: 1/16
1 make it but does not “hitâ€: ¼ x 1/3 = 1/12
1 make it, hits but is saved : ¼ x 2/3 x 1/2 = 1/12
2 make it, none hits: 3/8 x 1/9 = 1/24
2 make it, 1 hit, saved by BFI: 3/8 x 4/9 x 0,5 = 2/24
2 make it, both hit, both saved 3/8 x 4/9 x ¼ = 1/24
3 make it, none hits: ¼ x 1/27 = 1/108
3 make it, 1 hit, saved: ¼ x 2/9 x ½ = 3/108
3 make it 2 hits, all saved ¼ x 4/9 x ¼ = 3/108
3 make it 3 hits, all saved ¼ x 8/27 x 1/8 = 1/108
4 make it, none hits: 1/16 x 1/81 = 1/1296
4 make it, 1 hit, saved: 1/16 x 8/81 x ½ = 4/1296
4 make it 2 hits, all saved: 1/16 x 8/27 x ¼ = 6/1296
4 make it 3 hits, all saved: 1/16 x 32/81 x 1/8 = 4/1296
4 make it 4 hits, all saved: 1/16 x 16/81 x 1/16 = 1/1296
Add all together: 625/1296 ~ 0.482
1 - 625/1296= 671/1296 ~ 0.518
So the chance is ~ 52% to destroy the escort
-
^ This.
-
Ok, I think I see where we're going: you're using frequency probability and treating the die as a 'fair coin'. (In that the object and toss are mathematically perfect)
I'm using propensity theory to come to a different conclusion, as the first state causes the next state in a series of iterations.
-
Ok, I think I see where we're going: you're using frequency probability and treating the die as a 'fair coin'. (In that the object and toss are mathematically perfect)
I'm using propensity theory to come to a different conclusion, as the first state causes the next state in a series of iterations.
So, shall we give you the benifit of the doubt for a bit and allow you to post some more complete math rather than gainsaying middel school math with what appear to be crude approximations.
The math you posted looks an awful lot like the kind that says: We need to kill one escort, so we need unsaved wound. Half of those get saved, so we need two wounding hits. Only two thirds of attack runs wound, so we'll need a spare one of those and half our boats get turreted down on the way in, so we'll just double it again. Now we guarantee killing the escort with six boats. P(kill) equals unity. Most of my peers around here would scoff at that argument and with good reasons. Not only is it mathematically unsound, it doesn't even stand up to our anecdotal experiences. It is still far too common though.
That is a bit of a strawman, and I only trust that it's not representative of your position.
I think we can further elaborate that the calculation methodologies are independant of the 'fairness' of the die and that if they're known to not be 'true' predictive allowances can be made to the assumed constants fairly easily.
Maybe you could summon up some links to some authoritative works on 'propensity theroy' for the edification of your peers around here, as my cursory studies suggest that while the philisophical constructs are different, the math is the same.
-
not sure how all this mathfleet gothic relates to required changes to the marines?
in any case BI showed the same probabilities in a different way, and got halfway to the answer. the maths he gave were the probability of one a-boat against one turret, getting one hit. when you go to 4 a-boats its not a flat ratio, as every ship has a separate bite of the cherry, so you multiply all the probabilities.
in this case, p(kill) = 1-p(miss), because there is no alternate possibility. its either one of them hits, or they all miss. if you assume 1 turret per assault boat, each individual attack does have a 16% chance of a kill, or 83% chance of miss. but if you want the chance that they ALL miss (or 0 hits):
with bracing, probability of failure for one a-boat is 83%
0.83^4 = 48%
still not sure what we're trying to prove here. saying that a wing of 4 a-boats will kill a braced escort 48% of the time isnt that useful. what are we comparing to? lances? how many lances?
how about how many lances are worth 2 thunderhawks against escorts?
the probability of 2 t-hawks getting a kill vs a braced, 2 turret escort is about 56%.
1 lance is 0%
2 lances is 25%
3 lances is 50%
so in this scenario, a thunderhawk is roughly equivalent to 1.5 lances, when attacking escorts. it also shows that anything is proveable with the right choice of mathematical techniques.
-
I haven't been following the thread and am looking at the documents for the first time as a prep for Adepticon as I am running the event. For the Strike Cruiser upgrades, these are available also to strike cruisers that are part of an Armageddon fleet list correct?
-
So, shall we give you the benifit of the doubt for a bit and allow you to post some more complete math rather than gainsaying middel school math with what appear to be crude approximations.
The math you posted looks an awful lot like the kind that says: We need to kill one escort, so we need unsaved wound. Half of those get saved, so we need two wounding hits. Only two thirds of attack runs wound, so we'll need a spare one of those and half our boats get turreted down on the way in, so we'll just double it again. Now we guarantee killing the escort with six boats. P(kill) equals unity. Most of my peers around here would scoff at that argument and with good reasons. Not only is it mathematically unsound, it doesn't even stand up to our anecdotal experiences. It is still far too common though.
That is a bit of a strawman, and I only trust that it's not representative of your position.
I think we can further elaborate that the calculation methodologies are independant of the 'fairness' of the die and that if they're known to not be 'true' predictive allowances can be made to the assumed constants fairly easily.
Maybe you could summon up some links to some authoritative works on 'propensity theroy' for the edification of your peers around here, as my cursory studies suggest that while the philisophical constructs are different, the math is the same.
You want links, we have links:
Hájek, Alan "Fifteen Arguments Against Hypothetical Frequentism". Erkenntnis (March 2009) 211-235.
http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/people-defaults/alanh/papers/fifteen.pdf
However, I'll also admit that almost all probability methodologies have problems: the single case problem for frequency probability, Humphery's Paradox for propensity interpretation, and so on.
Due to the fact that frequency interpretation requires perfect repeatability to generate accurate results, and that no two die throws are the same due to sensitivity to initial conditions, it is impossible to determine exactly how biased a die is in a given throw. (Indeed, I've seen many of our 'peers' spend hours trying to determine a die's bias [though they don't call it that] before purchasing one at a FLGS, only to have it roll poorly in another setting).
The reason I chose the methodology that I did was that, due to the aforementioned inability to determine the precise bias of the die, each toss should be treated as a single case, though there are only a handful of possible outcomes. In each case, I took the most likely favorable outcome, and used it as the basis for the next state.
In the case of four Aboats flying into four turrets, the most likely favorable outcome is two Aboats get through, and so on.
While the methodology may or may not be independent of the 'fairness' of the die, the accuracy of it's outcome is absolutely dependent on how biased the die actually is. A die with a very strong bias toward rolling a six in the hands of the attacker can turn even a single ship into an unstoppable juggernaut. A strong bias in the hands of the defender can make a ship invincible. Since we cannot pre-sample the die to make an educated guess as to the nature of it's bias, broadly speaking, using frequency, we have to treat it as a single case.
@Lordgoober: I believe that is the case: though I ask, will adeptcon be using this if GW rejects the draft of FAQ2010 that's currently being presented?
-
That I'm not sure. It all depends on the timeframe that this happens. Is there actually a possibility that GW would reject the faq? Actually what am I thinking? of course there is, this is GW we're talking about. That being said, even if rejected we're probably going to be using the 2010 faq this year because it's been announced that we are using it.
-
That I'm not sure. It all depends on the timeframe that this happens. Is there actually a possibility that GW would reject the faq? Actually what am I thinking? of course there is, this is GW we're talking about. That being said, even if rejected we're probably going to be using the 2010 faq this year because it's been announced that we are using it.
It's always good to be prepared. Even if plan B consists of a volley of torps and a 180.
-
Ok, I think I see where we're going: you're using frequency probability and treating the die as a 'fair coin'. (In that the object and toss are mathematically perfect)
I'm using propensity theory to come to a different conclusion, as the first state causes the next state in a series of iterations.
What? What a complete load of crap. If you send in 4 Thunderhawks against a braced 4 turret escort then half the time it'll be destroyed. Not one sixth of them time.
-
Ok, I think I see where we're going: you're using frequency probability and treating the die as a 'fair coin'. (In that the object and toss are mathematically perfect)
I'm using propensity theory to come to a different conclusion, as the first state causes the next state in a series of iterations.
What? What a complete load of crap. If you send in 4 Thunderhawks against a braced 4 turret escort then half the time it'll be destroyed. Not one sixth of them time.
i believe he has now moved onto justifying his position with 'the dice might be weighted'. if were not to assume that the dice are perfectly random, the use of statistical probability at all is pointless, leaving us back at square one. space marines dont need lances, necrons dont need ordnance, eldar dont need turrets.
-
The reason I chose the methodology that I did was that, due to the aforementioned inability to determine the precise bias of the die, each toss should be treated as a single case, though there are only a handful of possible outcomes. In each case, I took the most likely favorable outcome, and used it as the basis for the next state.
In the case of four Aboats flying into four turrets, the most likely favorable outcome is two Aboats get through, and so on.
While the methodology may or may not be independent of the 'fairness' of the die, the accuracy of it's outcome is absolutely dependent on how biased the die actually is. A die with a very strong bias toward rolling a six in the hands of the attacker can turn even a single ship into an unstoppable juggernaut. A strong bias in the hands of the defender can make a ship invincible. Since we cannot pre-sample the die to make an educated guess as to the nature of it's bias, broadly speaking, using frequency, we have to treat it as a single case.
Utter utter utter utter load of crap! According to this method a non-locked Gothic will never get through a cruiser's shields.
Firstly, as a system, when we say a 5+ roll is needed, we are stipulating a 1 in 3 chance. Not an "oh, maybe 1 in 2 or 1 in 6, depending on your dice" chance. The assumption is perfectly fair and balanced dice, because it's a system. There is nothing to suggest that any bias in the dice would be systematic and nothing to suggest that this bias would favour one player or race. So any variation caused by bias will be around the mean anyway. This is unless someone is deliberately cheating. How do you suppose we come up with a system that assumes that people will not only cheat, but get away with it? That's tantamount to ordering someone to cheat. Therefore, all thought of bias should be expunged as irrelevant.
Nevertheless, it remains that 4 THs have over four times the chance of destroying a 4 turret braced escort than 2 lances do. The only real difference between BC and lances against escorts is the possible loss of 1 WB dice if you're smart enough to ignore that bullshit simultaneous fire crap from the new FAQ.
Therefore SMs do not need lances to handle escorts.
-
It's complete nonsense BI, sorry. Yes, some dice may indeed not be truly random, but we have to assume they are for our sanity and the game mechanics. Otherwise it all falls over.
-
So, shall we give you the benifit of the doubt for a bit and allow you to post some more complete math rather than gainsaying middel school math with what appear to be crude approximations.
...
Maybe you could summon up some links to some authoritative works on 'propensity theroy' for the edification of your peers around here, as my cursory studies suggest that while the philisophical constructs are different, the math is the same.
You want links, we have links:
Hájek, Alan "Fifteen Arguments Against Hypothetical Frequentism". Erkenntnis (March 2009) 211-235.
http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/people-defaults/alanh/papers/fifteen.pdf
However, I'll also admit that almost all probability methodologies have problems: the single case problem for frequency probability, Humphery's Paradox for propensity interpretation, and so on.
Due to the fact that frequency interpretation requires perfect repeatability to generate accurate results, and that no two die throws are the same due to sensitivity to initial conditions, it is impossible to determine exactly how biased a die is in a given throw. (Indeed, I've seen many of our 'peers' spend hours trying to determine a die's bias [though they don't call it that] before purchasing one at a FLGS, only to have it roll poorly in another setting).
The reason I chose the methodology that I did was that, due to the aforementioned inability to determine the precise bias of the die, each toss should be treated as a single case, though there are only a handful of possible outcomes. In each case, I took the most likely favorable outcome, and used it as the basis for the next state.
In the case of four Aboats flying into four turrets, the most likely favorable outcome is two Aboats get through, and so on.
While the methodology may or may not be independent of the 'fairness' of the die, the accuracy of it's outcome is absolutely dependent on how biased the die actually is. A die with a very strong bias toward rolling a six in the hands of the attacker can turn even a single ship into an unstoppable juggernaut. A strong bias in the hands of the defender can make a ship invincible. Since we cannot pre-sample the die to make an educated guess as to the nature of it's bias, broadly speaking, using frequency, we have to treat it as a single case.
Endevouring to the be fair sort I aspire to be, I've spent some time slogging though the fillibuster you linked to to see if it might genuinely enlighten me. So much of it seems so flawed I struggle as to where to begin. Round about page twelve the author pulls what looks like a strawman wherein he mentions a thought experiment in which an allegidly fair coin is tossed a thousand times and comes up with one outcome 471 times rather than the anticipated 500. The author then goes on to proclaim this an unresolveable paradox. It's not. There are several solutions, some he suggests, like the coin not truely being fair, and that the empierical result is a measure of the true probaility, or that the trial was insufficiently lengthy and rigourous. My initial reaction upon reading the trought experiment was that this was well within the bounds of the pseudo normal behaviour and close to the peak of the curve of likely outcomes and that if further thousand iteration trials were conducted we might see some with more and others with less than 500. Maybe this falls in the catagory of an insufficiently lengthy and rigourosus trial, but, if I'd tossed a coin a thousand times and recored the results, I'd honestly be suprised to get 500 of any one result, the modal result is really just a small portion of the solution space and 471 is right close by.
It would appear that there is some schools of thought I've not been made privy to yet, but so far the link provided has failed to provide that I'd hoped to get in thei initial request, which is, in a nut shell, what is 'propensity' theroy, and how does it differ from 'freaquentism'. As right now, the whole thing feels like the kind of hogwash literature students attempt to pull when faced with a math challenge, and I'd dearly like to think this isn't the case.
To second 'Dark Depth' even if your dice aren't fair, the game idesign is predicated on fair dice, and without this initial assupmtion, the whole thing collapses. I might sugggest that the use of 'fair' random number generators is an implicite rule of the game and that to not is to cheat.
-
Endevouring to the be fair sort I aspire to be, I've spent some time slogging though the fillibuster you linked to to see if it might genuinely enlighten me. So much of it seems so flawed I struggle as to where to begin. Round about page twelve the author pulls what looks like a strawman wherein he mentions a thought experiment in which an allegidly fair coin is tossed a thousand times and comes up with one outcome 471 times rather than the anticipated 500. The author then goes on to proclaim this an unresolveable paradox. It's not. There are several solutions, some he suggests, like the coin not truely being fair, and that the empierical result is a measure of the true probaility, or that the trial was insufficiently lengthy and rigourous. My initial reaction upon reading the trought experiment was that this was well within the bounds of the pseudo normal behaviour and close to the peak of the curve of likely outcomes and that if further thousand iteration trials were conducted we might see some with more and others with less than 500. Maybe this falls in the catagory of an insufficiently lengthy and rigourosus trial, but, if I'd tossed a coin a thousand times and recored the results, I'd honestly be suprised to get 500 of any one result, the modal result is really just a small portion of the solution space and 471 is right close by.
It would appear that there is some schools of thought I've not been made privy to yet, but so far the link provided has failed to provide that I'd hoped to get in thei initial request, which is, in a nut shell, what is 'propensity' theroy, and how does it differ from 'freaquentism'. As right now, the whole thing feels like the kind of hogwash literature students attempt to pull when faced with a math challenge, and I'd dearly like to think this isn't the case.
To second 'Dark Depth' even if your dice aren't fair, the game idesign is predicated on fair dice, and without this initial assupmtion, the whole thing collapses. I might sugggest that the use of 'fair' random number generators is an implicite rule of the game and that to not is to cheat.
The problem is that there is no such entity as a 'fair' random number generator using a physical object. We would have to require a digital generator and expel anyone who thought their dice were 'lucky' for cheating as it implies a bias to the die.
Unfortunately Hájek was the best source I could find a link to. Most of the rest are in books, though if you can stomach his prose style, there's plenty of Hájek's work available online. I would suggest Objective Single-Case Probabilities and the Foundations of Statistics by RN Giere or Philosophical Theories of Probability by Gillies.
A die does not actually have to be 'loaded' per se, to be unfair and have a tendency to roll a certain result.
-
Just to repeat myself: yes, you may be right, but how are we meant to factor the unfairness of dice into a simple table top game? Without resorting to complicated maths. We have to assume die are fair. And to be honest, has anyone here ever complained of always rolling the same number, all the time, in every game they play, with the same dice? Its never happened to me. Sometimes in a game you'll get poor dice rolling, in another you'll get great dice rolling, so overall it works fine for me, so why all this fuss about dice not being 'fair'?
-
BaronI, you can also just accept the fact your maths are not "right" to determine the outcome of these events.
;)
-
Endevouring to the be fair sort I aspire to be, I've spent some time slogging though the fillibuster you linked to to see if it might genuinely enlighten me. So much of it seems so flawed I struggle as to where to begin. Round about page twelve the author pulls what looks like a strawman wherein he mentions a thought experiment in which an allegidly fair coin is tossed a thousand times and comes up with one outcome 471 times rather than the anticipated 500. The author then goes on to proclaim this an unresolveable paradox. It's not. There are several solutions, some he suggests, like the coin not truely being fair, and that the empierical result is a measure of the true probaility, or that the trial was insufficiently lengthy and rigourous. My initial reaction upon reading the trought experiment was that this was well within the bounds of the pseudo normal behaviour and close to the peak of the curve of likely outcomes and that if further thousand iteration trials were conducted we might see some with more and others with less than 500. Maybe this falls in the catagory of an insufficiently lengthy and rigourosus trial, but, if I'd tossed a coin a thousand times and recored the results, I'd honestly be suprised to get 500 of any one result, the modal result is really just a small portion of the solution space and 471 is right close by.
I think the point that the author was trying to get at was that there was no reason why someone holding to this particular theory of frequency probability would believe that the actual probability was .5 when empirically speaking it was only .471 and it is actually impossible to flip infinite times, therefore you can't show that .5 is the true value. Also it isn't terribly likely that heads would turn up exactly 500 times out of 1000, even in a fair system. So he was questioning the reason for the belief, not saying that it couldn't be true. Mind you, as with a lot of philosophy (and I'm speaking as a fan here) it's all so much wank.
The suggestion is that anyone that tries to make a prediction as to the general result is essentially wrong as you can't by definition predict the unpredictable. If you could then it wouldn't be a chance event. All nonsense of course. No one attempts to predict the outcome of a particular chance event, except as a wager (in which case the chance of being wrong is implicit). However, predicting the general shape of an outcome dependent on a large amount of minor random events for which the individual probabilities are known is not a case of predicting the unpredictable and therefore denying the possibility of being wrong. It is merely observation of the principle of regression to the mean. As N increases variance decreases. Taking this relationship to its logical end we find that as N approaches infinite the variance approaches zero. This is merely a logical extension of an observed principle and requires no rejection of inherently chancy events. In fact, it seems to be demonstrably true in physics, since at the subatomic level there is possibility of random events, whereas at the macro level things tend to be much more predictable (moons don't randomly lose their orbits and crash into their planets after all).
-
The problem is that there is no such entity as a 'fair' random number generator using a physical object. We would have to require a digital generator and expel anyone who thought their dice were 'lucky' for cheating as it implies a bias to the die.
...
A die does not actually have to be 'loaded' per se, to be unfair and have a tendency to roll a certain result.
The suggestion of a digital generator is interesting, or, rather it is more interesting that after all this that you'd make it as imply that it is superior. It is my experience and understanding that these are far more easily obfuscated and the obfuscations far more easily concealed than physical objects. Even when they're not messed with they display unfavourable traits. I have encountered people who would have us print up 72 cards, twelve of each number and shuffle them up and draw for all the rolls just to ensure an even distribution across the game. This leads to what in my ignorance I call the 'blackjack' problem. Just as it's possible to beat the house counting cards in that game, so is it possible to beat the curve with this system. The dice would cease to be independent events. My favoured solution, the horror of several people I've encountered, is when I think I see something funky with the dice, and sometimes just because, is to insist that everyone uses the same dice. If they roll high, we all roll high, if low, we're all low. The problem becomes something of a wash.
I think it’s more a question of intent anyway. Using a biased die is only really a problem if people intend to use biased dice or notice that they seem skewed.
-
The suggestion of a digital generator is interesting, or, rather it is more interesting that after all this that you'd make it as imply that it is superior. It is my experience and understanding that these are far more easily obfuscated and the obfuscations far more easily concealed than physical objects. Even when they're not messed with they display unfavourable traits. I have encountered people who would have us print up 72 cards, twelve of each number and shuffle them up and draw for all the rolls just to ensure an even distribution across the game. This leads to what in my ignorance I call the 'blackjack' problem. Just as it's possible to beat the house counting cards in that game, so is it possible to beat the curve with this system. The dice would cease to be independent events. My favoured solution, the horror of several people I've encountered, is when I think I see something funky with the dice, and sometimes just because, is to insist that everyone uses the same dice. If they roll high, we all roll high, if low, we're all low. The problem becomes something of a wash.
I think it’s more a question of intent anyway. Using a biased die is only really a problem if people intend to use biased dice or notice that they seem skewed.
I was precluding the possibility of premeditated cheating, which is I believe what you're referring to here. I've actually considered the 'all parties use the same die' tack before, but I've found that, as with role players, TT war-gamers occasionally resist the idea of anyone but them touching their dice with a certain.... insistence. (One subject actually became physically violent when an a female opponent asked to borrow a d6 [surprisingly, he was not cheating, but had rather unusual views on his 'lucky' dice])
As far as trying to anticipate outcomes of random events, almost every decision we make in this game is based on trying to anticipate the outcome of a random number based on what we believe to be averages.
(as an oddity I just realized: we have a game where hitting a target is dependent on the target's armor, not on the ballistic skills of the crew or targeting system of the fireing ship.)
-
hey baron, now that the space marines are getting huge crack in IA10, you may have less to complain about.. have a peek at the IA10 thread in general.
-
to me the IA10 additions consist of character ships for SM chapters, a SC with improved thrusters which replaces BC's with torpedoes, and a battle barge which exchanges firepower for transoprt capacity.
the first is in line with a lot of the chaos god specific ships being put forward, the second and third are extensions of the current SC model of basic setup with optional upgrades/refits.
battle barge with an assault point value of 4? seems nice and fluffy to me.
lastly, i cant see it being a bad influence. at the worst, there will be more SM players out there getting spanked in fleet engagements and raids. at the best, we will see some new models on par with the GK cruiser (right after ive converted some as well :-\). the first is dependent on people actually getting the book, which i cant imagine will happen just for the BFG goodies, or be widespread enough to 'ruin space marines'.
-
I was precluding the possibility of premeditated cheating, which is I believe what you're referring to here. I've actually considered the 'all parties use the same die' tack before, but I've found that, as with role players, TT war-gamers occasionally resist the idea of anyone but them touching their dice with a certain.... insistence. (One subject actually became physically violent when an a female opponent asked to borrow a d6 [surprisingly, he was not cheating, but had rather unusual views on his 'lucky' dice])
Well, as it is impossible to predict any potential bias, and no reason to suspect that it is unidirectional bias or that it favours one particular fleet or player over another then there's no reason to bring it up.
As far as trying to anticipate outcomes of random events, almost every decision we make in this game is based on trying to anticipate the outcome of a random number based on what we believe to be averages.
Here we're trying to predict the general shape of the event outcome not the outcome of a specific chance event. We do not use probability to say, "well, I've failed the past 4 braces saves therefore I have a 31/32 chance of passing this save!"
Firing 8 lances against a single escort might not even destroy it, but we'd likely be better off firing those lances against a cruiser at least. We might not do that well, but it's fairly likely that we'll have more impact than if we just shot at the one escort and it also allows for the possibility of rolling well. Hitting with all 8 lances against the 1 escort does nothing more than hitting with just 2. Against the cruiser the upper limit on the hits will be effective. So our predictions are valid, even when they're not right.
All of which conclusively proves that SMs don't need lances.
(as an oddity I just realized: we have a game where hitting a target is dependent on the target's armor, not on the ballistic skills of the crew or targeting system of the fireing ship.)
The accuracy of the shooting is represented in the gunnery table.
-
The accuracy of the shooting is represented in the gunnery table.
On the firing lances against an escort: No, but if you're firing it against a squadron of escorts, you'll likely do better then against the cruiser for purposes of reducing the enemies effectiveness.
On the gunnery table: Only in a very broad sense. Consider that, unless a special rule is in effect it means that highly trained crew and advanced cogitators are just as accurate as an ork using a set of crosshairs mounted on the barrel of the gun. Very few ships, even ones that logically would, get a left shift.
-
On the gunnery table: Only in a very broad sense. Consider that, unless a special rule is in effect it means that highly trained crew and advanced cogitators are just as accurate as an ork using a set of crosshairs mounted on the barrel of the gun. Very few ships, even ones that logically would, get a left shift.
As I mentally model it, a unit of fire power is not a unit of firepower. This is to say that some races generate their firepower units far more efficiently than others. The orks saturate a larger region of space than Imperial forces do for the same effective attack density. Modelling this is beyond the scope of the game and would really only come into play in the most obsessive/compulsive sets of campaign rules dealing with the tracking of munitions expendature.
Special rules and shifts are an aberation in what should be a simple system of just increasing the number. We really shouldn't add complexity when we don't have to.
-
On the gunnery table: Only in a very broad sense. Consider that, unless a special rule is in effect it means that highly trained crew and advanced cogitators are just as accurate as an ork using a set of crosshairs mounted on the barrel of the gun. Very few ships, even ones that logically would, get a left shift.
As I mentally model it, a unit of fire power is not a unit of firepower. This is to say that some races generate their firepower units far more efficiently than others. The orks saturate a larger region of space than Imperial forces do for the same effective attack density. Modelling this is beyond the scope of the game and would really only come into play in the most obsessive/compulsive sets of campaign rules dealing with the tracking of munitions expendature.
Special rules and shifts are an aberation in what should be a simple system of just increasing the number. We really shouldn't add complexity when we don't have to.
Or if, god help us, we play with a system that takes a 3rd dimension into account. That said: actually, supposedly it really is a unit of firepower now, if you follow the conversions from BFG to RT.
-
On the gunnery table: Only in a very broad sense. Consider that, unless a special rule is in effect it means that highly trained crew and advanced cogitators are just as accurate as an ork using a set of crosshairs mounted on the barrel of the gun. Very few ships, even ones that logically would, get a left shift.
As I mentally model it, a unit of fire power is not a unit of firepower. This is to say that some races generate their firepower units far more efficiently than others. The orks saturate a larger region of space than Imperial forces do for the same effective attack density. Modelling this is beyond the scope of the game and would really only come into play in the most obsessive/compulsive sets of campaign rules dealing with the tracking of munitions expendature.
Special rules and shifts are an aberation in what should be a simple system of just increasing the number. We really shouldn't add complexity when we don't have to.
I agree with this. Right Shift plus additional firepower makes the rightmost column better, (because you can't shift any further) and thus actually improves long range shooting. It also haemorhages dice at higher firepower, which causes disincentive to squadron. LS+Reduced firepower is the opposite, with close range fire getting worse and higher firepowers getting more effective and boosting squadrons. FP values should just be given straight, without any of this column shift nonsense except in exceptional individual cases.