Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Eddie Orlock on March 07, 2011, 04:29:53 PM
-
So, ForgeWorld has recently introduced these to the background of the system and noted that they're used in ship to ship actions as an alternative Marine assault boat to ThunderHawks and Sharks. Perhaps it would make sense to consider a quick line for the next rules update allowing for their use. Maybe something like:
Space Marine capital ships may be upgraded with wings of Caestus Assault Rams for 5 pts. A wing of assault rams acts like a wing of assault boats as described in the main rules moving with a speed of 30cm, except, that as befits its role as a superbly constructed tool of the Emperors Angels of Death it, like the Thunderhawk, is resiliant to attack and has a similar 4+ save against being removed involentarily.
Quick, simple, and to the point. So, what do you think, worth a few playtests?
-
it's just a resilient a-boat? whats the point? t-hawks are resilient aboat/fighter hybrids. (is there a speed difference?)
-
I had proposed the idea of representing the Caestus as an A-Boat (not resiliant) in a different forum when it was announced months ago. Basically the idea was shot down as being not needed. Honestly, after a short discussion, I agree.
Just play it as a house rule with opponet's permission. We aren't going to see it official.
-Zhukov
-
To be worth +5pts over thunderhawks it would need to have speed 35cm or something.
-
it's just a resilient a-boat? whats the point? t-hawks are resilient aboat/fighter hybrids. (is there a speed difference?)
The speed difference is the difference.
I'll share the opinion that it's not really required, it would be more a thing for completeness really. Integrating Vanguard Cruisers into the codex fleet list would be a higher priority, but, this would be a quick and easy thing to add into an overhaul if the list was going to be republished.
I did consider the idea of a straight swap out, but it's noted as using the same hangar facilities.
Maybe the answer lies in the direction RC suggests, but perhaps further, say 40cm, or even 50cm with the caviet that the small raiding parties of marines don't get the +1 Astartes bonus on the chart.
-
What if they are standard assault boats that are only hit by turrets on a 5+ to represent their heavy shielding and armour? They would still get the +1 for having marines on board. This makes them better than Thunderhawks unless the enemy have CAP or time to intercept with fighters in which case they are worse.
-
What if they are standard assault boats that are only hit by turrets on a 5+ to represent their heavy shielding and armour? They would still get the +1 for having marines on board. This makes them better than Thunderhawks unless the enemy have CAP or time to intercept with fighters in which case they are worse.
It doesn't matter what you suggest, the Marine Hate here is so strong that nothing stands a chance. The present line of endevour is to send e-mails with ideas to Forgeworld so that the next Imperial Armour to feature Marines might include a page or two with Gothic stuff and mention this. In this manner we can bypass the anti-Astartes attitudes.
-
There's no Marine hate here rather there is no Marine fanboyism. If there were Marine hate then SM wouldn't have any ship bigger than escorts. What the SM have is already representative of what their primary role in space should be. So where is the hate there? The ram might be feasible as long as it is not overpowered. But if I start seeing the ram rolling 2 or 3D6 in ramming actions against cap ships then I'll be against it, definitely.
-
Heya,
Space Marine hate?
As admiral d'artagnan says there is a difference between keeping them in check and fanboism.
In the draft2010 we gave Strike Cruisers more weapon options (heck, it got an overpowered prow weapon as an option), an extra shield. Resilient bombers!
All over the list got better and more versatile. The weakest point in the Marine list (Strike Cruisers) has been severly improved.
-
I knew I should have picked something polysylabic like 'antipathy'. Still, it stirred the pot and got a few more replies and so I feel mollified.
I think it may have just been a case of petulantly feeling ignored when I, having fallen so far out of touch with the online Gothic community, posted a concept that had already been discussed in my absence.
I defer to the greater wisdom of the community.
As for rolling multiple d6 vs. capital ships, just so we're clear on the subject, these assault rams are smaller than thunderhawks. I too would have a hard time imagining ordinance grade craft rolling for collision damage against any craft with a leadership value.
I think it's unavoidable, but the discussions around here can get decidedly arcane and opaic.
Least Gothic's not like Firestorm Armada with it's broken turning mechanic that makes it faster to zig-zag toward the target than set a course and fly.
-
The Caestus assault ram is SMALLER then the Shark assault boat, and smaller then the Thunderhawk.
If you want to use it, it should be an upgrade that gives you MORE of them, but weaker overall effect.
So I would say: a Space Marine vessel may be upgraded to carry Caestus assault rams.
Caestus assault rams: Function as normal assault boats, if taken, the space marine vessel doubles it's launch capacity. Due to the small numbers of troops carried by the Caestus, space marines do NOT get their +1 to hit and run attacks.
-
That's a reasonable idea, but how much is +1 worth compared to double crits? Maybe it needs an additional -1 so that it can only ever affect weapons.
-
Its not just +1 compared to doube the number.
The caestus is not resilient, is not a fighter and is not partial to the +1 that space marines get, it is a normal assault boat.
I find these two options to be quite balanced.
-
Basically, it'd undo a portion of the usual exchange mandated on Venerable Barges. The ship could 'un-half' its ordinance for this selected type. This does not seem unreasonable.
-
That's exactly what I intended.
This exchange originated back in the blue-book rules before space marines had their own fleet.
-
I dunno, if I'm reading this right, the ram does some rather extensive damage on entry, compared to, say, the Thawk or Shark.
Maybe have it with a rule where it can be used as an aboat or a bomber (but not a torp bomber) as that might be a comparable amount of damage? Just a thought.
-
I really do not see how such a small craft in comparison can do more damage then a thunderhawk or a shark. I think we should mark that off as "CRAZY TALK"
Or you could say that the extra trauma it causes brings it up to normal assault boat level.
I have seen the Caestus... its not much bigger then a land raider, and let's not forget our scale here.
-
I really do not see how such a small craft in comparison can do more damage then a thunderhawk or a shark. I think we should mark that off as "CRAZY TALK"
Or you could say that the extra trauma it causes brings it up to normal assault boat level.
I have seen the Caestus... its not much bigger then a land raider, and let's not forget our scale here.
One, please note that just as in BFG, all 40k minis are not actually to the same scale. Try and fit 12 IG in a Chimera. You'll see what I mean.
Two, according to IA X, the Caestus rams the ship in manner sound similar to a kamikazi, with the crew and passengers protected by an inertial dampener that requires them to all be in power armor. A shark or thawk, from descriptions, anchor to the target and bore through the hull. The caestus partially melts the hull with a giant meltagun and then crashes through it. (Think a boarding torp that makes a bigger hole then usual.
-
Actually, that's pretty much how I imagine boarding torpedoes work anyway. I don't buy this 'bigger hole than normal' stuff.
-
This should never, ever, ever, have the affect of a bomber.
At best, it's an A-boat squadron (with maybe 35cm or 40cm speed). But since the SM's have a resilient A-Boat already, there really is no place for the Caestus.
-Zhukov
-
Let it have an effect in planetary assaults, such as +1 added to the result for every turn spent in low orbit? Thats all I got.
-
This should never, ever, ever, have the affect of a bomber.
Why?
According to FFG, the description for the bombing run of an individual starhawk basically plasters exposed surface targets with missiles and a small payload of plasma bombs, (who damage is, btw, less then the Caestus's super meltagun). Thank you, Mr Chambers, for clearing that up for us all these years later.
Granted, it would be, damage wise, more like a torpedo hit.
As far as a bigger hole, remember that boarding torpedoes are, in canon, smaller then assault boats.
-
Torpedoes are 300ft long. Boarding torpedoes come out the same tubes. Ergo, Boarding Torps are in the region of 300ft long. That's far larger than a Caestus.
-
Torpedoes are 300ft long. Boarding torpedoes come out the same tubes. Ergo, Boarding Torps are in the region of 300ft long. That's far larger than a Caestus.
According to current fluff, the basic anti-ship torpedoes are approx 150-180 feet long [BFK, page 6]. The shark is approx 150 feet long.
'...boarding torpedoes are less manuverable and less armored then assault boats. To offset these flaws, they are also much smaller targets'. (pg 8 ) Further, given the description of how a IN torp tube works, it doesn't matter if it's smaller, as long as it's not bigger. Basically, they're described as using mag fields to propel the torp out of the tube before the engine ignites. So as long as it floats on the mag field, they should shoot a one inch ball bearing out of the tube if they wanted.
-
Well I don't really care about what fluff says about the "real dimensions" or "science" of any of the ships or ordanance of this game because its all hokey and stupid to me. Super-megalomaniac-laser-plasma-gun-of-doom means nothing to me.
I'll speak in relative terms though. And in relative terms, a squadron of bombers plasters multiple areas of a ship where the Caestus hits one spot each, the spot that it eventually rams itself into (thereby, only creating one hole per Caestus). By comparison, each Starhawk plasters around what, ~20?, areas of a ship? That is not even close to a comparison in terms of damage output. It would be like saying the Hs-129 German ground attack plane was more effective than a Ju-87 Stuka because it had a bigger gun.
Look at it this way, the Ram will fire a shot into the enemy ship right before impact and then smash through it, and release it's small complement of troops to cause havoc (essentially, having the jump on the defenders). The Shark/T'hawk will slowly approach it's target, bore a hole through (giving the enemy time to react), and then offload it's much much larger complement of troopers. To me, this balances out. It should play the same.
-Zhukov
-
Well I don't really care about what fluff says about the "real dimensions" or "science" of any of the ships or ordanance of this game because its all hokey and stupid to me. Super-megalomaniac-laser-plasma-gun-of-doom means nothing to me.
I'll speak in relative terms though. And in relative terms, a squadron of bombers plasters multiple areas of a ship where the Caestus hits one spot each, the spot that it eventually rams itself into (thereby, only creating one hole per Caestus). By comparison, each Starhawk plasters around what, ~20?, areas of a ship? That is not even close to a comparison in terms of damage output. It would be like saying the Hs-129 German ground attack plane was more effective than a Ju-87 Stuka because it had a bigger gun.
Look at it this way, the Ram will fire a shot into the enemy ship right before impact and then smash through it, and release it's small complement of troops to cause havoc (essentially, having the jump on the defenders). The Shark/T'hawk will slowly approach it's target, bore a hole through (giving the enemy time to react), and then offload it's much much larger complement of troopers. To me, this balances out. It should play the same.
-Zhukov
Starhawks are 10 per squadron, so 10 targets. If the assault ram follows the same numbers as SM aboats, it's a squadron of 15.
That's more holes of a comparable size.
However, given the odd method of attack, how about a bonus against turrets?
-
Starhawks are 10 per squadron, so 10 targets. If the assault ram follows the same numbers as SM aboats, it's a squadron of 15.
That's more holes of a comparable size.
However, given the odd method of attack, how about a bonus against turrets?
I assume you meant Shark and not Starhawk? Because everything I understand is the Caestus is more the size of a fighter (in relative size that is) which is way smaller than an A-Boat or Bomber (whose much larger payload will do much more damage). And by the comparison of a Shark to a Caestus, it's exactly the same in my opionion.
But in terms of method of attack, how is the Caestus any different than a boarding torpedo? If you want to make it unique, give it 35-40cm speed and make it resilient because it's small and agile. It acts like a resilient A-boat. That's unique and much different than a T'Hawk meaning no confusion between the two.
-Zhukov
-
I assume you meant Shark and not Starhawk? Because everything I understand is the Caestus is more the size of a fighter (in relative size that is) which is way smaller than an A-Boat or Bomber (whose much larger payload will do much more damage). And by the comparison of a Shark to a Caestus, it's exactly the same in my opionion.
But in terms of method of attack, how is the Caestus any different than a boarding torpedo? If you want to make it unique, give it 35-40cm speed and make it resilient because it's small and agile. It acts like a resilient A-boat. That's unique and much different than a T'Hawk meaning no confusion between the two.
Hmm... Ok, so it's have to launch from a launch bay, is resiliant, but counts as a boarding torp for purposes of turret defense? Would work well combined with Thawks, turrets could only shoot at one or the other but not both.
Huh, Furies are about 100 feet long now. So, 2/3 the size of a shark.
-
How about we don't make new rules that give an already good faction even better stuff.
Caestus assault rams are just not big enough to warrant extra damage. They are just assault boats, that's it.
Also on the word of the bombs etc...
The goal is to blow open the hull through weak spots in such a manner that will ignite the oxygen inside and kill the crew, along with frying systems. A melta gun instead will cause a much smaller hole or gash, and is far easier to repair. I expect that they use the melta gun to weaken the hull before the ship rams through.
Remember: FFG is not GW, they are just liscenced by GW to make RPGs from the GW. Their books have no more weight in the fluff then Relic's Dawn of War games.
I happen to know one of the people who works at FFG... he was openly criticized for his "better then BFG" opinion by a member of GW.
He also blamed the fall of Bfg and the strangeness of the fluff on Andy Chambers.
He blamed a LOT of stuff on andy chambers... and he liked Matt ward.
Nuff said.
-
Remember: FFG is not GW, they are just liscenced by GW to make RPGs from the GW. Their books have no more weight in the fluff then Relic's Dawn of War games.
If that's what you want to think, go ahead, however, GW has, in the past, stated that it is, in fact, fluff and equal to GW's own. Regardless of what idiocy individuals at either company may spout.
-
I will be honest.. I am not a huge fan of the games, mostly because I know who writes them.
so consider me biased.
-
Well, Andy Chambers wrote the parts I was referring to, so...
-
Funny enough even Andy Chambers can change his mind as well. lol.
-
Ok, so it's have to launch from a launch bay, is resiliant, but counts as a boarding torp for purposes of turret defense? Would work well combined with Thawks, turrets could only shoot at one or the other but not both.
I wasn't thinking of having it count as boarding torps, but I can see that happening. No adding to the number of Launch Bays of a ship as I would assume the larger number of Cauestus's per squadron would make up for the fewer, but larger T'Hawks. And of course combining them in the same wave would be foolish in some ways since the T'Hawks go much slower. I don't think a wave of a few Caestus in this way would be overpowering at all. And it would add an interesting item to the game.
How about we don't make new rules that give an already good faction, even better stuff.
This ain't for serious FAQ level of discussion. This is just a discussion on house rules for a model that came out. That's all. I thought most people said SM's suck in everything but planetary invasion or exterminatus? I've never had that many problems with them in Deep Space.
-Zhukov
P.S. You guys read into the fluff WAY too much. These guys REALLY aren't putting that much thought into the science of this. They just hand out numbers to make something sound more official. To start arguments on "well this says they're 100 ft long" is just silly to me.
-
Either way, the Caestus isn't armed with anything that isn't dwarfed by the weaponry on a starhawk bomber, and there must logically be similar weapons on boarding torpedoes.
They're an assault boat, nothing more. I think:
"You may launch two Caestus squadrons for each point of Launch Bay strength"
covers it well enough. You gain numbers and speed, but lose fighters and resiliency.
-
Either way, the Caestus isn't armed with anything that isn't dwarfed by the weaponry on a starhawk bomber, and there must logically be similar weapons on boarding torpedoes.
Nope, looked it up, a boarding torp powers through on kinetic energy alone (hence it's terminal penetration being lower then other torps in BFK).
"A heavy, short ranged area-effect heat cannon, the magna-melta is designed to turn a large cubic volume of star ship hull-plating to liquid slag, and its effects on less durable targets such as battle-tanks and living matter are unsurprisingly catastrophic." rules for the assault ram's magnamelta
An aboat, according to fluff, anchors to the exterior of the hull, and drills through. This thing blows a hole big enough for it to fly into the target.
-
A Starhawks payload would also make short work of any ground tank, so that's a moot point. And furthermore, in terms of this gun, it's still only shooting ONE shot, that it eventually rams into. So it's not making anywhere near the damage saturation a Starhawk can produce.
In game terms, the Caestus operates almost exactly like a boarding torp, ramming into the opponent and off-loading a small team of armed Marines that cause havoc inside a defensless ship. From everything I've seen, the Caestus looks about this size of a Fury Intercepter, which from what I understand should be smaller than a standard boarding torpedo, so therefore would have the same overall effectiveness. The Shark (or T'Hawk) lodges onto a ship, and off-loads 3-4 times the amount of Marines. So the Shark loses the element of surprise, but has the numbers to make up for it.
The Caestus is an A-boat that should attack ships like boarding torps. If you want to go crazy, you can give them 2 Caestus for every point of Launch Bay, or give it 35-40cm speed, or give it resiliency. But that's all this little guy is going to get.
-Zhukov
-
Anyone else think that only Eldar should have boarding torps? Torps are much faster than ships, and when they run out of fuel then they'll be unable to turn. So those guys stuck aboard the torps are SOL if they miss their target. Hell they're SOL even if they hit, unless it's an escort, where they've got a chance of winning the boarding attempt. Eldar would be able to put gateways inside their torps to offload their men and provide escape routes. Hell, Eldar could probably instigate full scale boarding actions if enough hit.
-
I don't buy that boarding torps are simply kinetic penetrators. The armour on starships would make pancakes not just of the boarding torp, but its contents as well. Even drop pods have retarding engines to prevent the marines inside being crushed, whereas a kinetic penetrator would have to hit at full speed and in the majority of cases isn't carrying power armoured marines.
Similarly, though not shown in game, boarding torps must be capable of return flight (even if at lower speed), as even in 40k it makes no sense to send combat troops with valuable ship-ship skills to certain death.
-
Hmm, interesting...
What if they 'acted like' torp bombers but had boarding torps instead?
That way you could get a decent number through, maintain their AC movement and still behave like a Torpedo against turrets.
Also, you guys are really getting into the background of this- careful it's written by mad people so expect madness! ;)
Cheers,
RayB HA