Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: AndrewChristlieb on October 22, 2012, 12:30:10 AM
-
So is this a screw up or what? Why do Space Marines get a bomber with a 4+ save the acts as a fighter and gets D6+1 attacks?
-
Because it sorta is a fighter bomber, not a bomber (like how the Thunderhawk is a Fighter Assault Craft not a just a fighter). It's a pretty fluffy facility IMO.
Now should they be in the book or not or not is a fair question. What specifically is your issue?
-
I imagine that his issue is that it gets D6 attacks like a normal bomber, rather than D3 attacks like a fighter-bomber. The fighter-bomber rules in the Ork section are outrageous enough for Orks, let alone for these super bombers.
-
Yeah, make it a resilient fighter bomber.
-
I guess the 20cm movement is a decent downside. That does seem to be an excessive amount of attacks.
-
I guess the 20cm movement is a decent downside. That does seem to be an excessive amount of attacks.
How is it a downside? Normal bombers move 20cm.
-
That means SM only have 20cm Fighters.
-
But resilient.
-
Resilient doesn't make them faster. But yes, D6+1 is overboard.
-
I think the idea was that this is not a regular vehicle (in epic / 40k parlance it is a war engine) and that's to reflect the regular bomber run ability. Again, not claiming it should be that way but I've never had opponents (tons of Eldar and IN in our group) complain, not that we're a scientifically valid sample :)
-
Yup if its a fighta bomba why does it get D6. For that matter why isnt the IN and the inquisition going apeshiv about the space marines having dedicated anti ship bombers o_O. (i know titan killers blah blah blah whatever...)
Who did the actual playtesting on the FAQ fleet lists? I have played Bakka, Khorne, and Orks and played against SM Dominions and Crusade and all of these are way out of the standard fleets league from what ive seen. Whats everyone elses experience been like?
-
I think it was a horrific addition to SM.
-
It does seem a tad overpowered; I mean, look at the other 40k games/the fluff. How does a thunderhawk compare to a freakin' manta? More importantly, why does it have even more bombs? I'm all for SM love, but it does seem unbalanced. With the assault carrier option, you can really get away with all ordnance SM bombing the ess eych eye tee out of other fleets. Like Sigoroth, I don't think SM were designed to dominate in the ordnance phase.
-
It does seem a tad overpowered; I mean, look at the other 40k games/the fluff. How does a thunderhawk compare to a freakin' manta?
Pretty comparable. They are both super heavy vehicles (they are both not fighters nor bombers but more like flying titans :) ). The manta is larger (actually it's more like a corvette but that's not a concept in the game unfortunately) though not as tough as the TH. The TH packs a titan based weapons payload (which is the form we're discussing here for use in BFG vs the ground attack variants which you'd tend to see in Epic). The TH is more adaptable as it can work as pure gunship, pure TK, or a capable assault craft while the Manta is probably the best assault craft in the 40k universe though but that's all it was designed to do.
All that means IMO is that the manta should be a resilient A-Boat / Bomber and the TH is an A-Boat / Fighter (note the slashes and NOT dashes). The Annihilator was an attempt to put some bomber power into the marine fleet. I applaud the effort but I am not so sure as to the execution. But as it stands that is the variation of Bomber / Fighter TH. Personally I think it should simply be a resilient bomber and be done with it. The armour and good AA defense bubble around it models well as resilient but giving it Fighter isn't a good fit I feel. It's carrying a monster turbo laser destructor, the same blasted main weapon a warlord titan carries for christs sake. It's not optimized to target swarms of relatively weak targets.
why does it have even more bombs?
Not following you here. Are you asking why TH has bombs? Ummm because they've had them since they were originally created in epic 20 years ago and that has continued till today. I think you are meaning something else though.
I'm all for SM love, but it does seem unbalanced. With the assault carrier option, you can really get away with all ordnance SM bombing the ess eych eye tee out of other fleets.
Actually I don't see the problem with the TH stats. It models them fairly well I think. I think the problem is in Assault Carrier spam and don't think they belong in the game. However they were not added to 2010 documents so I am not sure what you are referring to (are you just meaning the regular SC??? Am I not not up on the cool kids lingo??? :D ).
Like Sigoroth, I don't think SM were designed to dominate in the ordnance phase.
This is were I think we will agree to disagree. The marines are crippled in ships of the line fielding only light cruisers and the occasional BB, which frankly isn't worth the points in anything other than in planetary assault and when taken, tends to be used more for the threat (aka bullet magnet). Just take a look at the use of venerable BB is fleets. The marines make up for it with a combined arms approach with a shock and awe style attacks, quickly gaining aerospace superiority otherwise they are toast. Basically the Guard and Navy are envisioned as WW2 armies and WW1 (ala Juttland) naval fleets in space. Big lumbering gun ships and big cock swinging "ohh look at my battleship" fleets. The Marines are modeled after the Royal Marines and the US Marine Corp and how they fight in modern times. Small, fast, agile with the intention of achieving air superiority ASAP.
Against Eldar and Tau there's never been an issue I've seen. In fact TH spam is pretty much a losing game against Eldar and they are better served as pickette lines. Against the IN they are great at sweeping the skies clear of furies but while you are busy doing that you're going to get mauled by torps. Focus on picketters and you're open to attack by combined shotgun torp and bombers as you'll never win the arms race against an IN carrier fleet as there's simply more targets than you can counter. Chaos has a bit more trouble but frankly they've got the best lances around and can match the marines in maneuverability and remember, the ability of Chaos to pump out AC was the entire reason Mr Chambers limited AC to number of launch bays to begin with as an optional rule which was codified eventually. I have no clue how they stack up in practice against 'Nids and DE as no one I know plays them and the less we talk about 'Crons the better.
I think the whole distablising effect of TH, Mantas and other continually occurring questions like this are simply because the AC rules are complete crap in the game. No amount of tweeking is going to fix a fundamentally broken system, it's just lipstick on a pig. Turret supression, fleet def turrets, CAP are all signs of an underlying issue. BFG is a completely elegant game until you bring out AC and then it's dice rolling attack modifier city. I'd like to see more work on a new alternative set of aerospace rules personally.
I'm actually more curious who named it the TH Annihilator. AFAIK there's nothing of the sort name-wise anywhere (and not needed). You should have a TH Interceptor and TH Bomber and be done with it :D
-
Id like to see SM have storm talons as fighters and thunderhawks as standard resilient assault boats or bombers. Maybe with an option for them to launch two talons per bay.
-
@ Jimmy Zimms
1) Unintentionally vague on "bombs" comment. I mean't more specifically it is a more effective bomber in BFG, due to its fighter-bomber status, not it had more literal bombs.
2) I trust you have not been following the general community consensus on broken/modified ships and whatnot? The assault carrier option is widely accepted to attempt to give the SM forces true carriers and AC quantity. Spam is of course an issue that is opinion based, and admittedly can be said about many things. I wish I was a cool kid... :P
3) Naming conventions are one of the most hotly debated topics amongst friends and 40k vets. Suffice to say while I find the name a bit arbitrary, it does work, although your suggestions seem valid too.
4) Fluff wise, say what you will about the thunderhawk, but it is an assault craft. Codex regulations and all, it is for assaulting and dropping off troops into contested territory, and even then usually ground based operations. Saying it can be modified is somewhat erroneous, as by that logic one could modify a manta for fighter air superiority, by reducing its armor, adding more guns and better engines. Thunderhawks are versatile because of exceptional design and craftsmanship (plus spess-mureenes), not because they can be modified.
5) Agree to disagree then on power level of t-hawks and mantas in space scenarios; IMO neither are really designed to carry weapons for cracking armor that makes an imperator titan's look like soft tissue wipes.
6) To be quite honest, I'm surprised that you think SM are made as combined ordnance fleet. Until the annihilator came around t-hawks were good for frying pesky escorts and low turret/armor targets, but were mainly a defensive anti-ordnance measure and general deterrent. I'm not really sure why you do not think SM cannot hold their own in a brawl; bombardment cannon strike cruisers with a second shield can crack open other cruisers with relative ease, while the seditio can blow apart pretty much any other battleship at 30cm, and at 15cm only ultra-heavy BB can compare (tomb ship, planet killer, etc...). As for escorts, the gladius isn't that special but nova's are super fast well armored directional firing death machines, and hunters regularly rape cobras when in dry dock (hehe...dry docked indeed), being better armored, turret covered and faster, ableit at more points. I would say SM are pretty good at shooting, and normal T-hawks fit their fleet flavor better, although with d3+1 or just d6 attacks they would fit in fine. As you said, just an opinion, nothing personal. :)
-
Id like to see SM have storm talons as fighters and thunderhawks as standard resilient assault boats or bombers. Maybe with an option for them to launch two talons per bay.
I'd stay away from the new aerospace units for now. Rumor has it that there's plenty of new changes coming down the pipe. Best to let the dust settle a bit methinks. However not a bad idea in principle.
-
@ Jimmy Zimms
1) Unintentionally vague on "bombs" comment. I mean't more specifically it is a more effective bomber in BFG, due to its fighter-bomber status, not it had more literal bombs.
Ahh comment makes sense. BB programs lack that human context and nuance. Totally dig your point provided it was a fighter-bomber in the traditional sense (i even mistakenly used it in that term as I was attempting to sidestep a long drawn out conversation about why it had bombs from a mistaken read of your posts). I believe the idea was that as it's a flying war engine, the either - or role was attached. I don't want to debate whether it was a good idea or not, just that's kinda the line of thought. :D
2) I trust you have not been following the general community consensus on broken/modified ships and whatnot?
Oh I am but until it reaches baked and published in FAW 2013 ;) it's all friendly play, expiremental / house rules.I am totally focused on as the GW PDFs + HA PDFs state today.
The assault carrier option is widely accepted to attempt to give the SM forces true carriers and AC quantity. Spam is of course an issue that is opinion based, and admittedly can be said about many things.
Yeah you are correct, or at least from my limited direct 1:1 expirence that the AC varient is pretty much defacto. Though, and here's that lack of nuance thing again, I was sticking to finalized documents. I like it conceptually but think it needs some more cooking before it's ready. Sounds like you do too, though for different reasoning than I.
I wish I was a cool kid... :P
Wait a minute! If you're not one of the cool kids then why am I wasting my time with you? ;)
I kid, I kid! [old man yiddish accent] :)
3) Naming conventions are one of the most hotly debated topics amongst friends and 40k vets. Suffice to say while I find the name a bit arbitrary, it does work, although your suggestions seem valid too.
Yeah when I first read that name I was all, "wft did I miss something in an IA???" lol
4) Fluff wise, say what you will about the thunderhawk, but it is an assault craft. Codex regulations and all, it is for assaulting and dropping off troops into contested territory, and even then usually ground based operations.
Actually the fluff explicitly lists the load out of a TH equipped for space superiority role and anti-ship operations. Please re-read IA 2 and 9 (or maybe 10) IIRC. The reason we pretty much only see the TK and Air Assault versions for the most part is that they tend to show up in games of Epic (and let us totally strike from our discussion the abomination that is 40K: Apocalypse).
Saying it can be modified is somewhat erroneous, as by that logic one could modify a manta for fighter air superiority, by reducing its armor, adding more guns and better engines. Thunderhawks are versatile because of exceptional design and craftsmanship (plus spess-mureenes), not because they can be modified.
Except that is explicitly stated by the IA books to be the case. Again not trying to argue but that's been the fluff for many many many years now. Don't get me wrong, GW is totally guilty of ret-con-itis and many of those retcons are retarded or blatant attempts to squeeze more $$$ out of younger players before they burn out and churn. In addition, I am totally not advocating for nor nor against them in BFG. Just trying to give a perspective on the fluffyness (which needs to take backseat to a good game I'll admit) :)
5) Agree to disagree then on power level of t-hawks and mantas in space scenarios; IMO neither are really designed to carry weapons for cracking armor that makes an imperator titan's look like soft tissue wipes.
TH's can carry Turbo Laser destructors which are a titan / super heavy tank class weapon. QED. Should they be granted bomber in BFG? Up for debate as again, a good playing game is more important than fluff.
6) To be quite honest, I'm surprised that you think SM are made as combined ordnance fleet. Until the annihilator came around t-hawks were good for frying pesky escorts and low turret/armor targets, but were mainly a defensive anti-ordnance measure and general deterrent.
I am discussing 25 years of fluff and the holistic view of all the pertinent game systems, not BFG only. Sorry that was my chance to be vague. :D Also again, I am talking from the viewpoint when discussing BFG specifically of the published PDFs (GW + HA). Armada Marines were a bit crap. Don't argue that :D
I'm not really sure why you do not think SM cannot hold their own in a brawl; bombardment cannon strike cruisers second turrets can crack open other cruisers with relative ease, while the seditio can blow apart pretty much any other battleship at 30cm, and at 15cm only ultra-heavy BB can compare (tomb ship, planet killer, etc...).
Armada: no they couldn't. Just look to why they got so much rework in 2010 documents. I am not claiming that a BB in 30cm range isn't an absolute MONSTER. But for 425 points it's a whole lotta points for what you get IMO. Most IN BB have 60cm reach out and touch someone and frankly I'd take an Emperor / Retribution over a BB anyday. For instance, any eldar player that get's caught within 30cm by a marine BB deserves to be annihilated. :D The trick is in maneuvering that bad boy into something that works. I've seen that this usually falls into two basic strategies: bullet magnet and SC flank OR the Hammer (SC) and Anvil (BB) pincer. Marines are finally a relative to Armada speaking, a strong opponent now albeit a challenging list to play well (which I like).
As for escorts, the gladius isn't that special
Disagree. They are fundamentally based on a Sword stats and that little guy is pure awesomesauce. I disagree with 30cm move as that's the whole point of marine escorts, they're faster than IN counterparts. So for 45 points they are at least 5 points overcosted.
but nova's are super fast well armored directional firing death machines
They're nice and more valuable in marine fleets versus their counter part in IN due to lack of lance assets in marine fleets but it kinda falls into the same problem as the Firestorm (which I believe has been talked about how to fix before). I take issue with lame L/R/F arc stat changes on models that have keel mounted weapons but that's the anal engineer in me ;) I personally think both can be fixed by dropping all WBs and up the lance to strength 2 and +5 points and FW arc but I admit I am a heretic.
hunters regularly rape cobras when in dry dock (hehe...dry docked indeed), being better armored, turret covered and faster, ableit at more points.
:D NICE. Totally have me cracking up in this meeting now
I would say SM are pretty good at shooting, and normal T-hawks fit their fleet flavor better, although with d3+1 or just d6 attacks they would fit in fine. As you said, just an opinion, nothing personal. :)
yup same here :) I agree that the TH:A (still think it's a dumb name ;) ) needs work. However I think it should just be a bomber and drop the fighter and I think it balances out in the end.
-
A regular resilient bomber then? hmmm
Removing it wouldn't hurt either.
-
@ Jimmy Zimms If you are trying to imply that I am absolutely uninformed on the fluff, I might take offense to that. Although you may not mean it, your comments are coming off a tad douchebagish, but I presume based on you general kind-hearted nature that this is either an oversensitive interpretation on my part or just a plain bad day for you :). I may not be an old man like yourself (you yidish are all the same :P) but I consider myself educated enough, particularly with 40k fluff. Admittedly have not read that particular Imperial Armor in great detail, but as we both know fluff arguments only carry so much weight with GW products; it could change in the near future, or be ret-coned to have changed yesterday. Heck, I could tell you tomorrow that SM will soon have the ability to create boltgun ammo by sweating, and Matt Ward shenanigans will make me correct yesterday. Yes, I am implying GW has mastered the time space continuum.
As for it being just a resilient bomber, that's fine with me. Since they can launch both varieties of T-Hawks, it would make them useful without outshining other uber-bombers such as mantas and the various eldar craft. It might even be acceptable to have it move at 25cm to have it be escorted by other T-Hawks then, no? I realise no one would actually bother giving escorts most of the time, but it's the thought that counts ;) Or is it just to awesome to give a bomber 25cm movement?
-
A D6 bomber should be no more than 20cm move. D3 25cm.
-
@ Jimmy Zimms If you are trying to imply that I am absolutely uninformed on the fluff, I might take offense to that. Although you may not mean it, your comments are coming off a tad douchebagish, but I presume based on you general kind-hearted nature that this is either an oversensitive interpretation on my part or just a plain bad day for you :).
No offense meant. Any taken, I apologize forthwith my friend :D
Probably comes off far more curmudgeonly than intended (cultural differences too- what do you get when you put two Israelis in a room? three opinions :D meaning we tend to debate forcefully without realizing it comes off as aggressive without meaning so to to - kinda a ME thing).
we both know fluff arguments only carry so much weight with GW products; it could change in the near future, or be ret-coned to have changed yesterday. Heck, I could tell you tomorrow that SM will soon have the ability to create boltgun ammo by sweating, and Matt Ward shenanigans will make me correct yesterday. Yes, I am implying GW has mastered the time space continuum.
That is the truest thing anyone has ever said ever and will ever about GW continuity (as well as damn funny - Can we make that sweat bullets a house rule?)
As for it being just a resilient bomber, that's fine with me. Since they can launch both varieties of T-Hawks, it would make them useful without outshining other uber-bombers such as mantas and the various eldar craft. It might even be acceptable to have it move at 25cm to have it be escorted by other T-Hawks then, no? I realise no one would actually bother giving escorts most of the time, but it's the thought that counts ;) Or is it just to awesome to give a bomber 25cm movement?
I'd say 20cm would be more appropriate and would be inline with IN tech. Not sure...
-
@ Jimmy Zimms Bullet sweating is now officially a thing, and if you ever come to canada you are invited to play Deathwatch with us anytime. I'm sure we could use the infinite ammo devastator... ;) Also, sorry if I was being a sensitive little neckbeard; we can all be a little butthurt sometimes, so sorry about that. And before this turns into a gooey lovey-dovey circle jerk, go to hell ;D
Fair points on the movement speed, just a thought.