Why shouldn't they have better LD? they are after all extremely long lived supersoldiers that train all their lives for combat. Eldar are long lived as well, but that doesn't necessarily translate into high ld in martial pursuits outside of the aspects. High LD is necessary if you want the marines to be a scalpel so they can reliably choose the appropriate action to hit where they can best attack.
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Dauntless: This will only be the Torp variant!
TH's: I've gotten rid of the Fighter rule from the TH, it's gone! :) The CAP rule replaces it. This is a 'downgrade'. However not having TH's taken out by stray ordnance could be considered an advantage!
The Annihilator should not be a bomber, so I've used it's existence to offer the SM fleet a fighter which fits its fluff far better.
RayB HA
We didn't get a reply from GW! >:( I may go to Gamesday this year and just hand it over to Andy Hall. :-\
Now you'll probably want to come back and wave your hand with some statement about how dare I not agree with you, but I do not agree with what you presented. It makes a case for eldar having better tech (which they already do) and better knowledge of celestial phenomena (which they do already here too) but it's not a valid argument for dropping Marine leadership to AdMech or IN levels.
Part of the job competence of the commander of the ship IS his tactical ability. It's his ability to read a situation and know what order to give in the first place that makes him competent. The training of the crew aids in the successful execution of an order, but it's still the commander who initiates the right order at the right time. Since it would seem both Eldar and Marines rely on large amounts of automation to run their ships, I would think that crew training would have even less impact on carrying out orders than aboard an IN ship.
I have no problem with Eldar having as good LD as marines. Let them use the Marine LD table if it doesn't hurt the game, but why bother with changing marine LD if you feel Eldar LD is too low?
Changing marine LD ends up interfering with the LD distribution between IN, Admech, and Marines which seems fairly accurate right now. If the problem is eldar then deal with them and leave the rest alone.
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
If it's not broken why fix it? I prefer: If I can make it better, shouldn't I? ;D
Seriously though I do believe SMs need some work to make them more intersting and to cut some of the exaggerated fat off.
In the case of Annhilators they just aren't bombers, they're not even fighter bombers! Representing them as such is just a mad attempt to give SM's bombers when they sure as hell shouldn't have any!
Cheers,
RayB HA
Horizon,
The SedO is a bit of a freak! I'm inclined to include it but as a character ship (well it is isn't it?) Ultra Marines only!
Also the Fortress Monastary should only be available for special scenarios out side of a normal campaign. So it's not too important to perfect!
Cheers,
RayB HA
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Why do you like the fighter aspect of the TH's over the CAP special rule? Is it because it's more simple? The way I see it TH's are similar to Tau Mantas, they should be AC with a 4+ save vs fighters not being fighters themselves.
The CAP special rule seems to be necessary to counter the loss of the fighter special rule. Would it be that bad if they had no fighters or CAP (except Annhilators)? The escorts would be vulnerable to A-boats (although the -1 does help with this), the capital ships excluding the dauntless wouldn't be greatly effected by this loss.
Hmm..... I'm leaning towards getting rid of the CAP rule!
I've included the SedO but have tweaked the launchbays/torps.
Cheers,
RayB HA
Vaaish may be right about the CG. Perhaps a "Heavy Strike Cruiser" is in order
cruiser/8 20cm 45* 2sheild 6+armour 3turret
Port weopons battery fpw8 45cm
starboard wepons battery fpw8 45cm
Prow launch bay 3thunderhawk
Dorsal bombard cannon str5 30cm
Maybe?
Vaaish may be right about the CG. Perhaps a "Heavy Strike Cruiser" is in order
cruiser/8 20cm 45* 2sheild 6+armour 3turret
Port weopons battery fpw8 45cm
starboard wepons battery fpw8 45cm
Prow launch bay 3thunderhawk
Dorsal bombard cannon str5 30cm
Maybe?
No.
I love how every idea I have posted in this forum has been universally disliked by everyone.
The Space Marine BB isn't relegated! :)That's a reason?
It's faster, can turn after 10cm instead of 15cm, but it loses 2 hits and 2(4) WB's, 2BC's and it's torps and TH's are the same slot. It looses a 'little' firepower, but the advantages of better movement and cheaper price are massive.
In any case, it's still as tough as a BB! :)
Also just because something is of 'type' Battleship doesn't mean it really is! The same goes with any type! So type GC can represent a BB quite nicley!
If you do want a BB the Emperor is already set up it just needs the appropriate paint scheme. The Despoiler isn't that bad as you can just fill the areas with green that have markings (once again this is conversion work.... but it's so easy I don't think it's a problem)
Cheers,
RayB HA
The Space Marine BB isn't relegated! :)
It's faster, can turn after 10cm instead of 15cm, but it loses 2 hits and 2(4) WB's, 2BC's and it's torps and TH's are the same slot. It looses a 'little' firepower, but the advantages of better movement and cheaper price are massive.
In any case, it's still as tough as a BB! :)
Also just because something is of 'type' Battleship doesn't mean it really is! The same goes with any type! So type GC can represent a BB quite nicley!
If you do want a BB the Emperor is already set up it just needs the appropriate paint scheme. The Despoiler isn't that bad as you can just fill the areas with green that have markings (once again this is conversion work.... but it's so easy I don't think it's a problem)
Cheers,
RayB HA
Sorry Ray but as you pointed out, there is a difference between Type: Battleship and Type: Cruiser. Terms like the above have to be defined clearly if not I can always take a Battleship and call it an Escort.
horizon, Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Think of it as a Battleship with better turning! Or hell, think of it as a 'light battleship'!
Having the GC type stops the Battle Barge from squadroning with the lower armour values of the Despoiler or Emperor. This is a valid exploit but it would have to be covered in the lower armour valued Battleships. I'd rather they were as affordable as possible.
Being of the lighter weight obviously makes it cheaper AND will allow its presence in even smaller games.
Having the better speed/turning allows it too keep up with the SC's and escorts. Rather than dragging them back.
Having better manuevrabilty also fits with the attack rating. (which reminds me I need to put the speical rules in for campaigns and scenarios).
Not being 'double' the size also makes the 3TH/2TH less weird.
The problem of the current BB: It's slow (this bit is quite important!), it's too expensive to include in most fleet lists, it has significantly less AC than SC's given its cost.
While I'm not fond of the proposal I can't agree with the above. What the game defines as a BB can differ to what a race defines as a BB. Some race's largest ship might be the size of an escort and be treated as an escort in game, but to that race it is a BB.
This is true. Should have narrowed it down to faction. Since SM and IN are basically from the same race, their definition of what a battleship is should be similar.
Caestus Assault Ram:
I'm going to include the 'CAR' as an optional upgrade!
Torpedo Bomber that fires boarding torpedoes that re-roll to hit. But loses the re-roll for H&R's.
Is this worth taking? Should it have a 4+ save?
Cheers,
RayB HA
Horizon,So utterly wrong!!!
The Custodian is the other way round! Less manuevrable than a GC but only has 10hits. It becomes a BB to rep it's poor turning. This also allows it to squadron with Explorers. From an Imperial point of view they would probably call it a Tau GC, from a Tau point of view they just call it the Custodian! :)
Well, a Desolator is in a fleet of cruisers with 45* turns and long range guns (mostly), the Battle Barge is in a fleet of short ranged cruisers with 90* turns this is a hefty difference in manueverability.
n any case, the rarity of BB's is covered by the limit of 3 (the most any chapter is 'allowed'). Having more than 1 is fine. That would be about 1500pts (which is doable in the current rules it's just way more top heavy, it'd be 3 SC's/escorts and 2 BB's). 3 BB's with 6 SC's could be in a fleet of 2000pts.
Firstly, the 'type' of a ship is not it's 'designation'. Just because the Battle Barge is a type GC doesn't mean it's not a battleship!
Admiral_d_Artagnan and all,
The 'why' make a Battle Barge smaller seems to be quite subjective.
Easier to field: My 'main' reason for the change is to make it easier* to field in smaller games and keep it balanced. (*Having the first BB available without limitation is ridiculous! So assuming the current rules were per full 1000pts like a Void Stalker.)
This also makes it easier to make a fleet list and adds variety as you can field more BB's breaking up the wall of SCs.
Can't be squadroned with armour 5+ BB's: This is minor, and wouldn't really have been noticed by those that aren't obsessive but it is a game effect that doesn't occur in the Chaos and IN list (well you can get an armour prow for IN), it would need factoring in for cost. As the BB is the mainstay the 5+ armour choices would have to cost a little bit more.
Better Turning: Given that SC's have a 90* turn having the BB have a 45* turn with the same minimum move seems reasonable. Where as 45* after 15cm is verging on a extreme difference. Being able to turn like this will really help the BB keep with the Fleet rather than being it's own detachment, or 'drifting defence' in comparison.
Better Speed: Now this one doesn't need the 'GC' element. The GC status just makes it fit the speed trend given its armour rating.
Reduction of hits matching the theme: This also doesn't need the 'GC' status. Having less hits makes it a more natural progression of size from the SC rather than 'doubling up'.
Horizon,
1 TH on the SC: That would be almost unuseable. They would have to be used in squadrons and that doesn't feel right. (or TH's get a 4+ sv vs turrets! :-\)
Is it really the GC 'name' that bugs people? How about a 10Hit BB that can turn after 10cm and can CTNH? :)
Cheers,
RayB HA
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Type: Are you saying that 'type' is a description of what a ship is beyond the rules? Sorry to rattle on, but this seems to be the main negative response. It would be great to rename the 'types' so they don't hold a label of what they 'usually' represent.
The problem, the why: This is only from my personal experiences, I can't say I've seen many SM players persist online as I suspect that if they stick with BFG they end up being primarily an IN players.
Mixed armour values: If you have mixed armour values in a squadron you can hide lighter armoured ships behind highly armoured ships, spreading the damage. This has value in the game and should have value in points, in the non mainstay classes (in the case of a Dauntless in an IN fleet the Dauntless would cover the cost as it is the non mainstay ship).
Speed: 25cm for the BB may be too much, I'm not against dialing it back to 20cm.
SC Hits: Do you think it should have 8 hits?
SC's in squadrons: There is no reason for SC's to be used in squadrons, however I think they should be useable on their own as well.
If you only had 1 TH per SC you wouldn't find yourself reloading as often, you'd also find that the SC's would merely be bringing an addition to the AC limit where the BB's will be reloading in their stead.
Obviously I do feel that the BB would be better as a more manueverable vessel. Also it would add a more varied and interesting 'weighting' in the SM list if the BB were cheaper.
The BB being a GC means that it will have a much easier time of staying in formation with the SCs, not only because it can turn sooner but because it can also CTNH.hey, that's the Custodian reasoning!
Mixed armour values: If you have mixed armour values in a squadron you can hide lighter armoured ships behind highly armoured ships, spreading the damage. This has value in the game and should have value in points, in the non mainstay classes (in the case of a Dauntless in an IN fleet the Dauntless would cover the cost as it is the non mainstay ship).Wrong!
Speed: 25cm for the BB may be too much, I'm not against dialing it back to 20cm.Yeah, do that. :)
SC Hits: Do you think it should have 8 hits?As admiral A says. 6 hits, 2 shields, 1 Thawk squadron.
SC's in squadrons: There is no reason for SC's to be used in squadrons, however I think they should be useable on their own as well.
If you only had 1 TH per SC you wouldn't find yourself reloading as often, you'd also find that the SC's would merely be bringing an addition to the AC limit where the BB's will be reloading in their stead.
Obviously I do feel that the BB would be better as a more manueverable vessel. Also it would add a more varied and interesting 'weighting' in the SM list if the BB were cheaper.No, I do not think so.
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Why can't a battleship be more maneuverable than the type BB? I really don't see what your argument is...
Speed: As I see it the BB could have 25cm speed, they do have pretty decent tech as Imperial ships go and I could imagine much of the 'power' from a BB going to speed and structual integrity. Being only 10 hits also helps with the less mass = better speed point of view. However as I've said before I'm not against dialing it back either. I think I'll leave it at 20cm, this will also make it cheaper.
+1 Shield SC: The SC doesn't need it! It has 6+ armour and so has twice the durability against WB's the first weapons to be shot at a SC. Granted you can get lucky and roll a lot of 6's but that's the drawback of having 'elite' armour.
Cheers,
RayB HA
+1 Shield SC: The SC doesn't need it! It has 6+ armour and so has twice the durability against WB's the first weapons to be shot at a SC. Granted you can get lucky and roll a lot of 6's but that's the drawback of having 'elite' armour.
Hi Guys,
Firstly, to avoid confusion I'm going to abreviate Battle Barge as 'BaB', unless there is already one out there that isn't BB.
Type: Okay maybe I did lose you there I'll try and make more sense.
There are obviously differences between GCs and BBs, BBs are usually larger and have poorer turning. The 'type' represents this. However if you give a BB type GC this can represent it having better turning than it's peers.
+1 Shield: I get that a lot of people really 'want' this but it really isn't necessary. Statisically speaking a SC has as much defensive capability as a Chaos cruiser. If it had a 2nd shield it'd be a little as tough as an IN cruiser.
Should a SC really be tougher than a full cruiser?
The Dauntless wouldn't have too many SM's on board, maybe enough for a teleporter attack. This is a good point, all Dauntlesses should have 'less than equal' special rule.
Cheers,
RayB HA
I'm gonna rant a little about SC and BaB survivability.
Having 6+ armour basically doubles 5+ armour survivability against armour hitting weapons. This is not so against weapons with re-rolls however.
So with a +50% damage effect you've got an equivelent armour 5+ 9 hit ship with 1.5 shields. As weapons batteries will usually be the first to hit a ship we can transfer some of that staying power into the shields, so 8.5hits with 2 shields.
A 10 hit BaB wth 3 shields would be an equivelent armour 5+ 14hit monster with 5 shields! (conservatively)
Now a rant about formation:
The BaB can sit back and look pretty in it's own formation offering little extra SCs could in its place while the strike cruisers get to grips with the enemy.
This is just pointless! So what if it's got much better survivabilty than a SC, if it won't get shot at anyway as the SCs are more of a pressing concern and far easier to neutralize. The BaB wants to be in there with the SCs using its BCs as close as possible, or hell maybe even boarding!
This isn't a BB that can sit back at range and be valued in a supporting role. It doesn't have the range and it doesn't have lances or other range ignoring weapons (at least no more than SCs could offer in its place).
The BaB isn't only slightly worse at turning than its accompanying cruisers like a Retribution or Desolator. It is horribly missplaced in a fast and manuverable fleet where it will be left behind to rot, or will drag the SCs and escorts back with it into a slower and more predicatble course.
A point that fixed and then broke again was the almost pointless 'extra' TH on the BzaB over the SC having 3 over 2 usually means you really kill one escort or get an extra fighter. So I'm gonna make the BaB have 4TH's/8Torps.
Cheers,
RayB HA
How the extra shield for the SC got in there I don't know. I don't recall it coming up. Maybe it just fell between the cracks and Nate forgot to mention it. ??? But still it is a draft and he was rushed to get it out before he went on deployment.
Don't get me wrong when I say rushed to get it out I mean that it wasn't finished, not that it hadn't been considered for quite some time.Doesn't matter.
Cheers,
RayB HA
Seriously though I am trying to hash out a decent SM list and am exploring every possible avenue of design.
Just because people like the 2nd shield doesn't mean it is a good thing overall,
***Perhaps if SM's had a special rule that allowed them to have a lower crippled threshold, like a 3rd instead of a half. So 1 and 2 hits is crippled for SC's and 1,2 and 3 is crippled for a 10 hit BaB. Actually I like that, it mirrors the stuborn nature of Space Marines.
Hey Ray, let me give you a lesson in people skills. You are trying to get peoples aproval of your new ER. There is a massive argument going on with everyone in the forum vs you on the correct number of sheilds on a strike cruiser. If you give it a 2nd sheild, everyone who had previously argued angainst your rules will like them, and the other changes you want made will be lauded simply because they go with a 2sheild strike cruiser. Or you can leave the cruiser with one sheild and no one will use your rules because they don't want a one-sheild cruiser. Think about it for a second. Whats the smart thing to do?
To let the Space Marines with Strike Cruisers be a fun and competive fleet. Easy enough.
What in your opinion do the SCs need the 2nd shield for? To become what?
I do concede that SCs are weaker than Chaos cruisers. I just don't see it as a problem. A SC is not a cruiser, it is not an equal. It is a fast, heavily armoured, specially armed transport. SCs will get pummled in a fleet engagement, the SM player should still be able to 'win' but should lose some SCs in the process. The IN are the space fighters the SM's do so only when there is an 'emergency' that they are deemed to be able to handle..
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Whether an idea is good or bad is based on opinion until it is proven.
What in your opinion do the SCs need the 2nd shield for? To become what?
I would make similar variants to those listed by Horizon. However, I'd leave the BC on the prow. I'd also make the extra BC on the variant forward only. And for the AC variant I'd have them replace the broadside WBs rather than the prow (dorsal?) BC and cost an extra 15 pts.
The main counter that I'm hearing for 2 shields is that SCs are too fragile in comparison to a full cruiser. But how is this a problem? Why can't SM's have weaker ships than IN or Chaos?
1 TH on a SC: I don't like token weapons, especially when they can be used to increase the AC limit for a specific class as they have to be taken hand in hand to be effective. In the case of having a single SC TH versus 3 or 4 on a BaB. As with mixed armour values the BaB could take the brunt of this additional worth not being the mainstay and specifically being the game changer. So it only really boils down to my dislike of token weapons...
Lets look at the half firepower route (with 2 shields):
3 torps and 6WB each side= 1 TH, 3WB each side and 3BC's LFR. roughly.
3/4 firepower(1 shield): 4 torps, 9 WBs each side= 2 TH, 4WBs each side and 3BC's LFR. roughly. This still leans towards defence over offense.
In addition to all this you get +5cm speed, 90* turn, better boarding, better leadership and special H&R's not to mention special scenario bonuses. Seems like a bargain when the special rules seem to be free! ;)
In my experience (non playtesting) of playing with and against SMs, the SMs have won more times than lost. In campaigns the SM players always seem to be in the top half. Playing as SMs I've never felt they were too weak except against Eldar, but then I always get that feeling against hemlock/nightshade fleets!" :'( I've watched numerous crushing campaign games against orks and IN. I've personally won more games as SM than have lost.
In playtests SMs have won more often as well. The BaB helping the loses.
With 2 shields the SCs will be so tough and with very little offensive capability any other target will be considered first, which will be the escorts. A SM player will be extremely discouraged from taking them as they will be so harshly persecuted.
With the SC being less gunned makes boarding far more appealing, I fear this will be all they will do.
Also with the carrier the BaB almost seems pointless. Actually SCs with 2 shields makes it seem almost pointless.
I prefer SCs not to be tough but have teeth, to be able to quickly netralise an enemy rather than fighting in a battle of attrition they aren't cut out to win. To be sub standard in a defense but powerful and swift when on the attack.
I want a fleet of escorts, cruisers and Battle Barges not a fleet of one trick ponnies ineffectively thrashing against their enemies.
SMs are the 'raiders' of the Imperium, they want their battles to be quick and precise. They also don't want to die either, as such the odd 2 shielded ship should be thrown in to take the hard blows. (Hence the Ironclad, the Heavy SC)
Cheers,
RayB HA
Sig,
Excellent post, truely excellent! Forgive the '!' :)
I don't quite argree with the 'hard point' equivelents of 1 BC equals 2 WB (should be about 2 for 3). Also as you pointed out the focus of firepower is an important aspect as such equivelents are harder to make especially with a 90* turn in the mix.
The fact that Light cruisers got lumbered with the 1 Lb each side was the Dauntlesses fault. As it has such a prow heavy displacement. The Defiant also has a heavy prow. Don't let this limit you.
Assuming we went the route of more gum less teeth, you would be left with a normal variant and a carrier variant to bring them back upto to what they were.
Normal, -1 WB each side, -1 TH, for 1 THs total
Carrier 1, TH each side instaed of broadsides, TH in prow for 3TH's total.
Carrier 2, 2 TH in the prow, NO BC!
Carrier 1 is a problem as it is far superior to the normal SC and will make it obsolete unless limited.
Carrier 2 is doable, maybe with token BC, like str1.
With 2 shields the SCs will be so tough and with very little offensive capability any other target will be considered first, which will be the escorts. A SM player will be extremely discouraged from taking them as they will be so harshly persecuted.
With the SC being less gunned makes boarding far more appealing, I fear this will be all they will do.
Also with the carrier the BaB almost seems pointless. Actually SCs with 2 shields makes it seem almost pointless.
I prefer SCs not to be tough but have teeth, to be able to quickly netralise an enemy rather than fighting in a battle of attrition they aren't cut out to win. To be sub standard in a defense but powerful and swift when on the attack.
I want a fleet of escorts, cruisers and Battle Barges not a fleet of one trick ponnies ineffectively thrashing against their enemies.
SMs are the 'raiders' of the Imperium, they want their battles to be quick and precise. They also don't want to die either, as such the odd 2 shielded ship should be thrown in to take the hard blows. (Hence the Ironclad, the Heavy SC)
The SM fleet is purposefully built to not win in fleet engagements on equal footing (luckily this is a game so we get more SM ships than would be normal).
SCs are supposed to be weaker than a full cruiser defensively and offensively. Having comparative mass to a Dauntless, SCs are loaded with high end goodies, including better 'armour' representing better shielding, stealth and obviously better armour. SCs are also tough as nails for their size, but still they shouldn't rival a full IN cruiser.
As the SMs aren't allowed a fleet to withstand an IN fleetof similar disspostion, having too much defense would seem crazy to give to possibly traitor super boarders.
It may seem to make sense that the Imperium should give SMs super defensive ships. Well, they do, but they are smaller than full cruisers and as such not as tough. Given that SMs are needed in varied strengths, coupled with the fact the Imperium doesn't want them to have anything too good, tough smaller cruisers fit these requirements.
As to my comment of the SMs being the Imperium's 'raiders' I was highlighting the fact that they will be in smaller engagements and those that involve them as the attackers.
Cheers,
RayB HA
Don't see the barge as siege breaker. I see it as more a fortress, especially for space based chapters.
Neither the barge nor the strike cruiser should be able to take on similarly sized imperial ships in a gunfight and be more likely to come out on top.
The space lanes should be managed by the imperial navy, even orbitals.
Standard marines tactic would have them either yield the fight against enemy ships to the navy or out maneuver enemy ships to deliver their cargo via drop pods or thunderhawks.
Giving them bombardment cannon is misplaced. Why should they have a space weapon second only to the nova cannon in the imperial arsenal? Per hit better than batteries and lances. As for the name why would marines be used to bombard anything at all rather than deploy marines.
If you want to give them a special weapon then something good at taking down shields so they can hit and run.
As for the name why would marines be used to bombard anything at all rather than deploy marines.
Neither the barge nor the strike cruiser should be able to take on similarly sized imperial ships in a gunfight and be more likely to come out on top.
THESE ARE THE SPACE MARINES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. The Emperor's finest should win one-to-one engagements with the IN. The IN are normal human beings, and therefor less reliable than the SM. So why do they get better stuff? Keep in mind that a single space marine is worth more than 1000 regular Imperial citizens. They are not expendable. A SC should be able to take on a IN cruiser and win, only reason they don't is the stupid Codex Astartes which says they should do hit-and-run strikes. And the Inquisition does not want them getting to powerful. But thats beside the point. The SMs should get a good fleet. If anything, one thats BETTER than IN.This is in the top 3 most retarded things I ever read on the internet. :) ;)
i never said it is better than a lance strength wise
all i said was as a weapon hitting it is more powerful than a lance
an unsubstantiated comment is meaningless
from a design standpoint you look at what you want the ship to do
then arm it appropriately and as part of this, you determine scenarios (closing & closing, closing & abeam, 30cm, 15cm, etc) and how effective the ship will be thus how many hit dice per situation AND what each hit die means
and then apply a value
the bfg designer has designated the BC as a more powerful weapon than the lance on the to hit, decided to weaken it a bit by making it less reliable (facing, range, blast marker affects), then decided to strengthen it again by having it mounted as left/front/right thus flexible. in the end you get something more powerful than a lance but less reliable. being less reliable does not make it a weaker weapon than a lance.
if you are starting out from scratch with the above rules
you can arm the strike with lances instead, then change the points cost appropriately.
and all this again just highlight fluff discordance. one thing marines are is reliable. they have lances in 40k,
i'd rather see them with lances than bombardment cannons.
i suspect they were made to give marine fleet something special and unique. the name is fluffly (if you believe marines should be bombarding rather than assaulting/hit and run but whatever) but the rule is not (more powerful than lance, less reliable than lance).
if you are starting out from scratch with the above rules
you can arm the strike with lances instead, then change the points cost appropriately.
look at a dauntless vs a strike cruiser. the strike cruiser is more survivable (better armor and turret) and better armed (BC and better fire arcs) at more points
but does this fit how marines should fair against an imperial gunship of the same class and displacement?
would the highlords give the marines a better ship than the navy after the heresy?
sure you can attempt to correct/standardized in game with points differences but points differences do not necessary result in good/fair/fluffly game play (what the necron can field in a game vs what victory points they yield from a game)
and all this again just highlight fluff discordance. one thing marines are is reliable. they have lances in 40k,
i'd rather see them with lances than bombardment cannons.
RCG's analogy with the armageddon gun is faulty
Hi Guys,
SCs have to be inferior to a full IN cruiser. This can be either reduced offense, defence or both!
Reduced defence makes sense so they can be put down before they can use their increased speed and manuverability to either escape or board at full strength. However this makes them vulnerable against everyone else in a similar circumstance as well.
Reduced offense makes sense so they can't hurt an IN cruiser, however they can still board, and win! Also they wouldn't be able to be much of a threat to numerous enemy defenses.
As breaking a blockade to drop SMs on a planet is a really crazy thing to do, I can only really see them netralising anything in orbit first. Afterall if the blockading fleet then returned to the planet they'd bombard the hell out of those 'expensive' SMs. However they might have destroyed their target by then... I suppose it depends on the circumstances. :-\
I can see SMs only in smallish engagements, like a raiding fleet, unless it's a story driven scenario. They should be designed to overwhelm the 'suprised'/defending enemy as quickly as possible.
Bombardment Cannons: I do find it funny that they very handy for taking out 6+ prows. :)
Cheers,
RayB HA
RCG's analogy with the armageddon gun is faulty
it confounds effect of numerical power with effect of power of potency
you can always compensate for less power of potency with numbers but this doesn't change power of potency, or simply power.
a weapon's power remains its ability to inflict damage when a hit occur.
a 44 magnum is more powerful than a 22. a BC is more powerful than a lance. naturally if a weapon doesn't shoot or doesn't shoot as often make it less effective. but not less powerful.
(btw, funny that in post 158 RCG then agree the BC is individually more powerful than the lance, but also less reliable)
i maintain that if you to review the Space Marine list without prejudice, then a consideration should be given to taking away the BC and giving them something else, whether that be prow LFR batteries or a single lance (possibly 2) for the strike cruiser.
out of curiosity, which do you all think is better in a one on one fight, a strike cruiser with 2 shields at 160 points vs a lunar at 180 points?
After the Heresy the Imperial Army was split in the Imperial Guard (human ground forces), Imperial Navy (the fleet) and Space Marines (in a nutshell).
In an attempt to make a new horus heresy less of "problem" the might of the space marines had to be reduced. Denying them access to the giant spaceships was a major asset to this.
Without a grand fleet Space Marines could not beat the Navy. Yay.
Everything has a reason.
In a 1:1 duel the Imperial Navy should always win versus the Marines.
You said it yourselves: codex astartes says so. I hope you understand why.
They should never ever be better then the IN.
I said reduced offense, reduced defense or both. Both being where I am right now. Basically smaller cruisers that have as much as they can for their size plus all the goodies that come with being SMs. Having 2 shields as standard is over the top!No it isn't. 2 shields should be standard. :) 1 shield the exception.
Horizon,
We're talking in a spiral! :D
BaronIveagh,
Good point on the history angle. But SM chapters are getting built and destroyed all the time, the new blood is going to be quite substantial. But the original design aimed to be destroyed by 'Chaos' ships is an interesting point. So does that mean the SCs should be even cheaper/weaker! ;)
Admiral_d_Artagnan, Sig,
If I gave the impression I wanted the SC to have greater offense (beyond the torps in the launch bay), I'm sorry. But I'm pretty sure I didn't.... :)
I said reduced offense, reduced defense or both. Both being where I am right now. Basically smaller cruisers that have as much as they can for their size plus all the goodies that come with being SMs. Having 2 shields as standard is over the top!
Third: IN would, in all honesty, not care a bit that one SM cruiser might take one IN cruiser in a stand up fight. Why? Because, like the fact that a single SM can take a single guardsmen in a stand up fight, it doesn't matter. The cold hard numbers show that even if all the space marine chapters in existence (capable of fielding approx 12,000 ships) went rogue simultaneously, they'd still be out numbered by the IN (approx 1,960,000 ships) about 163.3 to one.
Let me pause to throw on the breaks on the crazy train again. As has been pointed out in the past, not all marine chapters follow the codex astartes, some are even in open defiance of it, and fluff very clearly, very carefully, states that the Codex is not enforced by the Imperium as law. This has been fluff since second edition, and has been reiterated about fifteen times since. Rather, the Imperium only seems to found new codex chapters, in the normal course of events.
Second, again, the idea that the SM fleet must always always always be inferior to the IN flies in the face of the simple, well established, fluff fact that the current IN is, even by comparison to some Imperial Guard regiments, a very new thing, with IN's mainline cruiser and many of it's derivatives, being only a tenth the age of the average SM SC. Only IN's battleships date back to the second founding. This means that the fleet that SCs are 'balanced' against is not IN but rather Chaos (as Chaos = IN at the time this 'balancing' took place).
Since the codex is not enforced as law, it's unlikely that every space marine chapter was ordered to hand over all their ships to be downgraded when IN switched between the Murder and the Lunar as their mainline cruiser. This is actually spelled out in IA:X, with SM using ships that hadn't been seen in Imperial arsenals since the great crusade.
Third: IN would, in all honesty, not care a bit that one SM cruiser might take one IN cruiser in a stand up fight. Why? Because, like the fact that a single SM can take a single guardsmen in a stand up fight, it doesn't matter. The cold hard numbers show that even if all the space marine chapters in existence (capable of fielding approx 12,000 ships) went rogue simultaneously, they'd still be out numbered by the IN (approx 1,960,000 ships) about 163.3 to one.
sorry for the misattributions
i sometime answer posts on my iphone as i brush my teeth in the morning
and being red green color deficient doesn't help ... teal just look like pale text to me :)
@sig
1. clearly there is a different between power and efficacy. i didn't confound the two. thus i stand by my earlier statement that the BC hit die is more powerful than the lance hit die, per die. I have no problems acknowledging the number of die to varies and 3 listed BC may only inflict one hit die whereas 3 lances inflict three hit die. I have already acknowledged this as a reliability factor.
2. if the BC was given to SM to compensate for the lack of lance, wouldn't it be easier to just give them a lance?
3. BC is not need against defenses since most of them have only one hit and the BC ability to inflict critical is useless. a lance would do fine.
4. I find it odd that the SM is given the best imperial weapon to deal with necrons and eldar, in space encounters mind you. A weapon not available on any IN line cruiser.
5. i'd be OK with SM and BC if the BC loses its critical hit ability
Having a 2nd shield seems too exceed what the AM are capable of producing on mass.
As I do utterly hate token weapons especially ones that are a key part of lore, I'm against reducing the Lb to str1, unless the TH's had their 4+ save against everything including turrets and BMs!
The math is not just about ratio. It's about concentration as well. Just because you have that many ships doesn't mean the IN can concentrate all of them in one place. SM wouldn't be so foolish as to mass together into one fleet. So more likely, the ratio would be much, much lower since the SM would be doing those hit and run missions Ray is so fond of.
Also, one should not be factoring in only the SM ships since now the CSM ships would be added into the mix since the former estranged brothers would be back in each others' good graces and those CSM fleets can rival the IN ships. So give the obvious traitor Legions more ammunition by providing the loyal-but-who-might-just-turn Chapters with more lance bearing ships? I think not.
This has nothing to do with policing codex infractions. It has to do with what the navy is comfortable allowing the SMs to be capable of. The navy is the only defence against SM uprisings. The only way that the Imperium has of keeping them in check. This was specifically brought about. Therefore saying "but they don't enforce codex restrictions" is meaningless. The IN don't care how the SMs fight on the ground. Codex detail is irrelevant to them. The limitation on SM naval power would be enforced regardless of whether there even was a codex.
....
This is meaningless.
...
Again, codex is irrelevant. All that matters is that IN > SM. There would be no change to the SC going from Murders to Lunars either.
...
Utterly irrelevant. if you go by the numbers then the SMs as a faction are irrelevant. They could never have pulled off a rebellion as seen by the Horus heresy and there would be no impact on the Imperium if they were all wiped out. Since we know this to not be the case then the numbers don't matter. Therefore we must look at them on a one to one basis. This is apropos as the IN would generally be far more dispersed than the SMs anyway, reducing their numbers to a 1 on 1 fight as far as most rebellions are concerned anyway.
Quote@sig
1. clearly there is a different between power and efficacy. i didn't confound the two. thus i stand by my earlier statement that the BC hit die is more powerful than the lance hit die, per die. I have no problems acknowledging the number of die to varies and 3 listed BC may only inflict one hit die whereas 3 lances inflict three hit die. I have already acknowledged this as a reliability factor.
2. if the BC was given to SM to compensate for the lack of lance, wouldn't it be easier to just give them a lance?
3. BC is not need against defenses since most of them have only one hit and the BC ability to inflict critical is useless. a lance would do fine.
4. I find it odd that the SM is given the best imperial weapon to deal with necrons and eldar, in space encounters mind you. A weapon not available on any IN line cruiser.
5. i'd be OK with SM and BC if the BC loses its critical hit ability
1. - I didn't confound the two either, it's just that talking about power alone is irrelevant, you have to talk numbers too. Therefore saying that SMs get the most powerful hamster thrower out there is just meaningless.
2. - No, since the lance was specifically taken away from them. Giving them a gunnery chart "lance" was a stroke of genius, particularly for the numbnuts who run things at GW.
3. - Again, lances are a no-no. To get the same amount of firepower against defences from lances as the 3 BC on a strike cruiser you'd need 3 lances. There's no way that a SC should have that kind of firepower, since those 3 lances would perform just as well against ships. Also, half the stationary defences in the BBB have multiple hits, as do most Tau defences and that's not even counting Ramilles, ABSF, Hulks or pirate stations. Since space stations have a lot of firepower it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me that a force tailored to assault them would want to shut down as much of this as possible for as long as possible. Also, the smaller defences have armour 6, so the BC really is a weapon tailored to take out orbital defences of all kinds.
4. - Lances are greater than BC against Necrons. WBs are greater than BC against Eldar. So in what way are BCs the best weapon against either of these races? If we go by the formula that 3 BC = 2 lances = 6WBs then against Necrons escorts or their (typically) abeam capital ships most of the time those 3 BC are going to be worth only 1 lance. The extra crits aren't typically worth much either since they repair on 4+ rather than 6+ and don't take as much damage from crits as other races. Eldar already have 4+ armour and take crits on a 4+ as it is, so 1 WB dice = 1 BC dice and yet we have 3 BC to 6 WB. I'd rather have the WBs thanks.
5. - If bombardment cannon were too strong, or they were unrestricted in range (30cm is their max) or if the SMs were overpowered or if it was particularly unfluffy of BCs to crit more, you might have an argument. As it is the SMs work off of disabling their foes with THs and BCs and they're not that great at it anyway. BCs critting often seems fine too.
1. i like to talk about parts, then assemble the parts and discuss that. in this regard what weapon is assigned to each faction should imo, consider its power first. Then you adjust how many of the weapon they get.
2. the marines do have access to lances already in their escorts. i have no problem with marines capital ships armed with lances in limited numbers instead of BCs.
3. most defenses are 1 hull points. 3 batteries or 1 lance hardly matter much to me. besides, i don't see marines fleet taking on more than weapon platforms, definitely not orbital fortresses.
4. each BC die does more against necron than a lance die. the 4+ to critical is devastating against necron, which has to spend double to repair. against corsair eldar, a BC is no better than a WB, but against craftworld and dark eldar capital ships, the 4+ to hit is better than the 5+ to hit. thus the BC is a better anti-xenos ship weapon.
5. the 4+ critical is superfluous to SM as they already have the ability to inflict hit and run criticals.
again, just a matter of opinion differences. where we end up depends on where we start.
if we start from the beginning i say give them lances instead of BC.
if we start from where marines are now then having both lances and BC is likely too much.
Sig, we've had this discussion before and the only thing you feel has any meaning in this area is your own opinion. AS far as the Rebellions go: Horus had direct control over a massive fleet, including half of the body that was to become IN. Blackheart also gained control over a sector fleet in addition to the fleets of other SM chapters. In no case I can find has the IN quashed a SM revolt.
@Sig
Lets start at the beginning. For this we have to look at what Chaos gets (as the precursor to "modern" IN): lances and batteries. These are standard weapons for ships then and now. After the Heresy, imo the best way to limit the power of the SM is to limit their mission capability from being to do it all to just doing one thing, which is to deliver marines across the void. Thus they should be hard, armor 6 and shielded (2 for strike cruisers) with capacity for thunderhawks launches. Given limited hull space and energy output per power plant size, the ship's armament of weapons will be diminished. Diminished, rather than altered. Most weapons will be limited to range 30cm, and lances should be sparsely available.
I feel this approach allows SM to maximize their primary role and minimize any secondary role that might compete against the IN. I believe this is better than limit what weapons they get. Thus comparing strike cruisers to dauntless and endeavor hull sizes means that if they get armor 6 and 2nd shield, the strike cruiser should be offensively weaker than either.Thus i have no problem with SM getting lances.
I feel this is more flufly than for them to be armed with a new weapon, a weapon with greater punch than weapons available at the time of the heresy, when marine powers were unchecked, and afterward their power limited. Why would the IN agree to give them a new weapon that is better than what the IN have?
I still feel BC is better than both lances and batteries, per hit die rolled. Against necron it is more than 3x likely to inflict criticals. It doesn't matter that necrons can repair on a 4+ because they repair on a 4+ against all 3 weapons. And the more they have to roll to repair, the more they will fail. Against holofield BC is clearly better than lances. Against armor 5 craftworlds and dark eldar capital ships BC hits on a 4+ rather than WB on a 5+. How is this not better than WB? Yes again my calculations are per hit die. Once we see what each weapon is capable of for game balance you can adjust how many each ships should have, and or how many they can bring to bare.
Against high orbital defenses which only have one hit a lance hit vs a BC hit die is the same. Orbital docks, stations, and fortresses have more hits yes, but i just don't see marines fleet mission of delivering SM should encompass taking on orbital stations and fortresses? The primary weapon of SM are the SM, not their ships. Surgical insertion strikes rather than bombardment. Special forces rather than grunts. I just do not see them announcing themselves by taking down an orbital fortress.
In addition to losing BCs, I think the SM should also lose torpedoes. The requirement to contract with AdMech for resupplies i think too onerous for most chapters. Perhaps these should be limited to Dominion fleets.
Balance of the armaments have to consider both unit power and circumstantial availability i understand. But i feel first is decide on unit power then debate its availability.
i only see SM strike cruisers to be able to take out escorts in space encounters.
i only see SM strike cruisers to be able to take out escorts in space encounters. everything else they should leave to the IN.
I do not think SM should be given power to lay waste planetary defenses. what is to stop a renegade chapter to destroy port maw for instance.
i am not against SM being a viable force in BFG. but they should be a fringe fleet, a one trick pony. Get SM to your target, be maneuverable enough to get there, be armored enough to survive the maneuver. with this as core, batteries and a spare lance here or there is more than enough. when you get down to it this is plenty unique as it is, a hard nut to crack fleet that gets at you from the inside (hit and run). no need for a BC.
i guess another part of my problem with the BC is that i don't see it as core rules/weapon mechanics, especially since it is not available to the IN. probably similar in attitude to your stance against MSM.
isn't it given what you need to field it?
The only thing that I "feel" has any meaning in this area is sense. You accuse me of belligerence as if you've provided even one sound argument. Your arguments, for lack of a better word, are confused, sometimes contradictory, ill explained and generally vague as to their aim.
You say on the one hand that the SMs are an irrelevant force, due to their woeful comparative numbers, but then say that the Imperium are powerless to stop them. You say that SMs with lances aren't a threat to the might of the IN, but also that the IN are too toothless to be able to put down any rebellion. This is an oxymoron. Either they are a threat and so need to be monitored or they are not a threat and cannot resist policing. You can argue that they are a threat and the IN wants to police them but can't, OR you can argue that they aren't a threat and the IN can police them but don't care to, but you can't argue that they aren't a threat and they can't be policed.
You also have a very confused argument about the codex. You say that the only limiting power on SMs is the codex (false premise), and then you point out infractions of the codex that have not been punished and say that this means that the Imperium is unable to enforce the codex, therefore the SMs can do what they want. This is a non sequitur. The fact that the Imperium has been unable or unwilling to enforce some codex restrictions in the past does not mean that they are unable or unwilling to enforce other, more important, codex restrictions. Secondly, there is nothing to say that the only limit on SM power is the codex.
Presumably a rule book is not what stops SMs from doing whatever the hell they want, but rather the reasons why the rules were written is behind what stops them from doing whatever the hell they want. So they don't avoid warships because the codex tells them to (and therefore a chapter which doesn't follow codex can ignore the rule), they avoid using warships because of the political implications of doing so, which do not going away simply because a chapter doesn't use the rule book.
You also say that SM rebellion isn't a cause for concern, because there have been a heap of other non-SM rebellions. This is a non sequitur. Just because there are other threats it doesn't mean that the SMs aren't a threat. The Imperium is an autocratic draconian theocracy. Justice is almost non-existent and all that matters is the rule of law, the rule of the cult of the Emperor. When someone steps out of line the powers that be tighten their fist more, even if this might be counter-productive. This is the abiding psychology of the Warhammer 40k setting. It's the archetypical grimdark setting. Not a nice place to live. So all the rebellions made by humans: planetary governors, sector commanders, IN admirals or others are handled in the same typical manner.
Space marines are different. Why? Because they're not just humans. They're super humans. They're the Nietzschean übermensch. Super humans are great for protecting humanity from itself and from other enemies (Chaos, xenos) but when you want to be protected from super humans you can't simply rely upon other super humans. If you do then you're at the mercy of these super humans, and who will protect you from them? Therefore there is a real call to action to ensure that humanity has a check on super human power. In this case it is the IN. So far this is just general psychology of power stuff. When you add to this the specific circumstances surrounding the SMs and the Horus Heresy then this call to action becomes an imperative. Before the heresy the SMs were flawless. They were the pinnacle of humanity in faith, virtue and ability. A role model to aspire to, and apparently infallible. The heresy is pretty much the original sin. The proof that the SMs can fall. A betrayal of faith and hope. On top of this they killed the Emperor, the man-god protector and light of humanity. These two specific betrayals set up a clear psychological need for the Imperium to be able to protect itself from these super humans. Add these events to the general psychology of power and the specific political setting and all other insurrections pale into insignificance. Yes, this includes the NTI. Humans rebelling just means that the Imperium needs to tighten its fist some more (as far as they're concerned). SMs rebelling means that the Imperium needs to find a way to control them, to limit their power.
In another argument you stipulate that the IN doesn't do the quashing, but rather other SMs do. You also note that IN commanders have gone over to the rebels before. What this is meant to prove is unclear.
You seem to be saying that the IN can't beat the SMs as they either surrender or just plain aren't used. How this translates into an argument that the IN should be OK with SMs getting more powerful is unclear. In the first case, the fact that the IN haven't put down SM revolts is immaterial to the point that they should be able to. If loyalist SMs get there first and clean house then good on them. In the second case, the fact that an IN commander chooses to go over to the rebelling SM side is irrelevant because it is a choice, which is the point of the segregation of power. To spread the power so that more people have to rebel for the rebellion to be effective. If the SM ships were more powerful then the IN commander wouldn't have much of a choice. He should be able, if he's loyal, to put down the SM revolt. This is the Imperium's check on SM power.[/color]
Next you say that Ultramar is a fief all its own, and that Imperial law does not apply. Apart from this being patently false it seems absurd given your earlier arguments that SMs are exempt from Imperial law anyway. You obviously mean that the Imperium is unable to enforce their views since the Ultrasmurfs are in power. Since you've previously drawn no distinction between Imperial law and its ability to enforce its views I find it somewhat amusing that you do so here, at least implicitly. However, ignoring that and moving on to the main point, you imply that should the Ultrasmurfs so choose to make lance equipped ships or even full blown warships there is not much that the Imperium could do about it, since they don't own the shipyards, etc.
So you're essentially arguing that the IN can't stop the Ultrasmurfs from ignoring codex restrictions. The Ultrasmurfs. Ie, the biggest codex fanbois in the WH 40k universe. Even ignoring the notion that they very most likely wouldn't want to rock the boat (if you'll forgive the pun) by producing warships for SM use and the fact that they don't even need to do so since they could just make ships for the local IN over whom they'd have great influence, we're talking about the guys that are the most likely to NOT do it even if they had the desire and need. Riiight. And even ignoring all that(!) your premise is false. If the Ultrasmurfs did decide to make warships for their own use the Imperium could and very most likely would do something about it. That "something" would be to send in a massive warfleet to ensure the Ultrasmurfs returned to the fold. According to your numbers theory this would be easy to do after all ...
If SMs didn't spread themselves so thin, less SCs but bigger/tougher SCs would be viable. But they do and a single shield SC is a marvel, an incredible little ship that will be carrying realitivly speaking, very few SMs. BaB's come into play when they really do need a warship and the ability to take hits from an opposing fleet, rather than a raiding strike against an enemy.
the Dauntless is too expensive for what it is on its own and the SC in comparison with all of it's goodies is too cheap.
Hi Guys,Clearly a case of Nate doing the right thing. And secondly showing the community has more sense about the Marine fleet then you. ;)
Horizon,
Nate did ask me about having the 2nd shield last year. I said no. He's put it out there in response to the community. I just think it needs limiting.
You really reckon a fleet of Dauntlesses could win against a fleet of SC's?In a 1:1 battle the Daunless could thwart the THawks (on BFI it still has 2 lances. And the Dauntless ain't expensive at all. You weird man.
Don't get me wrong, points for points will balance them for 'normal' fleet choices, but the Dauntless is too expensive for what it is on its own and the SC in comparison with all of it's goodies is too cheap. The LDauntlesses will have majority armour ignoring weaponary, which would be a factor, in adition to out numbering the SCs. The SCs will have TH's which should do a fair amount of damage, Dauntlesses are easy to cripple and will make tasty boarding targets not to mention harder to repair crits. Dauntlesses only having 1 armour 5+ shield the BCs will be able to score nice crits after the wbs have easily taken the shield down. In this confrontation I can't really see the SC's losing except to bad luck, or inexperience...
The Ironclad is a 2 shielded SC that loses a TH but swaps wbs for BCs (the later isn't too important). I thought you'd be okay with that? But you want a 2 TH SC with 2 shields... That should cost a lot! Say 180pts+, the same as a full IN cruiser.???
The 2nd shield will be popular because it eliminates a weakness, these sort of upgrades are always popular. It makes people happy to have 'their' stuff upgraded. GW has been doing this with their core games for decades. It does keep people in the hobby with 'their' army. There are clear advantages to renewing armies/codexs.hahahaa. The 2nd shield made the marine strike cruisers: b a l a n c e d. BALANCED. balanced.
The problem with this 'upgrade' is that it is too much of a stretch for fluff to have ALL your light cruisers with 2 shields, it improves SCs far too much making them equal IN cruisers in value.
I don't really see SCs as being too vulnerable, they are just light cruisers but are nearly as tough as a full chaos cruiser. They are fast, manueverable and well armed and armoured for their size. Having better defenses than full cruiser aswell is just plain greedy!
The price listed for the upgrade in the 'experimental' list is far too cheap and too avialable (as it is optional it should be at least 25pts).Flat out wrong.
A SC should be able to take a whole company, but it is rarely the case that it will be filled to the brim. SM forces are taken from multiple companies they don't just stick in one specialized clump. Even if they did take a full company the SC itself is a massive resource sponge it would fit the value of its cargo.What? It is imminent fluff of SC that they can transport complete companies. And since their task is planetary assault I guess they'll have a lot onboard in ALL engagements they do. What's the point of a Strike Cruiser without forces doing a planetary assault?
You're of the mind of dropping the TH to str 1. In that case I could see a 2nd shield being squeezed amongst the other goodies. As standard though I think this would make the SCs too passive. And make the vulnerable escorts the only real threat.You still don't get it. admiral d'artagnan wants this, sig, I do. RcGothic as well iirc.
The cat doesn't have to go back in the bag but it can't stay here! :PSays who? You're kinda being in the minority regarding the ideas about the 2nd shield. :)
The 2nd shield is an option in a experimental ruleset. It still has time to be limited.
@BI
For counters to all your arguments see my previous post, ie, the one you quoted and ignored.
While I realise that a good deal of this thread is dedicated to basic differences of principle in terms of offence vs defence and also with the lunatic fringe sticking up their hands for lances again, but has anyone noticed the Crusader Barge? I mean really Ray, 12 THs? No wonder you're opposed to the 2nd SC shield, you're deranged.
You quite frankly aren't going to convince any of us about your point of view without battle reports.
The only response I can find that has any bearing is your accusation that it's contradictory, and that contradiction is entirely based on your interpretation of Imperial culture and psychology, which, as I pointed out, is flawed.
Then reread it. Slowly.
Hi Guys,
RC Gothic,
Really, you think the Dauntless is cheap for what it is? In comparison to a Gothic (not my favourite cruiser) it has less than half the firepower, and far less resilience (6+prow, +1 shield, +2 hits), is really vulnerable to bombers and has to close to attack with its prow.
I've beaten Marines with uneducated Tau. With AdMech, with Chaos, with Eldar (CE & CWE).
From my experience SM fleets win more often than not, except against eldar! :)
I did, twice now. Again, your whole argument hinges on Imperial Culture being nearly identical to modern western culture. You tout the psychology of power, and ignore how that psychology differs between the Middle Ages and the modern era due to cultural influence.
Hell, you break out Nietzsche and ignore that his philosophy was a direct outgrowth of the culture of the time and that fact that his philosophies are sliding into irrelevance (outside of angsty teenagers in black) after only a century of cultural evolution.
One would suggest that we're effectively arguing Tacitus as opposed to Machiavelli, and which applies more strongly to the culture of the Imperium.
No, it does not. This is patent nonsense. Firstly I'm specifically talking about a draconian autocratic theocracy. This is nothing like western civilisation. Secondly, the psychology of power is not culturally relevant. That's why it's the psychology of power, and not the psychology of some society or other. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with western culture.
Hell, just pick up any X-men comic and we see this struggle being played out. The numerically inferior homosuperior vs the masses. We see it in the Star Trek eugenics wars, when superior humans were created. The conclusion is always extermination or control. It is never "hey, sure guys, you fucked us over pretty bad, but whatever, it's all good, you go do whatever you want".
We're arguing neither. For a start, Machiavelli is purely result oriented. He was a pragmatist. If a measure was ineffective he'd have counselled abandoning it in favour of a more efficacious approach. We're talking about a superstitious tradition bound bureaucracy.
Any psychology, even that of power, is influenced by culture.
Secondly, it's actually neither autocratic, nor, outside of worlds directly ruled by the church, a theocracy. All parties are technically answerable to another. Even, in theory, the ordos of the Inquisition.
The actual structure of the Imperium is more akin to Rome under the Empire, with the High Lords of Terra subbing in for the Senate.
You obviously have not read X-men for quite some time. And, I might point out, that in Star Trek the eugenics wars actually did end with both sides living on, though the leaders of the super humans were executed or exiled for their crimes.
Now who's being contradictory then? If, as you say, Tacitus applies, then the Imperium would never have a 'counter' to SM at all, and would use culture and tradition to control the space marines. Which they do.
If Machiavelli applies, then the Imperium would not trust the SM to hold to their oaths and set up a counter to their power.
Of course it's autocratic. You have lords within the Empire that have the power of life or death over millions. How is that not autocratic? What is that, a democracy? And yes, it's a Theocracy too. Apart from one of the High Lords being from the church, the church is able to do anything in the name of their Emperor. Anyone saying boo about him can be summarily executed. There are routine inquisitions into heresy and worlds are conquered in the name of the Emperor.
As a force they were destroyed and disarmed and the practice of genetic engineering discontinued. Their leaders were killed or exiled. So as a force they were destroyed, as a group they were controlled. They were not left under arms to do whatever the hell they wanted.
I actually said NEITHER applies. You present a false dichotomy. Further, your arguments are again confused as to your aim. You seem to just want to "score a point", so to speak. With the implication being that if you win one argument then I must be wrong and you must be right. However, let's have a look at what you've proposed. You say a Tacitus form of control. So this is an admission that the Imperium must control the SMs. If they must control the SMs then the SMs can't do whatever they want. Now, regardless of whether you believe that tradition is the main controlling factor or not, that tradition had to be established at some point, and that point is the Horus Heresy. Any SM ships getting lances is, therefore, a break with tradition which, according to you, cannot happen. Therefore no lance ships for SMs. So if you are right about this one point then you are wrong overall.
At the heresy the navy was set up to be the main power in space. This power was specifically denied the SMs. To be honest, this should be enough of an argument to nix any "aw, give my SMs lances, we need everything!" arguments. So, what have you to present that requires that SMs get lances? So far I've seen no reason for them to get them, and plenty of reason for them to not.
In my opinion the BC is a great addition to the SM fleet. I doubt I'd have had the imagination to come up with it. It struck me as a bit gimmicky when I first saw it. Only upon reflection of the role of SM ships and the differences between lances and BC did I fully come to appreciate the weapon. This appreciation was heightened when considering the interaction effect between BC and WB in a purely sequential game (which BFG is). The stupid 2010 FAQ undid some of the good work made by the framers of the BC rules. The point here being that the SMs have a replacement weapon for the lance. In those circumstances where a lance would perform better the SMs should not be efficient.
Again, read the fluff, democracies do, in fact, exist within the Imperium. However, the over all Imperium follows a late Roman/Early medieval model. This is NOT an autocracy. In this case an autocracy would require the Emperor to be up and mobile and issuing commands. However, since he's not, it devolves to fiefdoms and bureaucracy. This makes it, functionally, an Oligarchy. Power rests with no single individual, but in a small number of people, the High lords of Terra, who's authority seems to wax and wane depending on the politics of the hour (See the Nova Terra Interregnum and the 'Age of Apostasy')
The Church is prohibited from having 'men under arms' and, in fact, aside from the Frateris Militia and the Sisters of Battle, maintains this prohibition. According to recent fluff, they strive with the Administratum (who DOES have an army, the Imperial Guard) for funding, as legions of scribes on both sides try to wring every last dime from one another. The Church, while it can call crusades, requires the support of the secular government in these, and the Inquisition, and does not always get that support. An example would be their efforts to conceal the failure of the Margin Crusade from sector authorities in the Calixis and Ixnaid sectors in order to continue to receive additional funds and manpower for other, less open, actions.
Actually, yes, they were, more or less. See Deep Space 9 and Voyager.
Ok, Sig, I'll go round robin with you on this one: You over look two very important things, the first being that each chapters traditions are different, and while most of these came about following the Heresy, the thing about warships is an element of the Codex (and fluff in Blue Book states specifically that this is in the Codex, as opposed to some other agreement). The codex that some chapters spurned at that time and do to this day? Their traditions would not include a prohibition against lances. Possibly even codex chapters who's Primarchs objected to this prohibition may also not have a tradition of not having 'anti-ship weaponry'.
Second, I think you have a very wrong idea of what sort of 'control' this approach gives you. This is not a 'liege-vassal' type of control. This is a 'meeting of equals' type of control, a means by which they can be manipulated, but not commanded. Remember that chapter masters of the Space marines are peers of the Imperium, as much as any Lord Sector, Lord Inquisitor, Lord Admiral, Rogue Trader, or Forge World Magos, and Lord Admirals frequently share command duties with Space Marine officers (or, at least they do in Armada) including placing ships armed with lances under their command.
Sig, we've been on this merry go round before, I'll site a reason, and you'll scream they shouldn't have written that.
Our current top five:
A lance is more accurate for surface bombardments then Weapon Batteries or BCs. (Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, Epic, Planetstrike)
A Strike Cruiser is frequently the first ship on the scene. This may require them to combat hostile warships without IN being there to hold their hand. (Armada, Ultra Marines novels)
Lack of lances seem to in no way prevent renegade, rogue, or otherwise hostile space marines from acquiring lance armed ships. (HH novels, IA IX, X, Soul Drinkers novels, Night Lords novels)
A lack of lances on strike cruisers does not equal a lack of lances at all. A VBB can positively bristle with them. (Armada, FAQ2010) in addition, the current navy, where lances would have the least bit relevance, did not exist at the time that SM ships were originally decided upon, as the deciding factor would have been speed and range at that time. Something the IN of the period beat SC in easily.
Space marines have been equipped with lances in fluff on strike cruisers for quite some time, and have far deadlier ships then strike cruisers in their box of goodies in fluff, including the aptly name kill ship, which seems to be armed with little more then lances and exterminatus weapons. Lots of both. (Deathwatch, Planetstrike)
So, in a nutshell, you liked SM how they were before, and hate the idea of them being changed, because they fit your play style as is. Congrats: your reason boils down to 'They changed it, now it sucks!'
Frankly, SM need to be versatile in armament, because they're elite all a rounders. Hell, there are even specific lance variants in fluff that are specifically designed to help in boarding actions. Frankly, that alone would make them a Space Marine weapon.
Autocratic. So a peon in the realm has no recourse to a higher authority. If a planetary governor wants to execute someone within his fief then there's no one to countermand him.
The overarching system of government is an autocracy with the God Emperor. In lieu of him we have an oligarchy in the form of the High Lords. Each of which is an autocrat in his own right within his sphere of influence. In discrete units down we have feudal states in the forms of planetary, system or sector governors or commanders. The management of these authority interactions is handled via a bureaucracy and the common linking theme is religious. Church is not separated from state in political influence and no other religion is countenanced except machine worship by the AM.
Well then this would not be control then would it. Therefore it would not be control by tradition and therefore some other method of control would be necessary, such as one by force. Also, by your logic there should be chapters out there with huge warfleets and also that openly refuse to be limited to 1000 members, because "they don't follow codex". The only chapter that ignores that limit is black templars and they don't do so openly. If the Imperium had proof that they had excess numbers then action would most likely be taken. Maybe some don't want proof so that action won't need to be taken (ie, plausible deniability) but that's neither here nor there. The limit on numbers is less important and easier to hide than warships.
No, you are wrong. It is not a "liege-vassal" type or control or a "meeting of equals" type of control. It's a "we'll <EXPUNGED> YOU UP if you try that <EXPUNGED> with us again" type of control. What you suggest is that those in power would have no problems whatsoever with the SM forces gaining so much power that there would be nothing that they could do to stop them. If SMs have no limits but what they choose to impose on themselves then they are going to grow more and more powerful. According to you the rest of the Imperium would be okay with this because "SMs are peers of the Empire" and they're "equals" and "outside the law" and blah blah blah. They only enjoy such a position so long as they tow the line.
Utterly irrelevant. The rules of the game make the lance an anti-ship weapon. I'm willing to stipulate that some of their WBs are just as good if not better than lances for bombardment. You can even call these "lance strikes" if you want. But in BFG SMs don't get anti-ship guns.
What they do with their limited ships is up to them, the limit on those ships is not. Arming and equipping SM vessels to be able to take on any hostile vessel they might encounter also arms and equips them to be able to take on IN ships therefore they can go <EXPUNGED> themselves. Make do with what they've got or wait for IN backup.
Apart from the fact that all these sources are extremely weak and no doubt written for dramatic appeal (would you read a book where the story was 'SMs tried to rebel but were easily quashed by the IN'?) there's still no relevance whatsoever. The fact that some SM rebellions have had a measure of success is not an argument for increasing SM space power. It's an argument to lock it down further.
In the first case there is a hard limit on the number of lances available through VBBs. There are no VBBs being constructed (obviously) and successor chapters don't, for the most part, have VBBs and if they do it is one bequeathed by their parent chapter therefore removing the VBB from their possession. These legacy vessels will diminish over time, and if their possession by the SMs was not a threat at the time just after the heresy then they're even less of a threat now. Eventually they will all be destroyed. The important point is that there are no lance armed vessels to replace them.
In the second part you are flat out wrong. Wrong wrong WRONG wrong, wrong WRONG wrong wrong. You're WRONG, you're WRONG, you're WRONG. Been through this multiple times. Ships = manoeuvre = possibility of right side of gunnery chart = lances superior. The fact that the then Imperial ships (Murders, et al) only had 5+ armour is immaterial, the more so when we consider that the BC is also an armour ignoring weapon.
Crap sources aside, the lance of these sources is not necessarily the lance of BFG. When written did they know that it was an anti-ship weapon, good for little else? Did they know that the SMs are supposed to be limited in space power? Most likely not, given that every SM fanboi thinks that the SMs should be unstoppable in all spheres. Probably due in part to crappy sources such as this.
If the rules for lances and WBs were swapped, so that lances are great vs defences and not so great against moving targets then we would not be having this discussion. We might be having a modified discussion where you're arguing for WBs on SM ships because what you actually want is SMs to have every fuckin thing. You want them to have anti-ship weapons. This is not their mandate, not their role and does not suit them.
The BC is a perfect fit for SMs, particularly given interaction effects, due to the fact that this makes the SMs stronger against their mandated enemies and weaker against the IN, which was the point of them being limited in space in the first place. On the other hand, a lance is the absolute reverse, being useless for fulfilling the SMs mandate and a cause of great concern to Imperial authorities in general, and the Imperial Navy specifically.[/color]
They ARE NOT elite all rounders in SPACE. They are task oriented, DELIBERATELY NEUTERED glorified transports.
I tell you what, let's give them a new weapon. We'll call them tactical assault lances. The rules for them are that they can be used in boarding attempts and planetary assaults. SMs get bonuses to boarding and planetary assaults. No effect against ships. There? Happy? You've now got your lances.
Except for the Church and the adeptus arbites. Both of whom can and have done just that. As well as the administratum, but that's rarer.
And one can't be an autocrat when your 'sphere of influence' overlaps someone else. The only High Lord you could argue is an autocrat is the Inquisitorial representative, and s/he's 'voted' into office by his/her fellow inquisitors.
I think that you have a very limited grasp of what constitutes control. You keep coming back to the idea that Imperium must somehow have an absolute means of control, when in reality, they don't, and really can't, for the same reason they can't control things like the various nomadic space traveling human groups, such as the Meritek tribes were. Try to crush them, and they fade away unless you can find away to force them to battle.
By your logic, a SC should have only a single BC, and speed 15, so that IN ships could close with them at will.
Then the Black Templars and Space Wolves are an impossibility by that logic. Since they don't tow the line, AND, with the BT's in particular, are near Legion strength. The only way to explain the discrepancies in fluff is that the Imperium actually has only very tenuous authority over the space marines at all. Which makes sense, after a fashion, since they're based on knights and warrior monks. Both of which secular authorities only had tenuous control over.
Sorry, Sig, fluff and crunch both go into great detail on this one. They're the same lance weapons that the ship uses on other ships. GW and FFG outrank you on this one.
Which is totally at odds with the military purpose of Space Marines. Which is to show up first and pave the way for IN and IG.
The problem being again that the IN defects or the SM seize the ships that are supposed to be 'locking them down'. You keep ignoring that the Space Marines are experts in boarding and seizing ships. IN locking them down is like putting out a fire with gasoline and a canister of O2.
Really? If there are no new VBB's being constructed, how is it that I can take an Armageddon class battlecruiser as a VBB? After all, they' a 'recent' ship built by the Imperium. This would suggest that some are, indeed, being built at this time.
Yes, and we would totally ignore that the Murder's lances are all longer range then the the 30cm range on the SC, which is only as fast as the Murder is. Give up. You trot out the WB thing every time, and totally ignore that the Murder can take broadside lances in addition to it's prow lance.
Yes, how dare Games Workshop and FFG not agree with you in their rulebooks. They obviously are on the lunatic fringe of 40k. And, again, it's been firmly established in many sources now that the lance is an excellent weapon for what passes for precision in orbital bombardment. There are even rules for how you have to align your ship for the shot with the ground, and cannot fire a lance shot unless your ship carries a lance weapon, of the anti-ship type.
Except for the long standing 40k/BFG/anything else in this hobby caveat: 'Unless Games Workshop says otherwise'. which, btw, Both they and FFG have.
Except that A) Space Marines mandate includes boarding renegade ships and stations, and B) this means that renegade IN would fall under their mandate. This gets spelled out in great detail in IA 9 and 10, with the Minotaur's chapter.
They ARE NOT elite all rounders in SPACE. They are task oriented, DELIBERATELY NEUTERED glorified transports.
One word: retconned.
Groovy, but that's not what GW and FFG have decreed. Their policy is a lance is a lance is a lance.
Which is totally at odds with the military purpose of Space Marines. Which is to show up first and pave the way for IN and IG.
I think you have no idea about what constitutes control, and your grasp of basic human psychology is also sadly lacking. You advocate absolutely no checks or balances whatsoever. This is exactly what lead to the Horus Heresy. According to you there is absolutely nothing the Imperium can do about it either. The SMs are totally immune to anything the Imperium might try to do to curtail their power. You also seem to think that the Imperium wouldn't even try.
Utter rubbish. In a battle, SM should get their arses handed to them by the IN. SM ships should not be a threat to IN warships. This is the control I'm talking about, it is the control I've always talked about and I have never said that I think that the IN should be able to hunt down and catch SM ships.
I have no idea why you keep crapping on about "authority". The Imperium has a bigger stick than the SMs do. That's their authority. That's all the authority that they need to keep. Everything else is just so much waffle. Who cares if the SWs are headstrong, or that the BTs have a few extra men (not anywhere near legion strength btw). These things can be let go by the wayside. It is when SMs start challenging the Imperium in space that the Imperium has to worry.
The Nova fluff outranks you on this one, so no lances for SMs.
Nothing outranks sense. It doesn't matter if they go around and say oooh, looky at the nice new SM legion with 10,000,000 men and 300,000 Planet Killers. It's nonsensical so there's no reason to pay it any attention.
This is a retarded argument. Since "winning" is within the mandate of SMs then they should have direct control over the IN, the IG and greater than legion strength. This would all help them in their goals wouldn't it? Need for control > SM need for tools.
AND YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!!!!! For <EXPUNGED> sake, even a monkey would have gotten this by now. Because some IN commanders also defect is not an argument to INCREASE SM power. It is an argument to DECREASE it. Further, the fact that the SMs need IN commanders to defect is an example of the process working. The division of power means that for a rebellion to be successful there have to multiple failures of individuals. If the SMs had more power then the IN commanders would have 2 choices, surrender or die. That is a bad place to put your commanders!
Because this is a poorly written rule, obviously. Armageddons are not legacy vessels. They are not "venerable". SMs should not have access to them. I have no idea what kind of logic you're trying to apply here. "Armageddon's are allowed to be taken as VBBs, but they can't possibly be 'venerable' so the SMs must have access to new lance armed ships therefore other SM ships (SCs) should have lances". Apart from the absurd leaps of logic here, even if we assume the premises to be true and the first conclusion to be also true then this is not an argument for lances on SCs or barges, because they would already have access to lance armed ships in the form of the VBB! Therefore there is no need to alter their other ships, since if they wanted some lances they'd just grab an Armageddon!
Wait, what? What the hell has this got to do with anything? How does a Murder having long range and access to lances have any bearing at all whatsoever on the conditions of optimal efficacy of gunnery weapons vs lances?
Firstly, GW is responsible for many many contradictions to their own fluff and they're also responsible for that travesty that was the death of Eldrad Ulthran. A piece of crap that I reject in its entirety. He's still alive as far as I'm concerned. So we are not talking infallible gods here. We're talking people that don't stop to properly assess the situation. People like you. As for FFG, what the hell would they know? They just bought some rights and set to making crap to squeeze some bucks out of us. Why take crap rules from another game system and bring them across to BFG?
No, even then. If they produce pure crap, which they do on occasion, then I, for one, just ignore it and wait for the next iteration of rules that will no doubt be more reasonable (regression to the mean).
If we encounter sucky rules then that's a cause to bemoan the suckiness of the rules, not to bloody well copy them!
SMs are not mandated to defeat rebels in space. Boarding is within their mandate, but rebel space ships are an IN concern. However, SMs do board things, and they can board ships as well as stations, so if they want to do this then they can go ahead and do so. There's no reason why the SC should have anti-ship weapons though. How this aids in SMs boarding another ship I don't know. Seems more of an aid for, oh I don't know, fleet engagements maybe.
What? How does this address what I said?
Who gives a rats arse about what their policy is. If they want SMs to have lances then they should retconn the damn Horus Heresy and subsequent division of power out of the fluff. Either that or THEY should<EXPUNGED>write BFG 2.0. Since I don't see them sticking their heads in then I don't care about their opinion. The only thing that matters to me is what makes sense. Lances on SM ships are just inconsistent with the main elements of the fluff. The people who made the damn SM rules knew this and the SMs were given a weapon to compensate them for the lack. Now you want lances on top of that. Fuckin fanbois.
The military purpose of the SM is to get onto the ground and quell a rebellion before it gets out of hand. Failing that, in a planetary assault, they would be the spearhead off the Imperium leading a fleet with IN cooperation which will bring an army to said planet to put down the rebellion or exterminate the planet.
The military purpose of the SM is groundside, not topside.
Not correct: See Star of Damocles, The Emperor's Finest, the very first Soul Drinkers novel, Codex: Black Templars, Codex: Space Marines... the list goes on.
Typically a SM SC is sent well in advance of IN forces, possibly weeks in advance, eliminates in system defenses between itself and either A) a groundside insertion to shore up resistance around key infrastructure such as landing fields, arsenals, etc, or B) in the event A) is no long practical, begin paving the way for IN, eliminating orbital defenses where possible. Once IN moves into position, if A) has been the case, the SM are pulled back, and are sent to retake outlaying orbitals and space stations, while IN and IG focus on the planet. SM get called back to the planet if IG stalls or some particularly thorny problem comes up. If B) is the case, your spearhead scenario takes place.
The A) scenario is one that will particularly require the use of lances, as the SC will be providing close support via orbital fire and thawks. Since this would be in close proximity to structures needed intact, the more inaccurate BC is not a viable option.
And not one example in your list noting them as taking on a task force of warships much less a fleet, just the defenses. None of which require the use of lances and the BCs would handle just fine. And if you really wanted lances, then send some Novas in. Still nothing you have provided justifies putting them on cap ships.
And for your example about 80 ships, again, massing around 20 ships would be hard enough as it is as shown in the Gothic fluff. It's not like you get those 80 ships at a snap of a finger. So on a purely task force level of combat, giving lances to SM cap ships WOULD be a relevant.
Now if you do manage to get all those 80 ships, you think the SM chapter being attacked wouldn't ask their new masters for aid? Chaos would almost certainly send a comparable fleet of their own to assist their new vassals. So now you have tough as well as lance heavy armed cap ships of SM being assisted by another lance heavy and particularly faster fleet. What now your 80 ship fleet?
As opposed to raging and insisting that events never happened, my approach is to ask 'Ok, how can this make sense now?'
Quite a bit.
Sig, BTW: they ARE retconning the HH as they go through, but so far no one has addressed that area of the heresy yet. I do not doubt that that there will be some alterations. SM having lances are not main elements of the fluff, they consist of two sentences, and both don't actually say that SM are forbidden lances. SM HAVING lances in fluff occurs with much more regularity then them not.
As far as BFG 2.0, I hear rumors of fall, but we'll see.
Not correct: See Star of Damocles, The Emperor's Finest, the very first Soul Drinkers novel, Codex: Black Templars, Codex: Space Marines... the list goes on.
This is <EXPUNGED> funny. You may "ask" how this can make sense, but you certainly don't supply any<EXPUNGED>answers.
Your arguments are terrible, being vague, confused and often self-contradictory and you add to these woes by using bits of fluff as justification that are, in themselves terrible, presumably upon the premise that we should make BFG just as contradictory and terrible as the rest of the 40k universe. You acknowledge that GW makes bad fluff but then go on to make appeals to authority based on them. Seriously, WTF!?
You do not "make sense". To make sense you need to supply a cogent argument for why something should be a certain way. That is, you must use logic. Not some piece of fluff that is itself in doubt. This is not an argument, merely evidence that GW <EXPUNGED> things up all the time.
They are all wrong.
Now, let's have a restart to this, but here I want you to be clearer in your arguments. I'm going to outline some requirements.
First, you have to tell us why should SMs get lances. So far it has consisted of 2 main points. The first is some fluff shows them as having lances. The value of this fluff is minimal because it does not address the issue of the Heresy, the limits on SM power and the specific rules for lances in BFG. It would have to be a single piece of fluff that shows SMs specifically with anti-ship weaponry and it would have to take into account the political situation (so that it's a clear decision of the writers that the SMs should get this, not just ignorance). And this example would have to be generalisable to the SMs as a whole for the BFG game. Since no fluff exists that does this, ignore it. Seriously, ignore it. The Nova fluff trumps it all. And yes, the Nova fluff does mean no lances for SMs. There is no other interpretation to it. Why does it trump all the others? For one reason, it was written specifically for SMs in BFG, and for another reason it is consistent with the setting.
The second reason you have posited is that it would make SMs lives easier. This is inconsequential. They're not supposed to have it easy. Limiting them > conveniencing them.
Oh, and you've trotted out some crap about orbital bombardments too, but that has nothing to do with BFG and WBs can do it just as well and just as precisely.
Let me give you an analogous example of your argument. An unarmed policewoman arrests a 7ft tall man. He goes quietly. Ah, well this is evidence of a tradition of compliance so therefore the police are unable to use force because they didn't this time. So if that 7ft tall bloke smashed her face in then there would be nothing the police could do about it. See the flaw in your argument? Yes the SMs generally go unpoliced. Yes they are often tradition-bound to comply. But when that breaks down then the Imperium pulls out the big stick. Even if you have not seen one instance of them doing it in the fluff then they would still do it. Without the big stick all the rest is meaningless. That 7ft tall bloke complies with the diminutive policewoman because of the big stick. The fact that it wasn't used does not negate its existence.
Not every chapter has every single type of SM ship. Space Sharks, as an example, have no regular battlebarges. The only vessel that every chapter seems to have in common is the strike cruiser. And when I talk about defenses, I am including ships in that, not just literal defenses like platforms. Effectively, it has to be equipped to face whatever might be there, as they face the possibility of going in blind or with out of date information (the SC in The Emperor's Finest getting jumped the moment it left warp, as the intel they had was out of date and the SDF had defected in the mean time).
Well, first, they have to actually fall to chaos, which is actually less common then one might think, at least before they get their teeth kicked in by those 80 warships and whatever other IG regiments and SM chapters jump in as well. Even blatent rebles like the Astral Claws only actualy see to join the Ruinous powers at the very end. Usually SM chapters that actually turn willingly en mass to chaos tend to just pack it in and head for the nearest hole into warpspace without too much fanfare, if fluff is anything to go by.
Hi Guys,
The deciding factors of the IN game was high leadership allowing easy movement through asteroid fields, almost immunity to ordnance including against the THs. NCs only scorched the SCs. 3 Lance Dauntlesses 'just' crippled a SC after its shields were already down and was braced.
Against Chaos, the 90* turn and str 4 TH waves were the game changers as they could strike at range, the SCs did take a few heavy blows and 2 were crippled but were hidding behind their squadron mates.
Further, I can argue using this same requirement that the Nova fluff was written in a state of 'ignorance' by Chambers, and therefore does not meet your requirements either.
I reject this requirement. In effect you are demanding: 'You may site no sources but those that agree with my position.'
You're trying to argue ninjÅ, personal feeling in opposition to societal obligation, however, in many parts of the world even hardcore gangsters would come quietly, not because of any threat the police woman posed, but because that's what is expected of them. Force or the threat of force don't come into it at all, its' what people would think of you if you did, and what you would think of yourself.
Let me turn that analogy around: Lets say your seven foot man decides he does want to make a break for it, and the police woman is armed with a shotgun. What's to keep him from taking that shotgun off of her? Particularly if the seven foot man is very skilled in this exact act.
Answer: Not a damn thing.
See, the 'power' and 'control' that come from a weapon only lasts as long as the target is intimidated by that weapon. Once that is no longer a factor, that control evaporates.
You're trying to control SM, a group mentally conditioned to 'Know no Fear', through the intimidation factor of a weapon. How well do you think that's gonna work?
Hi Guys,
I played a couple of games as SMs this weekend using the rules from Armada. I had a fleet of 10 SCs vs an IN fleet and a Chaos fleet. Both were serious victories in the SM favour but these weren't true playtests so I'll arrange some proper playtests against IN and Chaos. If I could get some lists to playtest against the 1500pt 10SC fleet I'd appreciate it. :)
The deciding factors of the IN game was high leadership allowing easy movement through asteroid fields, almost immunity to ordnance including against the THs. NCs only scorched the SCs. 3 Lance Dauntlesses 'just' crippled a SC after its shields were already down and was braced.
Against Chaos, the 90* turn and str 4 TH waves were the game changers as they could strike at range, the SCs did take a few heavy blows and 2 were crippled but were hidding behind their squadron mates.
The response from my opponents was IN: You just out manuevered me, then I was sunk as I couldn't shake you off my aft. Chaos: THs are evil, if you only had one per SC I wouldn't have to worry about them.
The 'need' for a 2nd shield wasn't felt. But as I said these weren't playtests, they were just friendly games.
@BI
The Imperium has a psychological imperative to control the SMs. They cannot leave the ultimate form of control to the SMs.
As for the psychology of power, yes it is independent of culture. You example is poor and your conclusion is erroneous. For a start the resignation is a natural consequence of failure. Those in power would therefore make it a priority to never fail, or rather, to pass off command to those below so that they can be blamed for failure. This is what happened in feudal japan. Family heads would have someone to blame if things went wrong. If you were the one directly in charge of an operation then you were actually powerless. Therefore you didn't have any power to hold on to. The psychology of power is universal.
And yes, while I may never have lived in the 40k universe I'm reasonably sure that you haven't either and I feel qualified to comment on the putative psychology of people in a given, hypothetical, setting.[/color]
Ahah! So you admit that since the fluff is often contradictory that some of it must be wrong, or at the very least, could be wrong. Therefore it should not be accepted as gospel, therefore is not, in itself, evidence. It has to also make sense in order to be acceptable.
No, I am demanding that you may cite no sources but those that take into account the state of play, that is, the lance as an anti-ship weapon and the SMs in a post HH galaxy. This is not an unreasonable request, given the fact that fluff is not, in itself, evidence. Since the Nova fluff meets these requirements it is superior to all the sources you have cited. The fact that the only pieces of fluff that exist which meet these criteria support my position is not surprising, since I arrived at my position after reviewing the evidence.
Oh, and the Nova fluff has not been retconned. Also, the Sword fluff shows that WBs can consist of laser banks. Therefore WBs can be used for pinpoint Oribital bombardments. No lance required.
There is always a big stick in the offing should that break down. Secondly, in that example, the thing stopping that 7ft tall man from taking the shotgun and making a break is being shot in the face. Sure, he might take his chances. But if he isn't quick enough he's dead. Take the shotgun away from the policewoman and what happens if the 7ft man wants to make a break for it? He gets away. It's that simple. Of course, he most likely won't want to make a break for it. Why? Not from some feeling of obligation, or loss of face, but because then he'd be hunted down and maybe killed by overwhelming force.
I've actually lived in some rather entertaining cultures at various points. A tip: always wait to see who sits where before sitting down to eat. I made the error of sitting in the wrong spot once, and fortunately they understood that I was unaware that the seat I selected was reserved for gay men. Though much laughter took place while they explained it.
No, I said that using the rules you set forth, all fluff could be argued to be wrong. And, I might point out, that I refused to accept that rule.
Actually, what's not surprising is that you try to stack the deck in favor of your argument when you have no actually proof of your position. The Nova fluff in no way meets the requirements you set forth, as it's vague and does not actually state that lances are what makes the Nova subject of concern, anymore then a ship with torpedo launchers. The lance is an anti-ship and orbital bombardment weapon, a very powerful and accurate one. A torpedo is strictly limited to anti-ship operations, particularly in BFG. If you have to take rules into account, you have to take ALL the rules into account. Not just those that support your argument.
Again, stop and think, your counter suggestion does not address the central issue with this manner of control: And They Shall Know No Fear.
You CANNOT control through fear (whether of injury or consequence) someone for whom fear is an alien concept.
However, no Japanese warlord would turn a blind eye to a vassal amassing an army with the notion that he'll behave himself because his code of conduct says so. If he did he'd be inviting disaster. If this vassal had already betrayed said lord then there's no way he'd let it slide.[/color]
The alternative being that all fluff is right, therefore the Nova fluff is right therefore SMs can't have lances.
Very clear proof. It's called logic. HH -> demarcation of power -> IN > SM in space -> no lances, since it's a purely anti-ship weapon. Further to this there is the actual fact of the written rules. SMs have no lances. You're the one trying to change the situation, so YOU'RE the one that has to provide the proof. Which you have not done.
Well I say FRAG the lance as an orbital bombardment weapon. This is a bullpoop notion brought in from another game. If you think a LASER is going to cover an area in the 10's of kilometres then you're high. And WBs are VERY accurate when shooting at something stationary, such as the GROUND! So I'm not going to play that bullpoop whereby you try to sling in the lance as some sort of necessity for the SMs based on something other than BFG. It is not.
The lance is a PURELY anti-ship weapon. Torpedoes are an anti-DEFENCE weapon, like WBs. That is, they are easier to use against a stationary target. So torpedo = better SM weapon than lances. Therefore there is nothing wrong with torps for SMs, nor has there ever been anything wrong with torps for SMs, and nor does the NOVA, which is barely acceptable because it was an escort, even HAVE torpedoes! The ONLY reason the Nova is objectionable is because of the lance! There can be no other reason. Seriously, where the hell did this torpedo crap come from? Hell, the torp has a role for SMs out of BFG too, it's called exterminatus.
No, what you CANNOT do is control without the threat of force. Great, SMs don't fear death. Big deal. They do however fear the extinction of their chapter and their reputation being shattered. If a SM were threatened with death in furtherance of his chapter's cause, he'd not give in (though he'd still die). If he and his chapter were threatened with annihilation in a pointless and humiliating act of defiance then I'm pretty sure they'd tow the line. There are always consequences, and since SMs care about these consequences then they can be controlled. Otherwise they'd be mindless beasts that would attack whatever took their fancy.
So, scenario. IN knocks on SMs door, with a 200 ship force waiting to shoot and says "surrender all your lance armed ships or you're fucked". SMs go "No way! We're not afraid of anything, bring it on bitches!". IN opens fire, SM chapter annihilated. IN moves on to next chapter. They say the same and show them what happened to the last chapter that said no. SMs give IN all lance armed ships and grumble about it. End of story.
And yet they take no exception to SM having Firestorms (Armada, pg 24). I would suggest that it has less to do with the lance and more to do with the ship's over all performance being vastly superior to anything else in it's weight class.
Hi Guys,
The reason why I say they weren't 'real' playtests was because I played against (in my eyes ;)) lesser skilled players and we didn't swap roles which is always important in a playtest.
I will get on to to doing some 'real' playtests this week. Some with out dice.
The fleets were IN: Emperor, Tyrant + Dauntless, 3x L Dauntlesses (not in a squadron), and 2 Dominators.
Chaos: Desolator, 2 Hades, 4 LMurders (squadrons of 2). The reason for no Devs was that in the IN game he saw how waves of 4 THs could weather a crazy amount of AC. Also he thought that it would be very difficult to be offensive with his AC.
TH's were damaging against chaos only in that they effectively took 2 Hades and a Murder out of the game after the fleets met. He braced against the H&Rs (fair enough as there were 20 of them) but with +1 to the rolls, Engine room coupled with fires chipped away at thier hits while the rest stopped them from shooting back.
Cheers,
RayB HA
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
I added comments on the chaos fleets to my last post after posting it as my computer started complaining and I didn't want to lose the post.
I reloaded to bring the THs on the table to the then full strength (it went down to 18) (not with the crippled squadrons, they were on lock-on if viable). It's not that odd is it? ;)
Cheers,
RayB HA
Limiting torps on Marines?
Why?
No need to imo.
When you say it like that all weapons are useable as anti-ship. ;)
@Sig
Be that as it may, at this point BFG is the one out of step with the rest of 40k atm. The problem with the first part of your counter argument is the fluff in Armada itself, stating that they're crewed by chapter serfs and commanded by techmarines. Meaning they're not on loan. The second is their stated function, which is to patrol SM controlled space. If this follows the same pattern as Ultramar, which seems to be the ur example of a SM dominion, then the SM have their own shipyard facilities. These may or may not be run by the admech, if 'current' fluff holds.
On the lance rules vs WB rules argument: You could argue game balance, except that the SC's BC has a high enough str that under most circumstances, it still is equal to, or more power than, a str 2 lance, found on the most common IN cruiser. Your argument that 'because the rules make it specifically an anti-ship weapon' overlooks that fact that every weapon in this game is specifically an anti-ship weapon, as there are only two types of possible targets (three if you count ord markers) ships and defenses, and all the weapons work against those. The fact is long range lance fire is just as good at popping defenses, with a lot less damage to the ship.
Let me offer a counter argument to yours: thanks to THQ/Relic, BL, FFG, and GW, the lance strike is slowly working it's way up there with the bolter and the land raider in people's minds when they think 'Space Marines'. So, do we meet new players expectations and grow the hobby, or do we accept that the game withers away until only a handful of grognards play it?
I believe that there's something about a super accurate giant laser beams in space that appeals to 40k writers.
I brought it up earlier that there should be some restriction on torpedoes for crusading SM but not dominion lists
BFG would be out of step if they allowed SMs to have lances as they currently sit. Only now it would be the rules that are out of step, rather than nomenclature. I'd rather the latter than the former. As for the Firestorm RSV, the arguments still apply: 1) controlled distribution; 2) may hate the SMs getting it for all we know; 3) should be removed from SM lists anyway.
Ah, so we should not only give them lances, but long range lances. Riiiiight. You know, what would be great for popping defences? Nova Cannon. Obviously the SMs should have those too. The point being that they should be as specifically task oriented as possible so that they're not so good in non-assaulting arenas.' Of course all weapons can be used against ships. Else they wouldn't really be weapons. What we're talking here is optimisation. The lance is optimised for hard targets, ie, ships. The BC is optimised for easy targets; defences. Of these two, which should you give to a fleet that is supposed to be good at assaulting defences and bad at fighting warfleets?
This is truly laughable. If you really want to make a place for lances, write some fluff allowing some specific type of WB to produce a "lance" strike from orbit, or give SMs the "assault lance" which is only useful for boarding and orbital barrages (maybe a type of turret). In no way should we be pandering to the expectations of SM fanbois that happen to glance BFG's way. If we were to do that then the SMs would be the strongest fleets out there. Yes, I said fleets. Because if we're bowing to SM player expectation then there would be an SM fleet for each of the major chapters, each with special rules and some individual ship types. You'd probably see a chainsword wielding ship for blood angels or space wolves.
I agree. It is this appeal that let's them just write it in to their fluff without consideration for the state of play. So they are ignorant. Of course, for those fluff pieces that predate BFG this isn't a lack of foresight on the writers part. In fact, the lance as written of is not objectionable. A more accurate laser is fine. One that is differentially more accurate against ships however is not. This could be considered, then, to be a poorly written rule.
I think that the lance worked fine for the purposes of BFG until it came time to write the SM rules. At this point the writers stopped and thought "uh oh". Their solution was far more elegant than I'd have thought possible, even if it didn't strike me as such at the time. My initial thought was "gimmick for SMs, how typical". Mind you, there may have been an element of the gimmick to it, in order to satisfy some of the cravings for special attention that SM fanbois have (I delineate between fanbois and players here, as I have a SM army and fleet, yet don't feel the need to prop SMs up with so many special rules).
1) So you were the only person who raised this as a concern? Why do you think SMs shouldn't get torps?
2) Your restrictions seem backwards to me. A crusading fleet would be assaulting planets far more than a Dominion fleet and so seems to me to have the greater need.
3) Where would the source of this restriction come from? Would it be a self-limiting restriction? If so, why would the SMs choose this? If not, presumably we're talking an Imperium based restriction. How would they police this? As far as I can tell, due to the lack of auditing of SM forces the only possible way to enforce any restriction would have to be 'all or none'. So they're either allowed or disallowed. This would mean that any sighting of disallowed weaponry could be acted upon. Otherwise it would never be enforceable.
And 1-3 are all assumed by you, rather then having a shred of evidence to back it up.
The problem is that atm they're not really good at either. Squadroned defenses can make a mess out of SC if they are mixed WB/lance platforms. It gets even uglier in a 'fortress assault' where a Ramilies is standing in for a planet. You know, exactly the kind of mission that SM are supposedly optimized for?
Oh, yes, the horror of new ships. You might have to think at the table as opposed to use a calculator to decide your moves. And, my God, who would want new players, particularly SM fanboys that spend more on armies then most people do on cars? That certainly wouldn't help the cause of BFG at all, what with their absurd spending habits that draw GW like flies to a corpse.
Keep up the snark, Sig, and I'll write a BL story that will meet all those nice criteria you sited earlier and give strike cruisers lances, and then where will you be?
Well, probably whining that it's BL so it shouldn't count, unless it goes in BFG 2.0, and then you'll whine how dare anything change.
Sig, the thing you seem to come back to is that there's this crunch rule in how lances work in BFG. I might point out they work pretty much the same in other games, and yet, none of those seem to have the same problem. with SM having lances. Or IN using bombardment cannons for that matter.
Hmm... I seem to recall agreeing with him. And my reason was that it's an anti-ship weapon that has to be replenished fairly often and therefor not really something SM are going to want to have to set up lines of supply to replenish.
Practical ability to supply. An SM crusade fleet is on the move and has to replenish supplies from worlds they rescue or liberate, as they're independent from IN lines of supply. Unless they happen to free a forgeworld or a major hive world, they can't effectively resupply torps. Torps are difficult to manufacture under idea conditions, and one would imagine nearly impossible on SM crusade forge ships.
This is probably the strongest argument against SMs getting lances that I can think of. Well done, just shot yourself in the foot there.
Mind you, if you're going to be an author, I suppose I should point out that it's 'cite', not 'site'.
What? So, in other game systems lances are more accurate against ships are they? :o
I don't see this as being an issue to be honest.Yes, because an army would never march on it's stomach. How did that work out for Napoleon? Oh, yeah, Russia...
Sig, if you're checking for grammar and spelling in forum posts to try and prove a point, you need to get out more. Then again, I see why you avoid more heavily populated forums, you'd positively have a conniption.
Though, the idea of expanding from non-fiction into 40k fiction gets more appealing every time you post, Sig.
Specifically against ships? Sorry, RT uses a ballistic stat, so there's no coin toss or gunnery table. However, the part where it totally ignores armor is still around, yielding a (normally) higher damage per hit then a WB does, since armor is subtracted from rolled damage. So, it's still an anti-warship weapon, since warships tend to have much higher armor then non-warships.
Yes, because an army would never march on it's stomach. How did that work out for Napoleon? Oh, yeah, Russia...
BTW: 'I've been around since dirt!' hardly makes you right.
I would suggest it is entirely possible that, in fact, YOU are the fanboy here, trying to keep a preferred army exactly as it is, because you LIKE it that way. Personally, though, again, I really wish that you would get together with the dakkites and collectively decide which one I am. Other then your obsession with grammar on occasion, you'd fit right in there.
Oh yeah. Untrue statement.
hardly makes you right. I would suggest it is entirely possible that, in fact, YOU are the fanboy here, trying to keep a preferred army exactly as it is, because you LIKE it that way.
Sorry, BI, Sig is not being a fanboy here. Fanboyism is where one wants anything and everything which will boost a faction regardless of fluff or whether it is right. If anything, we know that SM is not dominant in space. You know that. We know that. But you still want them to be dominant in space as on the ground without even until no showing a reason why the SM needs lances. .... Therefore, this means you are the fanboy here, not us.
And I have seen what a Strike Cruiser under FFG would look like -> no lance.
The part where your argument falls down is that IN is still dominant in space. My point has been that lances/no lances, SM are not the dominant force in space, IN is. My point is and has been that SM lances are irrelevant to the dominance issue. SM having them or not gives IN no real increase in advantage as their primary advantage is that they grotesquely outnumber any SM force. The possession of lances is irreverent to the balance of power.
You miss the point again. We are now talking about fanboyism, where you want anything and everything for a faction even if fluff doesn't support it, though yes, lances on cap ships will make SM quite dominant on the gaming table as well as fluff on the task force level. You keep missing the point about the effect of lances on SM ships on that sized force level. They might be at a disadvantage strategically (which is useless for games purposes) but tactically (as in games) they will do quite well.
*sigh* Fluff does support it (don't make me drag out planetstrike again), it's some people's interpretation of the gaming table rules that does not.
In Fluff SM ships are spread across a segmentum or more.
In fluff, the SM fleet in Armada does not exist. It's a fabrication of the game system, similar to a tabletop SM army in 40k. Even the biggest SM on SM dustups have not used fleets like this. There are only two occasions that a nearly pure SM fleet might exist, being a Crusade fleet such as BTs, or a Dominion fleet such as UM. The only 'fluff' lists are Armageddon, Dominion (sort of) and Crusade (sort of).
Sadly, the god awful lists in IA:X were fluffier then the existing SM list.
BaronI,
no, if you read closely my name is listed in Battlefleet Koronus. So I've seen ehm other things.... ;)
Back to the fray
1. +1 shield to strike cruisers
2. Replace 3 bombardment cannons with a lance
3. Limit torpedoes to dominion fleets
4. Improve their teleport ability, either improved ranges and or number of teleport attacks, or both.
Back to the fray
1. +1 shield to strike cruisers
2. Replace 3 bombardment cannons with a lance
3. Limit torpedoes to dominion fleets
4. Improve their teleport ability, either improved ranges and or number of teleport attacks, or both.
Back to the fray
1. +1 shield to strike cruisers
2. Replace 3 bombardment cannons with a lance
3. Limit torpedoes to dominion fleets
4. Improve their teleport ability, either improved ranges and or number of teleport attacks, or both.
Str 2 lance for a str 3 BC would be balanced unless I misread the table.
If you didn't get it, the above is dripping with absolute sarcasm.
I think we've more or less dead-ended. It's clear nothing I say will convince some people, and what they say is not likely to convince me. I'll go back to blasting SM ships to confetti with my IN and Chaos fleets and the problem will correct itself magically correct itself.This makes it come across as if the Marine fleet needs lances to win. This is absolutely untrue. And in the light of Fracas a lance would weaken them down (he mentions BC's being better).
Yes, D'Art, at this point we all appreciate your feedback.If you didn't get it, the above is dripping with absolute sarcasm.
Let me ask; do you hold a red cup while you post, or do you just pretend?
I've made a point to try and stay polite on this, but if you guys are really intent on dragging this into the dirt, then, by all means...(http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0808/come-get-some-duke-nukem-chuck-norris-rnr-fear-postal-halfli-demotivational-poster-1218117037.jpg) (http://www.demotivationalposters.org/duke-nukem-chuck-norris-rnr-fear-postal-halflife-demotivational-posters-15015.html)
How would a crusading fleet resupply their torpedoes? Why would they take them without a ready resupply available? In addition, torpedoes are long range anti-ship weapons not realy within mission function for space marines.
The same way they replenish their bombardment cannon shells. You're advocating removing one weapons system because it requires resupply and replacing it with another weapon that has the same need. In addition, torpedoes suck at long range anti-ship duties since all but the most daft opponents tent to intercept them or move out of the way long before their ships are threatened by the torpedoes.
There are cases in official background where SCs have lances but these seem to be character ships or at the very least very very rare. They're not really worth putting in the list.
SM fleets could be resupplied at space stations, transports, forge ships or even BaBs!
How on earth??? That's 18 lances @ 60cm. Go abeam (14 lances) and wait. Use AC (aboats vs strike cruisers) aggresively at the early stage.
The Chaos fleet I was using was 2 Hades and 5 Devs. No terrain! I thought the Chaos fleet was fine, and crippled half the SCs but in return the SCs just kicked ass! 2 squadrons of SCs were BFI'd each turn and in one of those turns managed to cripple a damaged Dev each in boarding! TH's weren't too scary this time as the Devs reduced the waves to pathetic strengths.
Guided torps, Baron I, you turn them 45, fly the 30cm distance. Turn 45, fly 30m. Turning around is a real long road.
Hi Guys,
The Chaos fleet I was using was 2 Hades and 5 Devs. No terrain! I thought the Chaos fleet was fine, and crippled half the SCs but in return the SCs just kicked ass! 2 squadrons of SCs were BFI'd each turn and in one of those turns managed to cripple a damaged Dev each in boarding! TH's weren't too scary this time as the Devs reduced the waves to pathetic strengths.
Cheers,
RayB HA
I'm advocating it because in fluff macrocannon projectiles are, comparatively, plentiful. They're available via a large number of sources.
You'd be amazed the number of times I've had opponents who had not played against me before pick up my fleet list and re-read it when the torps they thought they dodged turned around and nailed something.
Bombardment cannons aren't the same as macrocannons though. Bombardment cannons fire magma bombs which is why they hit on 4+ and crit on 4+. Last time I checked, IN escorts and Cruisers weren't sporting those stats. I'd also wager that as a assault fleet, the marines embarked on a crusade would be working with IN ships and therefore have access to IN supply lines if not their own supply lines. Surly the marines who, by your estimation, are more than capable of building whole fleets of warships without oversight would have little trouble with the far less complex and resource intensive systems of torpedo.
The whys and werefors of that magic to hit and crit bonus are a bit murkier now, since other weapons stated to fire magma bombs are heaped in with macrocannons, including meltacannons in 'starship' size and quite a few plasma and laser weapons.
rusade fleets, on the other hand, would find them exceedingly difficult to produce on a regular basis. And, remember, other then regular maintenance, a ship does not have to be rebuilt in it's entirety (usually) after a battle. Given the limited number of munitions that a given ship can carry, they would have to replenish fairly often. It's not a matter of capability, it's a matter of available resources. Transporting torps, or even components, as cargo is hideously risky, to the point of being a hazard to the ships around them, if you're transporting sufficient amounts to keep a Crusade fleet stocked.
You have to realize that the reliance on consumables can be considered a built in control on SM activities as well.
Crusades would be normally planned out and resupplying of ammunition would be one of the major points in any budget discussed in such an endeavor.
Aside from which combat is not done every minute. Getting from one planet to another can take months or even years, enough for the Mechanicum units tagging along to create factories on the conquered worlds to resupply the ongoing campaign.
Resources have always been the most difficult part in any campaign which is why the initial targets are ones which would be able to supply the fighting forces their basic needs. Easier to create where you are rather than wait for resupply.
Well I don't know what to say Ray, but your battlefield experiences are nothing like mine.
I played out the same scenario, and chaos annihilated the SCs, both times round. By the time the SCs could get into boarding range, they were damaged, braced, or both. Even with SCs ganging up on one target, the boarding actions tended to fairly even odds, with the chaos ordnance shutting the SCs down hard and finishing them off with gunnery.
I played as both sides, and both cases every SC was crippled or destroyed, with only one chaos cruiser destroyed out of both games.
(3 if the 'leftover' shot on one of them wasn't saved. So on 'average' one of them might get crippled, or if all the firepower went towards one squadron one SC would almost be dead. (in which case having an extra shield would do little :))
I will write up a few playtests using the armada list and start a new thread.
Horizon,
18 lances, 8 of them on lock-on, firing at 2 squadrons that are braced, 2 points of damage suffered on each squadron past shields. (3 if the 'leftover' shot on one of them wasn't saved. So on 'average' one of them might get crippled, or if all the firepower went towards one squadron one SC would almost be dead. (in which case having an extra shield would do little :))
BI,
I play as both sides, if there is two of us we swap sides for 2 'identical' games.
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Carnages, really? Given that SCs have a 90* turn and have 6+ armour it makes it difficult to get a good shot, almost impossible on Lock-on.
Cheers,
RayB HA
SM with their own systems like UM would fall under the Dominion list. While they have their systems, they are still being monitored by the other organizations. How efficiently monitored? Can be bad as your example and yet might also be much better but not let on. Could also even be that like the UM, they can be open (as much as any SM can be open anyway).
Crusaders would be harder to monitor so better to limit the ammunition to one which the Munitorium can have more control. SM can still go on their crusades but only up to how long their consumables last.
Or would be, if it weren't fairly prominent in the fluff that the power relays required for energy weapons like lances are pretty short lived and need constant replacing, thereby negating any ammunition saving.
The problem is Crusades like the BT's that have been going on for 10k years. somehow I doubt they packed that much by way of supplies.
As far as control goes: if Dominion worlds are all like the worlds of Ultramar, that's a pretty bad means of control, since not even the Inquisition can go there without an invitation. They try to get around this prohibition with unmanned spy satellites (technically getting around them not be permitted to go there themselves) but so far the Ultramarines have proven adept at spotting them and eliminating the unwanted ones.
fracas has a good point about 'munitionless' weapons. Lasers (duh), lances (again duh), plasma (byproduct of starship drive), and disruptors (ionized hydrogen) would be preferred, since the components would be longer lasting for their size and availability than macrocannons. Torps and bombardment cannons would be less viable, as would strike craft (unless they were stowed in some sort of stasis holds when not in use).
Yes, and so you have this situation where SM do not want the Imperium itself looking into its affairs. The scenario you portray already would make them be suspect in the eyes of every other organization and yet you still want them to have the means to defeat the IN should they decide to turn coat. The Imperium while slow is not that stupid especially with the Heresy in hindsight.
That would be ideal...if the group you want it to have can be trusted. As your post effectively proves that SM cannot be trusted since the Inquisition can't monitor them effectively, why should they be trusted with munitionless weapons? Any sane organization would provide them with the tools that fit their role, in this case ground combat and limit the tools which they don't need or provide a means of control like limited ammunition and supplies. Even on the ground, they are using Bolters and meltas more than lascannons and plasma weapons. That is their role, that is what they get and since fleet engagements are not their mandate, they shouldn't get lances on their cap ships.
No more then the adeptus mechanicus. Who also joined Horus in the rebellion, practice heresy in the eyes of the church, have a vast private fleet with lances (and weapons potent far beyond what IN has), and don't technically have a combat role in the Imperium AT ALL beyond the Titan Legions, field repairs on IG and IN equipment, and production of munitions. Oh, and, while a single space marine going rogue or defecting to chaos is bad, a rogue magos can devastate entire worlds by themselves.
As opposed to, again, the admech, that the inquisition cannot monitor effective and has far greater power and more potent weaponry? Who's defections have blasted more worlds to ash, including Terra during the siege, than the wildest dreams of Horus?
CSMs are scary to the Imperium, but rogue admech are dangerous to it.
And second, since when were either the Inquisition or the Adeptus Mechanicus sane organizations?
Yes but who initiated the defecting and who does the fighting? Not the AM. The SM initiated the treachery. Point here is still that the SM is still more dangerous than the AM will ever be. Because they know how to make effective use of the weapons.
Having weapons doesn't mean you know how to use them effectively in combat.
Sure they can blast planets but that's about all they know. If troops can get into an SM ship, even regular IG, the AM would be on the losing ground. Much more if they face SM. SM know how to use them effectively and are better tacticians than the regular troops.
By sane, I mean the organization would know how to set limits based on their experiences of having half the legion of supermen turn traitor and wreak havoc on the existing establishment then. For some reason, you choose to ignore that.
Oh, no fighting at all, and certainly not with traitor skitari, elements of the legio cybernetica, and certainly not leading the assault on the Imperial Palace in the form of the Dies Irae smashing through a line that had held up space marines for a week. Not a bit of fighting.
Let me get this straight, the people that the space marines go to in order to learn how to maintain and make the most effective use of equipment in the field don't know how to do that themselves?
See comment above on who teaches Space Marines about that above. The Collegia Titanica would strongly disagree with your sentiment.
Yes, because they certainly wouldn't have heavily trained and augmented skitarii. Who, by the way, are considered at least the equals of IG stormtroopers and tend to be backed up by heavy combat servitors. Or, and more frighteningly, elements of the legio cybernetica, who's lesser designs include SM dreadnoughts and who's greater ones can cause trouble for Warlord class Titans.
Because the Inq has a long history of ignoring exactly that, on numerous occasions, for various reasons. Point of fact there's at least two radical and (technically) one puritain philosophies in the Inq that actually revolve around that idea being a good thing. (Since, after all, it was the Thorians, not a 'radical' branch, that attempted to replicate the primarch project and make even more powerful SM.)
Oh sure. Sending a big giant mech to break the siege. Such a difficult task. Take away the mech and put guns in their pilots hands. Then let's see them do combat.
Yep. Construction is different from application.
Disagree all they want. They're main advantage are the Titans with the SM not really having anything much to take one on (though the SM don't seem to think so). Take away those big toys and they would have a hard time dealing with SM.
Yup and they haven't been successful have they? Obviously in the 40k universe, you would be one of these radicals and I of course would be on the opposite end. Better safe than have to be sorry again.
It seems that it's a bit more reciprocal than in the case of the marines. Without the Imperium and it's soldiers the AdMech gets over run and without the AdMech the Imperium can't effectively equip it's troops. Without the Marines, the Imperium could still chuck more men at a problem, so there just isn't quite the same incentive to give marines a longer leash.
Those are called skitarii and in the fluff they're quite capable of giving Space marines a hard time. Praetorians (not to be confused with the Praetorian battle servitor) being themselves, genetically and/or mechanically augmented supermen who do, on occasion wear terminator armor and have been known to have heavy weapons in place of hands and are generally the loyalist version of an obliterator.
While I'm sure the titan princeps himself would not be any great noise as a soldier, the over 1,000 skitarii that he's carrying on board will make quite an impression. Since an Imperator Titan doubles as a troop transport.
And, again, the people that techmarines go to to learn how to maintain and make the most effective use of equipment in the field don't know how to do it themselves?
The Collegia Titanica, despite the name, does not just do titans. They also command their own skitarii troops. Fluff has shown those last to be a serious threat to space marines, unlike IG. And, actually, thier main advantage would be the legio cybernetica, who unfortunately have not had TT rules for some time, but proved so effective that some were made honorary space marines by the Desert Lions chapter.
"Since the defeat of Horus the Legio Cybernetica has pledged itself anew... ...Its members now take binding oaths of loyalty more terrible than any Marine Chapter oaths." Warhammer 40k Compendium, page 97.
What can be said for sure though is that the prospect of it raised such concerns among the great enemy that Fabius Bile made a point to personally intervene, apparently. The other factions of the Inquisition were deeply disturbed that the Thorians were so close to possibly healing the Emperor and raising him from the golden throne that they made certain to have the Grey Knights make the place extra purged once the CSMs were done.
Actually, the Imperium rarely defends forge worlds with ground troops.
A hard time yes. Guess who wins in the end?
Not to an SM.
Compared to SM warriors, how many are on the military division and how much can they spare to do a whole lot of fighting? Really teaching someone how to maintain does not equal teaching someone how to fight with it. That comes from experience in real combat action which the AM are not as immersed in. Yes they will have a small group who has seen combat but again not as numerous as the SM. They can do well, the ones who have seen combat but his fellow AM who have not? Nope, they would be quite inefficient.
Yes, you've mentioned the Skitarii quite a while now and yes they are good themselves but again, they are not as many as SM and they would not be as much a threat as SM.
Whoever the plot calls for. If it's about SM the SM win gloriously. If it's not, they usually die in the first volley (for examples of this, see Titan and Soul Drinkers, respectively).
Well, the princeps might make an impression on the SM the titan steps on, but yes, the thousand skitarii will make an impression on the other SM around, particularly with legio backup, since each legio cybernetica cataphract is built on the same platform as a Great Crusade era SM dreadnought (you know, the ones with force fields like the Contemptor?).
Well, small compared to the Imperial Guard maybe...
Approx number of SM in the Universe according to fluff: approx 1m, or half the number of skitarii that took part in demolishing the Roks near the Hemlock River on Armageddon alone.
I'm not sure why you think that they're so rare, or don't fight much, considering that they are found in just about any and every admech facility as security, and just about every forgeworld will host several regiments of them at least. Admech techmagii seem to compete in creating the most powerful skitarii troopers, and the variety of different loadouts and enhancements is somewhat staggering. Being that they're tasked with assisting tech priests in rooting out tech heresy and defending archeotech sites from pirates and looters as well, they're probably the most numerous armed force aligned with the Imperium besides the Imperial Guard.
I would suggest that the number of experienced skitarii troopers far outnumbers the number of SM in the universe, considering how often forge-worlds come under attack by orks.
Uh huh, but really who would you think will win out in a battle bet SM and AM?
Suggest but not definite. We are sure SM does a lot of fighting both on offense and defense. I would still wager SM are better since they were designed to be better from the start.
SMs killed the Emperor. End of story.
I think that your definition of "alive" is a little bit of a stretch. There are a few cells of his physical form still alive but he's not getting up or doing much these days. For all intents and purposes Horus killed the emperor's physical form even if you can technically claim he's "alive". He's definitely been incapacitated for the last 10k years or so.
Horizon,
We didn't get a reply from GW! >:( I may go to Gamesday this year and just hand it over to Andy Hall. :-\
Cheers,
RayB HA
I have played through many playtests in that time, I don't see the 2nd shield doing much in anything but small games (which makes sense). However SM's will suffer misfortune more keenly than anyone else, so the 2nd shield can give you a chance to brace if the first volley takes down both shields beyond the averages (but only if the first volley doesn't make you brace anyway).How weird!! I destroy many marines, chapters killed, in 1500pts games due the fact they only have 1 shield. I think a 2nd shield is more needed in larger games then in smaller games!! This as the enemy can concentrate more in larger games on 1 ship.
You have a weird logic. Shields are 'hitpoints' that comeback if the blastmarker goes away.
Imagine you can cause 1 point of damage every turn for every 100pts in a fleet. If you're playing 500pts you can only cause 5 points a turn, against 2 shields that'll be reduced to 3. In a 1000pt game that'll be 10 points a turn, so 8 hits against 2 shields. Note that 8 is more than double 3. Even though there are more targets to shoot at, you can focus your firepower meaning that shields become less potenet in larger games.