@ Jimmy Zimms
1) Unintentionally vague on "bombs" comment. I mean't more specifically it is a more effective bomber in BFG, due to its fighter-bomber status, not it had more literal bombs.
Ahh comment makes sense. BB programs lack that human context and nuance. Totally dig your point provided it was a fighter-bomber in the traditional sense (i even mistakenly used it in that term as I was attempting to sidestep a long drawn out conversation about why it had bombs from a mistaken read of your posts). I believe the idea was that as it's a flying war engine, the either - or role was attached. I don't want to debate whether it was a good idea or not, just that's kinda the line of thought.
2) I trust you have not been following the general community consensus on broken/modified ships and whatnot?
Oh I am but until it reaches baked and published in FAW 2013
it's all friendly play, expiremental / house rules.I am totally focused on as the GW PDFs + HA PDFs state today.
The assault carrier option is widely accepted to attempt to give the SM forces true carriers and AC quantity. Spam is of course an issue that is opinion based, and admittedly can be said about many things.
Yeah you are correct, or at least from my limited direct 1:1 expirence that the AC varient is pretty much defacto. Though, and here's that lack of nuance thing again, I was sticking to finalized documents. I like it conceptually but think it needs some more cooking before it's ready. Sounds like you do too, though for different reasoning than I.
I wish I was a cool kid... 
Wait a minute! If you're not one of the cool kids then why am I wasting my time with you?
I kid, I kid! [old man yiddish accent]
3) Naming conventions are one of the most hotly debated topics amongst friends and 40k vets. Suffice to say while I find the name a bit arbitrary, it does work, although your suggestions seem valid too.
Yeah when I first read that name I was all, "wft did I miss something in an IA???" lol
4) Fluff wise, say what you will about the thunderhawk, but it is an assault craft. Codex regulations and all, it is for assaulting and dropping off troops into contested territory, and even then usually ground based operations.
Actually the fluff explicitly lists the load out of a TH equipped for space superiority role and anti-ship operations. Please re-read IA 2 and 9 (or maybe 10) IIRC. The reason we pretty much only see the TK and Air Assault versions for the most part is that they tend to show up in games of Epic (and let us totally strike from our discussion the abomination that is 40K: Apocalypse).
Saying it can be modified is somewhat erroneous, as by that logic one could modify a manta for fighter air superiority, by reducing its armor, adding more guns and better engines. Thunderhawks are versatile because of exceptional design and craftsmanship (plus spess-mureenes), not because they can be modified.
Except that is explicitly stated by the IA books to be the case. Again not trying to argue but that's been the fluff for many many many years now. Don't get me wrong, GW is totally guilty of ret-con-itis and many of those retcons are retarded or blatant attempts to squeeze more $$$ out of younger players before they burn out and churn. In addition, I am totally not advocating for nor nor against them in BFG. Just trying to give a perspective on the fluffyness (which needs to take backseat to a good game I'll admit)
5) Agree to disagree then on power level of t-hawks and mantas in space scenarios; IMO neither are really designed to carry weapons for cracking armor that makes an imperator titan's look like soft tissue wipes.
TH's can carry Turbo Laser destructors which are a titan / super heavy tank class weapon. QED. Should they be granted bomber in BFG? Up for debate as again, a good playing game is more important than fluff.
6) To be quite honest, I'm surprised that you think SM are made as combined ordnance fleet. Until the annihilator came around t-hawks were good for frying pesky escorts and low turret/armor targets, but were mainly a defensive anti-ordnance measure and general deterrent.
I am discussing 25 years of fluff and the holistic view of all the pertinent game systems, not BFG only. Sorry that was my chance to be vague.
Also again, I am talking from the viewpoint when discussing BFG specifically of the published PDFs (GW + HA). Armada Marines were a bit crap. Don't argue that
I'm not really sure why you do not think SM cannot hold their own in a brawl; bombardment cannon strike cruisers second turrets can crack open other cruisers with relative ease, while the seditio can blow apart pretty much any other battleship at 30cm, and at 15cm only ultra-heavy BB can compare (tomb ship, planet killer, etc...).
Armada: no they couldn't. Just look to why they got so much rework in 2010 documents. I am not claiming that a BB in 30cm range isn't an absolute MONSTER. But for 425 points it's a whole lotta points for what you get IMO. Most IN BB have 60cm reach out and touch someone and frankly I'd take an Emperor / Retribution over a BB anyday. For instance, any eldar player that get's caught within 30cm by a marine BB deserves to be annihilated.
The trick is in maneuvering that bad boy into something that works. I've seen that this usually falls into two basic strategies: bullet magnet and SC flank OR the Hammer (SC) and Anvil (BB) pincer. Marines are finally a relative to Armada speaking, a strong opponent now albeit a challenging list to play well (which I like).
As for escorts, the gladius isn't that special
Disagree. They are fundamentally based on a Sword stats and that little guy is pure awesomesauce. I disagree with 30cm move as that's the whole point of marine escorts, they're faster than IN counterparts. So for 45 points they are at least 5 points overcosted.
but nova's are super fast well armored directional firing death machines
They're nice and more valuable in marine fleets versus their counter part in IN due to lack of lance assets in marine fleets but it kinda falls into the same problem as the Firestorm (which I believe has been talked about how to fix before). I take issue with lame L/R/F arc stat changes on models that have keel mounted weapons but that's the anal engineer in me
I personally think both can be fixed by dropping all WBs and up the lance to strength 2 and +5 points and FW arc but I admit I am a heretic.
hunters regularly rape cobras when in dry dock (hehe...dry docked indeed), being better armored, turret covered and faster, ableit at more points.
NICE. Totally have me cracking up in this meeting now
I would say SM are pretty good at shooting, and normal T-hawks fit their fleet flavor better, although with d3+1 or just d6 attacks they would fit in fine. As you said, just an opinion, nothing personal.
yup same here
I agree that the TH:A (still think it's a dumb name
) needs work. However I think it should just be a bomber and drop the fighter and I think it balances out in the end.
