Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[lastspartacus]

Like I said, bring it down to str3 if it would be OT.

But not str2.  Remember it will never get close to the amount of shots that is the weapons strength.
Str3 bombard is a standard weapon slot for an SC. 
Can we compromise between 10 and 20 increase to 15?  I still just dont think its quite worth the assault variant.  15 points to switch out a TH bay for a str3 Bombard.  Sounds fair to me?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Like I said, bring it down to str3 if it would be OT.

But not str2.  Remember it will never get close to the amount of shots that is the weapons strength.
Str3 bombard is a standard weapon slot for an SC. 
Can we compromise between 10 and 20 increase to 15?  I still just dont think its quite worth the assault variant.  15 points to switch out a TH bay for a str3 Bombard.  Sounds fair to me?

Even at FP3 BC replacing the TH it's still to high. That translates to FP4 WBs broadsides supported by FP6 BC to one side. One can even do FP4 WB broadsides plus FP3 BCs to each side. Sorry, even I wouldn't agree to that on what is an LC. Assume you squadron two such ships. That now translates to FP8 WBs and FP12 BCs to one side. Add another and it becomes FP12 WBs and FP18 BCs to one side. Those BCs start piling up fast.

[lastspartacus]

Admiral, the bombards that replace the TH are front fire only.  


Str6 is the forward arc's armament, no supporting WB.  Otherwise its SC as usual.

Edit:  The reason I had it at str4 was for a str7 in the front, which, assuming the opponent is smart and is abeam in his facing, would actually net you more than 2 measly shots for giving up your launch bay. str5 and str6 have exactly the same results, come to look at it, which makes me wonder what the point of it is. I guess for combined fire and halfing strengths.

Still against str4 replacement of TH bay if its only front firing?

[horizon]

Boy am i glad these are not replacing the official rules, it has just gotten absurd. 

a strength 7 bombardment cannon? shit son. it's a light cruiser!

Typical zelnik remark.
This is called development. Idea brought forward, idea shot down. (see, the admiral goes 5 bc max). Read
Maybe you like the HA drafts more (lances on strike cruisers) but that's your call.

This thread is seriously going in the right direction. Variants should be added and well considered of course.

@ Vaaish, I agree, the HA throws in the drafts, then nothing. I wished for some more interaction. The also fell silent on the Tau list.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Admiral, the bombards that replace the TH are front fire only.  


Str6 is the forward arc's armament, no supporting WB.  Otherwise its SC as usual.

Edit:  The reason I had it at str4 was for a str7 in the front, which, assuming the opponent is smart and is abeam in his facing, would actually net you more than 2 measly shots for giving up your launch bay. str5 and str6 have exactly the same results, come to look at it, which makes me wonder what the point of it is. I guess for combined fire and halfing strengths.

Still against str4 replacement of TH bay if its only front firing?

Yes because 3 ships with FP7 front firing BCs still comes out to FP21 BC. With the penchant for SM fighting in ranges below 15 cm, one would roll around 18 dice vs 1 target. Hitting on a 4+ and critting on a 4+ will hurt. Also note that while the added BCs will only result in 2 additional measly shots, the TH doesn't really give out potentially 2 points of additional damage. THAs might but even then, they can be shot down and then will have their number of rolls reduced by the turrets.

[lastspartacus]

I'm totally fine with str6.  When I said two measly shots, I meant that would be what the whole str6 will usually get.
I think its fine as the thing firing in the front arc, and losing the TH/THA, for a 15 point increase.  You trade a bay for what will usually translate to one extra bombard shot in the front arc and pay 15 points.  You find that to be OP?

[Zelnik]

I am going to make the point, that as you give strength to the strike cruiser, you are literally stepping closer to the blackship.

No one has given me a good reason why this ship should not be incorporated.

[lastspartacus]

I definitly don't have a problem with there being one in the fleet.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I am going to make the point, that as you give strength to the strike cruiser, you are literally stepping closer to the blackship.

No one has given me a good reason why this ship should not be incorporated.

Which design are you talking about?

[lastspartacus]

So in a mix of my thoughts and other's thoughts, thoughts on these thoughts? ;P  Wanting us all to agree on SC's before talking about the next thing.

Strike Cruiser - 145 points
6 hits, 6+ armor, 2 shields
Prow TH bay
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Port/Starboard str4 batteries

Linebreaker Strike Cruiser - 155 points
6 hits, 6+ armor, 2 shields
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Prow str3 Front Bombardment cannon
Port/Starboard str4 batteries

Assault Strike Cruiser - 165
Prow TH bay
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Port/Starbord TH bay

[russ_c]

Assault Strike Cruiser - 165
Prow TH bay
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Port/Starbord TH bay

I could never agree with a Strike Cruiser that has all 3 thunderhawks distributed across different Bays.  Someone else already said it, but when the ship is crippled it would still have 3 T-hawks.  I could agree on an Assault version that has 3 T-hawks given the following stipulations:

1.) All 3 are on the Prow ( or any single launch bay )
2.) The base Strike Cruiser comes with only 1 by default
3.) There are fleet building limitations to such a vessel , like you must take 1 or 2 regular SCs for every Assault variant

Otherwise, I'm good with a 2 shield, 1 T-hawk base SC and a Bombardment, WB heavy variant ( not specifically agreeing on the ones you have listed, but the general idea I agree with )

Russ

[lastspartacus]

Well, what if it was 3 in the prow, str2 battery on each side.  Or some such.

Or perhaps a special rule that simply says you treat the 3 bays as one grouping for purposes of special orders/crippling.

Honestly though, that Voss pattern ship has the same layout, though 2 instead of 3 bays.  I'm just saying less effects from crippling isnt the SC's problem alone.

[russ_c]

Well, what if it was 3 in the prow, str2 battery on each side.  Or some such.

Or perhaps a special rule that simply says you treat the 3 bays as one grouping for purposes of special orders/crippling.

No special rule.

Honestly though, that Voss pattern ship has the same layout, though 2 instead of 3 bays.  I'm just saying less effects from crippling isnt the SC's problem alone.

You got me there.  I forgot about the voss, but it needs all the help it can get!  It does not have +6 armor, 3 AC, or a proposed 2 shields.

Russ

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Assault Strike Cruiser - 165
Prow TH bay
Prow str3 L/R/F Bombardment cannon
Port/Starbord TH bay

I could never agree with a Strike Cruiser that has all 3 thunderhawks distributed across different Bays.  Someone else already said it, but when the ship is crippled it would still have 3 T-hawks.  I could agree on an Assault version that has 3 T-hawks given the following stipulations:

1.) All 3 are on the Prow ( or any single launch bay )
2.) The base Strike Cruiser comes with only 1 by default
3.) There are fleet building limitations to such a vessel , like you must take 1 or 2 regular SCs for every Assault variant

Otherwise, I'm good with a 2 shield, 1 T-hawk base SC and a Bombardment, WB heavy variant ( not specifically agreeing on the ones you have listed, but the general idea I agree with )

Russ

And if the ship is on BFI it won't be launching anything now will it? It loses quite a lot when it has to go on SOs other than RO. Even LO messes it up severely.

[lastspartacus]

You mean because it cant reload its ordnance if it goes on another SO?

I assume so.  And I think its a good point that this guy will be doing hardly ANYTHING other than supplying and possibly failing to supply thunderhawks.  For 20 point hike over a normal more balanced SC I definitly wouldnt be opposed to playing against that