Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Yep. If you launched this round, next round you have to do the Reload Ordnance check. So if during your opponent's turn, you had to BFI your ship, byebye THs. If you decide to LO instead of RO, byebye THs. If you decide to AAF or BR or CTNH, byebye THs. Until the next round if you're not on BFI anyway.

[horizon]

Actually this could/should be ammended in the fleest:

In order to field an Assault OR Devastator you need one regular strike cruiser.
Thus always a special variant on a 1:1 basis taken against the normal strike cruiser.

[lastspartacus]

Sounds reasonable.

[russ_c]

Yep. If you launched this round, next round you have to do the Reload Ordnance check. So if during your opponent's turn, you had to BFI your ship, byebye THs. If you decide to LO instead of RO, byebye THs. If you decide to AAF or BR or CTNH, byebye THs. Until the next round if you're not on BFI anyway.

I get your point, but I don't get how it relates to what I was concerned about.  Are you disagreeing, agreeing, or just throwing in something more to think about?  Are you suggesting it's okay to have all THs distributed on the Assault varient since BFI normally messes with a standard SC?

Russ

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I'm saying the disadvantages far outweigh the problem of this ship still having a total of 3 LBs when it's crippled. All an opponent has to do is force the ship to BFI and one has effectively neutered the ship.

[russ_c]

I'm saying the disadvantages far outweigh the problem of this ship still having a total of 3 LBs when it's crippled. All an opponent has to do is force the ship to BFI and one has effectively neutered the ship.

A good point.  You have persuaded me from "they must be on the prow" to "I need to play test with them distributed".  I had overlooked the excessive problems SM have with BFI since all of their cruisers have ordnance and require squadroning.  I still feel that the existence of an Assault variant requires a fleet building rule like the Voss light cruisers and quite possibly the removal of 1 TH from the default SC (in favor of a shield of course).  With 3 distributed on an Assault variant and only 1 on the base, this now means that BFI and crippling will never affect the launch capacity of SCs...this is a pretty unique circumstance.

I shall encourage my SM mate to play with these variants on our next game and see if it improves the situation against Chaos.

Russ

[commander]

IMO, the problem comes from the 'small' platform that is used for the SC. It should be a fast cruiser.
Front: the torps; starboard & port: the gun batteries (S6, R30) & launchbays (1TH eack); dorsal: the bombardment cannons. Weapon batteries strength can be brought down to 4 to gain advanced thrusters. Clean & simple.
It breaks offcourse with the age-old fluff that the SC are LC's.

[Caine-HoA]

BTW Tau have the same problem with ordnance on all their ships and they have worse leadership. I always found having 2TH on a small cruiser a pro instead of a contra. The ship is rather cheap for what it bringt to the field and its only weakness are lance attacks.

[lastspartacus]

But tau have much, much cheaper and more effective ordnance, and can stay the hell away.

I didn't even think of the repurcussions of BFI on squadrons, which you should always do for LC's.  Now that the Admiral has outlined all the Assault variant has going against it, I think it is a perfectly fine ship for its points, very balanced in the negatives against the pros.

And Russ, the prices and ships mentioned are 2 shields, and the normal SC did lose a bay for a shield.
Tell your friend to playtest the linebreaker idea as well, and 1:1 for special variants, plz.

[flybywire-E2C]

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.

Sorry about falling silent. Ray is still on travel, and both Bob and I are currently travelling as well. I did have the fortune of actually getting to meet with Bob in person for a few hours, and we spoke on a few BFG related items. We wiil be meeting at length later this month and hope to get a great number of things ironed out by then. In the meantime, we have taken on board a lot of the feedback concerning the current Space Marines rules. More to follow soon, but in a nutshell, we both agree that lances should be rare and expensive for the Space Marines to have, which also means the Dominion rules needed to be fixed as well. In the meantime, I have posted a v2 DRAFT of the Space Marines rules, which once again is an ADDITION TO and not a REPLACEMENT OF the rules in Armada.

In a nutshell, here's the DRAFT changes. It was pointed out the Dominion list made the ships too cheap so that was removed. Lances were made much more expensive, and a simple fleet restriction was put in place so that lances cannot become the predominant strike cruiser armament. This allows players who want to use lances to have them available without allowing it to become overpowering or change the flavor of the fleet. We also took on board some of the fan list suggestions to create a “Devastator” (?) strike cruiser, though we did not go with the one with larger launch bays because the SM’s with their resilient ordnance is already an attack-craft heavy fleet. The Seditio Opprimere was included primarily because there are more fans that want it than those that hate it, regardless of how vocal the ones that hate it wish to be, how many statistics or references one wishes to make toward the contrary, whatever. We did however tone down the profile a LOT because frankly the original profile was grotesque. A fleet can only have one, having one replaces one of the three regular battle barges allowed in the fleet, and the Seditio Opprimere isn’t even all that great a lance battleship. If one really wanted to be a lance hog, they can select an Apocalypse battleship as the venerable battlebarge for far less points and actually have a more powerful lance broadside. Once again, if you don’t like it, don’t use it. 

It was the intent of the game designers to create this expansion, which is what we tried to remain faithful to without incorporating what was broken. Please keep in mind that once again not everyone is going to be happy with what is here. Also keep in mind that THIS IS A GAME INTENDED FOR FUN. We're not trying to balance the budget or affect health-care with this rule set so please keep the vitriol and "I hate everything about this, the game designers and the color purple" to a minimum. Remember that since this is a game, one does NOT need to use these rules. Thanks!

The DRAFT update can be seen and downloaded here:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

Did I mention this is a DRAFT???
- Nate

[lastspartacus]

Thanks for the update!


Thoughts on shield/bay switch on SC's?
 
I really have to disagree on SMs being an attack craft heavy fleet.

Other races easily produce resilient strike craft, without the decrease in the amount of bays that SM have, and for cheaper.
Tau and Eldar spring to mind as putting SM to shame by putting out more resilient ordnance for cheaper.

If the normal SC went to one TH, and you were limited in your special variant choices to 1:1, do you really see SM flooding the board with thunderhawks?  I know I wouldnt even want to, given all options.

And, str9 bombard cannons on the SC! Wow, and people thought I was being excessive

Any other changes I missed?  Do you have any intentions of making terminators more permanent like chaos version?

[russ_c]

It was pointed out the Dominion list made the ships too cheap so that was removed.

Thank you for addressing this.  It looks much more tidy.  Can a dominion fleet not take Annilators?  Under the Crusade fleet it says "Any ship with launch bays carries Thunderhawks and Thunderhawk Annilators", but under the Dominion fleet it simply says "Any ship with launch bays carries Thunderhawks".  I just want to make sure this isn't an error.

We also took on board some of the fan list suggestions to create a “Devastator” (?) strike cruiser, though we did not go with the one with larger launch bays because the SM’s with their resilient ordnance is already an attack-craft heavy fleet.

I'm glad you're seeing the value of suggestions with variants, but the bombardment configuration for "Replace launch bays" is completely unbalanced.  You can get a str9 bombardment Cannon shot in front arc for free!?  That's only 145 points for more Bombardment power then any Battle Barge.  2 SCs will get 6 dice in the worst aspect that need only +4 to hit and +4 to cause criticals.  In the best, they will have 13 dice!  Considering how maneuverable they are it won't be difficult to point the prow right at an enemy vessel.  Plus, the ship is now more effective because it isn't bogged down with RO special orders.  The bombardment variant should only get an additional str3 prow bombardment and I think even that warrants a price increase.

I believe the point of having a "carrier" version goes along with trading out a single TH for a shield on the basic SC model ( this is something that at least my SM playing mate would like to see).  The basic line cruiser would get much needed resilience to lances and the carrier variant would help fill the gap of lost TH.  Not to mention that would allow a bit more flexibility in fleet tactics customization.  People could build out a TH heavy fleet or a bombardment heavy fleet to personal taste.  Can you please share your thoughts on this point and why you don't see it as a valid trade and reason to include a carrier varient?  Don't go silent on this one!

It should be noted that I do agree that SM don't need a access to a carrier variant if they keep 2 TH per basic cruiser.  So this variant is dependent on re-thinking the basic SC.

More to follow soon, but in a nutshell, we both agree that lances should be rare and expensive for the Space Marines to have, which also means the Dominion rules needed to be fixed as well....Lances were made much more expensive, and a simple fleet restriction was put in place so that lances cannot become the predominant strike cruiser armament. This allows players who want to use lances to have them available without allowing it to become overpowering or change the flavor of the fleet.

Basically I disagree with lances as your inherently changing the flavor of SM by unnecessarily making additional weapons available to them.  This fixes what issue?

The Seditio Opprimere was included primarily because there are more fans that want it than those that hate it, regardless of how vocal the ones that hate it wish to be, how many statistics or references one wishes to make toward the contrary, whatever. We did however tone down the profile a LOT because frankly the original profile was grotesque. A fleet can only have one, having one replaces one of the three regular battle barges allowed in the fleet, and the Seditio Opprimere isn’t even all that great a lance battleship. If one really wanted to be a lance hog, they can select an Apocalypse battleship as the venerable battlebarge for far less points and actually have a more powerful lance broadside. Once again, if you don’t like it, don’t use it.

I'd love to see proof there are more fans who want it!  But as you said there are cheaper VBB to be had for lances.  Once again, whats the point of this offering if you can admit it's not even worth taking over another Imperial Battleship.

One Last Thing
Oh, please do away with the ability to take any refit for +20 points.  It has the same "issue" as Tyranid evolutions and more then half aren't really worth taking.  If you up the basic SC to 2 shields (and drop a TH) then that eliminates the real necessity to having access to the shield refit.  The only 2 remaining options that are really worth it would be the +2 hull points ( I'm not sure how I feel about a 165 point 8hp SC ) or Target Matrix...do you really think a bombardment versions with str9 in the front needs a left column shift?

Can't wait for draft 3,

Russ

[horizon]

Hi,
thanks for replying

i) I have never encountered someone who wants the Seditio. Everyone hates it. Okay, sometimes a player comes on and likes it, then you give all reasons why it is bad and everyone agrees.
I am really curious to the players you met (wanting the S.O., abusing overlapping (which no one else ever encountered), I guess bunch of cheesy powergamers, right?
It is just a bad design as anti-tyranid. Give it batteries instead of lances and it'll be fine. Then it is fluffy and not out of character for Marines. win-win.

This seditio does not get seal approval.

ii) As expensive the lances and restricted they are I just do not want to see lances on strike cruisers. Period.

iii) Odd to see the devestator or similar over the assault.
edit: whoa... that's a lot of bombardment... I mean...9 is to much. Last Spartacus his variant got it at max 7 and people complained. iirc the discussion settled at 5, lets say 6 if the ship is restricted on the 1:1 basis.

iv) barges: take on the ammendmant that some ships like the Desolator are not available as a vbb

v) no second shield/dropped bay on the strike cruiser. Why?

v+iii) as said the assault is much more believable when the normal strike cruiser has 1 launch bay and the assault can only be taken on a 1:1 basis.

vi) agreed with russ on the campaign upgrades. Not needed for Marines OR nids in one-off games.

cheers!


ps on the fun remark at the end and such: well, take remarks above in that kind of light. I like this game, it is a fun game, I like expansions but I want the expansions to be fun and the best fun is if an expansion stays true to the background of the game and/or expands on it. Alas seditios and lance strike cruiser just do not fit with those criteria in my opinion. One may prove me wrong but so far no one succeeded.

[lastspartacus]

str6 and 1:1 is the best and balanced, I've been presuaded to believe.


Any word on a shield and turret for the BB?  Still don't understand why they can't protect themselves like a normal b-ship.

As to lances, I think Novas prove, Horizon, that lances do not have zero place in marine fleets, but are controversial and very rare.
Therefore, lances on the odd SC or BB, at a points premium and not universally accessible, makes sense to me.
Not that it matters to me, as I will never make use of them.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Lances were made much more expensive, and a simple fleet restriction was put in place so that lances cannot become the predominant strike cruiser armament. This allows players who want to use lances to have them available without allowing it to become overpowering or change the flavor of the fleet.

The very fact that lances are now included, even if expensive, in a fleet which virtually had none before IS changing the flavor. You're even deviating greatly from the fluff in Armada. And no matter how expensive you make it, 6+ armored ships with lances can easily result to overpowering.

We also took on board some of the fan list suggestions to create a “Devastator” (?) strike cruiser, though we did not go with the one with larger launch bays because the SM’s with their resilient ordnance is already an attack-craft heavy fleet.

Easy enough to fix: lower the TH strength in what is essentially a Light Cruiser to Str 1.

You actually think an FP9 BC firing in the front arc is good? Really? Even assuming I take 2 regular SCs to 1 with FP9 BCs, that's a total of FP15 BCs hitting and critting on 4+. Right. Somehow, I find it very strange how you can agree to this and not agree to a carrier variant.

The Seditio Opprimere was included primarily because there are more fans that want it than those that hate it, regardless of how vocal the ones that hate it wish to be, how many statistics or references one wishes to make toward the contrary, whatever. We did however tone down the profile a LOT because frankly the original profile was grotesque. A fleet can only have one, having one replaces one of the three regular battle barges allowed in the fleet, and the Seditio Opprimere isn’t even all that great a lance battleship. If one really wanted to be a lance hog, they can select an Apocalypse battleship as the venerable battlebarge for far less points and actually have a more powerful lance broadside. Once again, if you don’t like it, don’t use it.

I have never seen the situation where more fans want it than those who hate it. The SO was only one such ship if I am not mistaken and now every SM fleet can have one? Even if you did tone things down as you say. It's still as effective as a Desolator and cheaper to take in a fleet since one doesn't have the 3 cruiser:1 battleship requirement.

Again, who would take the vanilla Battlebarge instead of this ship, even toned down?

Even assuming my suggestion of limiting the VBB to non-lance heavy battleships, you actually think the Apocalypse is better? The Apoc is NOT a great lance battleship. It's a Spd 15 ship with Armor 5 in the rear. Put a BM on it and see it suffer. Then put some ships behind it and blast away accordingly. That's how problematic the Apocalypse can be compared to the SO. The Apoc is basically a 30 cm lance heavy battleship with the option to fire long but suffers if it does so. The Apoc comes out to 400 points. Just 50 points shy of the SO. Not that much different. The difference is an escort.

And much as you don't like the statistics, that's the only way we can justify not allowing this ship on the table.

Lastly, it's not a question of my not using it because I don't like it. It's a question of my opponent likes it and since you made it legal, will play with it, no matter how much I don't like it. Heck, I'd like it, much more than the Apocalypse even if it is 50 more points. Heck I get ordnance to boot.
 

It was the intent of the game designers to create this expansion, which is what we tried to remain faithful to without incorporating what was broken. Please keep in mind that once again not everyone is going to be happy with what is here. Also keep in mind that THIS IS A GAME INTENDED FOR FUN. We're not trying to balance the budget or affect health-care with this rule set so please keep the vitriol and "I hate everything about this, the game designers and the color purple" to a minimum. Remember that since this is a game, one does NOT need to use these rules. Thanks!

Not everyone is going to be happy with it but if you hadn't included the SO and lance armed SCs, more people will be happier. How are those inclusions being faithful? What is to stop me from making a list with the SO (450), 4 vanilla SCs (580) and 2 Str 2 lance armed SCs (330), 2 Firestorms (90) and Master of the Fleet (50) at 1500 points? I remove the SO and 1 Firestorm and I have a 1000 point 6 ship squadron and 1 Escort or 2 Re-rolls.

The DRAFT update can be seen and downloaded here:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

Did I mention this is a DRAFT???
- Nate

Yeah and we hope it stays that way, a Draft.