Zhukov, the Seditio does NOT fit fluff vs Tyranids! Weapon Batteries are much better against Tyranids then lances.
How are WB’s better than lances against 5+armor and all the BM’s Tyranids generate? I know many people think the Gothic is overrated, but as a fleet weapon, I just don’t see how this makes sense. I’m not arguing the point, I’m just curious is all.
____
Hi Nate, Bob, Ray,
Hi!
you may consider us online people a vocal minority. But that is simply not true. Most of us represent a group of players. Secondly we are vocal because we care about our and your Battlefleet Gothic. We care so much we go to lengthy discussions and debates. We try to improve the standard lists and sometimes we add funky-wacky houserules for fun.
We have presented, in this thread about by Space Marines, various well grounded reasons to not have lances on Strike Cruisers no matter the costs. We raised our concers with reason about the (hated) seditio opprimere. The most important reason of all might be the fact all these lances are against the lovely background setting 40k and Battlefleet Gothic gives us.
I, and I guess others as well, hope that you will listen and just remove anything lance related from any Space Marine list or document. Only Nova's and perhaps the Firestorm RSV should bring lances into the Marine fleets and the odd venerable battle barge (with restrictions).
We ARE listening- that’s why this debate is happening in the first place. It has not been nor will it be our intention to force unwanted rules down anyone’s throats. At the same time, we are trying to execute the intent of the designers that handed this to us, and as such we want to incorporate as much of their unfinished work as possible without fundamentally changing it or “breaking†anything already in place.
Here are the suggestions that seem to go well by most (correct me if I am wrong):
* Strike Cruisers with 2 shields and 1 Thunderhawk bay. Cost at 150pts if needed.
What we’re hashing for v3 right now is allowing any number of strike cruisers to buy a second shield (profile unchanged) for +15 points apiece. This fits the SM “get in your face†theme much better without creating yet another SC variant.
By the way: the “buy a refit†rule is gone. I notice the 2x prow lance version wasn’t addressed here, but that’s gone as well.
* Assault variant and Siege variant (with 5-6 bombardment MAX). These variants can only be taken on a 1:1 basis againts regular strike cruisers.
We already made this change to an extent in v3. Consider it done.
Other ideas which go well:
* Barge with extra turret/shield
Making this available for a price is worth discussing. Keep in mind this refit should be EXPENSIVE. While armor 6 does nothing against lances, it is a game changer against everything else: gunnery, torps and attack craft. The original designer intent by reducing the shields/turrets is that with the ship already being armor 6, it almost had the same effect as an extra turret/shield in and of itself during play-testing. When you roll some dice, you will see an armor-6 ship with 4 shields/turrets is almost like an Emperor with 5 shields and 6 turrets. Not exactly, but very close.
We are discussing a variant of this, but I will address it separately
* Marines may make teleport attacks when on special orders.
This doesn’t need to be addressed here. The soon to be released draft FAQ includes a ruling that Lock-On and Reload Ordnance doesn’t effect teleport attacks for any fleet. The other special orders make too great a demand on a ship and crew to make Space Marines (and their smaller crews to start with) exempt from this. For example, Eldar may not be as tough as Space Marines, but their vessels are as efficient as any in space. Why wouldn’t they be exempt? Don’t get me started on Necrons- their tech is so good, even escorts have portals! See what I mean? It’s a door better left closed.
okay:
* As far as I see Annihilators are good.
Keep in mind that these are for Crusade fleets ONLY. Fleets that integrate with IN ships and ordnance don’t also get dedicated T-Hawk bombers. Also, the quirky “turrets hit on a 6†was not merely overlooked, it is gone.
* Venerable battle barges but no Desolator or lance toading gunships.
Here’s where the rubber meets the road. The game designers really REALLY wanted this left alone. There is fluff precedent for the founding Chapters in particular to have among their fleet truly ancient ships along with special dispensation from the Imperial Navy to keep them, if for no other reason that some of these vessels were involved with the saving and reformation of the Imperium itself during and immediately after the Horus Heresy. Venerable is what they are in actual intent, ships that are revered and literally worshipped in their own right as icons of the Chapter and the Imperium as a whole. Some of these will be Despoilers and Desolators in their original forms, vessels that their Primarchs and in some cases the Emperor himself walked aboard. Others will be ships captured by the Space Marines during great, storied battles over their long history and then through sheer recalcitrance retained instead of being turned over to the Adeptus Mechanicus or IN. The Space Wolves’ Emperor is a particular example, the fluff behind it being a nod to what the Space Marine battlebarge model almost was (that’s a different story).
Here’s the stark reality. The designers wanted this. More importantly, one single ship in an entire fleet is NOT going to change the flavor of the Space Marines (especially since carriers of ANY class
have to take thunderhawks at 1/2 launch bays), nor does it suddenly make a fleet an insuperable adversary.
anything else?
Yes, there is.
We KNEW there was going to be some concerns about allowing Chaos battleships be Venerable BB’s, but this is actually fluff true, intended by the game designers and not a broken rule so it’s not being changed.
The intent of including the Sedditio Oppimiere was to provide an alternative VBB that would be more themeful to the Space Marines but retain the intent of the game designers. However, I am not arguing with anyone here that the original 6x60cm broadside lances the profile originally sported was a complete abortion. On the other hand, I have to tell you none of us expected the “no never EVER†response we’ve been getting with allowing the SO to exist even with severely dumbed-down lances. Our latest iteration has only 4x30cm lance broadsides with an extra shield and turret to make it a close-in gunship, but what I am seeing here is almost a Mommie Dearest “no capital lances, EVER!†response.
Here’s a compromise to the “I hate lances†crowd. Before Forgeworld stopped making new models for BFG (the reason is beyond the scope of this post), the next project in the hopper was an orbital bombardment barge for the Space Marines. This was going to be a BB model with ONLY 30cm weapons, but with better turrets and shields to survive getting in range to do its job. It was decided by the designers when the model was scrapped that the idea had enough merit to see light, but there was no way to model it without custom bits so the SO was created instead. Granted the profile was an abortion, but the goal at the time (not by the HA’s at this point) was to create a Space Marine Apocalypse without the quirky “it blows a gasket beyond 30cm†rule.
Yes everyone, I know it was a bad idea- I get it. Here is Bob’s and my vision for what the Sedditio Oppimiere could be were the bombardment barge resurrected:
Sedditio Oppimiere: 450 points
Battleship-12HP/ Speed=20cm/ Turns=45deg /Armor 6+/ Shields=4/ Turrets=4
Port Bombardment Cannon: 12x30cm
Stbd Bombardment Cannon: 12x30cm
Prow launch bays: 3 Thunderhawks
Prow torpedoes: str-6
Dorsal bombardment Cannon: 8x30cm L/F/R
Okay, I know someone’s going to hate this even though there isn’t a lance or >30cm weapon anywhere on this thing! Thoughts?
- Nate
