August 05, 2024, 09:16:08 AM

Author Topic: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development  (Read 263634 times)

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #315 on: October 10, 2010, 12:34:56 PM »
Sigoroth, I understand why you feel the way you do, but in this one instance, you are wrong. They were absolutely NOT designed specifically to interfere with each other. The designers wanted the Space Marines to have a cool, unique weapon that was fluff-related to their job (planetary bombardment) and hit even harder than lances but used the weapon battery table to even itself out. It was an unintentional side effect that the Space Marines were forced to pick between one and the other, one not easy to fix by simply saying it ignored blast markers (which was one proposal) because doing so would have made it's attachment to the gunnery table pointless.

So you're saying the initial framers of the SM rules were so incompetent that they couldn't foresee the conflict? Well, if so I'll stipulate to this and go one further and say that their intentions were just as incompetent. A good thing they stuffed up their stupid intentions. Seriously, if that's what they intended they should've just given them lances.

Quote
I know in a lot of occassions you think otherwise, but I assure you the HA's don't just sit around thinking of ways to break BFG.

So it's a talent rather than a skill?

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #316 on: October 10, 2010, 01:29:10 PM »
Thanks for keeping an open mind, Sigoroth.  ;D

In any case, sleep is for squares! After marathon BFG on the brain, I uploaded three files to the BFG repository
Link: http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Space Marines v3.2
Only difference here form v3.1 is the updated Fortress Monastery, minor spelling and other errors, etc.

Rogue Traders v1.7
Only difference here from  v1.6 is expanded Rogue Trader cruiser choices, minor spelling and other errors, etc.

Tau Commerce Protection Fleet v2.0
This one's a biggie. No big changes, but a whole bunch of small changes and adjustments all over the place like Easter eggs.

I'll let the fans digest this for a few days. As for me, I'm going to bed.

- Nate


Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #317 on: October 10, 2010, 04:27:19 PM »
Quote
Then why do it at all?
I think Nate already answered this.

Quote
WBs + BCs are worse than WBs + Lances OR BCs + Lances when shooting against ships. However, when shooting at anything that counts as a defence then the WB/BC combination is better than either of the lance options. This is what SM ships were built for. So they have a combination of weapon systems that work worse (than the alternatives) against warfleets but better (than alternatives) against defences. Why would we want to change that?

I don't see how this rule changes that in any significant way. After that first ship or squadron fires on a target you are taking the column shift just like before. WB+Lace is still far more efficient that WB+BC. In any event I see no reason to continue this discussion. You are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Quote
Er, no, it's in reference to this stupid simultaneous fire rule ...
My apologies. The flow of the sentence seemed to emphasize the BGI rules.


Nate,
Any thoughts about extending the basilica weapons to 60cm and boosting the battery strength a bit more? It won't be hard to present an abeam aspect to the FM and with the heavier focus on batteries and the drop of the Lances to 45cm it seems a little lacking after the column shifts. An abeam capital ship anywhere outside of 30cm is only getting 4 dice from the batteries regardless of the support from the basilica batteries.

-Vaaish

Offline Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #318 on: October 10, 2010, 04:33:42 PM »
Wow do you really think the Srike Cruiser Variants work?

I mean a STR 8 Bombardment Cannon (combined) is suddenly more then twice the firepower, this monster with 2 Shields and Armor 6 for only 160 Points. I dont know... and i play SM myself.
The biggest disadvantage for SCs was the versatile weaponry (even if they have good Leaderships unlike the Tau with the same Problem) with the new version this is sorted out and pure firepower.

BTW its unclear to me if the Armageddon list can use the strike cruiser variants.

The rest seems to look fine.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #319 on: October 10, 2010, 05:25:21 PM »
Would 'one brace attempt against a ship/squadron, ship/squadrons must declare all fire against a certain target before firing'  work for everyone?

And cool Fortress Monostary.  45cm lances is meh but I  guess it differentiates the FM, but I do like the idea of increasing the basilica batteries to compensate a quadrant's fire.  Altogether, no real complaints.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #320 on: October 10, 2010, 07:59:17 PM »
Hi,

the last points -
Thunderhawk Annihilators are fighter-bombers but do not work like Ork bombers? Pity. I would apply same attack rules plus resilience.

the bombardment swap on the strike cruiser (str5) still feels to high. Drop to str.3.

Even without those changes I advice you Nate and the HA to stop development on this list. Make it official. And just install a yearly or two-yearly revision of the rules. Since the pdf's are living and not sold an easy feature to do.
Perhaps not ideal for everyone but a good enough improvement to the Marines on an overall level.

cheers, and thanks for listening to our rants, advices, curses and ideas. :)
horizon

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #321 on: October 10, 2010, 08:12:48 PM »
I know this is mostly finished, but some thoughts popped in the old noggin.

1. Any word on what thawks will be counting as in bombing runs?

2. Are thawks really twice as good as normal bombers?  I noticed recently that chaos could convert SM governed ships with half TH bays.  Why would I ever do this?

3. Random thought, any thought ever put towards a 5cm speed increase to barge or strike cruiser?  Any way to add a shield or turret to a normal barge, or reason why I shouldn't let my SM player not pay for more?

4. I STILL have not gotten a decent argument to why a couple doctrines cant be thrown in.  There are marines that could perform differently even in space.  Have it so every cap ship must have it if used, whatever the points it would cost.  Long range or two teleport attacks for imperial fist-esque chapters, who utilize much and powerful teleport tech.
Or double boarding value like mark of Khorne for space wolves/blood angels/black templars. 
Is that unreasonable, or unfluffy?  Don't want my black templars pwned by khorne so easily.

5.  After thinking about it, why was the decision made to allow teleport attacks on reload and lockon?  For the latter especially you are just diverting the needed power to weapons rather than engines.  It also gives some bonus to NOT locking on, at least.  Marines should be allowed to lockon despite SO not because of their tech, but simply their skill with targeting and special designated reactors to power the teleport.

6.  Any thought on changing the current way teleport attacks work?  I can understand a modifier to attacking larger ships, but just not allowing it seems strange, as there is no reason there would be more troops per square inch on a larger ship to better prevent teleports.
Escorts should be both immune and unable to do teleport attacks, as they are too small and underpowered to have the required facilities, and are too small and fast to accurately lock onto.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2010, 12:21:39 AM by lastspartacus »

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #322 on: October 11, 2010, 01:07:58 AM »
...And just install a yearly or two-yearly revision of the rules. Since the pdf's are living and not sold an easy feature to do.
Perhaps not ideal for everyone but a good enough improvement to the Marines on an overall level.


Could you put a revision number on the front in small numbers so one can easily identify what version they have printed at a glance.  Maybe it should be in the footer of every page, but it can be very small.

Russ

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #323 on: October 11, 2010, 02:56:16 AM »
...And just install a yearly or two-yearly revision of the rules. Since the pdf's are living and not sold an easy feature to do.
Perhaps not ideal for everyone but a good enough improvement to the Marines on an overall level.


Could you put a revision number on the front in small numbers so one can easily identify what version they have printed at a glance.  Maybe it should be in the footer of every page, but it can be very small.

Russ

Horizon, THANKS- approval form the really dedicated (and picky!) fans like you, Russ, Vaaish, Sigoroth and many others means a lot to us. In the end, we're trying to make the game better for everyone, and the really picky, dedicated fans are the ones doing the most to keep us honest. We'll let it sit in the repository as drafts until about next Wednesday or so before calling them Final, just in case someone else finds a cut and paste screw-up I missed. I was up almost 30 hours before I pushed that stuff to the website so undoubtedly some other small errors may have snuck through.

Russ, yes, when we cement these down as Final documents, we can place small date and version stamps at the bottom of every page. That's easy enough.

Next up- putting up a draft of the FAQ (which should go up later tonight), then it's on to the Orks!

About the Orks- gve me some breathing room, by the way. We've already pushed all the models around over the last few months, but it's going to take me the better part of a week before I have something to even get past the rest of the HA's, much less show any of you guys!


- Nate
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #324 on: October 15, 2010, 03:18:11 AM »
I dont know what happened.  I posted today and it moved it back to a 10-10 slot.  So wierd.  Anyway, please scroll up a couple posts to my thoughts.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #325 on: October 15, 2010, 04:13:32 AM »
Hi LS,

1) upto now: as bombers
2) Yes
3) No
4) Space is to Vast. Doctrines are too small
5) Because it is a good idea.
6) Your scared if they teleport back ;)

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #326 on: October 15, 2010, 04:20:57 AM »
Hi LS,

1) upto now: as bombers
2) Yes
3) No
4) Space is to Vast. Doctrines are too small
5) Because it is a good idea.
6) Your scared if they teleport back ;)


1. so you cant have them count as fighters if you want?
2. if you say so :)
3.  ok
4. maybe doctrines is the wrong word.  is there any reason why marine ships shouldnt be able to pay points to double boarding value? 
Chaose can do it, and chaos has many times more versatility and options.
5. Why?  Besides not making sense, how does it enhance gameplay?  I can see it going off on RO, maybe.
6. Do you see anything inherantly broken with allowing teleport attacks against larger vessels, or do you just not like the idea.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #327 on: October 15, 2010, 04:33:43 AM »
1) sry, fighter and bomber, not fighter-bombers which I want them to be.
4) 10 Marines on a ship hardly do a thing. A 5km long Murder filled with crazy Khorne adepts will ;)
5) Yes, enhances play
6) I dunno. Perhaps a -3 modifier.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #328 on: October 15, 2010, 04:47:33 AM »
4.  10 marines?  A strike cruiser holds around 100 marines.  I'd say thats proportional to whatever is on a cruiser.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #329 on: October 15, 2010, 04:50:02 AM »
Reread all that again in the books. Yes, a Strike Cruiser can carry a whole company. But that is rare I suppose. I mean, Marines are precious warriors, all that geneseed in one basket....?

If I count all the Strike Cruisers I have destroyed in the past years the Imperium would've lost a chapter or three allready. ;)