Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[flybywire-E2C]

Okay folks, after many floggings, beat-downs and aspersions cast about my mother, here's version 3.1 of the Space Marines Draft!

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

All the documents on this page are published publicly so you shouldn't need a Google Docs account to see them. Please let me know if you have any problems with the documents here.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Now that's a fluffy Battle Barge. I remember making one myself. I think mine had more WBs though. LOL!   Now where did I put that design? Hmmm...

The design on the other page is seriously underpriced though.

[Vaaish]

comments on the list:

I've already mentioned the SedO and my concerns there, but I think it's a huge step in the right direction. to answer your comments, I realize it is only 30cm weapons. It's been my experience that this will make little difference. Most of the long range battleships are only tossing out a couple of dice against 6+ armor regardless of facing and it's on equal footing with shields. The SedO will close and it will make a mess because it's shooting at optimal range where it won't suffer column shifts for range and will likely get left shifts at least once. I will concede on the points with the addition of the VP changes for VBB's.

Strike Cruisers:
I'm still not happy with the lance option available, but you have given a good bit on the rest and I'd rather have an overpriced useless lance that will never be taken and the other changes than previous offerings. (S1 lance or +1 shield.... not a hard choice)

I still think that it's too good of a deal to trade the thawk bays for s5 BC. This is far better than the torpedoes for the same price. It's just not an even trade. I'd take the BC over the torpedoes any day.

Crusade fleet
Interesting enough to give it a go for access to the venerable BB, fortress monastery, and thawk annihilators. Not really different from the vanilla marine list except for the lack of RSV's. This list would appear to surpass the armada marine list in all areas and will likely be the standard list used at tournaments.

Dominion fleet
I still don't see the purpose of this list. It really doesn't do anything better than the armageddon list except provide access to some of the new upgrades and variants. Captains are a nice touch, but it's not enough to make this worth using over the crusade list or the armageddon list if you want a mixed fleet.


and.....


the fortress monastery...

WHY does it have BC? Other than the BC is the iconic marine weapon here, 30cm seems a bit comical since nothing in it's right mind will be getting that close and it can't exactly move anywhere to get them in range... and it's not likely to be bombarding any of the planets it's in orbit around.

[lastspartacus]

Make it amror 6+ and it might be worth 1k points

Now THATS a fortress.

[horizon]

The bombardment str.5 for 2 thawks is indeed too much. I day lower it to str.3.

To give the vessel str.6 in total of bombardment.

6+ to the Monastry? Yeah! Finally a worthy space station.

[lastspartacus]

6+ armor makes more sense than Bombardment cannons, considering the purpose of those things.

Hell, if lances go anywhere on an SM fleet, I would think they would be allowed on a Monastary, as its not part of the fleet per se, and is purely for self defence.

[russ_c]

...here's version 3.1 of the Space Marines Draft!

This is a big step in the right direction.  

Strike Cruiser Lance Option
I can concede on the lances like Vaaish; they are completely pointless for that cost, but if it makes someone out there feel better because the option exists then okay.

Strike Cruiser Bombardment Option
I still agree that Strength 3 is the appropriate trade.  Not only do I feel it's more even with Str6 Torps, but you must factor in that even in this draft SCs need and will continue to squadron in packs of 2-3 to be effective.  With Str7 BCs that is some serious firepower.  3 SCs with the bombardment option will put out more then the new SO barge.

Seditio Opprimere
I really like what you've done, BUT am I the only one that thinks 12 BC is to much?  Seriously, that is more powerful then the 6 lance version that was first proposed!  Especially since the dorsal BC can now be combined with a broadside.  I think it should be toned down to, 10 BC to a broadside and even 10 is just barely shaving off a die or two.  I guess that might warrant a price decrease to the original SO value.

Shield Option
Nice, my SM buddy is going to love that.  My Chaos lances will not.  Although I'm not at odds with how a second shield is implemented into the draft.  I still favor re-configuring the basic cruiser to have a single T-hawk and the 2 shields come standard.  This then leaves the opening for making the "carrier" variant of an SC with 3 T-hawks as we were discussing earlier.

The reason I like this concept is two fold:

1.) It allows flexibility in fleet design which SM have very little of compared to other races.  Instead of a boiler plate cruiser fleet, a commander will now be able to tailor the fleet towards T-hawk heavy designs or bombardment heavy (or torp) design to better suit his playing style.  This also helps to alleviate the RO special order problems that SM always have and that is not addressed in the current draft design.

2.) I believe it will make it more fun for opponents, because they now have to make choices.  Right now, I simply pick the closest SC, since they are all the same, and either blow it up in 1 turn or cripple it to hinder his T-hawk output.  With T-hawk distribution being less even it will force not only the player to think about fleet and squad composition, but it will also force the opponent to make more tactical decisions.

Cruiser Varient Limitations
It's good that this does not apply to shield upgrades, but I thought we had been discussing a 1:1 ratio for the other variants?  With the current wording "More Strike Cruisers in the fleet must be of the basic profile above then all other variants combined",  it is not 1:1

Progress!

Russ

[flybywire-E2C]

6+ armor makes more sense than Bombardment cannons, considering the purpose of those things.

Hell, if lances go anywhere on an SM fleet, I would think they would be allowed on a Monastary, as its not part of the fleet per se, and is purely for self defence.

Okay everyone, is there a general consensus that 6+ armor and the regular Ramilies lance suite is consistent for a 1,000-point Fortress Monastery? I'm just getting a little tired of tweaking this thing, getting it past Bob, then getting my face peeled by the forum, rince, repeat....   (not to mention Ray STILL hasn't seen any of this yet)

You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.

No, we're STILL not re-inventing Eldar so stop asking!

- Nate

[lastspartacus]

Okay everyone, is there a general consensus that 6+ armor and the regular Ramilies lance suite is consistent for a 1,000-point Fortress Monastery? I'm just getting a little tired of tweaking this thing, getting it past Bob, then getting my face peeled by the forum, rince, repeat....   (not to mention Ray STILL hasn't seen any of this yet)

You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.

I sold my 12k points worth of 40k and jumped to Privateer Press for solely that reason
That is, fan service.

No, we're STILL not re-inventing Eldar so stop asking!

- Nate

Thats ok too, anybody thats anybody uses MMS

What thoughts on forward or l/r/f firing bombards on the SO?  Broadside bombards just seems against the intent of what bombards do, don't you think?

[russ_c]

You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.

You just gained +10 Respect from me.  Customer service is extremely difficult and simply ignoring general consensus is a cop-out.  I'm glad you're showing a willingness to work with the most active members of the BFG community.  Although there is some truth in what those designers said, it really boils down to "you can not please every fan opinion".  In the end I understand that YOU have to make the final judgment call and that's exceedingly more difficult when you're making an honest attempt to listen to the community.

Along these lines I still believe that within this particular thread there is decent agreement on 2 more things not in the draft:

1.) The Bombardment option should be a Str3 not 5 or 6
2.) The basic SC should have 2 shields and 1 T-hawk ( perhaps allowing for a carrier/assault version, whatever people are calling it) , I've already given my reasons why this should be considered.

Please anyone feel free to disagree, but do so with constructive reasons!

Russ

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Okay everyone, is there a general consensus that 6+ armor and the regular Ramilies lance suite is consistent for a 1,000-point Fortress Monastery? I'm just getting a little tired of tweaking this thing, getting it past Bob, then getting my face peeled by the forum, rince, repeat....   (not to mention Ray STILL hasn't seen any of this yet)

You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.

No, we're STILL not re-inventing Eldar so stop asking!

- Nate

The 3rd Draft is almost there. I would say pause for now and discuss with Ray and Bob this latest one as well as comments from the players. You will get things done. The designer who said that, with all due respect, is wrong. The ones giving you feedback at the moment are generally in agreement with how SM should be. Better to get a product which players can more or less agree upon with the overall design and just have disagreements on some points rather than have a product which will be polarizing.

I'm still unhappy with the SC lance availability as I see it as an opening for future insertions as well as fan designs with multiple lances in all arcs etc etc and justifying that by saying "but the SC already has been given a lance option". Why leave an opening for people to exploit?

[flybywire-E2C]

comments on the list:

<snip>

I still think that it's too good of a deal to trade the thawk bays for s5 BC. This is far better than the torpedoes for the same price. It's just not an even trade. I'd take the BC over the torpedoes any day.

I agree! Keep in mind that even when used with the “other” prow BC, the total is only str-8, the same strength as a BB’s dorsals, and they only go prow at that strength. Also, don’t compare str-5 BC’s to str-6 torps because that’s not what’s actually happening. For this refit it gives up its launch bays, and a SM capital ship losing its launch bays is not lightly dismissed. If you consider two T-Hawk bays (resilient fighters/a-boats that roll D6+1) are equivalent to four regular bays, the trade is not as disparate as it sounds. It’s not that str-5 BC’s are a big step up from six torps, the real issue is that 6 torps are a big step down from two T-Hawks, especially when considering a single T-Hawk marker can wipe out all 6 torps and have a 50% chance of not even being removed in the bargain! Str-8 torps would be a more even trade for two T-Hawks, but there is NO WAY we could justify putting str-8 torps on a CL. I mean really!

As was mentioned about the str-1 L/F/R lance, torps will as well have to be something someone wants solely for tactical finesse or the fluff/coolness factor. I actually have one that I modeled for exactly that reason, which I use to tag-team cruisers when I want them to choose what to hit with turrets.

Crusade fleet
Interesting enough to give it a go for access to the venerable BB, fortress monastery, and thawk annihilators. Not really different from the vanilla marine list except for the lack of RSV's. This list would appear to surpass the armada marine list in all areas and will likely be the standard list used at tournaments.

Dominion fleet
I still don't see the purpose of this list. It really doesn't do anything better than the armageddon list except provide access to some of the new upgrades and variants. Captains are a nice touch, but it's not enough to make this worth using over the crusade list or the armageddon list if you want a mixed fleet.

The Crusade fleet is essentially a “pure” SM fleet with the new rules grafted in, sort of a reboot of the original SM rule-set written when RSV’s were the only escort models available.

The Dominion fleet is a more rounded fleet for much larger engagements where the SM’s would be at a serious disadvantage were they limited to only thirteen capital ships with ten of them being light cruisers. Again, consider it a reboot of the Armageddon list.

In no way are these intended to replace the Armageddon and Astartes lists, but they are better as a byproduct of the improvements, and like you said, as such will likely be more popular.

and.....


the fortress monastery...

WHY does it have BC? Other than the BC is the iconic marine weapon here, 30cm seems a bit comical since nothing in it's right mind will be getting that close and it can't exactly move anywhere to get them in range... and it's not likely to be bombarding any of the planets it's in orbit around.

Agreed, but with all the complaints I was dealing with concerning VBB’s and SC variants, the noise on the Fortress-Monastery was just about nil so it was left as-is. I have posted more on this separately.

- Nate

[horizon]

You know what's the funniest part? One of bits of advice I personally was given by more than one of the designers (won't say who) was to never, EVER ask the fans what they want, or I would never EVER get anything done. That's okay though- in the end, this will be the best product ever produced for the game. You guys are awesome, and I mean that.

That's a real bad game designer who told you that. This workout on Marines may be tedious but it'll be worth it in the end.
The MMS rules, from the obscure v1.0 to v1.9, have shown how valuable feedback is. Yes, I made calls on subject which did not please everyone but the set evolved from cumbersome into a ruleset that the people who dislike msm (official eldar rules) can pick up easily and use instead. For a lot of them it works fine and good.

The lance now has reached a point of being a gimmick. An option but something no one takes. I can live with it.


Yes, 6+ for 1000pts is suitable, lol.

I would sooner drop the optional prow bombardment on the strike cruiser to 3, then change how you applied the shield upgrade now.

[Vaaish]

BC’s to str-6 torps because that’s not what’s actually happening. For this refit it gives up its launch bays, and a SM capital ship losing its launch bays is not lightly dismissed. If you consider two T-Hawk bays (resilient fighters/a-boats that roll D6+1) are equivalent to four regular bays, the trade is not as disparate as it sounds. It’s not that str-5 BC’s are a big step up from six torps, the real issue is that 6 torps are a big step down from two T-Hawks, especially when considering a single T-Hawk marker can wipe out all 6 torps and have a 50% chance of not even being removed in the bargain! Str-8 torps would be a more even trade for two T-Hawks, but there is NO WAY we could justify putting str-8 torps on a CL. I mean really!

While the upgrade is actually trading for the launch bays, the point is that you have two options to trade those launch bays for and one of those is far better than the other. While individually compared to the LB the trades might be closer, people will compare the options to each other as well. Given the choice those BC are far better than the torpedoes if you ere inclined to trade the bays.

In no way are these intended to replace the Armageddon and Astartes lists, but they are better as a byproduct of the improvements, and like you said, as such will likely be more popular.

I guess my point is, why do we need the dominion list? the crusade list is a nice addition but the dominion just feel like a list to be a list.

[horizon]

Main point is that giving up the launch bay for torpedoes still means the ship needs a reload instead of LockOn, while the bombardment cannon upgrade make the ship much easier to use: no reload ordnance needed. That alone is worth points.