Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[russ_c]

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

If I had to take one or the other in a compromise, I would rather the Bombardment option be adjusted as well.  My primary concern is not what a single SC's prow Bombardment strength can be, but what the total firepower of a squad 2 to 3 brings to bear on the prow.  Who moves SCs in singles anyways, they are most effective in small squads and I think it's best looked at from that stand point.

Russ

[flybywire-E2C]

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.

Thanks. We’re trying. Really.

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

I’m waiting for consensus on this. Some say str-5 is great, some (like you) say str-5 is too much. I have already commented that this should NOT be compared with str-6 torps, this should be compared to two T-Hawks, which are the equivalent to four regular launch bays, because that’s what you are actually giving up to get this. When you look at it like that, someone would be daft to give up two T-Hawks for a str-3 prow-only B-cannon, which in the all but the best of circumstances will only give you +1D6 to hit. Str-5 B-cannon will in most situations give you two more shooting dice instead of one, which is a much more equitable trade for two T-Hawks. Thoughts?

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.

Your argument is valid, but one of the guiding principles we were given when taking this assignment was “whenever possible, don’t change any of the rulebook/Armada profiles.” (I’ll drop names this time- that came straight from Jervis). We will fix what’s broken, which is how the Styx, Retribution and Emperor got re-priced, but after nine years of use, there just isn’t enough argument to say the SC is actually broken and needs its basic profile changed. Is it themeful for the SC to get a second shield? It sure is! That’s why it can have one for +15 points for as many SC’s as you want to put them on, regardless of what variant, and you even get to keep the two launch bays!

Here’s why we don’t want to juggle launch bays around. Whatever variant you get should involve a hard choice by the SM player. Losing launch bays hurts for the SM’s, so if you get a shootier variant, you better really know why you want it. Curing this by offering a carrier-heavy variant is not fluff-true, solves the tactical problem for the player and makes picking a fleet a no-brainer. As Patton said, great leaders win wars with what they have, not with what they wish they had.

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

Russ

Russ, your input is appreciated, and I prefer to think I offered comments rather than criticism.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

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.

Show me where I can find these. I would like to play-test them for myself. Why I say is that while we are not entertaining any change to the core Eldar rules, I myself like to play Move-Move, Shoot-Shoot instead of Move-Shoot, Move-Shoot. As you know, that simply doesn't work when playing Eldar. What I want to see is if or how your variant rules completely screw up (or doesn't) the Eldar theme of "run out, shoot hard, run away and hide." They really are too fragile to try and stick around and be shot at, especially if facing an opponent clever enough to stay in the sun.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

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

Please explain what you mean. For example...

[horizon]

Hi Nate,
on the bombardment cannons sometimes not all comments have been clear. For once I said that str.5-6 was enough on the Strike Cruiser. This could be read as the option to be 5 but I meant the total BC value should be 5-6.

Thus, standard the strike cruiser has 3 bc, then the option to replace the bays should be str2-3 bombardment cannons. For a total of 5-6.

I think that is the consesus as well. I would settle for 3+3.

Also read my last post on page 14 regarding special orders on thawks/torps vs BC only.

new warning..
I guess I
Keep in mind, that ever since admiral d'artagnan's Space Wolves list in Warp Rift 12 the assault variant has been a popular wish.

Your Patton remark is funny, we can apply it to lances as well.

Top Link for Eldar MMS v1.9:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/geldarmms01.html
(Ray is familiar with these, Ray wants a form of MMS as well )

Here is development thread:
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=208.0

The main crux on v1.9 is the holofield-shield thing. Still working and collecting ideas on it. Also note that for v2.0 armour will go to prow 5+/rest 4+.
Eldar are still faaast, turnable, and such but still hittable.

(Yes it has the name Sigoroth in it (worked along until v1.5), I know the past of you two, but read past it ).

ps you don't play official bfg rules? tssk.
Simultaneous Rules from Warp Rift is also neat.

I guess I cleared your last question as well.

eg, the way you handled the shield upgrade is fine, the bc option needs toning down.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I’m waiting for consensus on this. Some say str-5 is great, some (like you) say str-5 is too much. I have already commented that this should NOT be compared with str-6 torps, this should be compared to two T-Hawks, which are the equivalent to four regular launch bays, because that’s what you are actually giving up to get this. When you look at it like that, someone would be daft to give up two T-Hawks for a str-3 prow-only B-cannon, which in the all but the best of circumstances will only give you +1D6 to hit. Str-5 B-cannon will in most situations give you two more shooting dice instead of one, which is a much more equitable trade for two T-Hawks. Thoughts?

Your argument is valid, but one of the guiding principles we were given when taking this assignment was “whenever possible, don’t change any of the rulebook/Armada profiles.” (I’ll drop names this time- that came straight from Jervis). We will fix what’s broken, which is how the Styx, Retribution and Emperor got re-priced, but after nine years of use, there just isn’t enough argument to say the SC is actually broken and needs its basic profile changed. Is it themeful for the SC to get a second shield? It sure is! That’s why it can have one for +15 points for as many SC’s as you want to put them on, regardless of what variant, and you even get to keep the two launch bays!

Here’s why we don’t want to juggle launch bays around. Whatever variant you get should involve a hard choice by the SM player. Losing launch bays hurts for the SM’s, so if you get a shootier variant, you better really know why you want it. Curing this by offering a carrier-heavy variant is not fluff-true, solves the tactical problem for the player and makes picking a fleet a no-brainer. As Patton said, great leaders win wars with what they have, not with what they wish they had.


- Nate

That bolded part is your license to change stuff if things are warranted. You already know the 2 TH bay is equivalent to 4 regular bays. This on a LC chassis. With addition of 3 other weapon hardpoints. That's too much for one smallish ship. Really, it's not a hard and radical change. Just swap the stats of shield and TH bays. you don't even have to change the points since both are roughly the same value. You're losing offensive punch but gaining a defensive strength. That way, you can also lower the expectation of how much strength a BC should be if it replaces the TH bay. That's the problem at the moment because you're looking at the TH from a Str 2 point of view and then expecting to be using an almost equivalent amount in BC strength to replace it. FP6 BCs (FP3 base+FP3 replacement for the TH if it was at Str 1) is enough already. Even Chaos ships only have FP6 in their prow WBs.

I know the saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but as it is, the SC IS broken in the TH department and it is quite easy to invoke "change in policy" if the situation requires thus which is true in this case.

[Don Gusto]

Imho the shield upgrade option is too cheap. +1 shield for +15 points is basically a no-brainer. You might as well change the profile to 2 shields and set the cost at 160.
Personally I think 2 shields on a fast 6+ armor ship with 90° turns is WAY too tough but since I'm not in agreement with the rest of you guys my opinion probably doesn't count.
Up the cost to +25 and it would actually become a choice the marine player has to make.

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?

Quite to the contrary. For historical comparison (shore) bombardment has always been done by broadsides.
Also if you look at the 'low-orbit' rules you don't really want to enter a planets gravity well head-on with a ponderous battleship.

[flybywire-E2C]

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.

You are absolutely RIGHT players will compare the options to each other as well, and you are also right one option is far better than the other, though you and I disagree how much better. A single SC with torpedoes has a lot more utility than simply not having T-Hawks or more b-cannon, but that’s more a tactics issue and not under discussion at the moment.

Will less experienced players wowed by the “oooh” factor of B-cannon pick these over torps? Yes, every time. However, more clever players will see the utility in having a single SC with torps in the fleet and may (or may not) decide to make one. People who make this choice aren’t looking solely at raw firepower but tactical utility. I’m sure you yourself can see this, even if you don’t agree with it. Even experienced players will pick b-cannon over torps because in a knife fight, str-5 B-cannon  is frankly a bigger knife. However, the option is there for players to pick something besides more b-cannon should that be what they want. I not only play-tested this, I actually use this in games. Trust me- its more fun than you think.

It's an option there for anyone who wants to take it. Once again, you are right that in many situations it's not as good as str-5 b-cannon, and players who don't want to downgrade to str-6 torps certainly don't have to. I'm sure you agree with me this shouldn't be any larger than str-6 torps!

Nate, so why the heck are you guys pushing this if it sucks?!? Okay, here's why. It was one of the options under discussion when Strike Cruisers were first developed as a stand-alone model, and even more importantly, it's what the torp Dauntless was supposed to be before the SM's got their own models. I have a soft, squishy place in my heart for what the torp Dauntless almost was. Once again, the option is there for anyone who wants it. Trust me, the thing is much more useful than you give it credit for!

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.

There are subtle differences between the Armageddon list and the Dominion list, not the least of which is fluff. Armageddon represents a fleet list of two uneasy allies drawn together by necessity, which is why you have to pick which fleet commander you get and where it goes. The Dominion fleet list represents a truly combined fleet where Space Marines can actually lead IN vessels, it introduces the Honor Guard to the fleet list, etc. It’s not the first example in the game of a fleet list that is a tweaked version of another list. People who want to use it can, those that don’t are not required to. The list itself is little more than a different type of seasoning and doesn’t impact how Space Marines behave, though like the Armageddon list it opens up their options in much larger games so they are not limited to their own thirteen max capital ships.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

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.

In a theoretical sence your argument has merit, but if we start applying point values to how ships can apply special orders, this entire game will become an unmanageable nightmare. It's hard enough getting these things balanced through play-testing. Sheesh!! 

- Nate

[horizon]

@ Don Gusto, the smotherman formula calculated the shield cost at 10pts per point of strength. So 15+ is on the good side.


__
The Torp Dauntless is a cool vessel the way it is, the lance one as well.



warnz.
heh heh heh. Perhaps I lacked clarity. The easier to apply special orders for the BC variant makes it more cost-worthwhile.
Ah, you know what I mean, the BC variant is less likely to fail in its purpose.

Playtesting only after the TheoryHammer has struck down.

[Don Gusto]

@ Don Gusto, the smotherman formula calculated the shield cost at 10pts per point of strength. So 15+ is on the good side.

So I tag on 5 additional shields and that's balanced at 195 points? Gotta be kidding me.
Sorry there's more to balanced design than adding up numbers.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

So you tag on 5 additional shields. On two SCs, 195+195=390 points for 2 6 HP ships. More than half of 500 points and a third of 1k points. Sure. Go ahead. Sooner or later they'll die to massed firepower anyway.

Aside from which the Smotherman is not an end all, be all formula. It's there to give a points approximation. Then one playtests to see if it really is the correct pointage.

In fairness though, the SC is undercosted if one follows the Smotherman formula.

[horizon]

What?
A shield costs 10pts.
That's done.

Of course there is a cap. Large bases must have 3 for example. small based  cruisers are 2 mostly. 3 is rare, could be done but very rare.

There is a cap on the number of shields.

Everyone knows 5 (+50) would be wrong.

Bu this thread has given numerous reasons for Marines Strike cruisers to have a 2nd shield. 15 pts is past the no-brainer limit to me.

[flybywire-E2C]

I’m waiting for consensus on this. Some say str-5 is great, some (like you) say str-5 is too much. I have already commented that this should NOT be compared with str-6 torps, this should be compared to two T-Hawks, which are the equivalent to four regular launch bays, because that’s what you are actually giving up to get this. When you look at it like that, someone would be daft to give up two T-Hawks for a str-3 prow-only B-cannon, which in the all but the best of circumstances will only give you +1D6 to hit. Str-5 B-cannon will in most situations give you two more shooting dice instead of one, which is a much more equitable trade for two T-Hawks. Thoughts?

Your argument is valid, but one of the guiding principles we were given when taking this assignment was “whenever possible, don’t change any of the rulebook/Armada profiles.” (I’ll drop names this time- that came straight from Jervis). We will fix what’s broken, which is how the Styx, Retribution and Emperor got re-priced, but after nine years of use, there just isn’t enough argument to say the SC is actually broken and needs its basic profile changed. Is it themeful for the SC to get a second shield? It sure is! That’s why it can have one for +15 points for as many SC’s as you want to put them on, regardless of what variant, and you even get to keep the two launch bays!

Here’s why we don’t want to juggle launch bays around. Whatever variant you get should involve a hard choice by the SM player. Losing launch bays hurts for the SM’s, so if you get a shootier variant, you better really know why you want it. Curing this by offering a carrier-heavy variant is not fluff-true, solves the tactical problem for the player and makes picking a fleet a no-brainer. As Patton said, great leaders win wars with what they have, not with what they wish they had.


- Nate

That bolded part is your license to change stuff if things are warranted. You already know the 2 TH bay is equivalent to 4 regular bays. This on a LC chassis. With addition of 3 other weapon hardpoints. That's too much for one smallish ship. Really, it's not a hard and radical change. Just swap the stats of shield and TH bays. you don't even have to change the points since both are roughly the same value. You're losing offensive punch but gaining a defensive strength. That way, you can also lower the expectation of how much strength a BC should be if it replaces the TH bay. That's the problem at the moment because you're looking at the TH from a Str 2 point of view and then expecting to be using an almost equivalent amount in BC strength to replace it. FP6 BCs (FP3 base+FP3 replacement for the TH if it was at Str 1) is enough already. Even Chaos ships only have FP6 in their prow WBs.

I know the saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but as it is, the SC IS broken in the TH department and it is quite easy to invoke "change in policy" if the situation requires thus which is true in this case.

This is not simply a matter of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." SM’s in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but we’re talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SM’s can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesn’t sound like so much, even if they are resilient. Heck, even Eldar can get more than 40 launch bays for 3,000 points, and they HAVE resilient fighters!

Now let’s look at making an SC’s base profile 1 T-hawk for +1 shield. Now the maximum number of launch bays in a 3,000-point pure SM fleet is 19. You honestly believe that’s worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a “carrier SC,” but then all we did was break something and then create something to fix what we broke.

I understand why you feel how you do, but in nine years I have simply not seen enough interest or desire to change the basic profile of the strike cruiser to make this kind of leap. Even during all the debates here have been about how we were strapping things to the SC’s, not about how they were broken in the first place. I am game for any opinion or request and will bring this to the other HA’s (all three of us are members here), but I don’t think I’ll be alone in feeling this way.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

What?
A shield costs 10pts.
That's done.

Of course there is a cap. Large bases must have 3 for example. small based  cruisers are 2 mostly. 3 is rare, could be done but very rare.

There is a cap on the number of shields.

Everyone knows 5 (+50) would be wrong.

Bu this thread has given numerous reasons for Marines Strike cruisers to have a 2nd shield. 15 pts is past the no-brainer limit to me.

Yes, the intention was to make it reasonable because it's themeful, but it's still a choice because in smaller games +15 points per SC may be the make or break between getting another one or filling out the remaining available points with escorts. Once again, this allows us to add something that is popular and themeful without altering the basic profile in Armada.

Incidentally, the price wasn't arbitrary. In a campaign, earned refits cost +10%. That would be +15 points for a strike cruiser. Tada!! 

- Nate