Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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!

Those 29 Launch Bays are in effect 43-44 Launch Bays since they are ALL resilient. Comparing SM, one of the weaker fleets in BFG to Eldar, the most broken one, is also a mistake. Sure Eldar could go 60 in effect by just launching all fighters but is that how one really wants an Eldar fleet to be? I know I would prefer Nightshades and Hemlocks to AC. Also that is another basis for revising the Eldar fleet in the first place. They just have too many goodies. You can do better than comparing a broken fleet to a broke fleet.

I also would not be looking at things from the 3000 points level. Not everyone plays that high a pointage. 1500 points is the one where I would be basing the game and any situation where design would come up.

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.

Yes, because they effectively have 28-29 fighters available to them since they are resilient fighters. Yes, it is worth the extra shield. Why? Because if the SC gets crippled or destroyed, which isn't hard on 1 shield and 6 HP, then those 29 launch bays you mention start going down quickly. Heck if they're forced to BFI those numbers would come down quickly. Having the second shield let's the SM player be a bit more aggressive in not going on BFI.

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

People were commenting on how broken the SC was with all those goodies and armaments on what is essentially a Light Cruiser chassis. If you missed those comments, then I am telling you now they exist. People are accepting it because that is the only cruiser sized cap ship available to the SM and they need it to become competitive. In an Armageddon list, however, those SC are broken, providing excellent offensive punch in the TH and BCs while being supported by regular sized cruisers AND battlecruisers which will make the opponent make a hard choice between who to kill first, the IN ships or the SM.

[fracas]

Nate

good job going thus far regarding the SM

once that is done
how about we revisit a light kroot sphere?

[Vaaish]

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.

I was basing my calculation on 1 torpedo being the rough equivalent in point value to 1 point of standard weapons battery strength. In that situation, the choice between 6wb and 6 torpedoes would be fairly even. Boosting the WB to BC nets you hitting on 4+ and crits on a 4+ which I felt was enough to warrant around 2 points of torpedo strength to one point of BC strength making 3BC on equal footing with 6 torpeodes.

I'm also looking at this from the tournament setting where the torpedoes would never be taken because they 1) force the ship between RO and LO, 2) can be stopped easily with a single fighter and 3) pale next to raw firepower.

[russ_c]

Thanks. We’re trying. Really.

It' quite clear at this point.  Thank you!

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?

You're totally right comparing the BC trade to the t-hawk loss is the primary design consideration, but I believe it's important to analyze how this trade force multiples when applied to more then one SC that will most likely get squadroned.  Up until this point I admittedly was going with gut feeling, but now that we are deep into conversation, I just put theory to paper to see what the results of making the prow BC upgrade strength 3, 4 or 5 (in addition to the existing F/L/R 3 BC of course).  Without transcribing the chart of dice I just scratched on paper this is the summary:

Extra Dice and effects of Squadroning

Upgrade Str3 BC: +2 dice Closing, marginally better dice (+1 in abeam/Moving away).  The dice scale the most accurately between 1,2,or 3 SCs in a squad.  Meaning that it's pretty much 2 or 3 times as many dice.

Upgrade Str4 BC: good average improvement of dice across all aspects ~+2 dice, but no improvement to abeam from the str3 upgrade.  The interesting part about squadroning this configuration  is that closing dice scale accurately.  But, moving away is actually slightly unfavorable in trade for abeam being more favorable, meaning that squadroning yields slightly more then 2 or 3 times as many dice when firing at targets abeam

Upgrade Str5 BC: As Nate said, it pretty much guarantees +2 dice to even abeam, the overall average improvement is +3 dice.  Here is where it gets riddled with opportunity cost!  Squadroning ships actually has the least favorable scaling for prow bombardment fire with nearly all aspects in 2 and 3 squadron configurations getting less then 2 or 3 times as many dice respectively.


Thunderhawk verse Bombardment Dice
Lets compare the 2 Thunder hawks against a SINGLE Bombardment die roll in a generic situation:

2 Thunderhawks: must escape an average of 2 turrets(4+) giving them a 75% chance of doing at least a single critical (25% chance of doing 2) which each in return has a 1/6  chance of doing a point of damage meaning there is a 1/8 chance of doing at least a single point of damage with one of the criticals netting you 1damage+critical.  Very high odds of a minor critical with very small odds of doing actual damage.

1 Bombardment Cannon Die Roll: roll must hit(+4) giving it a 50% chance of doing 1 point of damage, then it might critical(4+) meaning that a die roll from a bombardment cannon has a 25% chance of doing at least 1 damage + a critical.  Fair odds of doing damage and the odds of doing damage and a critical are equal to 2 thunderhawks chance of doing 2 criticals and TWICE as high as 2 Thunderhawks doing 1 damage+a critical

Additionally, the critical from a BC is not restricted to the first 6 entries meaning it has a chance of actually doing another point of damage or something much more game changing to the enemy vessel!

So, in my eyes getting to roll an extra BC die is actually much better then a Thunderhawk since they are already being added to an existing dice pool.  Under an average situation 1 BC roll is potentially better then 2 thunderhawks, based on all of this I conclude that...

The Bombardment replacement for 2 T-hawks should be a Strength 3 BC.  The average dice improvement is really about 1.5, but this is slightly improved with squadroning making it more like 2 extra dice (but not guaranteed).  Because I believe a single BC die is much better then a single T-hawk I feel this is a good trade.  Still, I would be scared to be on the receiving end of a prow BC shot from 3 squadroned SCs!

My original anaylsis made me believe that BC4 was okay, but double checking has caused me to conclude that Str3 is probably a fair trade and Str4 is quite possibly better then 2 Thunderhawks from 30cm offensive position.  I could probably live with Str4 as a compromise...Look at that Nate, I almost agreed with you after taking a look!

Russ

[Don Gusto]

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.

No its the other way around. Any capital ship can have a large base. Ships with 3 shields must have a large base (as of FAQ2007). Strike Cruisers can have a large base.

There is a cap on the number of shields.

Everyone knows 5 (+50) would be wrong.

Exactly. Smotherman only works with further assumptions. Common sense is one of them. You can't just take a number out of it and throw it around as a valid argument. I can't think of a single ship that would be more balanced (as in game-balance) with +1shield for +10 points. It's ridiculous.
The number of shields on a ship are mostly set by class, Smotherman doesn't even define this (at least I can't find it in my copy - v205):
Escorts/Light Cruisers 1
Cruisers 2
Grand Cruisers 3
Battleships 4
There are few exceptions. No Light Cruiser has 2 shields, no Cruiser has 3.

Bu this thread has given numerous reasons for Marines Strike cruisers to have a 2nd shield.

Not so much. The main concern seems to be that the SC can't engage a lance-heavy fleet. I don't see that as its mission, at least I think its debatable.
More to the point. Imho the mission of the SC is not to engage but to deliver. To this end it is gifted with a good mix of basically everything. It's already good for its points and doesn't need a cheap boost.

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

Good point but even your previous versions had the refit priced at +20. Don't you agree that it's much different if you have to roll for the result? You can't tailor your fleet through refits in a campaign, you have to take what you get. The price goes up even if you don't want it.

Just one more general point I would like to make here.
You can't possibly make an upgrade option too expensive. If it's too high, people won't take it, game balance won't suffer. It will when the price is too low.

[Vaaish]

Thunderhawk: must first escape turrets(4+) and then it must hit(4+) that's a 1/4 chance of doing a critical which in return has a 1/6  chance of doing a point of damage meaning there is only a 4% chance a T-hawk will do 1 damage+critical

Not sure how you are figuring this, the Thawk would only have to escape the turret fire before rolling the d6 for its hit and run attack. Against a capital ship, if the thunderhawk survives the turret fire, it has 100% odds of doing a critical because of the marine +1 to the die roll

[russ_c]

Thunderhawk: must first escape turrets(4+) and then it must hit(4+) that's a 1/4 chance of doing a critical which in return has a 1/6  chance of doing a point of damage meaning there is only a 4% chance a T-hawk will do 1 damage+critical

Not sure how you are figuring this, the Thawk would only have to escape the turret fire before rolling the d6 for its hit and run attack. Against a capital ship, if the thunderhawk survives the turret fire, it has 100% odds of doing a critical because of the marine +1 to the die roll

Oh, crap...I got the proposed escort rules mixed in there against a cruiser.  That is wishful thinking!  Lets see, a single thunderhawk has a 58% chance of being removed by a 2 turret capital ship.  So that means it has a 42% chance of dealing a critical of which it has a 1/6 chance of that critical causing immediate damage which is just shy of 6% odds (.42x.16) of dealing a point of damage as it's critical.  2 Thawks have a 75% chance of doing at least 1 critical and 25% chance of doing 2 criticals against 2 turrets.  

I'll clean up the above comparison...having now looked at the odds again, I think Str3 is the best approximation (see changes above).  Only through playtesting could convince me to up it to Str4, but I feel pretty certian that is actually better then 2 Thawks.  5 is to much Nate.  it yields to many more dice that have amazing odds of hitting and causing criticals.

Russ

[flybywire-E2C]

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.

I was basing my calculation on 1 torpedo being the rough equivalent in point value to 1 point of standard weapons battery strength. In that situation, the choice between 6wb and 6 torpedoes would be fairly even. Boosting the WB to BC nets you hitting on 4+ and crits on a 4+ which I felt was enough to warrant around 2 points of torpedo strength to one point of BC strength making 3BC on equal footing with 6 torpeodes.

I'm also looking at this from the tournament setting where the torpedoes would never be taken because they 1) force the ship between RO and LO, 2) can be stopped easily with a single fighter and 3) pale next to raw firepower.

Hi Vaaish! I absolutely HATE quoting Smotherman's formula, only because it overly simplifies how ships should be properly priced. However, there's NO WAY torpedoes are the same thing as WB firepower. They both hit against armor, and that's where the similiarity ends. Torps don't rely on the gun chart, they are not limited in range, they ignore shields, they only have a one in six chance of being affected by BM's, and don't get me started on boarding torps!

- Nate

[lastspartacus]

Ok guys, you just dropped 3 pages of stuff on me in a day to read, anyone care to clarify?

Has anything been decided?  What are we talking about? :0

[flybywire-E2C]

Thunderhawk: must first escape turrets(4+) and then it must hit(4+) that's a 1/4 chance of doing a critical which in return has a 1/6  chance of doing a point of damage meaning there is only a 4% chance a T-hawk will do 1 damage+critical

Not sure how you are figuring this, the Thawk would only have to escape the turret fire before rolling the d6 for its hit and run attack. Against a capital ship, if the thunderhawk survives the turret fire, it has 100% odds of doing a critical because of the marine +1 to the die roll

Oh, crap...I got the proposed escort rules mixed in there against a cruiser.  That is wishful thinking!  Lets see, a single thunderhawk has a 58% chance of being removed by a 2 turret capital ship.  So that means it has a 42% chance of dealing a critical of which it has a 1/6 chance of that critical causing immediate damage which is just shy of 6% odds (.42x.16) of dealing a point of damage as it's critical.  2 Thawks have a 75% chance of doing at least 1 critical and 25% chance of doing 2 criticals against 2 turrets. 

I'll clean up the above comparison...having now looked at the odds again, I think Str3 is the best approximation (see changes above).  Only through playtesting could convince me to up it to Str4, but I feel pretty certian that is actually better then 2 Thawks.  5 is to much Nate.  it yields to many more dice that have amazing odds of hitting and causing criticals.

Russ

Hi Russ! Another factor you are not taking into consideration is the role of ordnance. SM's already have less ordnance than anyone else. Just because T-Hawks are resilient doesn't mean they can't be swamped. As soon as the ratio crosses 2:1, resiliency is completely negated every single ordnance phase.  If someone takes three b-cannon SC's, that means the fleet is decidedly ordnance-poor.  This presents a more complex tactical problem for the SM player besides having gobs of b-cannon to shoot with, especially when considering it has to be closing against the fleet it is shooting at (at 30cm) to get the kinds of effects you are talking about.

I understand you really hate this, but you are taking an overly simplistic view to how threatening this is, especially in a fleet setting. Everyone has known for years the maxim when facing Space Marines: bring lots of lances. These SC's you say will be doing so well will have to be closing against fleets that likely have lots of lances, better-range weapons and vastly superior ordnance numbers. If you toss in that each has +1 shield, that just bought the enemy another 45-point escort, which is probably sporting another lance to boot. Escorts are okay to have in this enemy fleet since your three BC-prow SC’s have guaranteed the enemy’s ordnance is negating all your T-Hawks.

This is why play-testing and rolling dice on the table always trumps theoretical arguments and slide-rule gaming when deciding new rules for ships. The Gauntlet scenario from Warp Storm is a perfect, quick and easy way to play-test new ship ideas, though for this example Cruiser Clash worked just as well when we played it. Take a squad of four SC’s, each with extra shields, and face them off against three Devastations and a pair of Idolators. First do it all T-Hawks, then do it with all BC’s, finally do it with two-squad pairs each BC’s and T-hawks so one can lock-on while the other reloads. See which set of SC’s fare better. Play each game more than once to account for dice foibles. That’s how I determined str-5 BC’s for the prow was the best fit.

-   Nate

[Vaaish]

On further consideration, I guess you are correct. The closest comparison in the rulebooks I can find is the Lace dauntless and the torpedo dauntless which would point to S2 torpedoes equaling a S1 lance. Taking the murder as a further example you could extrapolate one lance equals 3 WB. So I guess a better comparison would be a s1 torpedo equals s1.5 WB.

Following that you'd have s6 torpedoes equaling s9 WB. Since BC are better than WB in damage and crits, I guess that S2 bc equals S3 WB which would leave us with S4.5 BC equals S6 torpedoes.

[russ_c]

I understand you really hate this, but you are taking an overly simplistic view to how threatening this is, especially in a fleet setting....

This is why play-testing and rolling dice on the table always trumps theoretical arguments and slide-rule gaming when deciding new rules for ships. The Gauntlet scenario from Warp Storm is a perfect, quick and easy way to play-test new ship ideas, though for this example Cruiser Clash worked just as well when we played it. Take a squad of four SC’s, each with extra shields, and face them off against three Devastations and a pair of Idolators. First do it all T-Hawks, then do it with all BC’s, finally do it with two-squad pairs each BC’s and T-hawks so one can lock-on while the other reloads. See which set of SC’s fare better. Play each game more than once to account for dice foibles. That’s how I determined str-5 BC’s for the prow was the best fit.

Hate what?  Theory only provides a starting point for playtesting, but I can see that you've already been playtesting.  I did not know this is how you arrived at str-5 BC.  The best thing is for all of us to playtest the specific setup you've suggested (and probably used) so we are all having a conversation with approximately the same experiences.  I admit I'm surprised, as I really thought the 4 would account for most of the "unknown" factors, but I shall playtest never the less to see where my opinion lies between 4 and 5.

I'm not sure I like your test composition though for Chaos.  2 Devastators and 2 slaughters would be more telling from my experience with Chaos.  Of course that would require an adjustment to SM as well to match the points.

Cheers,

Russ

[flybywire-E2C]

I understand you really hate this, but you are taking an overly simplistic view to how threatening this is, especially in a fleet setting....

This is why play-testing and rolling dice on the table always trumps theoretical arguments and slide-rule gaming when deciding new rules for ships. The Gauntlet scenario from Warp Storm is a perfect, quick and easy way to play-test new ship ideas, though for this example Cruiser Clash worked just as well when we played it. Take a squad of four SC’s, each with extra shields, and face them off against three Devastations and a pair of Idolators. First do it all T-Hawks, then do it with all BC’s, finally do it with two-squad pairs each BC’s and T-hawks so one can lock-on while the other reloads. See which set of SC’s fare better. Play each game more than once to account for dice foibles. That’s how I determined str-5 BC’s for the prow was the best fit.

Hate what?   Theory only provides a starting point for playtesting, but I can see that you've already been playtesting.  I did not know this is how you arrived at str-5 BC.  The best thing is for all of us to playtest the specific setup you've suggested (and probably used) so we are all having a conversation with approximately the same experiences.  I admit I'm surprised, as I really thought the 4 would account for most of the "unknown" factors, but I shall playtest never the less to see where my opinion lies between 4 and 5.

I'm not sure I like your test composition though for Chaos.  2 Devastators and 2 slaughters would be more telling from my experience with Chaos.  Of course that would require an adjustment to SM as well to match the points.

Cheers,

Russ

Admittedly your playtest example would probably have been a more accurate assessment which I didn’t think of, but I wanted to play-test a worst-case scenario, and I also wanted to assess a points-parity game. My son is a mean Chaos player (Ray can attest to this), and if I gave him a 70-point advantage against a fleet I wasn’t even sure was costed properly, I probably would have been stomped.

Why I brought out the Idolators was to test how he would use them when facing T-Hawks he wasn’t too worried about. Like I thought he would, he CAP’ed them with one Dev’s worth of fighters and pushed them in. I didn’t want the Marines to rely on escorts for the test (to make up points) because with their a-boats and their ordnance superiority, I thought the escorts would have been wasted points even using the 4+ rule, though in retrospect I forgot that SM’s (including their escorts) get a -1 modifier against enemy H&R attacks, meaning they technically need a 5+ to die! (Damn I wish I would have remembered that!)

Yeah, that’s right, I forgot a rule. What, you all think I walk around with a memorized BFG rolodex in my head?   

-   Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

I think we're really getting close to the finish line on this, so it's time to address the last major sticking point: the Fortress Monastery.

I just got with Bob, and he and I agree the 6+ armor is a good idea. Keep in mind that 1,000 points is only 125 points more than a stock Ramilies so let's carefully review the differences:

Fortress Monastery benefits: +1 armor (this is a biggie for this monstrosity), SM leadership, better boarding, Terminators, b-torps and Honor Guard.
Fortress Monastery drawbacks: less launch bays due to quirky rule with is fluff-true and so remaining in place, b-cannon instead of 60cm lances.

Here's what I recommend: We swap out the b-cannon for the same number of lances as a Ramilies but make them 45cm instead of 60cm. The cost and all the other rules remain in place, but armor is improved to 6+. Thoughts? this is completely open to discussion so bring it! 

- Nate

[lastspartacus]

Woo!  Glad I contributed something lasting.

Ok. 
Why would the FM have terminators, honorguard, and be worried about boarding?

I'm not a fan of dropping the lances to 45cm.  I agree a FM has every right to have lances for defence on it, but to differentiate a bit between
the ramilies and the FM, what if you dropped the 5 lances to 3, and added more strength to the weapons battery?

I can see an FM throwing out a veritable wall of shells in defence of the heart of the chapter.


Finally, I really don't understand why Terminators are one use, and why they cant be like chaos terminators?