Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Vaaish]

I like most of the changes except for the lances. My beef this time isn't the fortress monastery having them it's more that it's not much more than a re-branded ramilles. While the Marine special rules, benefits, and the armor boost do help differentiate it, at the core there isn't much different from the stock ramilles. I think it might be interesting to explore the possibility of an all 60cm WB or granting it the targeting array (these things ARE ancient, especially if you plan to use it to represent the Dark Angles monastery) Perhaps even allow it to purchase or include in the cost several defense monitors or weapons satellites. Perhaps even let it slave the targeting arrays of orbital defenses to act in concert rather than as individuals.

I'm just running with ideas here, nothing really solid outside of the possibility of all batteries and perhaps something similar to the admech AWR.

[horizon]

Spammerds.

At least is seems it is thrillin down.

What is the outcome on the BC for the SC?


Smotherman is good for basics when starting off. In addition with comparing to other vessels and testing it works nicely.

Rough one should always go by:

1 lance = 3 batteries
1 launch bay = 3 batteries
1 torpedo = 1,5 batteries

[lastspartacus]

I'd like it if it weren't quite 5 per side, Vaaish, but there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be lances on a FM, from fluff reasons, don't you think? 

The thing is, the Ramilies is pretty damn hardcore as it is, so you can't differentiate from it too much.  I would like to see +6 battery power per side and -2 lances, though. 

[horizon]

@ Don Gusto,

In the Rogue Trader draft you like:

* The Cruiser can take an extra shield for 15pts.
* The Light Cruiser can take an extra shield for 15pts.
* An escort can take an extra shield for 5pts.

You do like that draft

[Don Gusto]

Yes indeed I like it. I also stated there that I'm not sure it's balanced.

For +5/15 Points you have to roll on the Xenotech table. If you want a shield you have to pick it for an extra +5 points. So thats +20 points for an extra shield on the cruisers and +10 points for the escorts.

The escorts have further limitations in all the Rogue Trader fleet lists. You cannot spam them freely.

The cruisers also have a big limitation in 2 of the lists. Only the Exploration fleet list allows them freely. But more importantly neither of the RT cruisers comes close to the SC in utility. You want to compare the Endeavour to it? Seriously?
At 205 points with 3 shields and 3 turrets the RT cruiser is indeed intimidating. But a fleet fielding mostly RT cruisers would lack flexibility and raw firepower. Imho it doesn't compare easily to the SM fleet lists.

Lets see, a single thunderhawk has a 58% chance of being removed by a 2 turret capital ship.

How do you come by that number? The chance of a single attack craft surviving 2 turrets is 25% (0.5x0.5). T-Hawks don't get a save versus turrets.

[horizon]

lol, I was looking at an older RT draft (no +5pts needed to select). But semantics aside. We could go in the RT thread, only I am able to start discussing on them medio 2011. Not a week earlier afaik.

Almost everyone here agrees Space Marines should get a second shield per profile or at least per upgrade. 15pts is perfectly reasonable.

The Marines need it, exactly just to deliver payloads. One shield is flimsy versus lances foremost and batteries as well. They don't cut the job at the moment.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

Who said anything about engaging? My main point was surviving a lance heavy fleet. How can you deliver if you're being destroyed left and right by lance heavy fleets?

[Vaaish]

I'd like it if it weren't quite 5 per side, Vaaish, but there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be lances on a FM, from fluff reasons, don't you think? 

My post said there wasn't any reason it shouldn't have it, but I would like to see them possibly change to batteries to make the FM seem less like a re-branded ramilles and more its own unique thing.

[Sigoroth]

Alrighty then, just a heads up that I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread. I skipped to the end after the first 5. Ok, to start off with some general thoughts, I'd like to see the 2 shield 1 TH SC as standard at no points change. I wouldn't mind seeing a 3 TH SC variant (dropping the broadside WBs) at a small price increase (155-160 pts). Definately +1 shield for the BB for no extra cost (take or leave the +1 turret ). A torp variant SC is fine too.

However, the thing that I really wanted to post about is the "simultaneous" fire idea. This should not not NOT happen. There are only 2 races that the sequential fire system "disadvantages". Space Marines and Orks. I argue that the inefficiency produced by the BM interference is extremely characterful in both cases. In the case of the Space Marines, they are supposed to be inefficient in fleet engagements. If you believe that they should be allowed to fire simultaneously then this is tantamount to simply saying that they should be allowed to have lances. It is the inefficiency of the two competing weapon systems that limits SM power, not the inability to hit on a 4+ (because BCs already do this). The Imperial Navy warships do not suffer this inefficiency because lances do not suffer from previous WB fire. So this is why SMs can't have lances.

Now, what are SMs supposed to do? Assault planets right? Well, you would only need a space taxi to get to a planet. So it isn't just assaulting planets, it's also breaking defences. In particular, static defences (since they're specifically forbidden from being able to compete with warfleets). As it happens, even with the extra column shift, the combination of WBs and BCs against defences is stronger than WBs + equivalent strength lances. It's worse against non-defences, better against defences. Isn't that the perfect combination for SMs? As for balance issues, the other changes listed seem good to me. No need to change this mechanic. Particularly as it isn't clear whether it would be WB hits or BC hits that take down the enemy shields.

As for Orks, it is extremely characterful that their shooting isn't terribly efficient. Changing this mechanic would serve only to remove character from both the SMs and Orks. However, some people argue that Orks are too weak and need this boost. This isn't true. They're too weak and need A boost. This could be easily achieved by simply increasing their firepower! Moar shooty! Very Orky.

[Zhukov]

^amen! Agree completely.

-Zhukov

[flybywire-E2C]

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?

I like most of the changes except for the lances. My beef this time isn't the fortress monastery having them it's more that it's not much more than a re-branded ramilles. While the Marine special rules, benefits, and the armor boost do help differentiate it, at the core there isn't much different from the stock ramilles. I think it might be interesting to explore the possibility of an all 60cm WB or granting it the targeting array (these things ARE ancient, especially if you plan to use it to represent the Dark Angles monastery) Perhaps even allow it to purchase or include in the cost several defense monitors or weapons satellites. Perhaps even let it slave the targeting arrays of orbital defenses to act in concert rather than as individuals.

I'm just running with ideas here, nothing really solid outside of the possibility of all batteries and perhaps something similar to the admech AWR.

Hi all! This is directed primarily at Lastspartacus and Vaaish, but I want to hear everyone’s input on this. One suggestion is to trade some lances for more 60cm WB’s, another is to trade ALL lances for even more 60cm WB’s. I also don’t have an issue with incorporating some kind of gunnery modifier if we go this route, and it’s true that this is rather fluff-true for SM’s, keeping in mind that both the Ultramarines and Space Wolves (which admittedly are planet-based Chapters) describe defending their Fortress-Monastaeries with lances. Here are our choices:

1.   6+ armor Ramilies clone with reduced-range lances
2.   6+ armor Ramilies with less lances but more guns
3.   6+ armor Ramilies with ONLY (lots of!) 60cm guns and a targeting matrix
4.   Some combination of the above (no, not all of the above!)

Keep in mind I haven’t spoken to Bob about any of this yet, but there we are. I don’t know if it’s a good idea to go with the Tau-flavor tracking systems refit, since there is no precedent for it anywhere in the Imperium, but I will bring it up. Which route do we want to take? Thoughts?

[Vaaish]

Nate, I don't dislike any of those options. I'm simply looking to make the FM as different as possible from the weapons load out on the ramilles in order to make it a more unique asset. If you do remove lances, I think it will become fairly useless to have them if the number of lances drops to two per quadrant.

[flybywire-E2C]

Nate, I don't dislike any of those options. I'm simply looking to make the FM as different as possible from the weapons load out on the ramilles in order to make it a more unique asset. If you do remove lances, I think it will become fairly useless to have them if the number of lances drops to two per quadrant.

Vaaish, this is where your opinion really matters. I think it's great you don't dislike any of these. Now, which one do you LIKE?

That question applies to everyone, by the way. Caveats:

1. HP, Shields and turrets are not changing
2. The rules for how the basilica works, its weapons and other rules specific to the Ramilies are not changing.
3. The crit chart isn't changing, except obviously rolls 2 & 3 if we decide to get rid of lances entirely.
4. Terminators and Honor Guard will still be part of its point cost, along with specific rules for Space marines.
5. No odd weapon gimmics!

That's it- everything else is fair game. You hate the current Fortress Monastery? It's not going away, but here's your chance to change it.

- Nate

[russ_c]

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.

Nate, why not try 3 Slaughters against 3 160 point SCs?  I realize there isn't ordnance for Chaos, but this is less about the ordnance meta game to me.  The point spread is only a 15 point difference in favor of chaos and this clash would be highly representative of what goes on at my table.  Additionally, both vessels are prime at 30cm and both are quite fast and maneuverable.  Any objections to BC data collection from such a match up?

Alternative: Styx+Slaughter vs. 3 SCs, 1@145pts, 2@160pts (15 points in favor of SM)

Probably running both of these would paint the most accurate picture, rather then one or the other.  Thoughts?

Russ

[flybywire-E2C]

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.

Nate, why not try 3 Slaughters against 3 160 point SCs?  I realize there isn't ordnance for Chaos, but this is less about the ordnance meta game to me.  The point spread is only a 15 point difference in favor of chaos and this clash would be highly representative of what goes on at my table.  Additionally, both vessels are prime at 30cm and both are quite fast and maneuverable.  Any objections to BC data collection from such a match up?

Alternative: Styx+Slaughter vs. 3 SCs, 1@145pts, 2@160pts (15 points in favor of SM)

Probably running both of these would paint the most accurate picture, rather then one or the other.  Thoughts?

Russ

I don't have a problem with any of this- I can even do it this weekend. Heck, PLEASE feel free to do it yourself as well so we can compare notes, BatReps, etc.

- Nate