Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Vaaish]

This has implications for the number of brace opportunities the target has

it should not have any affect on the brace opportunities. The rules are clear that you may only attempt brace once per ship, squadron, or ordnance wave. This means you can't attempt to brace when a lunar fires it's lances if you failed to brace when the lunar fired it's WB.

the ability of the firing ship to redirect fire

Again, why would it affect this? the firing ship may still split it's firepower however it desires. There is no requirement for the ship to use both weapons on the same target. In fact, this makes it MORE capable to redirect fire since one could fire the batteries and see if the ship was destroyed before firing the BC. (In such a situation, I think the BC should take the BM penlty since they are obviously not firing simultaneously)

I think that it is reasonable to assume that different weapon systems that operate in radically different ways would require different firing solutions and therefore could not just be fired at the same time.

By the same token, it's just as reasonable to assume that the ship would hold fire until both systems find a solution or, in fact, that battery weapons use similar targeting systems or could use the same targeting data. The point here is that you can make up whatever you want to support your view and it makes it no more valid than what I say. HA has decided to address the issue by means of allowing gunnery table weapons to be fired simultaneously, which I find a simple and elegant solution that requires no change in profiles to produce the desired result.

[lastspartacus]

Sig, is there something special about the Marines, or are you saying in general you are against simul fire as clarified/established in the errata?

[Sigoroth]

it should not have any affect on the brace opportunities. The rules are clear that you may only attempt brace once per ship, squadron, or ordnance wave. This means you can't attempt to brace when a lunar fires it's lances if you failed to brace when the lunar fired it's WB.

A poorly thought out and unnecessary rule change made by the HA. In the original rules someone could brace against each individual weapon system. This is how it should be.

Again, why would it affect this? the firing ship may still split it's firepower however it desires.

A Lunar can fire its WBs, see if the target braces and then redirect its lances to another ship. If it doesn't brace, or fails to brace, it can instead keep shooting at the same target. A Dominator can't fire 6WBs at a target, wait to see if it braces and then decide to put the remaining 6WBs into it afterwards. If it splits it must target 2 different ships. This is why ships should get a brace attempt against different weapon systems.

There is no requirement for the ship to use both weapons on the same target. In fact, this makes it MORE capable to redirect fire since one could fire the batteries and see if the ship was destroyed before firing the BC. (In such a situation, I think the BC should take the BM penlty since they are obviously not firing simultaneously)

This is my point. Separate weapon systems makes it possible to redirect fire. That is their advantage. They are able to be fired sequentially. The balancing factor being that they must be fired sequentially. If you're going to allow different weapon systems to fire simultaneously then you should make it so that ALL shooting from a ship/squadron is simultaneous. So targets must be declared before any dice are rolled and any excess fire is wasted. Then the travesty of 1 brace attempt per ship/squadron regardless of number of weapon systems would make sense. Of course, it would take a lot of the tactics out of the game.

By the same token, it's just as reasonable to assume that the ship would hold fire until both systems find a solution or, in fact, that battery weapons use similar targeting systems or could use the same targeting data. The point here is that you can make up whatever you want to support your view and it makes it no more valid than what I say. HA has decided to address the issue by means of allowing gunnery table weapons to be fired simultaneously, which I find a simple and elegant solution that requires no change in profiles to produce the desired result.

I don't know how reasonable that assumption is, but it is known that weapons have different speeds, so firing your WBs and lances simultaneously would mean that the lances will hit first. If that's the case then why wouldn't the target adjust its trajectory slightly before the WB fire gets there? That'd throw the WB firing solution off. But either way, that isn't the point. My original point was that there are plenty of justifications for non-simultaneous fire, and arguing for it from a "realistic" point of view is absurd given that it could be argued against "realistically" and that the rest of the game is no more realistic in terms of the sequential nature of the game (movement, shooting, ordnance for player 1, then repeat for player 2, etc).

As for the HAs decision to allow simultaneous fire, yes, I'll agree that it is simple. It is, however, far from elegant. The primary beneficiary of the change is SM and Ork, who both needed a boost to be sure. However, the boost makes their firing more efficient which is not characterful in either case. This change also upsets the balance in terms of mixed versus dedicated weaponry, such that now it's far more beneficial to have mixed, since it provides simply more tactical options for no downside. Further, in the case of the SMs this boost does not address their problem of low survivability, which they're not supposed to have. So this is a decidedly inelegant solution. To qualify as elegant it would have to resolve a lot of problems, not make more internal fleet balance problems for other fleets.

So, in summation, drop the simultaneous fire idea, return brace attempts to each new source of incoming damage and return BM interference to line of fire only. These base rules provide the most tactical options. Then fix the balance issues of the SMs and Orks as each of those fleets require.

Also, I'm not sure why you say "require no change in profiles" as if that's a good thing. Surely it is much preferable to change a few lacklustre profiles than to muck about with the core rules? Changes to which will no doubt have knock on effects to other fleets.

[Sigoroth]

Sig, is there something special about the Marines, or are you saying in general you are against simul fire as clarified/established in the errata?

Simultaneous fire should not be allowed to different weapon systems. The game is purely sequential in nature, with the only variance at any one time being the strength of the incoming weapon (hell, just look at the ordnance phase, absolutely no simultaneity there). This core mechanic should not be changed just to throw a quick fix to Orks and SM, particularly as the nature of that fix is inappropriate and there are definite knock-on effects of this change to other fleets.

[Vaaish]

A poorly thought out and unnecessary rule change made by the HA. In the original rules someone could brace against each individual weapon system. This is how it should be.

Perhaps in your opinion, but it's been per ship etc. for quite some time without cause for alarm or balance issues. There is no reason to believe it will change and since it is this way it is irrelevant to support an argument with a point that is contrary to the official rules.

A Lunar can fire its WBs, see if the target braces and then redirect its lances to another ship. If it doesn't brace, or fails to brace, it can instead keep shooting at the same target. A Dominator can't fire 6WBs at a target, wait to see if it braces and then decide to put the remaining 6WBs into it afterwards. If it splits it must target 2 different ships. This is why ships should get a brace attempt against different weapon systems.

I'm not following your logic on this one. You seem to be saying that because a ship can split its fire targets should be able to brace per weapons system? I don't see how this translates into a problem. It gives better utility to ships with multiple weapons systems, but, by nature of splitting their firepower, greatly reduces the likelihood of any significant impact that would warrant bracing under most circumstances.

This change also upsets the balance in terms of mixed versus dedicated weaponry, such that now it's far more beneficial to have mixed, since it provides simply more tactical options for no downside.

This is untrue. IN, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, DE, Necrons, and Nids have always had mixed weapons. They don't suddenly have more tactical options with this change, they've always had it with lances ignoring BM! They even get the benefit of ignoring BM when firing any lance even if it didn't come from the same ship or squadron! With this change the BC are still taking a column shift from BM after that first ship or squadron fires.

Further, in the case of the SMs this boost does not address their problem of low survivability, which they're not supposed to have. So this is a decidedly inelegant solution.

No, but there are other things in play to deal with that... which is kinda the point of this thread.

Also, I'm not sure why you say "require no change in profiles" as if that's a good thing. Surely it is much preferable to change a few lacklustre profiles than to muck about with the core rules? Changes to which will no doubt have knock on effects to other fleets.

I mentioned it because that seems to be the mindset of the HA in regard to fixing these issues based on what Nate has mentioned a time or two.

[flybywire-E2C]

You CAN change the profiles of a fleet that people have been playing for a decade. In fact you SHOULD. They should not have been allowed to go this long without change in the first place, and saying that they've remained the same this long is no reason not to change them now. Furthermore, you should NOT make changes that are contrary to the fluff, such as introducing lances to the SMs and improving gunnery efficiency of the Orks, least of all when to do so would be to change a core mechanic of the game! I also take issue with the idea that these changes to profiles would be "arbitrary". In fact, it is far more arbitrary to allow simultaneous fire, since this is an abstract change that comes at the expense of character. A tangible and characterful increase in firepower for the Orks is anything but arbitrary.

If you have the least bit of concern for the fluff then you should implement the proposed changes that I and others have suggested in draft format and see if this appeals to SM players and their opponents. Only if the fluffy fix is indescribably insufficient should you even think about considering to contemplate the possibility of deliberating on a non-fluffy fix.

Hi Sigoroth! Okay, here’s what the HA’s are proposing: Give an SC two shields for +15 points, which solves your biggest problem, and it’s already in the v3.1 draft. This option leaves the two bays in place, which solves the ordnance problem WITHOUT requiring an SC carrier, which is NOT a fluff-based ship. If your biggest objection is the second shield, what’s wrong with paying +15 points for it? A fleet of six strike cruisers can have it for a total of +90 points, which is ten points cheaper than two Novas, or the price of two Idolators, which is all your Chaos opponent would get in trade.

IF the objection is about surviving against enemy firepower, then what’s the big debate about stripping T-Hawks from an SC just to create an SC carrier option? What does that have to do with surviving against enemy firepower at all? What you are proposing is that solely for the sake of fluff, we re-write a profile players have been using for nine years, then create another profile to counterbalance what we just broke. 

Fluff aside, the 2-bay SC is functional in a fleet setting. You are right that game play has identified the SC needs to be made a little more survivable in a firefight. Fine- it now gets a second shield for +15 points. Fluff is great, but since this is a GAME, playtest balance will ALWAYS supersede fluff, period. Fluff will always be modified to support game balance, not vice versa, and that guidance came to the HA's straight from the designers.

By design, the Space Marines have always had more stuffed into their prows than Imps and Chaos, which is why the models are made with huge, blocky prows. That’s why the battlebarge is the only ship in the game that launches torps and attack craft out the same prow. By design, Space Marine capital ships are best envisaged as having broadsides in three quadrants, with one in the prow, an idea that was expanded upon when the Demiurg were designed. It is an intentional design aspect of this fleet, and we are not changing it.

-   Nate

[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?

Bob likes the 6+ Armor Fortress- Monastery. Did we ever come to a consensus as to what we want the Fortress Monastery to look like?

- Nate

[lastspartacus]

+6 WB strength and -2 lances over the normal Ram, and 6+, sounds like a damn good FM to me, would be my vote.
Maybe something different with the Basilica, I dunno.  But thats good for me.

[horizon]

The fact that a ship can only brace once against a Lunar for example is pretty old and well used.

I agree with Vaaish on the matter if anyone cared.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Sorry Nate but if you feel a carrier SC is unfluffy, I do not see how you or the HA can see that the 2 TH SC is fluffy itself.

Why do I prefer a lowered strength? Because I don't want an expensive ship. Adding 15 points is not cheap.

And what's this issue about playtesting? We already know SCs need the extra shield because precisely actual gameplay shows they need the second shield. Have you playtested a 1 TH 2 Shield SC? Why not try it. I'll even propose a counter here: why not keep the 2 shields as standard and add the 2nd TH at +15 points at the expense of the BCs?

Until now you have not given a proper explanation on why the SC can fit a 2nd TH. While your explanation is that it can fit more weapons in the prow, that is not the issue. Following your logic, the BB should have Str 4 TH in the prow because it's a much bigger prow. That it only has 3 means ther's a serious issue.

I ask again: how do you justify the SC getting 2 TH when the BB only has 3 ESP when the SC's prow obviously can't fit a lot?

[russ_c]

Fluff is great, but since this is a GAME, playtest balance will ALWAYS supersede fluff, period. Fluff will always be modified to support game balance, not vice versa, and that guidance came to the HA's straight from the designers.

Whew!  I'm glad to finally hear someone say that and it's all the sweeter coming from HA!

Concerning the 2 shield 1 T-hawk SC and 3 T-hawk SC:

I agree with doing this, but I don't think you've heard me arguing anything "fluffy", as I'm not qualified to do so.  My argument is grounded in the intention of making the SM fleet a little more dynamic with fleet building and to make them more enjoyable to play against in any scenario.  Please forgive me if I'm being a broken record...

I don't view the 3 T-hawk SC as a "fix" for something I've just broken with a 1 T-hawk base.  I view it as a re-distribution of T-hawks so they are not so evenly spread.  I believe that this actually promotes MORE thought on the side of both players in the game.  For the Commander to choose where he needs the most T-hawks on the table, how he will protect his T-hawk nest egg, and it creates a more enjoyable experience for the opponent because he must work to attack the SCs most relevant to his threat (i.e. the t-hawk carrier, the up-gunned SC, or the vanilla).

I don't even think it's a "no brainer" to take a 3 t-hawk SC to fill the gap.  I believe, like the BC prow option, that it's an opportunity cost of points and not taking either of the other 2 better gunned vessels.  The whole point in my mind is to give a SM commander an option to tactically depend on T-hawks in his fleet or bombardment cannons, or some combination of the two ( whatever fits his/her style of play).  Currently SCs are a "no brainer".  You get one choice that is a jack of all trades, but a master of none.  The BC option is a great addition to what I'm talking about accomplishing!

Now, the entire conversation about the BC prow upgrade is to ensure the best possible trade for t-hawks, meaning that a commander should be able to have a competitive fleet with fewer Thunderhawks on the table if he so chooses to depend on getting stuck in with BCs and torps (after all BCs remove ordnance waves on +4 right? ).  So, I don't see the necessity of always picking a carrier just to get those t-hawks back, because that could deny me more BCs on the table!

A think this is a different angle then others are taking on it, but I hope you'll see the validity of the design suggestion.  Side note: I understand your desire to not touch the base SC, but maybe give it another consideration

Ah, and I have not play tested this yet in fairness.  I still have to run through the BC stuff on Monday and Tuesday!

Russ

[Sigoroth]

Perhaps in your opinion

Which should be enough to get you to sit up and listen rather than to dismiss it out of hand.

There are 3 core rules which should return to the basic/remain untouched. 1) Blast marker line of fire obstruction, 2) BFI against individual weapon systems and 3) sequential firing. Leave these 3 core rules as they were originally and we greatly improve tactical options for all fleets, particularly those using gunnery systems.

I'm not following your logic on this one. You seem to be saying that because a ship can split its fire targets should be able to brace per weapons system? I don't see how this translates into a problem. It gives better utility to ships with multiple weapons systems, but, by nature of splitting their firepower, greatly reduces the likelihood of any significant impact that would warrant bracing under most circumstances.

You're right, you're not following my logic.

This is untrue. IN, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, DE, Necrons, and Nids have always had mixed weapons. They don't suddenly have more tactical options with this change, they've always had it with lances ignoring BM! They even get the benefit of ignoring BM when firing any lance even if it didn't come from the same ship or squadron!

Le sigh. As a matter of fact it is true. Compare a Lunar, which has mixed weaponry to a Dominator or Gothic, which had dedicated weaponry. Now, let's say you have a couple of Scythes in range and arc and have locked on. A Necron player will typically not brace against the WBs of the Lunar because they're not such a threat given their armour. Sure, bracing does increase survivability against WBs for Scythes, particularly if locked on, but the downsides of bracing are too high. Against lances however, there a much better cost/benefit ratio to brace. So, does the Necron player decide to brace against the WBs knowing that the lances are to come and he'll be braced anyway or not? If he decides to brace, but fails, the IN player can then fire the lances into that ship knowing that he can't brace against them. If he successfully braces then the IN player can then switch his lances to the other Scythe, effectively making the Necron player brace 2 ships. Neither a Dominator nor a Gothic could do this. Sure, a Gothic could split its firepower to try to make the 2 of them brace, but 2 lances are nowhere near as good against a braced Necron as 6WBs.

The point is that mixed weaponry ships/squadrons get the choice to split fire just like dedicated weaponry ships/squadrons, but they get to see the results of the opponents decisions and the dice rolls before making the decision. Fixed weapon ships have to decide whether to split before seeing the results.

With this change the BC are still taking a column shift from BM after that first ship or squadron fires.

Right, so why advocate a change that breaks a core mechanic of the game, has unintended knock-on effects, mostly benefits a couple of fleets in specifically uncharacteristic ways and affects only the secondary weapon system of the first ship that targets a vessel each turn? Oh, and not to mention that it is unclear as to whether the normal WB hits get wasted on the shield hits or the 4+ crit hits of the BC. Bad, bad, bad rule.

[Sigoroth]

Okay, here’s what the HA’s are proposing: Give an SC two shields for +15 points, which solves your biggest problem, and it’s already in the v3.1 draft.

Very good. Now can I drop a TH for -15 pts?

This option leaves the two bays in place, which solves the ordnance problem WITHOUT requiring an SC carrier, which is NOT a fluff-based ship. If your biggest objection is the second shield, what’s wrong with paying +15 points for it? A fleet of six strike cruisers can have it for a total of +90 points, which is ten points cheaper than two Novas, or the price of two Idolators, which is all your Chaos opponent would get in trade.

My biggest objection is the shield. If that was the only change then I'd endeavour to find the points in the list to upgrade them all to add the shield.

As far as the 1 TH SC is concerned, I don't think the model supports the notion, particularly compared to the BB prow. I also don't like the idea of paying so many points (160) for my CL.

Further, there's the issue of fleet variety. Let's assume that there was a carrier SC. Taking a "normal" 1 TH SC and a carrier SC would give me a total of 4 TH, the same as taking 2 current THs. However, this variety would allow people to not take carrier SCs, giving them cheaper gun SCs. Or to take more carriers, giving them more THs (maybe even THA's) at the cost of guns and points. So this would mainly give fleet variety. If the idea of having so much AC is perturbing then some sort of carrier limit can be imposed.

I think that with SCs having 2 prow THs then a carrier SC becomes out of the question. It would mean 4 AC on a relatively cheap hull which when combined with the preponderance of AC already available would be just wrong.

So dropping the SC down to 1 TH gives the ability for a fairly cool and easily converted variant as well as maintaining a cheaper base SC.

[horizon]

Hi Sigoroth,

Le sigh. As a matter of fact it is true. Compare a Lunar, which has mixed weaponry to a Dominator or Gothic, which had dedicated weaponry. Now, let's say you have a couple of Scythes in range and arc and have locked on. A Necron player will typically not brace against the WBs of the Lunar because they're not such a threat given their armour. Sure, bracing does increase survivability against WBs for Scythes, particularly if locked on, but the downsides of bracing are too high. Against lances however, there a much better cost/benefit ratio to brace. So, does the Necron player decide to brace against the WBs knowing that the lances are to come and he'll be braced anyway or not? If he decides to brace, but fails, the IN player can then fire the lances into that ship knowing that he can't brace against them. If he successfully braces then the IN player can then switch his lances to the other Scythe, effectively making the Necron player brace 2 ships. Neither a Dominator nor a Gothic could do this. Sure, a Gothic could split its firepower to try to make the 2 of them brace, but 2 lances are nowhere near as good against a braced Necron as 6WBs.

Unless I am mistaken the Lunar may still switch its lances towards another target. As it stands the simultaneos approach is majorily written for Heavy Gunz/Bombardment. The player can decide weather to do simultaneuous or switch targets.

The the Lunar tactic you describe is still viable.

And the shooting player may choose which shots hit on the shields, batteries or heavy gunz/bc. So, written out.


ps I don't think 1 Thawk is worth 15pts. So lets get a round number 145+15-10 = 150



I do mighty agree with you on reinstalling the original blastmarkers rules to enhance tactical gameplay.

[Sigoroth]

Unless I am mistaken the Lunar may still switch its lances towards another target. As it stands the simultaneos approach is majorily written for Heavy Gunz/Bombardment. The player can decide weather to do simultaneuous or switch targets.

The the Lunar tactic you describe is still viable.

No, I know that Lunars can still do this. The point is that they can do it. Ships with dedicated weaponry can't choose to switch. Mixed weaponry ships can. On the other hand mixed weaponry ships never used to shoot all at once, while dedicated weaponry ships could. Advantages and disadvantages for both, particularly as it applies to BFI attempts. With simultaneous fire mixed weaponry ships will have a flat advantage.

And the shooting player may choose which shots hit on the shields, batteries or heavy gunz/bc. So, written out.

Well that just bites. If they're getting simultaneous fire the target should choose.

ps I don't think 1 Thawk is worth 15pts. So lets get a round number 145+15-10 = 150

Meh, I don't think that 1 shield is worth 15 points either, but since SMs don't have a 2 shield ship of the line ...

I do mighty agree with you on reinstalling the original blastmarkers rules to enhance tactical gameplay.

Well this is by far the most beneficial of the 3 listed core mechanics that should go back to the original form. The tactical benefit from doing so is beneficial to all fleets, but more so for those that focus on gunnery chart weapons. Slip some ships behind or to the side of the targets to bring down the shields and let the rest of your fleet fire without impediment. However, the sequential nature of the game shouldn't be messed with, in terms of brace opportunities or blast marker interference.