Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Vaaish]

well, lance platforms do provide a nice turret housing for the BC. All you really need to do is snip off the barrels for the lance turrets and glue on some plastic rod.

[horizon]

Hi Fracas,
well the model has been build in the past by some heretics. I used the Desolator's lance guns on my Venerable Battle Barge to represent Bombardment Cannons (dorsal).

So I say leave as is for the 'old' conversions.

[Caine-HoA]

I wonder if there will be any SC without the 2. shield and the 5BC maxed out in fleets as those two options are just too good to not use them. 2shields + 6+armor all around could turn out as beeing too strong but we will see.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Still insistent on Str 2 TH eh? Really just too overpowered for me.

[fracas]

The PDF still refers to rules listed in armadcan those space marine rules be ported so the PDF function as a freestanding doc for space marine ?

[Caine-HoA]

I dont think 2TH are overpowered, if you compare the ship costs to other carriers you ont get a lot of ordnance by using SCs.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Again, if you switch out the TH for regular stuff, it means it can transport 4 squadrons of regular AC. On a ship the size of a light cruiser with one other prow weapon. 1 squadron of TH is more than enough to transport the minimal Marines on a ship that size as well as their supporting equipment. Yes it is overpowered, providing the SM with a lot of ordnance when there is no proof that they should be an AC heavy fleet.

[fracas]

Btw as written the planet killer can be taken as a venerable barge?

[Sigoroth]

Again, if you switch out the TH for regular stuff, it means it can transport 4 squadrons of regular AC. On a ship the size of a light cruiser with one other prow weapon. 1 squadron of TH is more than enough to transport the minimal Marines on a ship that size as well as their supporting equipment. Yes it is overpowered, providing the SM with a lot of ordnance when there is no proof that they should be an AC heavy fleet.

Though I agree with you in terms of space (it's too small), necessity (1 TH should be enough), justification (no fluff need for it) and preference (reducing it gives better options to the fleet) I do disagree slightly on one point and significantly on another. Firstly, I don't think that 1TH = 2AC in either value or size terms.

THs are large, but other AC squadrons are more numerous. I think that TH bays are worth maybe 1.5 times the value of normal bays (including SM rules) but it is not represented this way in the rules because it's almost impossible to divide the small numbers on most ships by 2/3. If you divide bays by 2/3 and rounded up then an Emperor or Despoiler would get 4 x 2/3 = 2.67 = 3 each side. This seems fair. However, if you're rounding up then a Mars, for example, would get 4 THs (2 p/s x 2/3 = 1.33 each side, rounded up back to 2 each side), which is no reduction at all.

If you rounded down instead then you'd get absolutely no change compared to the current rule. On the BBs 2.66 rounding down = 2 each side, which is the same as halving. On Mars sized carriers you get 1.33 each side rounded down = 1 each side, which is again the same as halving. The Styx will give the same number of THs whether you halve rounding up or go by 2/3. So, while the TH is probably worth around 1.5 times normal AC this can't be represented in any real way because of 4 AC carriers. So the rules imply they're worth twice as much. Mind you, I'd rather they said 2/3 rounding down so that people would value them at +50% more than regular AC, instead of +100% more, but the halving method is easier for people to work out.

In terms of space on board, the only reasoning I can suggest for being able to launch less THs than other AC is bay configuration not being the best at storing the larger THs. They may not quite fit so well. In a purpose built vessel like the SC this might not be a problem, since you'd imagine the bay would be built to accommodate the THs. Maybe another reason is extra space needed for queueing troops about to embark on the THs ... who knows.

While I think I've covered all angles to the TH issue, this is, to me, a minor objection to your point. It's fair to say that THs are worth more than normal AC, and a cruiser this size probably shouldn't have that sort of capability in its prow hardpoint which also has space dedicated to other weaponry.

The other objection I have is one of balance. I don't think that it's overpowered for the SC to have the extra TH. SMs are not overpowered and their lack of a dedicated carrier option means that their diffused fleetwide THs have been fairly necessary in the past.

However, I would very much like to see the SC drop down to 1 TH prow bay. For both consistency in comparison to the much larger battlebarge and for the other size related reason mentioned above. But also I would like to see the SC become cheaper, namely to be able to take the second shield without them costing so damn much. Further, with such a reduction I could see a (more expensive and somewhat limited) carrier version being possible. Replacing broadside weaponry with a TH each side. So people could choose to take carriers giving probably up to the same amount AC as at present or they could choose more guns. This would help in giving SMs some more versatility without violating fluff. Speaking of which ...

... the lance option. That should just be flat out removed. Firstly, it is very very weak. The 3 BC that a SC comes with will never drop below 1 dice (which hits on a 4+ anyway and gives a 4+ crit) and should quite often do better. In squadrons where the firepower is combined with other SC's BCs it is possible to get worse firepower than 1 lance each if you're particularly retarded (25cm, 90° ship with LFR fire arcs and you can't do better than worst case scenario?). So it's very weak and very very expensive (+20 pts to replace the BC!). Since there's no balance reason for the change the only reason someone would take this option is if they happen to want lances on their SMs (for variety or because they like the idea). Since this is specifically disallowed by IN enforced codex restrictions, this option should be immediately removed. There is no reason to validate through an official ruleset a specifically non-canonical (heretical!) construct. The whole reason the Seditio Opprimere was so reviled was because of lances, not just its strength. So now that that ship has been changed you (HA) make the same blunder on the SC!?

[Sigoroth]

Since I started critiquing the SC variants by abusing the option of a lance above I thought I ought to continue on the topic of SC variants in general and the proposed ones specifically.

First up, obviously, remove the lance option altogether. SMs should never, not ever have lances on their purpose built cap ships.

Torp variant: while I don't mind the idea of a torpedo variant, my objection in this case lies in the amount of torpedoes. Even the empowered Endeavour CL (which I would still prefer to see as 25cm/90° with 6+ prow instead) cannot fit that many torps/guns in its (substantial) front end. The Dauntless can't either. I do see the option as being on a par with the number of THs being given up, and it's not overpowered compared to the ship's cost, it's just that the SC shouldn't be able to carry that much in its prow; of either torps or THs.

Recommended fix: Drop the prow TH of the standard SC down to 1 and drop the cost down by 15 points. This allows an option to swap the TH for str 3 torps at no cost.

Dropping the number of THs on standard SCs reduces the maximum potential AC in the fleet. To make up for the loss of potential I suggest including a carrier variant (1/1/1 prow/prt/strbrd) at +20 pts (dropping broadside guns). Limit the carriers to no more than half the SCs in the fleet. This would keep the maximum potential AC the same if someone wanted to go AC heavy, but also give them the option of not going AC heavy.

I would also make the second shield a forced upgrade bringing the base cost back up to 145 pts (so a carrier is 165 pts).

So if someone took one normal SC and 1 carrier SC then it'd cost 310 pts, they'd have 4 THs, 6 BC, 2 shields each and 4WB L+R. Currently, 2 normal SCs with extra shields would cost 320 pts and give the same except +4 more WBs L+R. Losing all 4 THs they could get 12 torps, whereas with the proposed version you could only swap 2 THs for 6 torps total.

This would give 4 different variants: Guns + TH, Guns + Torps, THs + TH, THs + Torps.

As for the prow BC option, I too find it too powerful. 8 BCs are worth much much more than the 3 lances of a Dauntless. Of course, this discrepancy again comes about due to the prow heavy armament of the SC. Trading the compulsory shield upgrade for the reduced TH makes it possible to swap the remaining TH for a more reasonable alternative. Although, in this case I think that there is no swap for BC that wouldn't be too powerful. A gunnery weapon that hits like lances and is 3 times more likely to crit is just too powerful to allow them to be massed like that. Rather, a WB swap would be OK. Maybe 2WB@30cmLFR.

[horizon]

Hi Sig,

the Protector is a 6hp vessel with 5 missiles, so Strike Cruiser could have that as well. Mind you, the FW protector had 6. Very different ship designs though.

The lance has been clubbed to death by us but the HA seems have to gotten a message from high above to include it. So best we could do is make it as useless as possible. heh heh.

[Sigoroth]

I thought I'd clarify my suggestions:

Code: [Select]

Space Marine Strike Cruiser         145 pts
Hits - 6       Speed - 25cm     Turns - 90°
Armour - 6+    Shields - 2      Turrets - 2

Armament      Range/Speed     Str       Arc
P+S WBs          30cm          4        L+R
Prow BCs         30cm          3        LFR
Prow TH          20cm          1         -

Options: Any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with strength 3 torpedo tubes at no additional cost. Alternatively, for no additional cost, any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with firepower 2 weapon batteries with a 30cm range and left, front and right fire arcs.

Up to half the Strike Cruisers in the fleet may replace their broadside weapon batteries with 1 Thunderhawk bay each side for 20 pts. This upgrade can be taken in addition to one of the prow weapon alternatives.

Note: this would effectively give 6 different SC variants, none of which seem at all overpowered to me.

[Sigoroth]

Hi Sig,

the Protector is a 6hp vessel with 5 missiles, so Strike Cruiser could have that as well. Mind you, the FW protector had 6. Very different ship designs though.

Eh, the "prow" on a Protector is pretty much like another ships broadside, they're so wide and short.

The lance has been clubbed to death by us but the HA seems have to gotten a message from high above to include it. So best we could do is make it as useless as possible. heh heh.

I think I can help in this regard. Give the option of taking a lance and then include a special rule whereby a fleet of IN ships comes onto the field during the battle, blows the lance ship to sh!t and fcks off again.

[KivArn]

Options: Any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with strength 3 torpedo tubes at no additional cost. Alternatively, for no additional cost, any Strike Cruiser may replace its prow Thunderhawk bay with firepower 2 weapon batteries with a 30cm range and left, front and right fire arcs.

Are they meant to be weapons batteries or bombardment cannons?

[Don Gusto]

I'm still of the opinion that the shield upgrade option is too cheap and advocate it being made more expensive and/or restrictive.

Who in their right mind would take 10 SC's with 1 shield over 9 SC's with 2 shields each?