Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Sigoroth]

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?

Weapon Batteries. Giving just about any strength BC in place of the TH is overpowering I think.

[lastspartacus]

My vote is switch a TH bay for a str3 front firing bombard cannon at +10 points.  Alternatively, make it a str3/str4 weapon battery similar to what Sigoroth suggested, firing l/r/f. 

[Sigoroth]

My vote is switch a TH bay for a str3 front firing bombard cannon at +10 points.  Alternatively, make it a str3/str4 weapon battery similar to what Sigoroth suggested, firing l/r/f. 

I considered a forward only BC. Consider however a squadron of 4 SCs firing all BCs against a closing cap ship, normal range, no BMs. That's 24BC which equals 17 lances which crit on a 4+. When on LO that'd be 5.375 hull hits on a cruiser after brace saves, which would be 2.69 crits on top. That's not even at close range (where it goes up to 7.25 hull hits after brace + 3.63 crits).

[lastspartacus]

Right Sig, but anything looks impressive in multiples.  You increase points and lose out on ordnance.  Then theres the option to limit variants to 1:1, potentially. 

[Mazila]

I think you should keep the BC upgrade as it is, but make it more rare by returning  wording "Lower than original..." Makes more sence and makes it fairer.

[Sigoroth]

I just don't see anyone not taking the maximum number of BC variants possible.

[horizon]

Yeah, this is a point where Caine is right. The BC option is too attractive.

[Sigoroth]

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?

I agree that the 2nd shield is a must have, but I don't think that they should even have the option of taking 1 shield. So I'm glad it's a must have.

[Vaaish]

Do you think that perhaps limiting a SC to one upgrade would help make the shield less of a must have? Then you would have the option to swap weapons or take the shield.

[Sigoroth]

Do you think that perhaps limiting a SC to one upgrade would help make the shield less of a must have? Then you would have the option to swap weapons or take the shield.

It might, but as I said, I think it should be a must have. You shouldn't be able to have just 1 shield. So, to me, everyone deciding to take the 2nd shield isn't a problem. I would much rather they just have a straight swap of +1 shield for -1 Thunderhawk for 145 pts. I'd say the shield is worth more, but since we'd be lowering offensive power and taking extra defensive power instead (SM thing) then I don't mind seeing the SC come out ahead in this trade-off.

[Hymirl]

While I know that the rules have altered to allow a ship to fire both bombardment cannons and gun batteries without gimping its own firepower with blast markers would it be an idea to simply modify bombardment cannons to ignore blast markers (and possibly even the short range bonus for the sake of balance). It seems a little more targeted on the problem at hand to fix the weapons throwing up the issue instead of the core rules?

As an aside I think that variant strike cruisers are a great idea, adds a lot of variety to the fleet. I would like to suggest moving away from the direct comparisons with the Dauntless though, they're in different roles.

As to the old 'lances or not' maybe allow 0-1 strike cruiser to have forward lances to represent a venerable strike cruiser or the GK cruiser (which is about the only one that could justifiably break teh rules).

[Sigoroth]

While I know that the rules have altered to allow a ship to fire both bombardment cannons and gun batteries without gimping its own firepower with blast markers would it be an idea to simply modify bombardment cannons to ignore blast markers (and possibly even the short range bonus for the sake of balance). It seems a little more targeted on the problem at hand to fix the weapons throwing up the issue instead of the core rules?

This would just make BC super lances. I am strongly opposed to them even getting to ignore BMs from their own previous fire, let alone from other ships. The fact is that both Orks and SMs can be made balanced without this change to the core rules. This is a good reason not to change. Since the interaction between different gunnery weapons is fluffy in both the SMs and Orks cases then this is reason to insist that the core rule not be changed.

As an aside I think that variant strike cruisers are a great idea, adds a lot of variety to the fleet. I would like to suggest moving away from the direct comparisons with the Dauntless though, they're in different roles.

I think that comparisons to the Dauntless are valid. You can get mixed SM/IN or SM/AM fleets, so there's no reason not to compare them. In terms of overall capabilities, it's not unreasonable to suggest that since SMs are the elite of the Imperium no expense is spared for them. Hence they get access to extra shielding and the best armour, etc. So the SC can 'out-max' a Dauntless in some areas, particularly defensively, but in terms of weaponry I'd say that they shouldn't be able to significantly out perform a Navy gunboat. Equal at max I say.

Obviously I'm in favour of variants though. The SMs needs some cap ship variety.

As to the old 'lances or not' maybe allow 0-1 strike cruiser to have forward lances to represent a venerable strike cruiser or the GK cruiser (which is about the only one that could justifiably break teh rules).

I see no reason to allow it at all. If there is a SM SC out there somewhere with lances on it then it's likely in the hands of renegade marines! While a good number of codex doctrine can be (fairly) safely ignored by a chapter in one way or another, the SMs do not have the influence in space that they do on the ground. There's no way the IN would allow it at all. At all. This is basic psychology (and I should know).

[Mazila]

Thoughts after a few tests:

Changing base SMSC profile is a nonsence. This ship works as it is in armageddon fleet list and therefore it should not be changed. The upgrades should be unique to SM flit lists only.

The lance is overpriced, so who cares about it.

I dont understand why everyone is so much about taking +1 shield upgrade - It is good, but deffinately not a must-have. Personally I have only a handfull of rosters where all SMSC will have 2 shields.

I think str 3 bc with a rule that you must have more normal SMSC than upgraded solves (as per draft 3.1) all the issues.

Other than that this works pretty well and boosts marines to a playable level.

[clintv42]

Sweet god,
So, I just got done reading through all 25 pages of this post.  There were ups, there were downs, I cried a little, my sister had a baby.... and now I'm here.  My friends and I just started playing BFG and I have a handful of games under my belt, although I am a hardened veteran of all other gw systems.   I commend all the work and screaming back and forth you guys have done for the sake of this sweet game.  While I've had nothing but success with my marines I can already tell that these new options will breath some more life into them as I'm looking at very few options for army builds currently. 

I do have a question for you guys in terms of the marine version.  Is it done?  Is there a date that is being aimed for in regards to when it will no longer be a draft?  I'm getting an ichy trigger finger as to when I can let these bad boys off the chain but until I'm certain you're done I don't want to use these proposed rules and if it is officially out I didn't want to miss it. 

Thanks to all of you who have posted and keep up the great work guys.  Now to spend another week reading the tau changes....

[Mazila]

More tests undergone:

Str 5 bc is an overkill - str 3 upgrade works much better.

SM still looses most of the games to Chaos and eldars (DE also). But fights better against IN.