Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[flybywire-E2C]

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

Hi Sigoroth!    Try maxing out on BC SC's in a game and see how it goes, especially against Devastations with a bunch of 60cm lances. if you don't have ordnance covering your BC-only SC's, half your ships will get whacked before you even close the range. Slide-rule gaming is not the same thing as real-life playtesting. We tested this over and over again- BC-only SC's or even a 50-50 mix (the max allowed in the finished rules) can be overwhelmed by ships maximizing long-range lances and ordnance superiority, which is not too hard to do for Imperials and VERY easy for Chaos. When used against Corsair Eldar, BC's are just WB's- there's no difference. Try it my friend, and you will see this is not as terrifying as it seems.

We considered a str-3 BC in the prow instead of str-5, and it just didn't end up being worth as much as 2 T-Hawks in actual gameplay. While T-Hawk armed SC's can fight all the way in (launch T-hawks at range while closing, then start shooting in the knife fight), BC SC's have to get in quick because they can ONLY start fighting when in knife range. Against Orks and Tau they ended up prow-on against ships that were maximizing their own fire arcs. Against Chaos and Imps they were always shooting abeam and thus had very minimal effects with a firepower-6 BC. Tyranids ended up being a VERY bloody knife-fight because closing at 30cm against the bugs is ALWAYS bad news. Against Eldar, it was usually (but not always) too easy for the pointy-ears to keep away from this weapon.

- Nate

[lastspartacus]

Str3 would be worth it if the TH was only one, and the SC was two shields auto

I'm just saying it cuz I know its a new idea

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Str3 would be worth it if the TH was only one, and the SC was two shields auto

I'm just saying it cuz I know its a new idea

Definitely worth it.

[Caine-HoA]

I trust Nate in this. I thought 5 is too hard but if they tested it his arguments seem to fit.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Their arguments fit if they keep the Str 2 TH. If they put it down to Str 1 then FP5 BC would be overpowered and FP3 would be ideal.

[flybywire-E2C]

Their arguments fit if they keep the Str 2 TH. If they put it down to Str 1 then FP5 BC would be overpowered and FP3 would be ideal.

Exactly. This is why strike cruisers are NOT going to be str-1 bays.

- Nate

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Their arguments fit if they keep the Str 2 TH. If they put it down to Str 1 then FP5 BC would be overpowered and FP3 would be ideal.

Exactly. This is why strike cruisers are NOT going to be str-1 bays.

- Nate

And I disagree. They should only have Str 1 THs. If that's the reason then it's really a flawed reason. SM aren't supposed to have that many ABs in the first place. 1 squadron is more than enough to bring down their troops and equipment. The rest can come in drop pods.

To replace the prow weapons with that many BCs supported by WBs which now do not interfere with each other would be making this variant and anti-ship platform.

[Mazila]

My main concern is that SMSC in no way should be better than any IN regular cruiser. 8 BC + 4 WB + 2 shields + 6+ armor +SM crew makes it better than a lunar 1 on 1

[commander]

The SMSC needs a boost but not that much. And I still feel that sometimes people try to cramm too many weaponsystems on too small a platform and come up with all sorts of explanations for this. KISS please.

[horizon]

?? Regarding weapon hardpoints nothing changed compared to the old Marine Strike Cruiser.

[Sigoroth]

Well to be honest the SC has always been overloaded with goodies in the prow. It's just that SMs have sucked so hard for so long that no one was willing to speak up and suggest that they get a decrease. This seems the perfect opportunity to change as far as I can see. Particularly as it allows for an extra variant ship, and SMs need the variety.

[russ_c]

I slip out of the country for a month, come back and find 6 more pages but little to no changes!    Concerning SM needing more variants, I agree with Sigroth and my argument in reply #295 still remains.

The 3.1 draft is looking pretty good at this point.  It's come along way since Admiral's first objections.

Russ

[Mazila]

Russ, i think you missed the post about it actually being 3.2 and then released as a pdf, but still arguments do not end ))))

[Atog]

Hello from Russia.    
I'm playing SM since 2002, and there is my opinion about VBB.  
I think that  100%  pts penalty ( or bonus for adversary )  is ruined whole idea.  That simply means that my opponent that made HALF of normal job will take FOUR TIME bonus.
Will you take any cruiser with compulsory fleetcomm, that needs only four pts of hull damage to bring you to defeat? I will not.  Can you name any ship that brings over 200 pts  to you enemy for only 4 damage? I cant.  
Maybe I should take battleship? No! the reason is same. For only 2 additional hull damage I'll  loose  another ~200 pts. I cant recall any ship that grants my opponent near 400 for 6 hull damage.

I think that there is no need  in introducing any penalties for having VBB  via shifting  bonus for crippling or destroying VBB.

Instead you  may just adjust point costs.  
Any SM fleet, even consisting Imperial\Chaos ship as VBB, will newer match for hardcore  chaos, or any raider type fleet (except Orks ). So you there is no need to penalize them for "doctrine deviations"







 

 


 

 

[Caine-HoA]

I think Atog has a point. One ship/one VBB wont win a game anyway. So why give a panalty for that. SM doesnt have a lot of variety in that way you give some variety on the one hand but in the same moment resticting it again, i dont like that.