August 05, 2024, 11:13:10 AM

Author Topic: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development  (Read 263681 times)

Offline skatingtortoise

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #885 on: December 29, 2010, 10:15:50 PM »
i dont see how all this theoryhammer being flung back and forth (but if you did A, i could do B and win, so there) proves that SCs need the addition of lances.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #886 on: December 29, 2010, 11:54:02 PM »
i dont see how all this theoryhammer being flung back and forth (but if you did A, i could do B and win, so there) proves that SCs need the addition of lances.

As I said, it was something of a tangent.  The point was that even though simultaneous fire is now in, with some of the near 'all escorts' lists that are now going to be legal, SC's generally poor performance against escorts will become a liability that lances will partially offset.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #887 on: December 30, 2010, 01:19:12 AM »
i dont see how all this theoryhammer being flung back and forth (but if you did A, i could do B and win, so there) proves that SCs need the addition of lances.

As I said, it was something of a tangent.  The point was that even though simultaneous fire is now in, with some of the near 'all escorts' lists that are now going to be legal, SC's generally poor performance against escorts will become a liability that lances will partially offset.

I don't see any reason which can show this to be true. While SCs do not have lances, they have THs which are deadly against Escorts in addition to WB+BCs which are also quite deadly against escorts.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #888 on: December 30, 2010, 01:44:30 AM »

I don't see any reason which can show this to be true. While SCs do not have lances, they have THs which are deadly against Escorts in addition to WB+BCs which are also quite deadly against escorts.

thawks are no longer as deadly.  And wb and bc are only str 1 each against escorts.  Which are just as fast and much more maneuverable, so it's more likely that it will be the SC that's getting attacked at disadvantageous angles.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #889 on: December 30, 2010, 01:56:02 AM »
eh they are still pretty deadly. 3+ to kill is a pretty good average.
-Vaaish

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #890 on: December 30, 2010, 03:36:10 AM »
eh they are still pretty deadly. 3+ to kill is a pretty good average.

66.6% of the time against targets without a bonus to Hit and run.  IIRC though it's only 50% against other SM, since both have the same bonus to hit and run it cancels each other out.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #891 on: December 30, 2010, 04:07:38 AM »
Yeah, so? Marine vs Marine is the same? That is hardly making a point.

On your "tangent", I thought about you turning 45* at once and move less then 5cm. But less then 5cm would be illegal due half speed ruling.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #892 on: December 30, 2010, 06:50:02 AM »
Yeah, so? Marine vs Marine is the same? That is hardly making a point.

On your "tangent", I thought about you turning 45* at once and move less then 5cm. But less then 5cm would be illegal due half speed ruling.

Incorrect: the ship still moves a full 5cm, but what it's not doing is moving 5cm toward the thawks.  Depending on their relative orientations, I'd end up moving between 2.5cm closer to 2.5cm farther away, since I'm moving at an angle to them instead of directly at them.  Most people assume that you can't end up farther away then you started on a 45 degree turn, but you actually can gain ground that way.  At 41 cm, it's hard to spot a 1 or 2 cm deviation from true, since you can't order your opponent to put on their ship compass for you to line up your AC run, but I can spot it quite easily when I put on my ship compass to make the turn.

Since the thawks cannot be on my exact centerline if they're lining up a ram or have to shift them due to the SC being at exactly 41cm, the rules say that the wave has to stay together in the smallest circumference possible.  This gives me the 2cm of the diameter of the SC's base leeway if I turn to the opposite side and move 5cm.  I do this rather then move 10, as the difference is not as noticeable until you measure it, which tends to suck people in.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #893 on: December 30, 2010, 07:03:19 AM »
Quote
66.6% of the time against targets without a bonus to Hit and run.  IIRC though it's only 50% against other SM, since both have the same bonus to hit and run it cancels each other out.

Yes, and? 3+=~66% I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Either way still puts the odds in your favor of killing an escort with a Thunderhawk. Much better than the 33% to 50% odds of landing hits with gunnery and it only requires one successful roll rather than two in most cases.

No matter, it just boils down to smart playing will win over ponderous craft or static defenses.
-Vaaish

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #894 on: December 30, 2010, 07:25:52 AM »
Quote
66.6% of the time against targets without a bonus to Hit and run.  IIRC though it's only 50% against other SM, since both have the same bonus to hit and run it cancels each other out.

Yes, and? 3+=~66% I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Either way still puts the odds in your favor of killing an escort with a Thunderhawk. Much better than the 33% to 50% odds of landing hits with gunnery and it only requires one successful roll rather than two in most cases.

No matter, it just boils down to smart playing will win over ponderous craft or static defenses.

Actually, it requires me to fail to kill it with turrets, then fail the BFI roll then you get to roll +3. 

Using an escort with one turret against 1 squadron of thawks (for simplicity of math): Odds that I will make one or both of the +4 rolls I need: 75%.  Odds that the thawk hits: 66%. 

Odds that I fail both rolls and you make the hit: 16.65%

non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #895 on: December 30, 2010, 07:37:38 AM »
Hi,
I think your underestimating the placement. Good, you keep distance at 43cm:

SDM turn ordnance phase = thawks moving to 23cm
Marine turn ordnance phase = thawks moving to 3cm
SDM turn = move through t-hawks without massed turrets.

And remember SDM's need to come closer to the Strike Cruisers to do something. Strike Cruisers can play a waiting game and use T-Hawks from distance. Plus if you move away, again, SC dictates and move to rear.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 775
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #896 on: December 30, 2010, 07:46:27 AM »
I dream for the day when these kinds of arguments could be converted into an actual game of BFG... The fireworks would be spectacular.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #897 on: December 30, 2010, 08:01:50 AM »
I dream for the day when these kinds of arguments could be converted into an actual game of BFG... The fireworks would be spectacular.

And we'd be telling the story for generations.

I think I'm going to start taking bets on when this thread will finally die. I'm betting when it's 97 pages.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #898 on: December 30, 2010, 08:09:31 AM »
Hi,
I think your underestimating the placement. Good, you keep distance at 43cm:

SDM turn ordnance phase = thawks moving to 23cm
Marine turn ordnance phase = thawks moving to 3cm
SDM turn = move through t-hawks without massed turrets.

And remember SDM's need to come closer to the Strike Cruisers to do something. Strike Cruisers can play a waiting game and use T-Hawks from distance. Plus if you move away, again, SC dictates and move to rear.

Um, no, you move to 3cm, I turn 5 degrees and move 5cm and fire.  And, again, not concerned about SC in any facing but closing.  Them trying to get behind me within 15cm for the left shift would force them to close into the guns of the trailing squadron at less then 15cm.  

I dream for the day when these kinds of arguments could be converted into an actual game of BFG... The fireworks would be spectacular.

Agreed.  
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #899 on: December 30, 2010, 08:20:53 AM »
Uhm no.
3 waves of 2 cover all your options. So before you'll fire one wave (at least) would hit you.