Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[BaronIveagh]

Uhm no.
3 waves of 2 cover all your options. So before you'll fire one wave (at least) would hit you.

Ok, not quite sure I follow, since there's two situations you could be talking about, but:

1) you break squadrons into 3 wave of two and position them so that one wave is going to be in range no matter which way I turn.  One will reach me during your ord phase, however, a str 2 wave would have to beat 4 turrets + me bracing if that fails.  However, both of the other two would be within 15cm.

2)You could move it ahead of my ships to try and force me to fly my leftmost ship into it, but there nothing that says that I can't turn the closest farther and shift it to the opposite side of the squadron, since they're escorts and turn at any point in their movement. 

So, yes, you could wing one str 2 wave into me, but that's a real Hail Mary there for it damaging (about a 10% chance).

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

Really? And how will lances be better than BCs or THs? BCs can be as good as lances. You just have to learn how to get the most out of them. Now if you can't understand that FP3 giving 2 dice in the Closing or Moving Away is the same as Str 2 lance without the crit effect which you will most likely get on an LC chassis, if you can't even be bothered to find a way to get that advantage, if you can't even realize that if the SC can get within 15 cm, it can attack with WBs, BCs, THs, teleport attacks or even ramming, then its no use asking for lances because there will not be a significant difference in the outcome.

[lastspartacus]

I don't understand, Admiral.  In fluff, Imperial factions don't like lances in SM fleets.  On the tabletop though, How could you think that they would gain a big boost?  In actual play, Bombardment Cannon is an even greater weapon than lances against ships.  
How would a tradeoff for an inferior weapon be seen as OP?  Its not an argument of need, but flavor.

Even if it were flavor, as you pointed out, IN don't like lances in SM fleets and grudgingly accept the ones on escorts which they prefer to keep that way. To make BCs work well, the SM needs to have the target in the Closing or Moving Away profile. So it makes things harder to use while still retaining the deadliness. That's something IN can live with as going abeam would help minimize the threat. So whether game play or fluff, there is still no need or requirement in flavor for it.

Like I pointed out, right.  The text no where states the strong 'if it shows up on a capital ship the chapter is toast' sentiment that some seem to follow.  While abeam, the lance option gets an extra shot, yes, though not with the triple-crit-threat that BC has.
If its a balance problem you are worried about, front fire only further decreases the value of the lances.  
While you may see no need or requirement for it, some players do, and that the fluff of their chapter would have SC lance examples.
I would point out that there isn't much need or requirement from fluff to keep them from it.  The idea 'lances can only go on escorts'
is one that was hypothesized, not one that is found anywhere in fluff.  Actually, it is mentioned that exception is taken to the Nova because it is a pure gunboat, and an SC with lances is far more diverse.  Zero evidence to suggest that only escorts would be allowed lances, or that they would be any more deadly on capital ships.

Also, marine escorts are very expensive next to Imperial ones, a lot of novas is extremely points prohibitive for the punch you get.

I don't think so. IN Firestorms are only 10 points less. SM actually gets quite a lot for those 50 points. +10 cm speed advantage at the expense of 1 turret and then the SM rules.

Edit:  I want to know if you are opposed to this:
'For every 750 points, one standard Strike Cruiser may replace its str3 bombardment cannon with a str2 30cm forward firing lance battery'

Its obviously a weaker option than the l/r/f BC, and yet still not completely pointless.  While a much weaker option, in the event of an abeam, blast-marker shrouded target in the prow arc, it will give you one more 4+ shot than the BC option, though without the 4+ critical.
Weaker, not completely pointless, and limited.  Hopefully that is an option everyone can agree on, from fluff and balance purposes.

Yes. Why? Because you already pointed out, BCs can be better than lances. So why would SM have to get the lance? It's already enough that SM get the BCs. It is just trickier but no less deadly in the right circumstances especially now that the BM problem looks like it will get resolved the way it is. It works with the fluff while giving SM a chance to win fleet action. In your proposal 2 lances in 750 points in a fleet where it can take 145 point 6+ armor, 25 cm speed, 90' turn SCs are significant. In 1500 point matches, That's 4 lances supported by BCs and WBs and lances on Novas if the player wanted to include escorts. That's a serious threat to IN. It is NOT pointless. That is the point. It's not weaker since it makes things easier for SM. A ship targeted by WBs, BCs and lances would be neutralized and unless a fleet brings lots of lances, the opposing fleet would have a hard time striking back. You almost always have to compare every race to IN which is one of the more basic races. Adding lances to the SM even in limited amounts would tilt things to SM significantly.

Actually BC are deadlier against IN than other fleets, in that their armored prows are not only useless, as with against lances, but they are actually a liability.  And its not like lances are even always better at ship killing.  Its just another weapon in the game, one that sacrifices number of potential damage for greater chance at singlular damage.  If you wanted lances, youd take novas, 3 for the pricfe of 2, and more agile.

[horizon]

Uhm no.
3 waves of 2 cover all your options. So before you'll fire one wave (at least) would hit you.

Ok, not quite sure I follow, since there's two situations you could be talking about, but:

1) you break squadrons into 3 wave of two and position them so that one wave is going to be in range no matter which way I turn.  One will reach me during your ord phase, however, a str 2 wave would have to beat 4 turrets + me bracing if that fails.  However, both of the other two would be within 15cm.

2)You could move it ahead of my ships to try and force me to fly my leftmost ship into it, but there nothing that says that I can't turn the closest farther and shift it to the opposite side of the squadron, since they're escorts and turn at any point in their movement.  

So, yes, you could wing one str 2 wave into me, but that's a real Hail Mary there for it damaging (about a 10% chance).

eh.

I'd position all waves (3) within 5cm of you. That is possible.

2 T-Hawks in contact with 1 (s)DM during movement.

2 turrets = per average 1 death T-Hawk.

T-Hawk on a 3+ = 66% hit chance
BFI = 50%

(s)DM has a chance of being destroyed by 2 t-hawks : 33%.
even if failed attack, squadron (s)DM on BFI = good for Marines & other t-hawk waves.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Like I pointed out, right.  The text no where states the strong 'if it shows up on a capital ship the chapter is toast' sentiment that some seem to follow.  While abeam, the lance option gets an extra shot, yes, though not with the triple-crit-threat that BC has.
If its a balance problem you are worried about, front fire only further decreases the value of the lances.

So why would you insist on fighting Abeam? Go for the Closing or Moving Away profile which the SC can do quite regularly.
  

While you may see no need or requirement for it, some players do, and that the fluff of their chapter would have SC lance examples.
I would point out that there isn't much need or requirement from fluff to keep them from it.  The idea 'lances can only go on escorts'
is one that was hypothesized, not one that is found anywhere in fluff.  Actually, it is mentioned that exception is taken to the Nova because it is a pure gunboat, and an SC with lances is far more diverse.  Zero evidence to suggest that only escorts would be allowed lances, or that they would be any more deadly on capital ships.

Hypothesized? It's in Armada. I hardly think that's hypothesizing. The players who want to have the lances are the ones hypothesizing relying on fluff which is highly questionable at best. Not more deadly? You haven't been using lance Dauntlesses have you?

Actually BC are deadlier against IN than other fleets, in that their armored prows are not only useless, as with against lances, but they are actually a liability.  And its not like lances are even always better at ship killing.  Its just another weapon in the game, one that sacrifices number of potential damage for greater chance at singlular damage.  If you wanted lances, youd take novas, 3 for the pricfe of 2, and more agile.

But the IN is the more important comparison here as they should be the ones winning against an SM fleet regularly. So now you admit that taking Novas would be better than an SC with lances. So stick to those.

[lastspartacus]

So why would you insist on fighting Abeam? Go for the Closing or Moving Away profile which the SC can do quite regularly.

Firstly, just because you are more mobile, doesn't mean you will always get the arc you want.
Secondly, the BC variant still has the double advantage of the safer Abeam facing, while focusing prow and side fire into one arc.
  

Hypothesized? It's in Armada. I hardly think that's hypothesizing. The players who want to have the lances are the ones hypothesizing relying on fluff which is highly questionable at best. Not more deadly? You haven't been using lance Dauntlesses have you?

Where in Armada does it say that, Admiral?  And the Dauntless argument is completely irrelevant, because you get more lances for your points than escorts with the Dauntless.  3 lances for 110 vs 2 lances for 145.

But the IN is the more important comparison here as they should be the ones winning against an SM fleet regularly. So now you admit that taking Novas would be better than an SC with lances. So stick to those.

  What?  I know the IN are the comparison, I was telling you that BC actually have more edge on IN over lances than, say, against chaos.
And of course I admit novas are better, its why I don't understand the opposition to somebody wanting an inferior SC variant.

[commander]

And of course I admit novas are better, its why I don't understand the opposition to somebody wanting an inferior SC variant.

But they already can have that per FAQ2010, at +20 points   

[horizon]

heh heh @ commander.

LS,
3 lances on a 5+ armour vessel with 1 shield, 1 turret.
2 lances on a 6+ armour vessel with 1 shield (+1 optional), 2 turrets, better Ld, better boarding, attack craft.
There is a difference...

Strike Cruiser must not have lances. Fluffwise, Gamewise, Sensewise, Balancewise, Coolwise, Doctrinewise, Everythingwise.
(having 1 lance for +20pts is the farthest I go. ).

[lastspartacus]

We are talking ease of getting lances on the table, and delivery system, Horizon.  Thats the issue, therefore whatever else tags along is irrelevant, or else you would be saying Overlords are better lance boats because they have a couple lances as well as the rest of their armament.

As to your last sentence, I know you are probably joking based on personal feeling, but I know that you have not a single quote from any book to back that up.   As to balancewise, you'l need to explain that one, because I see no innate imbalance.

[horizon]

We are talking ease of getting lances on the table, and delivery system, Horizon. Thats the issue, therefore whatever else tags along is irrelevant, or else you would be saying Overlords are better lance boats because they have a couple lances as well as the rest of their armament.

Yes we are talking that for 30 pages now....
Marines have lances due Nova's & VBB's. Dot com Stop /end thread.

As to your last sentence, I know you are probably joking based on personal feeling, but I know that you have not a single quote from any book to back that up. As to balancewise, you'l need to explain that one, because I see no innate imbalance.

lol, ain't joking at all. I give rats about BL books and what they think. (See again at what happens with Defence Monitors). There is no proper background supporting lances on strike cruisers but Armada gives enough examples and reasons against lances on strike cruisers.

If you do not understand the unbalancing fact of allowing lances (for cheap as you wish) on strike cruisers that's a problem. Perhaps you should read back those 30 pages then?
It also has to do with the and and and and effect I described earlier and all other weapon systems for Marines.
That's Balance.

[lastspartacus]

Yes we are talking that for 30 pages now....
Marines have lances due Nova's & VBB's. Dot com Stop /end thread.

  And you have absolutely zero evidence or half a quote to back up that distinction.

lol, ain't joking at all. I give rats about BL books and what they think. (See again at what happens with Defence Monitors). There is no proper background supporting lances on strike cruisers but Armada gives enough examples and reasons against lances on strike cruisers.
If you do not understand the unbalancing fact of allowing lances (for cheap as you wish) on strike cruisers that's a problem. Perhaps you should read back those 30 pages then?
It also has to do with the and and and and effect I described earlier and all other weapon systems for Marines.
That's Balance.

Not even talking about BL books at this point.  Again, no proper background specifying no lances on strike cruisers.
Armada gives no examples or reasons as to why an SC wouldnt have lances, if a Nova does.  Zero, not a word.
And I don't understand the imabalancing fact of lances, at least the lances I proposed, because there is none.
Its 30 pages of personal feeling.

[horizon]

Thus: no word on allowing lances on Strike Cruisers as well per your point of view.

The Nova entry is so friggin clear on the matter it makes me wonder why you dismiss it as such.

Again: and and and -> you want EVERYTHING for Marines. On top of it, you want the 'missing' bit: the anti-ship weapon called a lance!

[skatingtortoise]

"Instead, a compromise was reached which limited the Space Marines to vessels whose primary role was that of transport, delivery and suppression designed to facilitate planetary assault. Only the smallest of vessels would be permitted to act exclusively as gunships, with the larger battlebarges and strike cruisers remaining predominantly as aids to invasion, ensuring the Space Marines would never present a threat to the Imperial Navy proper. Inevitably, the wrangling over interpretation of a ship’s ‘primary role’ leads to some chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets than the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with."

battlebarge:
+1 planetary assault
3+ exterminatus weapons
thunderhawk gunships
boarding torpedoes
bombardment cannons
ie. transport, delivery, and suppression.

strike cruiser:
+1 planetary assault
thunderhawks
bombardment cannons
trnasport, delivery and suppression.

Escorts:
gunboats, some of them more questionable than others. WB aid suppression, boarding torpedoes for overwhelming defences, and the lance on the nova... not really something you can use to give massive covering fire to ground troops with, is it?
with a lance, the SC loses the whole suppresion thing, and its role arguably becomes anti-ship. THIS is against fluff.
admittedly it also states some fleets are more flexible than the navy would like. this is a result of the BC being rather handy when used cleverly, and access to regular torpedoes. this may also apply to the nova.
i dont see anything here that screams 'SCs should have lances' and in the end if no side can present an overwhelming argument, things stay as they are.

creative use of BL fluff: i can probably find a bit of fluff somewhere that mentions a squad of marines destroying an entire ship single handedly. so why is the boarding modifier only +2? it should be +6! deathwatch marines have been known to use xenos technology to further their cause - so why not a holofield option for SCs? for every bit of fluff there is counter fluff. this is the law of fluff.

[horizon]

^ Good post!

Well, there was a BL book with an Imperial Cruiser being 20000 metres long.

Official canon (FFG/Rogue Trader) now has it at 5000 metres.
(While fandom had it at 2500-3000 metres!).

[lastspartacus]

Thus: no word on allowing lances on Strike Cruisers as well per your point of view.

The Nova entry is so friggin clear on the matter it makes me wonder why you dismiss it as such.

Again: and and and -> you want EVERYTHING for Marines. On top of it, you want the 'missing' bit: the anti-ship weapon called a lance!

Right, no word either way.  But based on some reasonable thoughts, its not a stretch.  There is definitly none of your 'no not ever' talk.
  The nova actually disproves many of your thoughts.
I want a limited amount of something marines could have, for players who want it.  What in the nova entry is clear?  It basically makes the Imperium nervous.  And its a dedicated gunboat, which a lance bearing SC wouldnt be.  Quote me something, there aint nothin there that doesnt lend weight to the lance-on-SC argument.  Tell me Horizon, why would the Imperium take more exception to an SC with a couple lances than a dedicated lance escort?