Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Sigoroth]

Um, Sigoroth, I might point out the ban is on gunboats.  The book says it over and over again.  Far more then it mentions lances.

So why don't they give a rats arse about Gladii? The problem with the Nova is the lance. That's that.

[BaronIveagh]

Sigoroth is right, they were allowed only escorts to be true warships, read their intro section again, Baron.

*sigh* not this again.  Zel, go back eight pages, Sigoroth is arguing in a circle.  HIs logic is that lances make it a warship, and that other weapons do not.  If this was true, they could have non-scattering nova cannon (F/L/R) SCs with 90 degree turns and 35 cm speed and they would not be warships, but if it has a str 1 lance on it, it's a warship.

Again:

'Admiral, we're here at the Aberdeen System to test out weapons on ships.  For our target we have an old Dauntless that's been decommissioned.  Let's start with a lance.  *lance burns hole in dauntless for two damage.*  Now for this bombardment cannon! *Dauntless explodes into debris as the hull is breached and internal bulkheads collapse*

'Now, Admiral, aren't we so much safer since that bombardment cannon is so much weaker then the lance?'

So why don't they give a rats arse about Gladii? The problem with the Nova is the lance. That's that.

Probably because all the Gladius is, is a slightly faster version of the sword, the IN's weakest, most dirt common ship.  And by dirt common, I mean you can buy them on the open market.  It's the lasgun of warships.

[horizon]

Sigoroth's circle is more correct then your aka pro-lance circle reasonings.

PROVE the Marines need lances.

BC = not anti-ship (bm interference, gunnery chart). Yes it has a crit hit bonus but lances are stronger in ship to ship duel.

[Sigoroth]

*sigh* not this again.  Zel, go back eight pages, Sigoroth is arguing in a circle.  HIs logic is that lances make it a warship, and that other weapons do not.  If this was true, they could have non-scattering nova cannon (F/L/R) SCs with 90 degree turns and 35 cm speed and they would not be warships, but if it has a str 1 lance on it, it's a warship.

This just shows how you've not understood this whole time. The lance is purely an anti-ship weapon. There can be warships without lances, but lances only go on warships. As SMs are not meant to have warships they have zero business having lances at all. For balance purposes in BFG we have to make SM ships compete with warfleets. We need not do this by giving them anti-ship weaponry.

What you are trying to do is say that descriptions of orbital bombardments in rules and books gives SMs the right to have anti-ship weapons. This is quite obviously a croc of shit. If lances in BFG were an anti-defence weapon rather than an anti-ship weapon then I would say yes, they can have lances. They aren't, so they can't. WBs would be far more appropriate for orbital bombardment than lances, which are far too powerful for the job.

You intimate that the Imperium is so toothless that the would not dare try to say boo to whatever the SM want to do. If that were the case then there would be no limits on them. The Imperium at large, and the IN in particular, wish to curtail the SM potential. Whether you lot think that there's no difference between a lance on an escort or a capital ship is neither here nor there. The IN do not see SM escorts as a threat. They can have pure gunboats, and even a lance boat, though grudgingly. This is their concession. Putting lances on cap ships is over the top, and this is when the IN would be forced to take action.

From a game perspective there is so little difference between BCs and lances that there is no balance reason to include them. Since there's no reason to include them, good reason why they shouldn't have them and the fact that they get a replacement weapon for them then there is no reason they should be included. Ever.

[BaronIveagh]

Sigoroth's circle is more correct then your aka pro-lance circle reasonings.

PROVE the Marines need lances.

BC = not anti-ship (bm interference, gunnery chart). Yes it has a crit hit bonus but lances are stronger in ship to ship duel.

Horizon, I've brought forward direct, without question, SC WITH LANCES information from GW rulebooks (not BL), written by the man who, if there ever will be a BFG 2, would probably be writing the fluff for it, and has been writing the fluff for it over at FFG.  

I've shown, both mathematically and in battle reports that strike cruisers have very little effective ability to kill Escorts now  (though, I do grant that Jimerson did more or less throw SC 5 away.  Mathematically, he might have pulled off the ram on turn 3, since it blowing up was only a one in six shot and it was definitely dead my next turn if it stayed where it was, but SC 5 struck me as an odd move too).

Granted, Jimerson was inexperienced with SM, but he lost 4 times as many points worth of ships as I did.  (granted, again, one was something of a throw away) but frankly, i suspect I could have been playing against Maaksel and done the same and you'd still claim it was not proof.  

This just shows how you've not understood this whole time. The lance is purely an anti-ship weapon. There can be warships without lances, but lances only go on warships. As SMs are not meant to have warships they have zero business having lances at all. For balance purposes in BFG we have to make SM ships compete with warfleets. We need not do this by giving them anti-ship weaponry.

What you are trying to do is say that descriptions of orbital bombardments in rules and books gives SMs the right to have anti-ship weapons. This is quite obviously a croc of shit. If lances in BFG were an anti-defence weapon rather than an anti-ship weapon then I would say yes, they can have lances. They aren't, so they can't. WBs would be far more appropriate for orbital bombardment than lances, which are far too powerful for the job.

No, again, a lance is not a purely anti-ship weapon.  Further, there is no 'other' weapon on a ship named a lance that can only be fired at the ground.  And while there are many types of lances, from the STC Titanforge Lance to the arechotech Staravar, they are all shipboard lances.  They all work the same way, and in absolutely no information I have found ANYWHERE is there any suggestion that a ship is firing anything BUT it's shipboard lance batteries at the ground target when a lance strike occurs in the ground!.  Hell, when a Lunar in epic fires it's lances at a ground target, it is a lance strike!  It even differentiates between it firring it's lances and its WB (which are more akin to a nuke) In the fluff in C:WH it talkes about the orbiting starship firing it's lances to support the ground troops.  Lure of the Expanse for RT (where, again, it's a space ship game, and there is only one 'lance') goes into detail when a Firestorm starts firing it's lance at ground targets. 

[horizon]

That batrep of yours contains no valuable information at all. To me at least.

An experienced or relative ok one would not have been as easily defeated (though keep in mind in a fleet engagement the IN should have the upper hand vs Marines!).
It starts with the fleet selection. Which was already skewed.

I don't know Maaksel and his Marine experience so I cannot speak for him.

No one doubted lances doing orbital strikes. They can (pin-point). However Marines have BC's which are more suited to that role for their purpose.


Who are referring to as fluff writer?

[lastspartacus]

Hey, Baron, give it a rest bro.  The HA agrees with us, let them think what they want

[horizon]

And where did they agree? That an occassional Marine ship may have it? That a ship may have 1 lance @ +20pts? That's what Nate said.

More lances on Strike Cruisers? Old Seditio?
This is what Nate said:

However, we aren't going to be making it official.

And so be it.

[BaronIveagh]

That batrep of yours contains no valuable information at all. To me at least.

An experienced or relative ok one would not have been as easily defeated (though keep in mind in a fleet engagement the IN should have the upper hand vs Marines!).
It starts with the fleet selection. Which was already skewed.

Of course it was skewed.  To produce a control we needed the same number of the same type of ship that would be in the experiment, which is Nate's minmaxed SC lance group. 
By their nature, all minmaxed lists are skewed.
Personally, I expected them to loose, but not that badly. 

No one doubted lances doing orbital strikes. They can (pin-point). However Marines have BC's which are more suited to that role for their purpose.

Actually that's exactly what Sigoroth has been arguing is that orbital lance strikes are not done by the same lances that they use on other ships.  Several people have explained it now that they are, but he keeps coming back to it. 

And, BCs are excellent for paving the way for large scale invasions, but for close support FIBUA they're much inferior, given the size of the blast radius and the relative lack of penetration.  Against an enemy in the open, they're fine, but, and, granted, I'm using examples from fluff and their stats from Epic and 40k, the BC takes too many hits to penetrate a hardened bunker, and misses seem to happen fairly regularly.  1/3 of the shots fired in Nightbringer missed the target, one by 900km and it took four hits to penetrate the FC bunker.

A lance can eliminate the building fire is coming from, a BC flattens the whole block.  If the objective is more valuable to you intact, which is better?

Who are referring to as fluff writer?

Andy Hoare.  If you read the credits, he turns up in just about every GW and FFG product with space ship fluff in it as an author.  He is also writing the Rogue Trader series for BL which covers the Damocles Gulf Crusade.

[Zelnik]

Baron, were you a marine yourself, you would be commended for fighting to the bitter end. However, its still a losing battle. The answer is no. There is no further reason to argue, the decision was made, that's that.  Can an op lock this thread?

[BaronIveagh]

Baron, were you a marine yourself, you would be commended for fighting to the bitter end. However, its still a losing battle. The answer is no. There is no further reason to argue, the decision was made, that's that.  Can an op lock this thread?

Zel, have it however you want, but SCs are pitifully weak against escorts now.  The str 2 lance swap would be a viable solution.  SC cannot outmanuver escorts, so they cannot have them always closing.  This means that in most circumstances, they will only ever be firepower 2.  thawks are NOT the all powerful escort slayers they used to be, and the SC's firepower against escorts needs to be rebalanced to reflect this.  A lance is less useful against cap ships then a BC is, due to the gunnery table and BC crit rules, whereas a lance is equally effective against both. 

If you want them rare, make them 1 per 750 points in addition to requiring them to take a regular SC.  Making the weapon swap weak and cost 20 points does not make them any more rare then the +1 shield for 15 points makes that upgrade rare.  Everyone and their brother will take it.

[Zelnik]

sad+panda

[lastspartacus]

You are right, Baron, but I'd just argue personally with Nate.  He agrees with us on fluff, so don't bother convincing those who wish to stick their heads in dirt.  Its all about how the fluff is conveyed, right now its shittily.  Just pm the guy, and back away slowly from the emoti-baters.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

You are right, Baron, but I'd just argue personally with Nate.  He agrees with us on fluff, so don't bother convincing those who wish to stick their heads in dirt.  Its all about how the fluff is conveyed, right now its shittily.  Just pm the guy, and back away slowly from the emoti-baters.

Dude take your own advice. If that's what you believe then just say PM Nate and be done with it instead of adding the lines after "personally with Nate." You're just as similarly described and just as much guilty of the lines after.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Zel, have it however you want, but SCs are pitifully weak against escorts now.  The str 2 lance swap would be a viable solution.  SC cannot outmanuver escorts, so they cannot have them always closing.  This means that in most circumstances, they will only ever be firepower 2.  thawks are NOT the all powerful escort slayers they used to be, and the SC's firepower against escorts needs to be rebalanced to reflect this.  A lance is less useful against cap ships then a BC is, due to the gunnery table and BC crit rules, whereas a lance is equally effective against both.  

You really need to define what an Escort slayer is because every race was affected by the new rules of escorts being more survivable vs H&R attacks. Even then I don't see a lot of races with access to a lot of crit generating attacks from one ship. The SC has:

1. The BC shot supported by the WB shot;
2. TH attacking as ABs only instead of a normal crit it is a 3+ attack;
3. Crits from H&R attacks via teleporting; and
4. Crits from Boarding Actions if the SC wants to do it.

I don't see how getting a Str 2 lance swap, esp the one LS proposes where it is Front Arc only and most likely proposition given that it was the original proposal from the HA, would be a more viable outcome than the one above given that now, the broadsides would suck against escorts as there is no more mutual support from the weapons.  What's that going to do? At best kill ONE escort in one turn and that's assuming it fails it's BFI roll. And you can't do that with the stuff above esp with the WBs and BCs supporting each other and TH support to boot?

A Lunar would have a hard time against escorts.
A Gothic would fare better but SCs aren't getting 4 lances that's for sure.
A Dictator would have problems even with bombers.
A Tyrant would have problems.
A Dominator would have problems.
A Lance Dauntless would almost fare as well as a Gothic but still only 1 escort as a sure kill.
A Torp Dauntless would far less than a Lance Dauntless.
A Murder would have a hard time against escorts but will fair well on the approach because of the 60 cm lances. It will still have problems though.
A Carnage might be better but still would have a problem with column shifts unless within 30 cm at which point it will get good chances in one arc.
A Slaughter will perform better than the Murder and Carnage IMHO but it will still have problems.
A Devastation is probably the best bet here for Chos with long range lance AND bomber OR AB support.
Terror Ships might far better but still has problems.
Same with a Kill Krooza.
The Hero and the Merchant would have similar difficulties and maybe unique problems of their own.

Eldar (both flavors) and Necron probably are the best Escort hunters.

Pitifully weak? Comparing the SCs to the above ships, I don't see it as pitifully weak. Are you really sure you're doing the right stuff? However, if you really want to defend against escorts, then best advice is to bring your own escorts. Nothing stopping you there.

I don't even think the Escort argument is a serious argument because assuming you do get lances on the SC, are you seriously telling me you're going to waste the lance shots on escorts instead of using them to help kill capital ships and just let your escorts handle the enemy escorts?

Lastly, your battle report so far is you still attacking an SM fleet. Next time play the SM fleet.