Space Marine Fleet ER

[RCgothic]

One point of BC strength is not equal to one point of lance strength.

[fracas]

It is better

[RCgothic]

No, it definitely isn't.

One dice of BC is better than 1 dice of lance, but you don't get 1 dice of BC per point of BC strength. the SC's BCs do not equal the Dauntless' lances.

[fracas]

i never said it is better than a lance strength wise

all i said was as a weapon hitting it is more powerful than a lance

[Sigoroth]

i never said it is better than a lance strength wise

all i said was as a weapon hitting it is more powerful than a lance

Which is meaningless.

[fracas]

an unsubstantiated comment is meaningless. you can do better.

from a design standpoint you look at what you want the ship to do
then arm it appropriately and as part of this, you determine scenarios (closing & closing, closing & abeam, 30cm, 15cm, etc) and how effective the ship will be thus how many hit dice per situation AND what each hit die means
and then apply a value

the bfg designer has designated the BC as a more powerful weapon than the lance on the to hit, decided to weaken it a bit by making it less reliable (facing, range, blast marker affects), then decided to strengthen it again by having it mounted as left/front/right thus flexible. in the end you get something more powerful than a lance but less reliable. being less reliable does not make it a weaker weapon than a lance.

if you are starting out from scratch with the above rules
you can arm the strike with lances instead, then change the points cost appropriately.

look at a dauntless vs a strike cruiser. the strike cruiser is more survivable (better armor and turret) and better armed (BC and better fire arcs) at more points
but does this fit how marines should fair against an imperial gunship of the same class and displacement?
would the highlords give the marines a better ship than the navy after the heresy?
sure you can attempt to correct/standardized in game with points differences but points differences do not necessary result in good/fair/fluffly game play (what the necron can field in a game vs what victory points they yield from a game)

and all this again just highlight fluff discordance. one thing marines are is reliable. they have lances in 40k,
i'd rather see them with lances than bombardment cannons.

i suspect they were made to give marine fleet something special and unique. the name is fluffly (if you believe marines should be bombarding rather than assaulting/hit and run but whatever) but the rule is not (more powerful than lance, less reliable than lance).

[Sigoroth]

an unsubstantiated comment is meaningless

from a design standpoint you look at what you want the ship to do
then arm it appropriately and as part of this, you determine scenarios (closing & closing, closing & abeam, 30cm, 15cm, etc) and how effective the ship will be thus how many hit dice per situation AND what each hit die means
and then apply a value

the bfg designer has designated the BC as a more powerful weapon than the lance on the to hit, decided to weaken it a bit by making it less reliable (facing, range, blast marker affects), then decided to strengthen it again by having it mounted as left/front/right thus flexible. in the end you get something more powerful than a lance but less reliable. being less reliable does not make it a weaker weapon than a lance.

if you are starting out from scratch with the above rules
you can arm the strike with lances instead, then change the points cost appropriately.


and all this again just highlight fluff discordance. one thing marines are is reliable. they have lances in 40k,
i'd rather see them with lances than bombardment cannons.

i suspect they were made to give marine fleet something special and unique. the name is fluffly (if you believe marines should be bombarding rather than assaulting/hit and run but whatever) but the rule is not (more powerful than lance, less reliable than lance).

This is just pure nonsense. Utterly irrelevant all of it. It doesn't matter how powerful a weapon system is. The Armageddon gun on the Planet Killer is very powerful, but it's not more powerful than 50 WBs. According to your logic WBs are the weakest weapon system, so here we have a case of the weakest weapon system being more powerful than the strongest. Dun dun dun! Wot? It's stupid, nonsensical, irrelevant. Balance is balance. No weapon is any more powerful than its equivalent of any other weapon. Duh.

The only difference between weapon systems is the circumstances under which they perform optimally. The bombardment cannon performs optimally against defences. This is perfect for SMs. Additionally, as a gunnery weapon it interferes with other gunnery weapons (WBs). When targeting defences BC + WB + interference is still greater than WB + lances OR even BC + lances. So it's still fine. However, against hard targets (abeam ships, escorts, long range targets etc)  BC lose value and lances become preferable. This is even more noticeable when we account for interference effects. So when we're talking anti-defence weaponry BC = good. When talking anti-ship weaponry Lance = good. Therefore SM should have BC and should not have Lances. Notions about how much damage 1 die can or cannot do are irrelevant.

Or, if you want to look at it another way, it makes sense to use a powerful but unreliable weapon against targets that the weapon can reliably hit (defences). Similarly it makes sense to give such a weapon to the SMs if you don't want them to be able to reliably hit your ships.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

if you are starting out from scratch with the above rules
you can arm the strike with lances instead, then change the points cost appropriately.

No, you don't. Since lances are anti-ships weapons, you shouldn't give them to the SM regardless of how much you increase the cost. The BC is more ideal weapon system to give them, a bit more powerful than the WB but not as powerful as lances and limited in range.

look at a dauntless vs a strike cruiser. the strike cruiser is more survivable (better armor and turret) and better armed (BC and better fire arcs) at more points
but does this fit how marines should fair against an imperial gunship of the same class and displacement?
would the highlords give the marines a better ship than the navy after the heresy?
sure you can attempt to correct/standardized in game with points differences but points differences do not necessary result in good/fair/fluffly game play (what the necron can field in a game vs what victory points they yield from a game)

If the Dauntless was the only ship the IN had, then yes, it would be an issue. However, the IN has better ships available to handle the best cruiser sized ship the SM has which is the SC. Even then, the Dauntless has a good chance of winning against the SC with its 3 prow lances.

and all this again just highlight fluff discordance. one thing marines are is reliable. they have lances in 40k,
i'd rather see them with lances than bombardment cannons.

Of course they have lances or its equivalent in 40k, 40k is a ground based system which SM SHOULD be strong in. In space however, I wouldn't give lances to them just easily. Giving them lances would make the SC much more better against the Dauntless.

[RCgothic]

I don't actually rate a dauntless' chances vs a SC. 3 lances vs 2 shields? But the SC is the SM's line cruiser, and as such it's up against the IN's mainline cruisers.

In any case, each BC hit may be more individually powerful than each lance strike, but it's far less reliable which brings the utility down. Against the standard cruiser abeam, each point of strength is barely more than 1/3 as useful. As Sigoroth has pointed out, it makes perfect sense to give weapons which are individually powerful yet unreliable at hitting ships to a force you don't want challenging your Navy but which you do want to take on planetary defences both orbital and surface based.

[fracas]

RCG's  analogy with the armageddon gun is faulty
it confounds effect of numerical power with effect of power of potency
you can always compensate for less power of potency with numbers but this doesn't change power of potency, or simply power.
a weapon's power remains its ability to inflict damage when a hit occur.
a 44 magnum is more powerful than a 22. a BC is more powerful than a lance. naturally if a weapon doesn't shoot or doesn't shoot as often make it less effective. but not less powerful.
(btw, funny that in post 158 RCG then agree the BC is individually more powerful than the lance, but also less reliable)

in addition, other than planetary fortresses and stations, most planetary defenses have only one hit so the BC's ability to inflict criticals make it no more effective than batteries. and as for fortresses and stations, marines should not be taking them head on so i see no reason why marines should have BCs for planetary assault either. The BC ability to cause criticals make it an anti-capital ship weapon, which is not the role of SM, as well as compete with what SM should be doing, which is deliver SM for hit and run attacks.

i maintain that if you to review the Space Marine list without prejudice, then a consideration should be given to taking away the BC and giving them something else, whether that be prow LFR batteries or a single lance (possibly 2) for the strike cruiser. in so doing, would you more likely apply the SC against line cruisers? would it be less effective in delivering marines? would it be unfluffy? my answers to all is a "No."



Re: Dauntless vs Strike cruise comparisons, this is valid not just from a class and displacement argument but also from mission perspective.
imperial line cruisers are meant to engage enemy ships in battle, especially enemy capital ships.
dauntless are meant to patrol and take out escorts rather enemy capital ships. in this regard the strike cruiser is similar.
that strike cruisers is the only cruiser marines has doesn't mean it shouldn't have a defined mission (delivery of marines and patrol, should be able to take on escorts) or be applied outside its mission design with reliable success (against line cruisers).


out of curiosity, which do you all think is better in a one on one fight, a strike cruiser with 2 shields at 160 points vs a lunar at 180 points?

[zaxqua]

No, a lance is better than a BC. A BC causes more criticals, but it uses the gunnery table, is effected by BMs, and is generally shorter range than a lance.

And a 180 point lunar will always kill a 160 point SC because it's 20 points more expensive.

[fracas]

Better in which way? To hit or to damage?
1 lance vs 1 bc is more reliable in terms of ability to hit
But less powerful with each hit
Against standard targets, eldar and necron each bc hit is more likely to cause more damage than a lance (and more effective as well against eldar and necron)

[RCgothic]

RCG's  analogy with the armageddon gun is faulty

I made no such analogy.

The BC is an anti-defence weapon, for assaulting space stations (which do have more than one hit), and hardened planetside defences. Each shot may be more powerful than a lance strike, but they'll only do remotely as much damage as lances to targets which cannot move out of the way - perfect for supporting marines assaults.

Against moving targets the lances are far stronger than BCs, which makes them anti-ship weapons. They'd be nearly as effective as the BC's in a bombardment role, but if you used lances instead the marines would have firepower enough to challenge the navy, which is why they're severely restricted in the SM fleet.

I'm astounded we're still having this argument. It's so completely obvious why marines aren't allowed lances.

[RayB HA]

Hi Guys,

SCs have to be inferior to a full IN cruiser. This can be either reduced offense, defence or both!

Reduced defence makes sense so they can be put down before they can use their increased speed and manuverability to either escape or board at full strength. However this makes them vulnerable against everyone else in a similar circumstance as well.

Reduced offense makes sense so they can't hurt an IN cruiser, however they can still board, and win! Also they wouldn't be able to be much of a threat to numerous enemy defenses.


As breaking a blockade to drop SMs on a planet is a really crazy thing to do, I can only really see them netralising anything in orbit first. Afterall if the blockading fleet then returned to the planet they'd bombard the hell out of those 'expensive' SMs. However they might have destroyed their target by then... I suppose it depends on the circumstances. 

I can see SMs only in smallish engagements, like a raiding fleet, unless it's a story driven scenario. They should be designed to overwhelm the 'suprised'/defending enemy as quickly as possible.


Bombardment Cannons: I do find it funny that they very handy for taking out 6+ prows. 


Cheers,

RayB HA

[fracas]

@RCg
I'd rather SM have lance than BC
i used to feel as you do, that they should not get lances at all, but then they did, and i went one step further in saying if they are going to get lances, they should lose the BC.


@ray
i agree
but you don't need BCs to take out orbitals at all