Space Marine Fleet ER

[BaronIveagh]

This is probably the strongest argument against SMs getting lances that I can think of. Well done, just shot yourself in the foot there.

Yes, SM lances would be bad if they attract new players, renew GW interest in BFG, or force Sig to learn to grasp sarcasm.

Mind you, if you're going to be an author, I suppose I should point out that it's 'cite', not 'site'.  

Sig, if you're checking for grammar and spelling in forum posts to try and prove a point, you need to get out more.  Then again, I see why you avoid more heavily populated forums, you'd positively have a conniption.

Though, the idea of expanding from non-fiction into 40k fiction gets more appealing every time you post, Sig.

What? So, in other game systems lances are more accurate against ships are they?  

Specifically against ships?  Sorry, RT uses a ballistic stat, so there's no coin toss or gunnery table.  However, the part where it totally ignores armor is still around, yielding a (normally) higher damage per hit then a WB does, since armor is subtracted from rolled damage.  So, it's still an anti-warship weapon, since warships tend to have much higher armor then non-warships.

I don't see this as being an issue to be honest.

Yes, because an army would never march on it's stomach.  How did that work out for Napoleon?  Oh, yeah, Russia...

BTW: 'I've been around since dirt!' hardly makes you right.  I would suggest it is entirely possible that, in fact, YOU are the fanboy here, trying to keep a preferred army exactly as it is, because you LIKE it that way.  Personally, though, again, I really wish that you would get together with the dakkites and collectively decide which one I am.   Other then your obsession with grammar on occasion, you'd fit right in there.

[horizon]

Secretly BaronI and Sigoroth are enjoying this a lot.

Throws Cold Beer at them to get the shizzles to the frizzles.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Sorry, BI, Sig is not being a fanboy here. Fanboyism is where one wants anything and everything which will boost a faction regardless of fluff or whether it is right. If anything, we know that SM is not dominant in space. You know that. We know that. But you still want them to be dominant in space as on the ground without even until no showing a reason why the SM needs lances. We've already shown SM are ok as it is and just need tweaks on the defensive side. As it is, SM can win even without lances in fleet engagement scenarios. They win more often than not in Planetary Assault and Exterminatus scenarios. That fits well with their fluff. Therefore, this means you are the fanboy here, not us.

[horizon]

If anyone forgot my point: no lances on Marine capital ships.

Oh BaronI, I know the RT book + Battlefleet Koronus book.

And I have seen what a Strike Cruiser under FFG would look like -> no lance.

[Sigoroth]

Sig, if you're checking for grammar and spelling in forum posts to try and prove a point, you need to get out more.  Then again, I see why you avoid more heavily populated forums, you'd positively have a conniption.

Well, it was a mistake you made more than once, indicating a systemic fault rather than an incidental one. But yes, the forums catering to the more moronic members of the population are a travesty best avoided.

Though, the idea of expanding from non-fiction into 40k fiction gets more appealing every time you post, Sig.

Hehe.

Specifically against ships?  Sorry, RT uses a ballistic stat, so there's no coin toss or gunnery table.  However, the part where it totally ignores armor is still around, yielding a (normally) higher damage per hit then a WB does, since armor is subtracted from rolled damage.  So, it's still an anti-warship weapon, since warships tend to have much higher armor then non-warships.

This is not differentially more accurate against ships.

Yes, because an army would never march on it's stomach.  How did that work out for Napoleon?  Oh, yeah, Russia...

Well I'm sure that if SMs can resupply their ammo and replace their THs and feed themselves over such long campaigns then they must have a supply line. Or else they DON'T have a supply line and are just going to live off the fat of the land. How did that work out for Napoleon? Oh yeah, Russia ...

BTW: 'I've been around since dirt!' hardly makes you right. 

No, no, my vast intelligence and superior reasoning skills are why I'm right. The fact that I've been around since dirt merely gives a baseline for character reference.

I would suggest it is entirely possible that, in fact, YOU are the fanboy here, trying to keep a preferred army exactly as it is, because you LIKE it that way.  Personally, though, again, I really wish that you would get together with the dakkites and collectively decide which one I am.   Other then your obsession with grammar on occasion, you'd fit right in there.

Heh, so trying to maintain balance, feel and character is fanboyism? I suppose trying to just give them extra goodies they don't need for the sake of it is the height of reason then?

[horizon]

 hardly makes you right.  I would suggest it is entirely possible that, in fact, YOU are the fanboy here, trying to keep a preferred army exactly as it is, because you LIKE it that way. 

Oh yeah. Untrue statement.

Sigoroth is in favour of the following changes compared to Armada Marines Strike Cruisers:

+1 shield on strike cruiser
-1 thawk on strike cruiser
carrier variant strike cruiser (torp as well??)
siege variant strike cruiser

among other things I might have forgotten.

[Sigoroth]

Yeah, as well as reduced Ld and possibly some teleport attack improvements (multiple TP attacks as standard, or some waived restrictions or whatnot). A torp variant SC is fine by me. I've posited the carrier variant as a fix to other proposed changes (as well as adding variety in itself) and the BC variant as a fix to the OP one currently available, but a torp one would be fine too.

[BaronIveagh]

Sorry, BI, Sig is not being a fanboy here. Fanboyism is where one wants anything and everything which will boost a faction regardless of fluff or whether it is right. If anything, we know that SM is not dominant in space. You know that. We know that. But you still want them to be dominant in space as on the ground without even until no showing a reason why the SM needs lances. ....   Therefore, this means you are the fanboy here, not us.

The part where your argument falls down is that IN is still dominant in space.  My point has been that lances/no lances, SM are not the dominant force in space, IN is.  My point is and has been that SM lances are irrelevant to the dominance issue.  SM having them or not gives IN no real increase in advantage as their primary advantage is that they grotesquely outnumber any SM force.  The possession of lances is irreverent to the balance of power.

Since the fallback point seems to be the lance crunch, I'll refer back to a point I made in a past thread on this:

The Imperial Weapons test:
Crewman: 'Admiral, we've moved two decommissioned target ships into position.'

Lance fires, cruiser 1 is damaged.

BC fires.  Cruiser 2 explodes into confetti from drive crit due to increased crits from BC rules.

Admiral: 'Well, it's clear that the lance is a far greater threat to our ships!'  

Inquisitor: 'How much obsura did you smoke today, Admiral?'  

And I have seen what a Strike Cruiser under FFG would look like -> no lance.

I'm guessing you're referring to the CSM one in BFK?  While it must have some strong point, the hell party reduced it to drifting fragments in three rounds.  With a Sword (which took five hull damage).  

By way of explanation, they refer to this particular trick as a 'Stargate'.  

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The part where your argument falls down is that IN is still dominant in space.  My point has been that lances/no lances, SM are not the dominant force in space, IN is.  My point is and has been that SM lances are irrelevant to the dominance issue.  SM having them or not gives IN no real increase in advantage as their primary advantage is that they grotesquely outnumber any SM force.  The possession of lances is irreverent to the balance of power.

You miss the point again. We are now talking about fanboyism, where you want anything and everything for a faction even if fluff doesn't support it, though yes, lances on cap ships will make SM quite dominant on the gaming table as well as fluff on the task force level. You keep missing the point about the effect of lances on SM ships on that sized force level. They might be at a disadvantage strategically (which is useless for games purposes) but tactically (as in games) they will do quite well.

[RCgothic]

Whilst numerically, the IN would be dominant, if SMs had lances then they would be individually capable of taking on IN warships on an equal footing. Given that the IN is usually quite spread out, and an unrestrained SC could cause untold damage, individual IN ships need to be superior to individual SM ones.

SMs are allowed to gain parity in terms of defences, because delivering their cargo is important.

They should not have parity on offence, because an individual IN vessel would be expected to shut one down hard.

[BaronIveagh]

You miss the point again. We are now talking about fanboyism, where you want anything and everything for a faction even if fluff doesn't support it, though yes, lances on cap ships will make SM quite dominant on the gaming table as well as fluff on the task force level. You keep missing the point about the effect of lances on SM ships on that sized force level. They might be at a disadvantage strategically (which is useless for games purposes) but tactically (as in games) they will do quite well.

*sigh* Fluff does support it (don't make me drag out planetstrike again), it's some people's interpretation of the gaming table rules that does not. 

In Fluff SM ships are spread across a segmentum or more.

In fluff, the SM fleet in Armada does not exist.  It's a fabrication of the game system, similar to a tabletop SM army in 40k.  Even the biggest SM on SM dustups have not used fleets like this.  There are only two occasions that a nearly pure SM fleet might exist, being a Crusade fleet such as BTs, or a Dominion fleet such as UM.   The only 'fluff' lists are Armageddon, Dominion (sort of) and Crusade (sort of).

Sadly, the god awful lists in IA:X were fluffier then the existing SM list. 

[horizon]

BaronI,

no, if you read closely my name is listed in Battlefleet Koronus. So I've seen ehm other things....

[Sigoroth]

@BI

If the SM fleet should not exist by fluff then you can't argue fluff to put lances on a fleet that should not exist by the same fluff.

Apart from that, everything else you've said is also wrong. Take my opposition as read.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

*sigh* Fluff does support it (don't make me drag out planetstrike again), it's some people's interpretation of the gaming table rules that does not.  

In Fluff SM ships are spread across a segmentum or more.

In fluff, the SM fleet in Armada does not exist.  It's a fabrication of the game system, similar to a tabletop SM army in 40k.  Even the biggest SM on SM dustups have not used fleets like this.  There are only two occasions that a nearly pure SM fleet might exist, being a Crusade fleet such as BTs, or a Dominion fleet such as UM.   The only 'fluff' lists are Armageddon, Dominion (sort of) and Crusade (sort of).

Sadly, the god awful lists in IA:X were fluffier then the existing SM list.  

Really? I guess the SM fleet in Armada was inserted in my book then by some supernatural being because I sure as heck have it in my book. So I guess the whole book should also be thrown out and just take what you say as canon. Go ahead and play your SM your way then. I sure won't.

Aside from which you still sidestep the question on SM needing lances games wise.

Sorry if many of us here are not SM fanboys in BFG. Most of use prefer to fix them accordingly and yet still be true to the fluff. They need just a few tweaks but definitely not lances.

[BaronIveagh]

BaronI,

no, if you read closely my name is listed in Battlefleet Koronus. So I've seen ehm other things....

I know your name is in BFK.  But until what you saw is in a published book or released via another official channel, it doesn't count.  It's like any number of things that get bounced around GW.  Not all of them get released. 



I think we've more or less dead-ended.  It's clear nothing I say will convince some people, and what they say is not likely to convince me.  I'll go back to blasting SM ships to confetti with my IN and Chaos fleets and the problem will correct itself magically correct itself.