Space Marine Fleet ER

[RCgothic]

Caestus Assault Ram:

I'm going to include the 'CAR' as an optional upgrade!

Torpedo Bomber that fires boarding torpedoes that re-roll to hit. But loses the re-roll for H&R's.

Is this worth taking? Should it have a 4+ save?

Cheers,

RayB HA

 

In what way, shape or form is the Caestus assault ram anything like a torpedo bomber? Also, boarding torpedoes are 3-6 times less useful than assault boats depending on enemy armour, and torpedo bombers are at far greater risk of intercept since they need to spend multiple phases in flight. No comparison with the Thunderhawk.

[zaxqua]

Ray, you are losing this argument. Everybody who who has posted has disliked Battle Barge Grand Cruiser. GW also agrees with us, they made the original BB a battleship. In one of the Ciaphas Cain short stories, (I forgot which one), he call the BB the largest and most powerful ship in the Galaxy. So BL agrees with us. and most importantly:

The abrieviation for battle barge is BB
The abrieviation for battleship is BB
So by the Reflexive Property, Battle Barge=Battleship

Even Algebra agrees with us.

[RayB HA]

Firstly, the 'type' of a ship is not it's 'designation'. Just because the Battle Barge is a type GC doesn't mean it's not a battleship!

Admiral_d_Artagnan and all,

The 'why' make a Battle Barge smaller seems to be quite subjective.

Easier to field: My 'main' reason for the change is to make it easier* to field in smaller games and keep it balanced. (*Having the first BB available without limitation is ridiculous! So assuming the current rules were per full 1000pts like a Void Stalker.)
This also makes it easier to make a fleet list and adds variety as you can field more BB's breaking up the wall of SCs.

Can't be squadroned with armour 5+ BB's: This is minor, and wouldn't really have been noticed by those that aren't obsessive but it is a game effect that doesn't occur in the Chaos and IN list (well you can get an armour prow for IN), it would need factoring in for cost. As the BB is the mainstay the 5+ armour choices would have to cost a little bit more.   

Better Turning: Given that SC's have a 90* turn having the BB have a 45* turn with the same minimum move seems reasonable. Where as 45* after 15cm is verging on a extreme difference. Being able to turn like this will really help the BB keep with the Fleet rather than being it's own detachment, or 'drifting defence' in comparison.

Better Speed: Now this one doesn't need the 'GC' element. The GC status just makes it fit the speed trend given its armour rating.

Reduction of hits matching the theme: This also doesn't need the 'GC' status. Having less hits makes it a more natural progression of size from the SC rather than 'doubling up'.

Attack Rating: This is just a matter of opinion, as attack rating represents so many logistical factors. It being faster really helps for this, but that's just one opinion...

Horizon,

1 TH on the SC: That would be almost unuseable. They would have to be used in squadrons and that doesn't feel right. (or TH's get a 4+ sv vs turrets!  )

Sigoroth,

Model size: This isn't too crucial, model size can vary for hits, even though the Battle Barge is smaller than most other BB models.

zaxqua,

'BL says so' is a crazy point of view, but in any case perhaps the Space Marines on board make it one of the most powerful battleships in the galaxy. But to be fair there aren't really that many Battleship classes anyway! 


Is it really the GC 'name' that bugs people? How about a 10Hit BB that can turn after 10cm and can CTNH? 

Cheers,

RayB HA

[RayB HA]

RCgothic,

CAR(Caestus Assault Ram): It's not actually a torpedo bomber, it just has the same game effect. So they move like a TH at 20cm speed until it decides to assault a ship in which case it is replaced by str2 Boarding torps with 30cm speed that reroll to hit against armour. This just represents how they attack (very similar to boarding torps). Granted the only problem here is that they can continue on after missing. However with the reroll that shouldn't be too many, but still perhaps they should only be able to hit one ship...

The point of these little blighters: Having str2 boarding torpedoes (that reroll to hit) instead of a TH is better versus high turret targets but also in a mixed assualt the defending player would have to choose which to shoot at.

It's just a fun little addition. It's not 'needed' and can be dumped into optional rules/upgrades. Although I like the idea of having a Boarding torp bomber.


***What do peoplethink to ALL Boarding torps rerolling against armour.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[zaxqua]

How does 1 Caestus Assult Ram = 2 boarding topedoes? Boarding torpedo bombers is not a bad idea though. Just a bad idea for the Caestus.

[horizon]

Hi Ray,

the proposal has been:
Strike Cruiser :
-1 THawk
+1 shield
point cost 145pts
iirc

Nothing unusable about it.


Ray,
what bugs is that the Barge is the size of a battleship and deserves 12 hitpoints.
It bugs that you and friends did not make the Custodian a Grand Cruiser. The Custodian has a much lower mass then any other Battleship.

No one ever complained about the barge being to slow, having a slower turning circle etc. It was all compensated by the fact it was more durable and had better range.

In the powergamers Marines fleets (pre-draft2010) the fleet selection in 1500pts was 2 Barges and the rest Escorts.
With draft2010 Marine fleets came viable. Strike Cruisers regained their position. The 2nd shield made it worthy.

Perhaps the vbb's need a streamline but your approach, naah.

No Ray, so far I think draft2010 > your marine list.

Why not fix draft2010 and change the bombardment strike cruiser variant (eg lower BC's)?

[Vaaish]

I've gone back and done some thinking about what you've got here and I think I see what you are getting at but I don't think the method you are using is really working that well.

It feels like you are attempting to make a CG core fleet backed by CL and escorts. Looking through the lists and your thoughts to make the BB more prevalent it seems you are looking for a fleet composition that works out to 2x CG BB, 4x SC, 6x gladius and a reroll for good measure.

You are effectively pulling back the price on the BB significantly and dropping the stats slightly in order to add an extra strike cruiser for about the cost of the original BB. In other words, under the current fleet structure, 2x BB, 2x SC, and 6x Gladius come out to be about the same cost for a net gain in firepower and fleet speed.

Where this falls apart though is that the battlebarge model is a battleship and has been a battleship since it came out. Dropping it to a CG classification is fine, but you are dropping it's stats to a CG level ship as well which is where the problem lies with this approach to the model. In gameplay terms, you aren't really gaining a whole lot of difference in the fleet structure because you are still dealing with a fairly expensive ship that is supposed to be pretty rare. And fluff wise you are rewriting what a marine battlebarge is. While I love CG's, I just don't think this is working out both to put more battle barges on the field or to change the composition of the fleet.

If you want to have more of the marine ships out there, I really think it needs to be based off a different model from the BB and even more so if you want them to figure more prominently into the fleet. In all actuality, perhaps an actual grand cruiser based on the Avenger but up armored and statted for marines would be a more acceptable direction if you wanted to provide a larger ship without messing with the rarity of the BB.

[RayB HA]

Horizon,

The Custodian is the other way round! Less manuevrable than a GC but only has 10hits. It becomes a BB to rep it's poor turning. This also allows it to squadron with Explorers. From an Imperial point of view they would probably call it a Tau GC, from a Tau point of view they just call it the Custodian! 

Vaaish,

The Battle Barge model is small enough to be 10 hits (but this is just opinion, there is no set rule here). Forget the 'type' that is not determined soley by size! GC type reps that it has awesome manuverability, not that it is a cruiser!

How would you feel about a 12hit GC as the Battle Barge. (I wouldn't want this but just curious as to your opinions).

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Vaaish]

I think that a 12hit CG BB would follow your concept of the CG class just representing maneuverability better but I don't think that the CG designation is completely necessary in that case. Chaos regularly runs fleets with the desloator that matches the 25cm speed but has BB maneuverability and it doesn't seem to slow them down or cause problems when maneuvering.

I think the biggest problem with all this is trying to get MORE of the battlebarge models on the table in a game. To be anything significantly different from what we have now, the limit needs to be better than the IN lists ability to take CG, but doing so would definitely represent a fluffy Marine fleet since battlebarges are supposed to be pretty rare with most chapters only having one or two at most. If that's the case, then what we currently have as a battlebarge needs to stay as it is.

In order to change the composition of the fleet significantly you have to create something in between the BB and the SC that would perform the minor battleship role. The problem you run into is that marines are supposed to be transporting troops and breaking through to the planet. When you escorts are sufficient for small squads doing this, your strike cruisers are numerous and capable of dropping on a full company, and your battlebarges can drop off three companies, you'd be had pressed to define a new ship class in the middle, especially one that is fairly common.

[RayB HA]

Vaaish,

Well, a Desolator is in a fleet of cruisers with 45* turns and long range guns (mostly), the Battle Barge is in a fleet of short ranged cruisers with 90* turns this is a hefty difference in manueverability.

In any case, the rarity of BB's is covered by the limit of 3 (the most any chapter is 'allowed'). Having more than 1 is fine. That would be about 1500pts (which is doable in the current rules it's just way more top heavy, it'd be 3 SC's/escorts and 2 BB's). 3 BB's with 6 SC's could be in a fleet of 2000pts.

I'm still convinced that having type GC over a BB is the way to go. It'd also let the BB CTNH, if it needed to match the turn of SC's!

I realise I may seem crazy stuborn but I really do believe the BB should be a 'smaller' presence in the list and on the table.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

Horizon,

The Custodian is the other way round! Less manuevrable than a GC but only has 10hits. It becomes a BB to rep it's poor turning. This also allows it to squadron with Explorers. From an Imperial point of view they would probably call it a Tau GC, from a Tau point of view they just call it the Custodian! 
 

So utterly wrong!!!

The Custodian must be a CG with 10 hits to keep better turn rates to keep up with the 90* Protectors & Emissaries etc.

It should never squadron with the 5cm slower Explorers.
Different ships different tactics.


Your problem is the current rules warrant Barges at all levels.

[Vaaish]

Well, a Desolator is in a fleet of cruisers with 45* turns and long range guns (mostly), the Battle Barge is in a fleet of short ranged cruisers with 90* turns this is a hefty difference in manueverability.

That's not a very hefty difference. The range of the weapons aren't affecting the maneuverability. My point was that even with the mismatched battleship turns and regular cruiser turns the fleet is still a popular option that can easily compensate to stay together.

With the longer range of the BB, the extra 5cm to turn isn't going to make a whole lot of difference since it will still be able to support the SC even if it is a bit further away.

n any case, the rarity of BB's is covered by the limit of 3 (the most any chapter is 'allowed'). Having more than 1 is fine. That would be about 1500pts (which is doable in the current rules it's just way more top heavy, it'd be 3 SC's/escorts and 2 BB's). 3 BB's with 6 SC's could be in a fleet of 2000pts.

Maybe in theory this works, but in practice you are looking at least two of them showing up in any list since the cheaper options let you snag an extra SC or escort squadron for around the same cost as the current BB. Since Marines are already lacking in range, this becomes an even more popular option than it is now.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Firstly, the 'type' of a ship is not it's 'designation'. Just because the Battle Barge is a type GC doesn't mean it's not a battleship!

But as you have pointed out (again) there are differences between the two, specifically in the hit points of a ship in a faction and its turn radius. I would say, Type definitely designates what that particular model is and what rules are to be used with the model.

Admiral_d_Artagnan and all,

The 'why' make a Battle Barge smaller seems to be quite subjective.

Which we can dispense with.

Easier to field: My 'main' reason for the change is to make it easier* to field in smaller games and keep it balanced. (*Having the first BB available without limitation is ridiculous! So assuming the current rules were per full 1000pts like a Void Stalker.)
This also makes it easier to make a fleet list and adds variety as you can field more BB's breaking up the wall of SCs.

Again, I have never had a problem with putting a BB in smaller games.

Can't be squadroned with armour 5+ BB's: This is minor, and wouldn't really have been noticed by those that aren't obsessive but it is a game effect that doesn't occur in the Chaos and IN list (well you can get an armour prow for IN), it would need factoring in for cost. As the BB is the mainstay the 5+ armour choices would have to cost a little bit more.

And why can you not squadron a 6+ Barge with a 5+ battleship?   

Better Turning: Given that SC's have a 90* turn having the BB have a 45* turn with the same minimum move seems reasonable. Where as 45* after 15cm is verging on a extreme difference. Being able to turn like this will really help the BB keep with the Fleet rather than being it's own detachment, or 'drifting defence' in comparison.

Again, Ray, I have never heard of problems of the BB not being able to keep up with the SCs.0

Better Speed: Now this one doesn't need the 'GC' element. The GC status just makes it fit the speed trend given its armour rating.

What? You're making the BB Spd 25 cm now?

Reduction of hits matching the theme: This also doesn't need the 'GC' status. Having less hits makes it a more natural progression of size from the SC rather than 'doubling up'.

Not a problem of the BB. Again, problem with the SC.

Horizon,

1 TH on the SC: That would be almost unuseable. They would have to be used in squadrons and that doesn't feel right. (or TH's get a 4+ sv vs turrets!  )

And why shouldn't SCs be used in squadrons? Why would they be unuseable?

Is it really the GC 'name' that bugs people? How about a 10Hit BB that can turn after 10cm and can CTNH? 

Cheers,

RayB HA

No. It's you trying to change things when they are fine at the moment even if your reason is to improve it. The problem is you're not improving it. I would prefer the present BB now compared to what you want it to be. Losing firepower and hp in exchange for better turning and a slightly cheaper cost? Never mind.

[RayB HA]

Vaaish,

SCs and BB's - Chaos Cruisers and Desolators: The important difference is in the mainstay of the fleet, the cruisers. Chaos cruisers can't turn as dramatically as a SC so the Des has no real problem staying in formation. As Chaos cruisers have much longer range they don't 'need' the 90* turn.
The BB being a GC means that it will have a much easier time of staying in formation with the SCs, not only because it can turn sooner but because it can also CTNH. 

Battle Barges ranged support: The BB has very limited ranged support, only the WB's are at 45cm and these will have a range shift (if in a supporting role). The TH's and torps obviously have longer range but the SC's have these anyway.

Rarity of BBs and BBs: Battleships in either a SM list or IN/Chaos lists have roughly the same rarity. Granted, if the planet based fleet could have 1 BB per 2 SC's it 'could' definatley be more common than fluff could support. *(In the current list you can have 2 BB's in a 1500pt fleet with only escorts as support).

Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Type: Are you saying that 'type' is a description of what a ship is beyond the rules? Sorry to rattle on, but this seems to be the main negative response. It would be great to rename the 'types' so they don't hold a label of what they 'usually' represent.

The problem, the why: This is only from my personal experiences, I can't say I've seen many SM players persist online as I suspect that if they stick with BFG they end up being primarily an IN players.

Mixed armour values: If you have mixed armour values in a squadron you can hide lighter armoured ships behind highly armoured ships, spreading the damage. This has value in the game and should have value in points, in the non mainstay classes (in the case of a Dauntless in an IN fleet the Dauntless would cover the cost as it is the non mainstay ship).

Speed: 25cm for the BB may be too much, I'm not against dialing it back to 20cm.

SC Hits: Do you think it should have 8 hits?

SC's in squadrons: There is no reason for SC's to be used in squadrons, however I think they should be useable on their own as well.
If you only had 1 TH per SC you wouldn't find yourself reloading as often, you'd also find that the SC's would merely be bringing an addition to the AC limit where the BB's will be reloading in their stead.


Obviously I do feel that the BB would be better as a more manueverable vessel. Also it would add a more varied and interesting 'weighting' in the SM list if the BB were cheaper.

Cheers,

RayB HA   
   

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Type: Are you saying that 'type' is a description of what a ship is beyond the rules? Sorry to rattle on, but this seems to be the main negative response. It would be great to rename the 'types' so they don't hold a label of what they 'usually' represent.

I am saying that the rules for a GC is different from that of a battleship and so it is not something to be disregarded. Let's disregard the HP for the moment as that can be subjective even in faction as Sigoroth has posited. The turn is something which cannot be ignored as you have also been pointing out. Therefore the type does matter in what a model is to be designated.

The problem, the why: This is only from my personal experiences, I can't say I've seen many SM players persist online as I suspect that if they stick with BFG they end up being primarily an IN players.

In my opinion this is good because in 40k everywhere, the SM are more predominant. Not to say IG and the other factions are not competitive but SM are more heavily represented. And that's ok since that is the area where they should excel, not in space.

Mixed armour values: If you have mixed armour values in a squadron you can hide lighter armoured ships behind highly armoured ships, spreading the damage. This has value in the game and should have value in points, in the non mainstay classes (in the case of a Dauntless in an IN fleet the Dauntless would cover the cost as it is the non mainstay ship).

Errr and so? Is this bad?

Speed: 25cm for the BB may be too much, I'm not against dialing it back to 20cm.

I wouldn't agree because this is a 6+ ship which has more mass than the typical GCs and now it can actually move faster than them. Sorry, no to spd 25 BBs. So now, what's left of your argument? The min speed before turning? I really don't see this as aproblem Ray.

SC Hits: Do you think it should have 8 hits?

No, they shouldhave their 6+ armor and 2 shields for 1 less TH squadron which is the one which unbalances the AC armament bet the two classes.

SC's in squadrons: There is no reason for SC's to be used in squadrons, however I think they should be useable on their own as well.
If you only had 1 TH per SC you wouldn't find yourself reloading as often, you'd also find that the SC's would merely be bringing an addition to the AC limit where the BB's will be reloading in their stead.

That depends on the target. If the target had ACs as well, heck yeah I would be reloading. But if the target is a gunship, I MIGHT forego reloading but doesn't mean I would AUTOMATICALLY forgo it. And is the BB reloading for the SCs a problem?

Obviously I do feel that the BB would be better as a more manueverable vessel. Also it would add a more varied and interesting 'weighting' in the SM list if the BB were cheaper.

I don't. It's fine as it is now even though I think their latest rules stillneed tweaking. You just need to add variety for the SC and BB without adding lances mind you. That would make things more interesting while keeping the SM on a leash.