Space Marine Fleet ER

[BaronIveagh]

I notice that the Desolator has been removed...   

Too many lances, eh?

[RayB HA]

Vaaish,

I'm supprised no one else has latched onto the weirdness of the Battle Barge GC!
Modelwise it doesn't look that odd as the Battle Barge is smaller than all other Battleship models (I think...) Infact the Vengeance is quite comparable. Keep in mind the Battle Barge has got that 'thin' neck and has little volume for it's length. The Repulsive is quite small however....I suppose some of the bigger mass could be explained away as the 6+ armour!  
Also the Battle Barge model seems quite sturdy on a small base. Also having a small base helps out against NC's (depending on which rules you play by!).

Other than the practicalities on the table, a Battle Barge is just a big Strike Cruiser. It being a GC rather than a BB makes it far more manuverable which given it's purpose as a fast assualt transport seems to make sense, especially with their attack rating. But more than that it allows it to keep pace with the strike cruisers while still dwarfing them and makes it cheaper so you can include it in 'raid' games of 750pts while still being 'unsquadronable' with strike cruisers.
I'd also like to point out that while it is a Grand Cruiser for game purposes it can still be considered a Battleship in fluff. Grand Cruiser is just it's 'type' not it's Imperial designation.

zaxqua,

40K writters (including codexes), quite often get the scale wrong for BFG. I guess it's not too important to them though as it doesn't really affect the game(40k) or the story being written.

The Vengeful spirit would have 4 Prow Lb's if it didn't allready have prow weaponary... Good template though.

Storm Ravens are assault boats!   But they're only optional, losing the 4+save for 10cm may not be a fair tradeoff but it's upto the player.

BaronIveagh,

The lance limitation seems really strange when BC's are really good in space combat and SM's would need lances in a planetary assault to kill war engines. It should just be range that is limited!

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Vaaish]

I'll double check tonight, but last I looked the battlebarge was very close to the size of the other IN battleships. That thin neck as you put it is no worse than the thin forward ship on the emperor, retribution, or the admech line. In fact the retribution is far thinner since it lacks the weight of the battlebarge's prow.

I can understand the game designations, but you've got two separate things in the list that are both battle barges. First you've got the venerable one that is basically an upgraded version of the current BB and would, I suspect, use the same model. Then you have the odd man out CG battle barge that is pretty close to the current stats as well but changes a few bits here or there to make it more maneuverable and in line with the IN CG stats. But it's still called the same thing and sorta functions in the same role. After years of the battlebarge being the marine battleship it seems to be muddying the waters to have the two in there as you do now especially given the models we have.

EDIT:

I looked tonight and without the forward antenna or rear fin the BB is a little shorter than a IN battleship though it has more mass on the rear and prow than the IN ships.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The SM BB? Yeah more mass on the rear and even the prow actually but is a bit shorter. Even the GCs are almost as big as regular battleship just less mass.

[RayB HA]

More mass on the rear? I don't really see it... The other BB's are more bulkier and tall whereas the Battle Barge has pointy mountains in the rear and a short, thin(thin in the profile) neck.  The prow is bigger than a Rets. The overall length is shorter.

In any case, using the same model is most likely a mistake. Perhaps using a SM Epic Lander or just generally converting the BB into something bulkier.   

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Vaaish]

Having all three of those models, I can say pretty definitively that the epic lander just isn't suitable for use in BFG without some very heavy conversion work. It's also twice as expensive as a battlebarge model which makes it far less desirable for converting and rarely shows up secondhand. Adding in this CG version and calling it a BB is a mistake. Leave the battlebarge as a battleship and work with the strike cruisers if you think the marine list needs a mid level ship. It's far easier and cheaper to convert those.

[zaxqua]

Vaaish may be right about the CG. Perhaps a "Heavy Strike Cruiser" is in order

cruiser/8 20cm 45* 2sheild 6+armour 3turret
Port weopons battery fpw8 45cm
starboard wepons battery fpw8 45cm
Prow launch bay 3thunderhawk
Dorsal bombard cannon str5 30cm

Maybe?

[RayB HA]

My Eternal Crusader model for Black Templars was definatly in need of conversion.

Good point though it would be far better not to have any 'conversions' in the list.

I'm not keen on the idea of a full cruiser though...

The 'Despoiler' will now be the Venerable Battle Barge. I'll dump the 'Arcane' alltogether.

The Battle Barge will be a Grand Cruiser with 3 shields. (The SedO will also become a GC but still at 20cm speed).

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Vaaish]

haven't had a chance to full digest the stats, but I find this much more acceptable with regard to the battlebarge.

[horizon]

I dunno, suddenly all those people who collected Marines who had a barge as a battleship see it relegated to grand cruiser status. Plus they need to buy an Emperor or Despoiler to gain a battleship. Plus both ships need conversion if only to remove Chaos skulls and stars from the Despoiler.

I do not think this approach will see many fans. I am certainly not a fan.

And come on Ray, if the Barge model is a grand cruiser Nate will slap you as he was not swayed to make the Custodian a Grand Cruiser (which it should be). Custodian has less mass then a barge.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Ray: I would ask if there really is a problem with the Battle Barge being considered a battleship? If size is your problem, I point out the North Carolina and South Dakota classes which are smaller than the Iowa class and the Yamato class even. They were also smaller than the Bismarck. So I don't really see the size being that much of a problem that you have to mess up the class by relegating it to a grand cruiser.

The IN battleship seems bulkier because of the 2 square frame which attaches to the area under the bridge. But if you look at it, there is not much mass there since there is that hole in the middle of the frame which is obscured by the small decking. The BB actually would then have more mass.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Vaaish may be right about the CG. Perhaps a "Heavy Strike Cruiser" is in order

cruiser/8 20cm 45* 2sheild 6+armour 3turret
Port weopons battery fpw8 45cm
starboard wepons battery fpw8 45cm
Prow launch bay 3thunderhawk
Dorsal bombard cannon str5 30cm

Maybe?

No.

[zaxqua]

Vaaish may be right about the CG. Perhaps a "Heavy Strike Cruiser" is in order

cruiser/8 20cm 45* 2sheild 6+armour 3turret
Port weopons battery fpw8 45cm
starboard wepons battery fpw8 45cm
Prow launch bay 3thunderhawk
Dorsal bombard cannon str5 30cm

Maybe?

No.

I love how every idea I have posted in this forum has been universally disliked by everyone.

[Sigoroth]

I love how every idea I have posted in this forum has been universally disliked by everyone.

Quite an achievement.

[RayB HA]

The Space Marine BB isn't relegated! 

It's faster, can turn after 10cm instead of 15cm, but it loses 2 hits and 2(4) WB's, 2BC's and it's torps and TH's are the same slot. It looses a 'little' firepower, but the advantages of better movement and cheaper price are massive.

In any case, it's still as tough as a BB! 

Also just because something is of 'type' Battleship doesn't mean it really is! The same goes with any type! So type GC can represent a BB quite nicley!

If you do want a BB the Emperor is already set up it just needs the appropriate paint scheme. The Despoiler isn't that bad as you can just fill the areas with green that have markings (once again this is conversion work.... but it's so easy I don't think it's a problem)

Cheers,

RayB HA