Space Marine Fleet ER

[Browncoat(USA)]

I used to play marines.  I think that the Battlebarge change is excellent.  I'd much rather have the maneuverability of the GC.

[horizon]

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

That's a reason?

I am not convinced. I think you must make this idea more widespread before you go ahead with it.

@ Zaxquaa,
heh, I am against the heavy cruiser too.
Perhaps post all your ideas and maybe something is liked.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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

Sorry Ray but as you pointed out, there is a difference between Type: Battleship and Type: Cruiser. Terms like the above have to be defined clearly if not I can always take a Battleship and call it an Escort.

You still haven't answered the question. Is there a problem with the present BB that you have to change it to a GC and then have to get another battleship to serve as a battle barge, one which most likely has already been removed from SM jurisdiction except for the First and maybe Second Founding Chapters? The BB is battleship sized enough, much bigger than a Vengeance and is already suited as a transport for SM. C'mon Ray. This is just similar to removing fighter abilities from THs and then adding them in again via CAP rules. It's more a problem than a cure.

If you want to give SM a GC then let them have access to the Vengeances as a VBB. Simple.

[Sigoroth]

Sorry Ray but as you pointed out, there is a difference between Type: Battleship and Type: Cruiser. Terms like the above have to be defined clearly if not I can always take a Battleship and call it an Escort.

While I'm not fond of the proposal I can't agree with the above. What the game defines as a BB can differ to what a race defines as a BB. Some race's largest ship might be the size of an escort and be treated as an escort in game, but to that race it is a BB.

Basically the "type" category (escort/cruiser/battleship) can be changed into class A, class B and class C ships as far as manoeuvrability is concerned. Most escorts would be type A, most cruisers would be type B and most BBs would be type C.

[RayB HA]

horizon, Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Think of it as a Battleship with better turning! Or hell, think of it as a 'light battleship'!

This gels nicely with the fewer hits of the Strike Cruiser. Just like with the Eldar capital ships having -2hits for their respective displacemens.

Having the GC type stops the Battle Barge from squadroning with the lower armour values of the Despoiler or Emperor. This is a valid exploit but it would have to be covered in the lower armour valued Battleships. I'd rather they were as affordable as possible.

Being of the lighter weight obviously makes it cheaper AND will allow its presence in even smaller games.

Having the better speed/turning allows it too keep up with the SC's and escorts. Rather than dragging them back.

Having better manuevrabilty also fits with the attack rating. (which reminds me I need to put the speical rules in for campaigns and scenarios).

Not being 'double' the size also makes the 3TH/2TH less weird.


The problem of the current BB: It's slow (this bit is quite important!), it's too expensive to include in most fleet lists, it has significantly less AC than SC's given its cost.


Cheers,

RayB HA

[RayB HA]

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

[Vaaish]

Ray, the current BB can be used in games as small as 500 points if you want so you aren't gaining anything by saying the new CG one can be used in smaller games. I'm still of the mindset that the change is change for the sake of change rather than any actual problem with the list even though I think removing the VBB regular stat BB helps clear up some of the model issue.

With your newest change to the SedO, why even classify it as a VBB anymore? Just leave it as a regular BB with a limit of 0-1.

[RayB HA]

Vaaish,

It'd be a little unbalanced to have such a tough ship in such a small game. 750pts wth a GC Battle Barge may prove too powerful aswell. Perhaps limiting it to 1 per 3 cruisers. (so balanced in a 1000pts).

The SedO is a Venerable BB, so why should it be anything else?

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Vaaish]

You list the sedo as a battleship but you've reduced it to a grand cruiser and left the speed at 20cm. Since it's not a battleship anymore, why even bother calling it venerable? might might as well just make it a straight up 0-1 variant of the regular BB.

I'm saying that the CURRENT OFFICIAL rules for marines already allow you to plonk down a battlebarge in a 500 point game, not these ones you are fiddling with. It doesn't follow that you changed the BB to a CG to get it in smaller games when it can already do this in the current offical incarnations of the marine fleet lists. Not only this, the current version of the BB has been a solid core for many marine fleets and, up until the latest update, many players take two of them. I don't think that evidences a difficulty in including the unaltered versions in any size list or fleet. Basically, it doesn't seem that the ship as it stands is broken in any way and is regularly taken.

[RayB HA]

Or part thereof! My gods, why is that in there? And why have I never noticed that before? I'm sorry- That should never have happened. It's crazy!

[Vaaish]

dunno, but it's always been there although it usually works better with allowing the BB in 750 and 1k games since it was one of the two semi-viable competitive marine paths.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

horizon, Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Think of it as a Battleship with better turning! Or hell, think of it as a 'light battleship'!

The question still is, is it needed? No, it is not. The BB performs well enough.

Having the GC type stops the Battle Barge from squadroning with the lower armour values of the Despoiler or Emperor. This is a valid exploit but it would have to be covered in the lower armour valued Battleships. I'd rather they were as affordable as possible.

I have never heard of this being a problem.

Being of the lighter weight obviously makes it cheaper AND will allow its presence in even smaller games.

As has been pointed out, BBs are present in smaller games.

Having the better speed/turning allows it too keep up with the SC's and escorts. Rather than dragging them back.

The difference in speed is what primarily makes formations a problem not the turning.

Having better manuevrabilty also fits with the attack rating. (which reminds me I need to put the speical rules in for campaigns and scenarios).

The BB is maneuverable enough for a ship it's size.

Not being 'double' the size also makes the 3TH/2TH less weird.

The problem there is the SC not the BB.

The problem of the current BB: It's slow (this bit is quite important!), it's too expensive to include in most fleet lists, it has significantly less AC than SC's given its cost.

The Price is ok for what the BB brings currently and again the problem with AC is because of the SC not the BB.

[horizon]

Still not convincing Ray.


The Barge is a battleship. Period. The 2 th on a strike cruisers vs 3 on a barge? Fine. The jump from 6 to 12 hits? Fine.

And yes, the Strike Cruiser should have 1 Thunderhawk per standard. IIRC foremost sigoroth and the admiral promoted that idea on the strike cruiser. I am on that boat as well. But the HA did not want this as the basic strike cruiser in draft2010.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

While I'm not fond of the proposal I can't agree with the above. What the game defines as a BB can differ to what a race defines as a BB. Some race's largest ship might be the size of an escort and be treated as an escort in game, but to that race it is a BB.

This is true. Should have narrowed it down to faction. Since SM and IN are basically from the same race, their definition of what a battleship is should be similar.

[Sigoroth]

The main problem I see with the proposal is the model size. The battlebarge is definitely a battleship. Also, I see a place in the rules, in fleet lists and in fluff for the current barge. I don't mind the idea of a knock-off barge that is smaller, more manoeuvrable and easier to requisition, particularly for successor chapters. However there are problems associated with that. One, the model; what would you use? Also, fluff how did such a ship come about? Composition; would it be either/or or alllow both in a single list?

This is true. Should have narrowed it down to faction. Since SM and IN are basically from the same race, their definition of what a battleship is should be similar.

Even within a faction the definition of a BB may straddle the game definition. The only real problem would be the fact that the IN have a 10 hit ship that they don't consider a BB (grand cruisers). If the SMs had only a 10 hit barge (no 12 hit version) then perhaps they might consider that a BB.