Space Marine Fleet ER

[horizon]

Hi,

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. 

hey, that's the Custodian reasoning!

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).

Wrong!

If you have a squadron with a ship with 6+ armour and one with 5+ armour in the back.
The enemy rolls 4 dice :  2, 3,5,6
The 6 would be applied to the 6+ armour ship.
The 5 would be applied to the 5+ armour ship.

You can read that in the rules of BFG as far as I know. Rulebook stuff.

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

Yeah, do that.

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.

As admiral A says. 6 hits, 2 shields, 1 Thawk squadron.
+ AC variant.
Read the draft thread on it.

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.

No, I do not think so.

[RayB HA]

Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Why can't a battleship be more maneuverable than the type BB? I really don't see what your argument is...

Speed: As I see it the BB could have 25cm speed, they do have pretty decent tech as Imperial ships go and I could imagine much of the 'power' from a BB going to speed and structual integrity. Being only 10 hits also helps with the less mass = better speed point of view. However as I've said before I'm not against dialing it back either. I think I'll leave it at 20cm, this will also make it cheaper.

Horizon,

Mixed armour: I'm familiar with the rules ! That's why I said 'spread' the damage!

+1 Shield SC: The SC doesn't need it! It has 6+ armour and so has twice the durability against WB's the first weapons to be shot at a SC. Granted you can get lucky and roll a lot of 6's but that's the drawback of having 'elite' armour.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Why can't a battleship be more maneuverable than the type BB? I really don't see what your argument is...

Your argument was being presented as such that there is no difference bet a battleship and grand cruiser. At least, that is my impression.

Speed: As I see it the BB could have 25cm speed, they do have pretty decent tech as Imperial ships go and I could imagine much of the 'power' from a BB going to speed and structual integrity. Being only 10 hits also helps with the less mass = better speed point of view. However as I've said before I'm not against dialing it back either. I think I'll leave it at 20cm, this will also make it cheaper.

10 hits are not less mass since it is the same with the other GCs. Then you add more armor which is more mass compared with the other GCs. Even your less mass argument can't be true because comparing the BB side by side with a Vengeance shows the BB to be bigger than the Vengeance.

+1 Shield SC: The SC doesn't need it! It has 6+ armour and so has twice the durability against WB's the first weapons to be shot at a SC. Granted you can get lucky and roll a lot of 6's but that's the drawback of having 'elite' armour.

Cheers,

RayB HA

Hell, yes the SC needs the +1 shield more than +1 THs and that last statement is bollocks. These are the cream of the Imperiums forces. They can't have access to 8 hp cruisers (and rightly so) but giving them something like the Dauntless would just get them killed. They should be well protected. So giving them 6+ armor AND 2 shields would go a-ways to helping them survive.

I have never been one to increase the SMs output on offense but for sure I wouldn't mind them getting a defensive buff and if it makes WBs harder to kill an SC then I'm all for it. It's not like races do not have access to lances and those can still kill them.

[horizon]

+1 Shield SC: The SC doesn't need it! It has 6+ armour and so has twice the durability against WB's the first weapons to be shot at a SC. Granted you can get lucky and roll a lot of 6's but that's the drawback of having 'elite' armour.

Have you read draft2010 rules? Have you read the thread that goes along with it? Have you ever seen the fleet lists with draft2010 across all the forums?

Everyone upgrades their Strike Cruiser with the second shield. Yes it is +15pts but it is the most needed change in the whole draft. And everyone loves it.
With 1 shield Strike Cruisers are puny and easy to surpress vessels. At least, all my fleets had fun killing them.

[RayB HA]

Hi Guys,

Firstly, to avoid confusion I'm going to abreviate Battle Barge as 'BaB', unless there is already one out there that isn't BB.

Type: Okay maybe I did lose you there I'll try and make more sense.

There are obviously differences between GCs and BBs, BBs are usually larger and have poorer turning. The 'type' represents this. However if you give a BB type GC this can represent it having better turning than it's peers.

+1 Shield: I get that a lot of people really 'want' this but it really isn't necessary. Statisically speaking a SC has as much defensive capability as a Chaos cruiser. If it had a 2nd shield it'd be a little as tough as an IN cruiser.

Should a SC really be tougher than a full cruiser?

The Dauntless wouldn't have too many SM's on board, maybe enough for a teleporter attack. This is a good point, all Dauntlesses should have 'less than equal' special rule.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Hi Guys,

Firstly, to avoid confusion I'm going to abreviate Battle Barge as 'BaB', unless there is already one out there that isn't BB.

Type: Okay maybe I did lose you there I'll try and make more sense.

There are obviously differences between GCs and BBs, BBs are usually larger and have poorer turning. The 'type' represents this. However if you give a BB type GC this can represent it having better turning than it's peers.

And we've answered this before. The BB has no problems keeping up with the SCs. The BB doesn't even need to be with them. The BB can work supporting the SCs from range even while still closing the enemy. I do not want to lose the firepower and hit points of the BB. The BB is the anvil to the SC's hammer.

+1 Shield: I get that a lot of people really 'want' this but it really isn't necessary. Statisically speaking a SC has as much defensive capability as a Chaos cruiser. If it had a 2nd shield it'd be a little as tough as an IN cruiser.

Should a SC really be tougher than a full cruiser?

Shields and armor are not only the defensive capabilities of a ship. HP also counts. And in that sense, the SC does NOT have as much defensive capability as a Chaos cruiser since it can be crippled faster. That happens quite a lot with 1 shield, believe it or not, and hence people WILL ALMOST ALWAYS upgrade because it is a NECESSITY, not a "want".

And to again reiterate, the problem with the TH squadrons in both ship is not a problem with the BB. It is a problem with the SC. A TH squadron is the equivalent of 2 regular AC as per the rules. That means the SC at the moment is carrying the equivalent of 4 AC on what is essentially an LC hull. Compare this to the BB's 3 TH which comes out to the equivalent of 6 on what is a battleship hull. This might sound like a problem until one realizes that all those AC are in one launch bay.

The problem therefore lies with the SC. It should have only 1 TH squadron for an equivalent of 2 regular AC squadrons. This would also fix the current rules problem about the SC getting Str 7 BCs (if I am not mistaken) on the prow because it can replace the prow launch bay with an additional 5 BCs. Str 7!!! When it should only be a max of FP5 BC.

The Dauntless wouldn't have too many SM's on board, maybe enough for a teleporter attack. This is a good point, all Dauntlesses should have 'less than equal' special rule.

Cheers,

RayB HA

Why not? Both are the similar in size. They both should be able to fit a similar contingent size even if they don't have the TH to transport them and would rely on teleporters.

[Sigoroth]

Actually, they can get 8 BC (3 LFR and 2 TH swapped for 5 F). This is just insane as far as I'm concerned. As for the 1 TH = 2 AC formula, this is true insofar as this is what happens with VBBs, but it is not true as to worth. 1 TH is worth, at most, 1.5 normal AC. However, I think your argument holds even if it were on a 1 to 1 basis. If the SC were to have (normal) launch bays instead of broadside weapon batteries they would be strength 1 and this would completely replace the WBs. So why does the prow have strength 2 special launch bays and extra weaponry? Stronger weaponry at that (and with better fire arcs). Why is the prow hardpoint more than 3 times stronger than the broadside?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Oops yes, math was wrong on the pro BC. Also, re TH yes, it should only be 1:1.5 though I noted the rules make it 1:2.

[RayB HA]

I'm gonna rant a little about SC and BaB survivability.

Having 6+ armour basically doubles 5+ armour survivability against armour hitting weapons. This is not so against weapons with re-rolls however.

A SM killing fleet will most likely have about half armour ignoring weaponary. Eldar can get excessive numbers of armour ignoring weapons but for most fleets the above statement holds true.

So with a +50% damage effect you've got an equivelent armour 5+ 9 hit ship with 1.5 shields. As weapons batteries will usually be the first to hit a ship we can transfer some of that staying power into the shields, so 8.5hits with 2 shields. 

Now certain every day game effects will scrape off a hit regardless of armour. Criticals for instance will do this. This will reduce the worth of armour, but not by too much say -0.5 hits, leaving you with a Chaos cruiser! 

A 10 hit BaB wth 3 shields would be an equivelent armour 5+ 14hit monster with 5 shields! (conservatively)

Now you can get really lucky and kill a SM ship with fewer attacks, but that's the horrible drawback of having elite armour. The up side is that they will have fewer chances to cause crits!

The law of averages will on the whole give you Chaos cruiser tough Strike Cruisers and Planet Killer tough Battle Barges. However when the enemy is lucky you will feel it more. That is the nature of the SM fleet.


Now a rant about formation:
The BaB can sit back and look pretty in it's own formation offering little extra SCs could in its place while the strike cruisers get to grips with the enemy.
This is just pointless! So what if it's got much better survivabilty than a SC, if it won't get shot at anyway as the SCs are more of a pressing concern and far easier to neutralize. The BaB wants to be in there with the SCs using its BCs as close as possible, or hell maybe even boarding!

This isn't a BB that can sit back at range and be valued in a supporting role. It doesn't have the range and it doesn't have lances or other range ignoring weapons (at least no more than SCs could offer in its place).

The BaB isn't only slightly worse at turning than its accompanying cruisers like a Retribution or Desolator. It is horribly missplaced in a fast and manuverable fleet where it will be left behind to rot, or will drag the SCs and escorts back with it into a slower and more predicatble course. 


A point that fixed and then broke again was the almost pointless 'extra' TH on the BaB over the SC having 3 over 2 usually means you really kill one escort or get an extra fighter. So I'm gonna make the BaB have 4TH's/8Torps.

Cheers,

RayB HA
   

[RayB HA]

Dauntless: As the Dauntless isn't designed to be a troop ship, and can't deploy SM's in the same manner not having double boarding seems to make sense. Having a small number on board for teleporter attacks, to keep the serfs/intiates/trainees/scouts in check seems to make sense to. The Dauntless enlarges the numbers of ships in the Crusade fleet and offers a little variety while acting as great trainee/reserve ships.

VBaB and Crusader (CBaB): I think upping the Lb strength might be in order.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Sigoroth]

Ray, you're flat wrong on the survivability of the SC being comparable to a Chaos cruiser. Let's ignore for the moment the incidence of fleet tailoring. Maybe it shouldn't happen, but it does. But let's put that aside. You're comparing the SC against 5+ armour. This gives a false reading, because you're assuming equal circumstances. Sensible people don't close with 5+ armoured prows. When they do it's either because they're stupid or they're using a deliberate, high risk, strategy.

The only time the extra armour is an advantage is when used in non-typical circumstances. So a 1 shield SC is about as survivable as a Chaos cruiser that gives up a bow shot against a generalist fleet. Yay. Compared to an IN cruiser the SC has 1 less shield and 2 less hits. The only advantage comes from side/rear armour. So, assuming that 50% weaponry is lances and the other 50% is 1/2 as good when not locked on and 55% as good when locked on and assuming that the incidence is 50/50 locked on vs non-locked on, THEN the SC should take 76.25% of the damage that an IN cruiser would take from the side, rear or from bombers, but 100% of the damage from the front. I think a conservative estimate would be that 75% of the damage comes from the front then the SC takes around 94% of the hits that a normal IN cruiser would take. Even with equal shielding this translates as a decrease in overall survivability, given that the ships only have 75% hits. This is before taking tailoring into account.

Given that a properly used Chaos cruiser (ie, abeam) is about as tough as an IN cruiser and the fact that the SC doesn't have the option of being used likewise then even a 2 shield SC would not be as tough as either a Chaos or IN cruiser.

[horizon]

Every fleet these days has a mixed variety of weapons. A ship with 2 lances (common stuff) can already surpress a 1 shielded 6+ armoured vessel.
Untailored fleets don't have issues with it either.

And face it: the HA's draft 2010 has the 2nd shield and everyone uses it. Take it away and you'll relegate the Marines back again.

Dang Ray, you should've speaken at the time of draft development! Now you are fighting against a pretty good draft (minus a few quibbles).

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I'm gonna rant a little about SC and BaB survivability.

Having 6+ armour basically doubles 5+ armour survivability against armour hitting weapons. This is not so against weapons with re-rolls however.

And in effect, the re-rolls you point out have just cancelled whatever survivability you attribute it to. Given thefact that most of the time, people will LO to get those re-rolls against a 6+ armor ship, kinda makes things moot.

So with a +50% damage effect you've got an equivelent armour 5+ 9 hit ship with 1.5 shields. As weapons batteries will usually be the first to hit a ship we can transfer some of that staying power into the shields, so 8.5hits with 2 shields. 

How they heck can you translate 6+ arm 6 hp ship into a 5+ arm, 9 hp ship? You're just assuming Ray.  

A 10 hit BaB wth 3 shields would be an equivelent armour 5+ 14hit monster with 5 shields! (conservatively)

Again, you're assuming Ray. Show the math if you have to but I don't see how 6+ arm automatically translates to an additional 2 HP AND 2 shields.

Now a rant about formation:
The BaB can sit back and look pretty in it's own formation offering little extra SCs could in its place while the strike cruisers get to grips with the enemy.
This is just pointless! So what if it's got much better survivabilty than a SC, if it won't get shot at anyway as the SCs are more of a pressing concern and far easier to neutralize. The BaB wants to be in there with the SCs using its BCs as close as possible, or hell maybe even boarding!

This isn't a BB that can sit back at range and be valued in a supporting role. It doesn't have the range and it doesn't have lances or other range ignoring weapons (at least no more than SCs could offer in its place).

The BB still has torps and THs with which to support the SCs as well as the long range 45 cm weapon batteries. It can still support while it is quoting and it can still keep in close proximity with the SCs. 5 cm difference is not that big, not unless the SCs AAF.

The BaB isn't only slightly worse at turning than its accompanying cruisers like a Retribution or Desolator. It is horribly missplaced in a fast and manuverable fleet where it will be left behind to rot, or will drag the SCs and escorts back with it into a slower and more predicatble course. 

That's one way to play it. Another way is to let the SCs loose and let the BB follow by going on AAF as well. I have done this myself. It's not a big deal.

A point that fixed and then broke again was the almost pointless 'extra' TH on the BzaB over the SC having 3 over 2 usually means you really kill one escort or get an extra fighter. So I'm gonna make the BaB have 4TH's/8Torps.

Cheers,

RayB HA

See now you're extending the broken rule further. Now the BBs lone LB is worth 8 regular AC? What are you smoking? The problem with the LB is with the SC. Fix that problem and you'd have the correct progression. A lot of us here agree with it. I don't get why you and Nate don't.

[RayB HA]

How the extra shield for the SC got in there I don't know. I don't recall it coming up. Maybe it just fell between the cracks and Nate forgot to mention it.  But still it is a draft and he was rushed to get it out before he went on deployment.

Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Anyways, I'll draw up the probabilities:

6+ armour has twice the durability than 5+ armour. When there is a re-roll it is only 1.8 times better (which is still a massive improvement).

Assuming that 'lance' heavy fleets will have roughly half armour ignoring and half armour hitting weapons this advantage is only there half the time. So +50% durability rather than +100%. (Agaisnt Orks a SM strike cruiser has the durability of 12 hits with 2 shields at armour 5+!)

In the case of the BaB if it only had 10 hits and 3 shields adding %50 would give it 15 hits with 4.5 shields. Now with my transfer and acceptable loss due to crits etc. This would leave it at 14hits and 5 shields.


Sig,

The SM fleet doesn't move in the same manner as the Chaos fleet and this has been rightly pointed out by Sig. This will lead to the Chaos cruiser tough SCs being closing as apposed to abeam, unless you weave towards the enemy (quite doable with 90* turning).
A Squadron of 2 SC's can be sneaky by having a closing target behind an abeam one meaning gunnery weapons would either be reduced or will hit a seperate target to the lances.
Given that the SC has a 90* turn and ordnance I don't think it's a problem.


Horizon:

2 Lances can get a hit through the shields of a SC, 2 Lances can kill a SC with the right crit. What are you getting at?



Say you've got WB's and lances firing at a SC and a Chaos cruiser. The WB's will be halved against the SC. lets assume 6 hits against the cruiser from 32WB's and 6 from 12 lances. the SC will suffer 3 hits from the WB's and 6 from the lances. The Ccruiser will have taken 10hits against the hull, the SC will only have taken 8 hits against the hull. 

Assuming they're Braced the SC has 2 hits left, the Ccruiser has 3. This seems about right. It does show the SC to be ever so slightly more vulnerable than a Chaos cruiser. However the SC's aren't halved when crippled but this isn't too important, just a minor counterpoint.

In any case this has been a slight eye opener for me. I'm now of the impression that SC's are slightly weaker than Chaos Cruisers rather than equal, when fighting a fleet tailored to fight them.

I still don't reckon that SC's need to be as tough as Imperial cruisers though! I don't think that SC's 'need' and extra shield either. However as a limited upgrade perhaps with some other hottness it might be welcome.

Cheers,

RayB HA     

[horizon]

How the extra shield for the SC got in there I don't know. I don't recall it coming up. Maybe it just fell between the cracks and Nate forgot to mention it.  But still it is a draft and he was rushed to get it out before he went on deployment.
   

tssk

That draft was perhaps least rushed of all. Had long development. The 2nd shield got in very early and almost (99% iirc) EVERYONE LIKED IT AND WANTED IT. Marine player or not.

It was a community effort and Nate did, in a lot of cases, a really good job. Only real flaw in the Marine draft is the BC strike cruiser variant.