Space Marine Fleet ER

[RayB HA]

Don't get me wrong when I say rushed to get it out I mean that it wasn't finished, not that it hadn't been considered for quite some time.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[zaxqua]

Hey Ray, let me give you a lesson in people skills. You are trying to get peoples aproval of your new ER. There is a massive argument going on with everyone in the forum vs you on the correct number of sheilds on a strike cruiser. If you give it a 2nd sheild, everyone who had previously argued angainst your rules will like them, and the other changes you want made will be lauded simply because they go with a 2sheild strike cruiser. Or you can leave the cruiser with one sheild and no one will use your rules because they don't want a one-sheild cruiser. Think about it for a second. Whats the smart thing to do?

[horizon]

Don't get me wrong when I say rushed to get it out I mean that it wasn't finished, not that it hadn't been considered for quite some time.

Cheers,

RayB HA

Doesn't matter.
The wish for the shield was already long in the community. Nate just acknowledged it. Good of him.

[RayB HA]

Don't give 'em want they want, give em what they need! He spoils you!  

I've just updated the rules to include a harder hitting BaB but still as a GC and a few other tweaks.

I'm gonna include a SC variant that has 2 shields. This will be 1 for every 3 Cruisers, like IN BCs and Chaos HCs. Now other than the shield, I'm not sure what is really warranted on a 'Venerable' SC... Perhaps Broadside BCs, Str 3.

The down side of this is that it will be hard to rep on the model without conversion. I'm suggesting a Large Base for the VSC representing its bigger energy signature. Conversions are obviously fine in addition to this.

The BaB is also going to have a BC option for its broadsides.

Cheers,

RayB HA  

[RayB HA]

zaxqua,

Lay off my people skills will ya! 

Seriously though I am trying to hash out a decent SM list and am exploring every possible avenue of design.

Just because people like the 2nd shield doesn't mean it is a good thing overall, it makes SM players feel safer, and with more hits/shields the laws of averages will sit more accurately so the horrible unlucky aspect of elite armour is reduced. This is great for the SM player, but it gives him too much power for what he 'should' have. SC's aren't full blown cruisers, they are tough as 'average' cruisers though. But once again they just aren't full cruisers they should go down easier!

***Perhaps if SM's had a special rule that allowed them to have a lower crippled threshold, like a 3rd instead of a half. So 1 and 2 hits is crippled for SC's and 1,2 and 3 is crippled for a 10 hit BaB. Actually I like that, it mirrors the stuborn nature of Space Marines.

Thank you everyone for contributing to this thread it has been of immense help.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

Seriously though I am trying to hash out a decent SM list and am exploring every possible avenue of design.

Just because people like the 2nd shield doesn't mean it is a good thing overall,

haha,
So your opinion is ehm better then mine, admiral d'artagnan and sigoroths (and Nate's for the matter)?

Serious?
Draft 2010 = Reasonable, balanced (minus the bc variant), fun.

The idea to swap +1shld to SC vs -1 THawk is even better if adapted.



On my 2 lances thing: well a lot of cheap ships destroy 1 shielded sc with ease.


I only lost ones to Marines, my first battle with Tau in a breakthrough (marine defending). In all other battles I defeated Marines. With a variety of fleets.

[Vaaish]

***Perhaps if SM's had a special rule that allowed them to have a lower crippled threshold, like a 3rd instead of a half. So 1 and 2 hits is crippled for SC's and 1,2 and 3 is crippled for a 10 hit BaB. Actually I like that, it mirrors the stuborn nature of Space Marines.

I do not like the idea of breaking core BFG rules. Adding a shield works within the existing structure and is intuitive. Having to tell everyone the ship isn't crippled at half hits requires more effort can lead to more confusion. Eldar break enough rules for everyone. There just isn't a need to further circumvent the basic rules for a race that has fundamentally the same technology as IN.

[RayB HA]

Horizon,

My opinion is different. Saying an opinion is better or worse is kinda pointless. 

SMs are a pretty good fleet, but it's really easy to missuse.

You would need roughly as much firepower to kill a SC as a Chaos cruiser. But you can kill a SC with less if you're lucky.


Vaaish,

It's not really that hard to understand or remember, in fact isn't it a refit... However with the number of special weapons and upgrades I am inclined to leave it out.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

Versus weapon batteries 6+ armour closing is almost the same as 5+ abeam.
What is it a Marine fleet does? Closing.
Chaos abeam.

So... even Chaos batteries equal out vs closing Marines. Add the lances.

(applies to other fleets as well)

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Your opinion may be different Ray but this is not an opinion. You have an idea for a fleet that you want us to use and so because of this, we can tell you whether your idea, not opinion, is wrong or better vs the current rules.

And again to reiterate, the SC NEEDS that 2nd shield. It's not a matter of want. The SC doesn't need that 2nd TH squadron.

[zaxqua]

"Ironclad strike cruiser"

Not a bad idea, but 1-3 is spreading it too thin. 1-2 or 1-1 would be a better compromise.

And, obviously, it's extra sheild is made out of iron

[Sigoroth]

When first playing against SMs with their original ruleset our SM player (who was trounced repeatedly) thought that the best fix to SMs was to give them a 2nd shield. I disagreed vehemently, though acknowledged that they needed something. My disagreement was based on the notion that the SC is jam packed full of goodies for its displacement and cost. Pointing to the (excellent) Dauntless and noting that it doesn't have 2 shields I was convinced that it wouldn't be possible.

However, I have since changed my mind. A gradual process occasioned by participating in SM discussions and thinking about the differential application of tech according to need. I concede that it's plausible for the IN to consider adding another shield to a Dauntless a wasted effort while simultaneously for the SMs doing the same is a necessity.

Still, the SC does get too much. A quick glance at the stats shows that it is way too prow heavy. It has 2 THs and 3 BCs. If it had either 2 THs or ~4 BC then it would be about right. So, given that it has too much prow weaponry and it fits to give them a 2nd shield both from a fluff perspective and from a gameplay one (remember, our SM player thought right from the off that they needed 2 shields) then the solution seems fairly obvious. Drop 1 TH, add 1 shield.

This change looks like it fixes almost all problems with the SC. Having only 1 TH to swap out allows for more reasonable variants too. The 8 BC variant is an abomination. It should be 5 BC, and swapping 1 TH for 2 BC is reasonable in terms of the trade-off and the overall prow firepower. Only possible problem is SMs not having enough access to AC. For which a carrier variant of the SC would fix. Adding another variant like this also increases SM variety, which is a good thing and in total allows for the SM player to take less AC than they currently can without reducing the maximum they can take.

Hey Ray, let me give you a lesson in people skills. You are trying to get peoples aproval of your new ER. There is a massive argument going on with everyone in the forum vs you on the correct number of sheilds on a strike cruiser. If you give it a 2nd sheild, everyone who had previously argued angainst your rules will like them, and the other changes you want made will be lauded simply because they go with a 2sheild strike cruiser. Or you can leave the cruiser with one sheild and no one will use your rules because they don't want a one-sheild cruiser. Think about it for a second. Whats the smart thing to do?

I don't agree with this, in either principle or fact. I haven't even read Ray's proposal. Therefore adding a 2nd shield won't make me agree with his proposal. Also, if Ray believes in his ruleset then he should do all he can to explain his proposal as succinctly as possible. The main suggestion I can make to Ray to improve his people skills is to remove the "!" key from his keyboard. I always feel manic reading his posts, and it gives the impression I'm talking to a truly disturbed mind when conversing with him. No one should use that many exclamation marks.

[RayB HA]

Horizon,

They don't have to close in this manner, they have a 90* turn, this can be avoided. Given the fact that they are light cruisers they are cheaper compared to other cruisers so you should have more of them; they can easily be in squadrons and so you can have offset facings to mess enemy gunnery up. Granted this is tricky to do as you do have to plan your movement a turn ahead. But that's what the 90* turn is for when I play.

I do concede that SCs are weaker than Chaos cruisers. I just don't see it as a problem. A SC is not a cruiser, it is not an equal. It is a fast, heavily armoured, specially armed transport. SCs will get pummled in a fleet engagement, the SM player should still be able to 'win' but should lose some SCs in the process. The IN are the space fighters the SM's do so only when there is an 'emergency' that they are deemed to be able to handle.


Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Whether an idea is good or bad is based on opinion until it is proven.

What in your opinion do the SCs need the 2nd shield for? To become what?


zaxqua,

1 in 3 cruisers should be enough, for Crusaders this could be Dauntless, SC and Ironclad.


Sig!

I do have an over fondness for exclamation marks! I do try to limit it, but I'll review my posts and try to cut them.

I changed the SC to have dorsal BCs rather than prow.
I also changed the launch bays on the SC to be able to launch torps, like a Demiurg Bastion.
Having token AC isn't really the way I want to go.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

What in your opinion do the SCs need the 2nd shield for? To become what?

To let the Space Marines with Strike Cruisers be a fun and competive fleet. Easy enough.


More or less I'd like to see these 3 variants foremost:

Strike Cruiser - variant I
Cruiser/6, Speed 25cm, Turns 90*, Shields 2, Armour 6+, Turrets 2
Port WB, 30cm, 4, Left
Starboard WB, 30cm, 4, Right
Prow Launch bay, 1 Thunder Hawk
Dorsal Bombardment Cannons, 30cm, 3, L/F/R


Strike Cruiser - variant II
Cruiser/6, Speed 25cm, Turns 90*, Shields 2, Armour 6+, Turrets 2
Port WB, 30cm, 4, Left
Starboard WB, 30cm, 4, Right
Dorsal Bombardment Cannons, 30cm, 5, L/F/R


Strike Cruiser - variant III
Cruiser/6, Speed 25cm, Turns 90*, Shields 2, Armour 6+, Turrets 2
Port WB, 30cm, 4, Left
Starboard WB, 30cm, 4, Right
Prow Launch bay, 3 Thunder Hawk

Sumtin like that



edit:
then, again,

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/sg/forum/index.php?topic=1758.0
71 pages of Marine fun.

[Sigoroth]

I would make similar variants to those listed by Horizon. However, I'd leave the BC on the prow. I'd also make the extra BC on the variant forward only. And for the AC variant I'd have them replace the broadside WBs rather than the prow (dorsal?) BC and cost an extra 15 pts.