Space Marine Fleet ER

[RayB HA]

Horizon,

How does 2 shields equal fun? 

Having both a Lb variant and a BC variant why would I take a 'normal' SC?


I don't think that SCs should have no ordy, they should be able to carry THs or at least TH landers in a hanger. Obviously drop pods are used by SCs but It'd be crazy to just have them. After all how would they get back to the ship? Teleporters?


Having the Ironclad, TDauntless and normal SC should be enough variety for the cruisers. I think I'm happy with the way they look now.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

Oh frell Ray,

keep on pushing your own list. But you're very stubborn, don't listen etc. Nate did the right thing with draft2010, eg he set the good direction. Follow that line. Do not create a new one.

I for one won't be pleased to see your ER rules replacing the draft.

And yes, the SC NEEDS 2 shields to be fun, otherwise I'll add some more chapters on my tally as death chapters. har har har

[Vaaish]

Two shields means you don't run into the "oh crap" situations where a gas cloud drops your shields (not always avoidable) or one that one hit you can expect from WB suddenly means you need to think about bracing if you want anything left at the end of the turn. That gets compounded because the your weapons strength just isn't that good and you have to put your ships in a squadron.

I've tried both ways in the same fleet and different fleet lists and two shields significantly improves the reliability of SC. More reliable ships means more fun. In a 1500 point game all you have to do is lose two SC to give your opponent enough VP to disengage with a win. Making it harder to do that increases the odds you can return fire and force him to stay around a bit longer if he wants to win.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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..

I agree with this but 1 shield on an SC is not fun for the SM player. The SC WILL get pummeled. The SC WILL die easily thus giving the opponent better chances to win. Giving 2 shields to the SC will not improve it's damage dealing capability but it will survive better to deal out said damage over a couple of more turns than it will if it has only 1 shield.
 

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?

TO SURVIVE for a few more turns! Ray that's what I've been saying in my past few posts. Can't you get that? TO S-U-R-V-I-V-E. As it is, SC die easily or get crippled easily.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

Yup. Prow not dorsal BCs and same with the LB heavy variant.

[RayB HA]

Horizon,

I'm listening keenly and I'm very greatful that you guys have been hashing this out with me.

I may be stuborn but I'm not uncomfortable changing my opinion due to a solid counter argument.

The main counter that I'm hearing for 2 shields is that SCs are too fragile in comparison to a full cruiser. But how is this a problem? Why can't SM's have weaker ships than IN or Chaos?

SM's should lose more ships in a game than IN. Afterall they are 'cheaper'.

Given the correct points values a SM fleet should be able to equal most other fleets, with the odd exception due to lance weighting. Just like any other fleet.

So the real question is what is the preferable ratio of offense to defense in the fleet and the number of ships in comparison to other fleets.

Assume that a SC will cost roughly 3/4 of a normal cruiser. It should balance its offensive and defensive quailties to match this. Keeping in mind that the more defensive you are the more turns you'll get to shoot your lesser weapons, and the more expensive you are the more weapons will be shooting at you reducing your defense rating. e.g. A Mars class BC has a far worse defense rating than a Dominator as it costs so much more.

If a SC had identical defense to an IN cruiser and cost 3/4 of its price it should have half it's firepower. However if it had 3/4 of it defense it would also have 3/4 of its firepower. Obviously this is a rough rule and you do have to take the fudge factor into account such as when a ship has a very specialised role compared to a more versatile but less efficient ship, or when you have 'token' firepower.

I prefer the 3/4 of an IN ship leaning towards defense but many of you seem to want the same damage but half firepower, or worse an equivlent: a Light cruiser wearing the shoes of a full cruiser. Which means you need 2 SCs to match the firepower/ordy of a normal cruiser. And this isn't even taking their special rules into account of cost.

Given that SCs should be cheaper than IN cruisers and that they have special rules they can't be too impressive.


1 TH on a SC: I don't like token weapons, especially when they can be used to increase the AC limit for a specific class as they have to be taken hand in hand to be effective. In the case of having a single SC TH versus 3 or 4 on a BaB. As with mixed armour values the BaB could take the brunt of this additional worth not being the mainstay and specifically being the game changer. So it only really boils down to my dislike of token weapons...


Lets look at the half firepower route (with 2 shields):

3 torps and 6WB each side= 1 TH, 3WB each side and 3BC's LFR. roughly.

3/4 firepower(1 shield): 4 torps, 9 WBs each side= 2 TH, 4WBs each side and 3BC's LFR. roughly. This still leans towards defence over offense.

In addition to all this you get +5cm speed, 90* turn, better boarding, better leadership and special H&R's not to mention special scenario bonuses. Seems like a bargain when the special rules seem to be free!  

In my experience (non playtesting) of playing with and against SMs, the SMs have won more times than lost. In campaigns the SM players always seem to be in the top half. Playing as SMs I've never felt they were too weak except against Eldar, but then I always get that feeling against hemlock/nightshade fleets!"   I've watched numerous crushing campaign games against orks and IN. I've personally won more games as SM than have lost.
In playtests SMs have won more often as well. The BaB helping the loses.

Cheers,

RayB HA
 

[Sigoroth]

The main counter that I'm hearing for 2 shields is that SCs are too fragile in comparison to a full cruiser. But how is this a problem? Why can't SM's have weaker ships than IN or Chaos?

Space Marines are both weak and boring. They need a boost and they need variety. When looking at boosting their ships there are 3 ways of doing this. Boost defensive qualities, boost offensive qualities, or lower cost. They already get a lot for their points cost, so dropping cost is unreasonable. They're not supposed to be offensive weapon platforms, so that's out. This leaves defence.

So adding an extra shield is good solution, as it suits the SM modus operandi and also goes a long way towards fixing one of the biggest problems the SMs have so far encountered; that being that they're supposed to be very tough (hence 6+ armour) and yet in fact are quite fragile. It also makes their lack of a full 8 hit cruiser less telling.

Of course, there is still a problem. The SC is already jam packed full of goodies for its size and cost. Looking at the prow we see a massive glut of weaponry. You've tried to fix this glut by redistributing some of it to the dorsal mount. However, doing a quick comparison to the iN light cruiser of choice, the Dauntless, we can see that the SC is still over-gunned, and by a good margin. Also, there is no precedent for a dorsal gun on a CL. You could use the same reasoning to justify this as that used for the 2nd shield. That is, SMs are special and get given more. However, it makes less sense for SMs to be given more weapons rather than more shields. Remember, SCs are in effect blockade runners. An extra shield helps them in their role of payload delivery, extra guns do not.

Also from the IN CLs we can see that their light carriers can only manage 1 AC per hardpoint at most. Why can the SC manage 2 AC from one hardpoint? This is particularly strange given that their AC uses more space than normal.

The upshot of all this is that we can reduce the number of THs on the SC, which goes a ways to fixing the glut of weaponry problem and also makes for a good trade-off for the extra shield. This solves a lot of SM problems. However, it does raise another problem. It reduces the maximum AC potential for the fleet.

This problem can be fixed by adding a variant that replaces its broadside weapon batteries with THs. So one of these variants plus one normal SC would make 4 TH total, which is equal to the current amount that 2 SCs would give. In my estimation the current rules gives a lot of AC for SMs, so this should probably be their maximum. Thus a maximum of half SCs as variants.

So, the AC problem is solved and inadvertently so is the problem of variety, at least to an extent. The SM fleet becomes less uniform and boring and the SM player gets the option to go gun heavy or AC heavy.

So this simple change fixes a looot of problems.

1 TH on a SC: I don't like token weapons, especially when they can be used to increase the AC limit for a specific class as they have to be taken hand in hand to be effective. In the case of having a single SC TH versus 3 or 4 on a BaB. As with mixed armour values the BaB could take the brunt of this additional worth not being the mainstay and specifically being the game changer. So it only really boils down to my dislike of token weapons...

I don't think it's token AC at all. I think of it as CAP clearing AC. With barges and carrier SC waves being reasonably sized (particularly if 2 SCVs squadron) it's important to clear obstructions such as CAP.

Lets look at the half firepower route (with 2 shields):

3 torps and 6WB each side= 1 TH, 3WB each side and 3BC's LFR. roughly.

1 TH = 1.5 AC = 4.5WB. 1 BC = 2WB. Therefore a 1 TH SC has 18.5 WBe total firepower, with 8.5 WBe direct focusable fire and 4.5 WBe in ordnance. 1 torp = 1.5 WB, so a full IN cruiser has 33 WBe, with a total focusable direct fire of 12 WBe and 9 WBe in ordnance. Therefore a 1 TH SC has 56% total firepower (TFP), 71% focusable fire (FFP) and 50% ordnance firepower (OFP).

3/4 firepower(1 shield): 4 torps, 9 WBs each side= 2 TH, 4WBs each side and 3BC's LFR. roughly. This still leans towards defence over offense.

This comes to 70% total TFP, 71% FFP and 100% OFP.

In addition to all this you get +5cm speed, 90* turn, better boarding, better leadership and special H&R's not to mention special scenario bonuses. Seems like a bargain when the special rules seem to be free!  

None of which has, in the past, made up for the lack of a full cruiser workhorse in the fleet. Hell, it's not even like the SM have had decent escorts with which to supplement their weak SCs.

In my experience (non playtesting) of playing with and against SMs, the SMs have won more times than lost. In campaigns the SM players always seem to be in the top half. Playing as SMs I've never felt they were too weak except against Eldar, but then I always get that feeling against hemlock/nightshade fleets!"   I've watched numerous crushing campaign games against orks and IN. I've personally won more games as SM than have lost.
In playtests SMs have won more often as well. The BaB helping the loses.

Your experience is atypical.

[horizon]

I agree with Sigoroth's post 100%.

[RCgothic]

Also agree.

[Vaaish]

also agree.

[RayB HA]

Sig,

Excellent post, truely excellent! Forgive the '!'  

I don't quite argree with the 'hard point' equivelents of 1 BC equals 2 WB (should be about 2 for 3). Also as you pointed out the focus of firepower is an important aspect as such equivelents are harder to make especially with a 90* turn in the mix.

The fact that Light cruisers got lumbered with the 1 Lb each side was the Dauntlesses fault. As it has such a prow heavy displacement. The Defiant also has a heavy prow. Don't let this limit you.

Assuming we went the route of more gum less teeth, you would be left with a normal variant and a carrier variant to bring them back upto to what they were.

Normal, -1 WB each side, -1 TH, for 1 THs total
Carrier 1, TH each side instaed of broadsides, TH in prow for 3TH's total.
Carrier 2, 2 TH in the prow, NO BC!

Carrier 1 is a problem as it is far superior to the normal SC and will make it obsolete unless limited.
Carrier 2 is doable, maybe with token BC, like str1.

With 2 shields the SCs will be so tough and with very little offensive capability any other target will be considered first, which will be the escorts. A SM player will be extremely discouraged from taking them as they will be so harshly persecuted.

With the SC being less gunned makes boarding far more appealing, I fear this will be all they will do.

Also with the carrier the BaB almost seems pointless. Actually SCs with 2 shields makes it seem almost pointless.


I prefer SCs not to be tough but have teeth, to be able to quickly netralise an enemy rather than fighting in a battle of attrition they aren't cut out to win. To be sub standard in a defense but powerful and swift when on the attack.

I want a fleet of escorts, cruisers and Battle Barges not a fleet of one trick ponnies ineffectively thrashing against their enemies.

SMs are the 'raiders' of the Imperium, they want their battles to be quick and precise. They also don't want to die either, as such the odd 2 shielded ship should be thrown in to take the hard blows. (Hence the Ironclad, the Heavy SC)

Cheers,

RayB HA    

 

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

With 2 shields the SCs will be so tough and with very little offensive capability any other target will be considered first, which will be the escorts. A SM player will be extremely discouraged from taking them as they will be so harshly persecuted.

With the SC being less gunned makes boarding far more appealing, I fear this will be all they will do.

Huh? How will adding 1 shield and removing 1 TH make the SC have little offensive capability? It still has the same guns and the THs aren't really known for their excellent offensive capability. And if they do decide to board, then fine, that IS one of their strong points but it doesn't mean they will be lacking offensive capability compared to what they have at the moment.

Also with the carrier the BaB almost seems pointless. Actually SCs with 2 shields makes it seem almost pointless.

And why do you think that?

I prefer SCs not to be tough but have teeth, to be able to quickly netralise an enemy rather than fighting in a battle of attrition they aren't cut out to win. To be sub standard in a defense but powerful and swift when on the attack.

I want a fleet of escorts, cruisers and Battle Barges not a fleet of one trick ponnies ineffectively thrashing against their enemies.

SMs are the 'raiders' of the Imperium, they want their battles to be quick and precise. They also don't want to die either, as such the odd 2 shielded ship should be thrown in to take the hard blows. (Hence the Ironclad, the Heavy SC)

Cheers,

RayB HA    

And that is your mistake. SM are not the raiders of the Imperium. SM are the spearpoint of the Imperium, the alpha strike when the Imperium decides a planet needs invading. SM's strength is on the ground, not in space. That strength should not be wasted in raiding missions.

The SM should NOT be able to just easily and quickly neutralize an enemy ship as this is not their mandate. Its actually the reverse. Since there are so few of them, they should be well protected to survive to get onto the planet. Their strength should mainly be in Planetary Assault and Exterminatus scenarios which is strongly suggested by their improved Assault Points.

The SC should be able to survive an encounter by attrition because they have such tough defenses that to take one down, one needs almost the equivalent firepower to take down a regular cruiser at the same time not having the firepower to just take out an enemy cruiser one on one. WB strikes supported by lances can still cripple the SC with 2 shields faster than a regular cruiser.

It's actually ideal that they have only the BB and SC as main classes. Adding variety to the class would be enough to help keep the SM from being boring. They do not need the Ironclad because that is what the BB is for. I personally think the BB can do with another shield but I also see the reasoning by others that it might really make the BB too invulnerable.

Sigoroth has already replied extensively to your points and not surprisingly, I will add to the number of posters agreeing with him. There's only some minor disagreements mostly regarding details on how the variant ships should look like but overall, we agree this is how SM should be represented.

[horizon]

So the current point of view regarding Marines is:



Ray Bell

versus

Sigoroth, Admiral d'Artagnan, RcGothic, Vaaish and Horizon


hmmm. So, Ray, decide, Dictatorship or Democracy.
heh heh

Add the issue of the Barge, in which case you Ray Bell are the ONLY one wanting it to be a Grand Cruiser. Again dictator vs democracy.

The fleet from Armada was Battle Barge + Escorts.
The fleet from 'the democracy' will one be of variety: Barge+Escorts+Strike Cruisers.

And I do no get why you call them one trick ponies.

I do not want Ironclads.
I do not want CG Barges.
I do not want 1 shielded Strike Cruisers (think about it, I only battle against them).





/
if you really have poblems with variants the following may be an option:
Only 1 variant per regular strike cruiser.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I am not even sure if the proposed variants are a problem. The 3 TH one? It's not like it has more offensive capability than the regular SC. It's not like it will destroy enemy ships. I think the vanilla SC will still be used.

The 2 TH on prow without BC? Still not as effective as the regular SC.

If anything the FP5 Prow BC with no TH and standard WBs would more likely see heavier use and so would be rightly restricted.

[RCgothic]

The space marine fleet isn't primarily designed around destroying enemy warships. The SC and BaB are supposed to use their speed and durability to breeze past enemy defences and conduct deployment and bombardment operations. The fact they can engage enemy vessels should stem from their speed and durability, not from their firepower.

If I were redoing the Marine Fleet, I'd do it this way:

Battle Barge to remain pretty much as is. I'd allow a couple of variants, such as the SO and a stronger carrier variant (I don't buy into this 3THs are worth 2 other AC rubbish. I think that equivalence needs to be nailed to a cross and left there for three days.) The carrier variant could have an extra 3 THs by replacing half its FP12@45cm WBs. Venerable Battle Barges merely famous BaBs, allowing any ship dropped.

SC to get extra shield, lose 1 TH, 150-155pts. Variant to drop 2BC for 1TH, and to drop 1TH for 2 extra BC.

Escorts that can actually go where the SC and BaB go. Better armour, but poorer weapons and turrets, and loss of SM rules to bring price down.

In Summary:

BaB standard.
BaB extra BC variant (as SO in BFG:R)
BaB extra TH variant (5TH variant)

SC with 2 shields, 1 TH
SC with 2 shields, no TH, 5BC
SC with 2 shields, 2TH, 1BC

Hunter AV5, 35cm, T1, 2 torps F 35pts
Gladius AV6, 30cm, T1, 3WBs F/L/R 40pts
Nova AV6, 30cm, T1, 1BCF 2WBs F/L/R 40pts