Space Marine Fleet ER

[Sigoroth]

Sig,

Excellent post, truely excellent! Forgive the '!'  

Thank you. I'll forgive the '!' if you manage to limit it to 1 per post.

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.

Well I didn't explain myself with that equivalency in my previous post, so I will now. Typically 3 BC will give 2 dice, sometimes one and possibly 3. Since it hits on 4+ then this makes 3 BC ~ 2 lances. The BM interaction between it and WBs brings this value down if you use it (like our group), however the 4+ crits brings it up as well. So since 3BC = 2L and 2L = 6WB then 3BC = 6WB. For convergent evidence we can look at armour values. Against 4+ armour (mainly Eldar) the BC will only be slightly more valuable than WBs due to 4+ crits (equal value against Eldar). Against 5+ armour the BC is worth 1.5 times WBs. Against 6+ armour the BC is worth 3 times WBs. Given that in most circumstances you'll be shooting against 6+ armoured prows and that a successful crit averages +0.65 hits, as well as ancillary effects, and that BC have 3 times the chance to crit then two times value of WBs is actually quite conservative. [1 hit with a WB will average 1.11 damage, whereas 1 hit with a BC will average 1.33 hits, which makes a BC hit 1.2 times more valuable than a WB hit in terms of pure damage, plus the ancillary effects of the crits.]

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.

No, I don't think so. You may think so, but even if we reduce the prow armament to a token contribution and allow 2AC each side then we run into the problem of CLVs being more effective carriers than CVs. So even with a less prow-centric template to draw upon the Defiant would still have been only 1 AC each side.

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!

I don't know why you'd drop the WB from the normal one. The first carrier variant is fine. The second one is not. This is because it leads to another possible carrier variant, which is 2 TH in the prow, no BC, and 1 TH each side for a total possible of 4 THs. It also runs into problems of scale. Again the general rule of 1 AC to 1 hardpoint ratio for CLs comes into play (whether this be a size limitation or a balance one), but also the scale of the SC prow bay to the barges prow bay suggest that the SC shouldn't get 2/3 of the AC.

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.

As I said earlier, I find the second version to be unpalatable. However, the problems you pointed out with the other carrier version are accounted for. Firstly, I envisage a 15 pt cost bump (+10%). Secondly, I imagine that no more than half the SCs in a fleet could be a variant. Thirdly, you do lose guns to get those AC.

Note: an idea for yet another variant is a combination of the two variants so far listed. So side WBs replaced with TH bays and prow TH bay replaced by extra BC.

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.

I don't know about you, but I tend to prioritise escorts first anyway. They're easy to kill and can pack a lot of punch. Anyway, SM escorts are already too expensive. If you want to make it worthwhile to take them then drop the rapid response vessels (or drop the SM rules from them and point them exactly as IN escorts) and reduce the cost of the SM escorts by 5-10 pts. Hunter can come down by 5 pts, Gladius and Nova by 10 pts.

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

Wot? You're seriously afraid of this happening?

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

With the 8 BC aberration that is in the current list I don't see a point in taking the barge. However, with a 4th shield on it and the SO variant (BC broadsides) I don't see the carrier SC as being a deterrent to taking a barge. Particularly as the SCV has very few guns, is limited and costs more than a normal SC.

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.

This might be your preference, but it is not how SMs are described, in either space or on the ground.

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

Er, well currently they are one trick ponies. Swarm the enemy with THs and hope that it's good enough to offset their massive weaknesses. Swapping out the TH for the shield means they don't need to swarm their enemies. Adding in a carrier variant leaves it as an option. Adding in a gunship variant makes direct fire an option. Fixing their damn escorts and adding a shield to the barge actually makes them a fleet.

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)

The SC is designed to deliver its cargo, nothing more. Maybe SMs use them for battles, but that's not what they're designed for. They're designed to blow past or board enemy defences, to be able to outrun enemy capital ships and to be able to disable enemy escorts. If they were designed to be able to defeat their foes in pitched battle they'd have full cruisers with full armament. Barges are designed for battle (or at leas sieges/siege-breaking), not SCs.

[fracas]

fluff wise i do think SM should be an offensive force with limited range. in someway similar to what dark eldar are. They should be able to move rapidly, maneuver and close for the kill.
while i do like the +1 shield for the strike cruiser, i can also see Ray's argument to favor offense over defense.

If we are starting with a blank page with the available model range, i would make the strike cruiser their mainstay and limit the barge to just one per fleet. Yes there are fluff fleet exception to this but this can be divided into fleet lists: standard, crusade, and dominion.
crusade fleets would not need escorts as much so limit them to one squadron per barge but they can take two barge.
whereas dominion needs to patrol the systems they have oversight of so more escorts and option for light cruisers for patrols.
the main weapon for marines should remain hit and run rather than shooting. and more shooting rather than more defenses. the barge should have multiple teleporters and the strike cruisers 2. their main delivery system is the strike cruisers.
i am also fine with the barge being 10 hits if it can be more maneuverable, and perhaps faster as a GC. This should be the only defensive ship the marines have with shields and turrets worthy of a BB.

i also like the proposed +1 leadership.

[horizon]

Weird Fracas,

the Marines are made for breaking planetary assaults and delivering their 'cargo'. Not an offensive fleet.


And what is Ray doing to them to increase the offense?


No no no Marines are the most precious warriors of the Imperium, you want them to be on defensive ships which can take a brunt. Not ships that die versus the most common Imperial Navy cruiser with ease.

And a 10 hit Barge is defensively seen better then a 12 hit barge.

If I read what you say you'd like this as a Barge:

speed 25cm (turning after 10cm)
hits 10
shields 4
turrets 4

?

[fracas]

Sorry. Poor editing on my part
They should NOT be an offensive fleet gunnery wise but should be used offensively to deliver marines
I think the bombardment cannon should not be a marine weapon. Firstly it is a better weapon than batteries and lances (each bc die roll is better than a lance die roll). Secondly why would marines hit and run rather than use the bc?
They should have lots of batteries to take down shields
Maybe a few lances say one or two for strike cruisers and three for the barge
The 10 hits 4 shields 4 turrets move like a cruiser barge is good. As a delivery system you would want it faster and more maneuverable than a battleship
The barge and the strike cruiser should be on large bases for boarding and so perhaps strike cruisers should get 2 shields afterall

I like the idea of thunderhawks as resilient assault boats rather thang fighter-assault boats, thus allowing them to bypass enemy torpedoed.
Let me rethink the shield for the strike cruiser
And ask whether escorts should be armor six.

[RayB HA]

Hi Guys,

Leaving the specific stats on the back burner for a while I'd like to talk about the SM fleet, it's role and permitted displacment.


The SM fleet is purposefully built to not win in fleet engagements on equal footing (luckily this is a game so we get more SM ships than would be normal).

SCs are supposed to be weaker than a full cruiser defensively and offensively. Having comparative mass to a Dauntless, SCs are loaded with high end goodies, including better 'armour' representing better shielding, stealth and obviously better armour. SCs are also tough as nails for their size, but still they shouldn't rival a full IN cruiser.

As the SMs aren't allowed a fleet to withstand an IN fleetof similar disspostion, having too much defense would seem crazy to give to possibly traitor super boarders.

It may seem to make sense that the Imperium should give SMs super defensive ships. Well, they do, but they are smaller than full cruisers and as such not as tough. Given that SMs are needed in varied strengths, coupled with the fact the Imperium doesn't want them to have anything too good, tough smaller cruisers fit these requirements.

BaBs are the exception but are rarely used or given to SMs.

As to my comment of the SMs being the Imperium's 'raiders' I was highlighting the fact that they will be in smaller engagements and those that involve them as the attackers. 

Cheers,

RayB HA

  

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The SM fleet is purposefully built to not win in fleet engagements on equal footing (luckily this is a game so we get more SM ships than would be normal).

You got that right.

SCs are supposed to be weaker than a full cruiser defensively and offensively. Having comparative mass to a Dauntless, SCs are loaded with high end goodies, including better 'armour' representing better shielding, stealth and obviously better armour. SCs are also tough as nails for their size, but still they shouldn't rival a full IN cruiser.

It's alright to have a tough ship as long as it can't destroy a full IN cruiser.

As the SMs aren't allowed a fleet to withstand an IN fleetof similar disspostion, having too much defense would seem crazy to give to possibly traitor super boarders.

Why would it be too much when it has been proven already that 1 shield is next to useless for SCs?

It may seem to make sense that the Imperium should give SMs super defensive ships. Well, they do, but they are smaller than full cruisers and as such not as tough. Given that SMs are needed in varied strengths, coupled with the fact the Imperium doesn't want them to have anything too good, tough smaller cruisers fit these requirements.

Yup but to reiterate, they are not tough at present.

As to my comment of the SMs being the Imperium's 'raiders' I was highlighting the fact that they will be in smaller engagements and those that involve them as the attackers. 

Cheers,

RayB HA

Yes and I can see they would operate better with 2 shields even at the expense of 1 TH. They would be that much tougher in small engagements and yet will still most likely lose while at the higher engagements, they will be at a disadvantage the more heavy ships the opponent can get in.

[Sigoroth]

Ray, in a pitched battle, one on one, the SMs would lose to the IN. Yes, this is a game, and so we balance things with points. Even a 2 shield SC being near as tough as a full 8 hit IN cruiser would still lose out, because it doesn't have the firepower to hurt the 8 hit IN cruisers. Also, the SC trades out 25% hit points to gain the extra side and rear armour. So from these aspects the SC would be as tough as an IN cruiser, but not from the front where the SC gives up 25% hits in return for nothing. So even with 2 shields we're only talking near as tough.

The SC needs to be fast and manoeuvrable in order to deliver its cargo. This is necessary both to be able to outrun larger ships which could hurt it and to be able to blow past blockades to deliver relief planet side. This alone limits its size, not the fact that the SMs aren't supposed to win in pitched battles (a limit on weaponry is sufficient there, not a limit on defence).

Its weapon loadout is optimised for use against orbital defences. WBs + BC > WB + L or BC + L against defences, even with interference. WB + BC < WB + L or BC + L against ships when interference occurs (as it should). Therefore this shows that SCs are designed for assaulting planets and their defences rather than for fighting pitched battles. This design plus the lower firepower compared to IN cruisers is their limiting factor.

The SMs are the Imperiums elite ground troops, and as such they need to be protected en route. If they didn't need this protection then they could be ferried in any run of the mill transport.

Therefore extra defence is not a problem for SMs. Extra firepower is problematic and should be within the bounds of the SM mandate. The BC variant has a role in blasting away heavily armoured defences. The carrier variant has a role in delivering SMs to the enemy (most likely escorts that the SC can't catch). The normal SC has a role as a generalist ship.

The Barge is really a siege breaker. It doesn't need to run blockades and so doesn't need speed and manoeuvrability. It's strength is in its toughness. It should advance inexorably toward the enemy defences and crack whatever space stations, weapon platforms or minefields lay in its path. So we don't need a 10 hit more manoeuvrable ship.

To reiterate:

SC = blockade runner
BB = siege breaker

So SMs don't need lances, or a lot of firepower. They're not a raiding fleet, they're a transport fleet.

[horizon]

I could dedicate a long post but I'll go along the admiral's and sigoroth's view.

[fracas]

Don't see the barge as siege breaker. I see it as more a fortress, especially for space based chapters.
Neither the barge nor the strike cruiser should be able to take on similarly sized imperial ships in a gunfight and be more likely to come out on top.

The space lanes should be managed by the imperial navy, even orbitals.
Standard marines tactic would have them either yield the fight against enemy ships to the navy or out maneuver enemy ships to deliver their cargo via drop pods or thunderhawks.

Giving them bombardment cannon is misplaced. Why should they have a space weapon second only to the nova cannon in the imperial arsenal? Per hit better than batteries and lances. As for the name why would marines be used to bombard anything at all rather than deploy marines.
If you want to give them a special weapon then something good at taking down shields so they can hit and run.

[Sigoroth]

Don't see the barge as siege breaker. I see it as more a fortress, especially for space based chapters.
Neither the barge nor the strike cruiser should be able to take on similarly sized imperial ships in a gunfight and be more likely to come out on top.

There's no reason why a SC shouldn't be able to take on an IN CL one on one and come out on top. After all, the Dauntless is a cheap and easily produced ship that allows for greater area to be patrolled for the resources committed. Its cargo is pretty much expendable. The SMs are rare, elite, and represent a massive amount of resources and time in training alone. They're a valuable cargo. Therefore more resources are invested in keeping them alive. So a SC can be greater than an IN CL. It is the IN that the SMs aren't supposed to be designed to take out, and the SM have no line cruiser analogue.

The space lanes should be managed by the imperial navy, even orbitals.
Standard marines tactic would have them either yield the fight against enemy ships to the navy or out maneuver enemy ships to deliver their cargo via drop pods or thunderhawks.

Space lanes should be managed by the iN, yes. Friendly orbital defences should be set up by the IN, the planetary governor, sector commander or relevant institution (for example, AM would deploy and govern their own, SMs would likely requisition, deploy and govern their own too). Enemy orbital defences however lie within the SMs sphere of operations. It is their job to deliver their cargo planet side, and this means dealing with whatever defences the planet has in place.

Giving them bombardment cannon is misplaced. Why should they have a space weapon second only to the nova cannon in the imperial arsenal? Per hit better than batteries and lances. As for the name why would marines be used to bombard anything at all rather than deploy marines.
If you want to give them a special weapon then something good at taking down shields so they can hit and run.

This is nonsense. You cannot say that BC are the best weapon system (or even that NC are). 3 lances are far superior to 3 BC. 9 WBs are far superior to 3 BC. So it's a matter of simply working out equivalent values. The simple fact is that gunnery weapons are better against defences than lance weapons are. This is axiomatic. Sometimes defences only have 5+ armour, so WBs would be better than equivalent value of BC (because the BC value has to be averaged across all armours). Some defences would have 6+ armour, so in those cases BC will be more valuable than WBs. Either way, the combination is better than any combination including lances against defences. However, due to interference effects brought about by the sequential nature of the game (ignoring that stupid change in the FAQ), WB + BC is worse than any lance combination against ships.

This makes the SM weaponry specialised for their role, which makes perfect sense. Therefore SMs should have BCs.

[Vaaish]

As for the name why would marines be used to bombard anything at all rather than deploy marines.

Because sometimes the charge of the light brigade works better when the cannons are aren't firing so much. Bombarding areas to soften them up before invading makes perfect sense. We did it at Normandy, D-Day, Gettysburg and the Pacific.

[zaxqua]

Neither the barge nor the strike cruiser should be able to take on similarly sized imperial ships in a gunfight and be more likely to come out on top.

This makes my list of the top ten most retarded things I've heard people say on the internet. THESE ARE THE SPACE MARINES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. The Emperor's finest should win one-to-one engagements with the IN. The IN are normal human beings, and therefor less reliable than the SM. So why do they get better stuff? Keep in mind that a single space marine is worth more than 1000 regular Imperial citizens. They are not expendable. A SC should be able to take on a IN cruiser and win, only reason they don't is the stupid Codex Astartes which says they should do hit-and-run strikes. And the Inquisition does not want them getting to powerful. But thats beside the point. The SMs should get a good fleet. If anything, one thats BETTER than IN.

[RCgothic]

Absolute disagreement zaxqua. A SC should be able to survive an engagement with a regular IN cruiser, but the IN are the check on the SMs power introduced after the heresy. It's deliberate that a SC can't take an IN cruiser out.

[horizon]

THESE ARE THE SPACE MARINES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. The Emperor's finest should win one-to-one engagements with the IN. The IN are normal human beings, and therefor less reliable than the SM. So why do they get better stuff? Keep in mind that a single space marine is worth more than 1000 regular Imperial citizens. They are not expendable. A SC should be able to take on a IN cruiser and win, only reason they don't is the stupid Codex Astartes which says they should do hit-and-run strikes. And the Inquisition does not want them getting to powerful. But thats beside the point. The SMs should get a good fleet. If anything, one thats BETTER than IN.

This is in the top 3 most retarded things I ever read on the internet.  

After the Heresy the Imperial Army was split in the Imperial Guard (human ground forces), Imperial Navy (the fleet) and Space Marines (in a nutshell).
In an attempt to make a new horus heresy less of "problem" the might of the space marines had to be reduced. Denying them access to the giant spaceships was a major asset to this.

Without a grand fleet Space Marines could not beat the Navy. Yay.

Everything has a reason.

In a 1:1 duel the Imperial Navy should always win versus the Marines.

You said it yourselves: codex astartes says so. I hope you understand why.

They should never ever be better then the IN.

Marines should do planetary assaults.
To do this and to see to the fact they cannot win vs the Navy they should have strong defensive ships + speed. And no major offensive weaponry.

I see no problems to bombardment cannons.

Battle Barges are to small to be fortresses.
They are siege breakers indeed.

If the assault means a large fleet battle before the IN is called upon.

Vica versa the IN/IG will call if they need assistance in a planetary assault.


The balance between IG - IN - SM is really important in the Imperium.

[fracas]

@zaxqua

Space marines are not fighting regular humans in space
Space marines in human made ships are fighting against other human (or xenos) made ships in space
As horizon said, what ships the imperium gave to space marines are made with the intention of preserving dominion for the imperial navy in space


@horizon
1. As is a strike cruiser is better than the dauntless, which is a souped up super escort
2. How is one lance die better than one bombardment cannon die?