Space Marine Fleet ER

[RCgothic]

Sorry Ray, don't agree with you. Various BL Novels emphasize the SC's blocade running credentials.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Hi Guys,

SCs have to be inferior to a full IN cruiser. This can be either reduced offense, defence or both!

Have you not read Sigoroth's points from before? To remind you, SM do not have a full line cruiser, which is already a problem with defense. They do not have as much weapons as a full line cruiser which is a problem with offense. The problem is with both these in place, they have a problem with surviving encounters. We can't give them more guns because it would be a conflict with the SM not being a fleet engagement faction. There is only one way we can help them and that is in defense in order for the SM to increase their chances at winning.

Reduced defence makes sense so they can be put down before they can use their increased speed and manuverability to either escape or board at full strength. However this makes them vulnerable against everyone else in a similar circumstance as well.

No, reduced defense will only let its opponents kill them off easily as is what is happening now. I don't know why it is not happening in your meta but it sure is happening in majority of the meta. Increasing their offense will not help.

Reduced offense makes sense so they can't hurt an IN cruiser, however they can still board, and win! Also they wouldn't be able to be much of a threat to numerous enemy defenses.

They already HAVE reduced offense but still actually are having a problem taking out the full line ships. And now you want to take the more reliable means of killing an enemy ship away from them? And hope that BOARDING will let them win? WOW! You must have different boarding rules Ray that you are seeing them win battles with Boarding.

Why shouldn't they be a threat to numerous Defenses?

As breaking a blockade to drop SMs on a planet is a really crazy thing to do, I can only really see them netralising anything in orbit first. Afterall if the blockading fleet then returned to the planet they'd bombard the hell out of those 'expensive' SMs. However they might have destroyed their target by then... I suppose it depends on the circumstances.  

I can see SMs only in smallish engagements, like a raiding fleet, unless it's a story driven scenario. They should be designed to overwhelm the 'suprised'/defending enemy as quickly as possible.

It's actually easier to get one ship to land the SM on a planet than having a fleet backing you up to take on a fully alert defense fleet. If one needs to tackle a defense fleet however, better to send a whole fleet in then with full IN support. If they are facing a fully alert fleet, with the limited offense and defense available, especially if you DO limit their defense further, how do you even expect them to survive a battle?

Surprise? If they achieve surprise, they can drop the SM package in and just keep the defenses busy. They shouldn't be able to overwhelm the defenses as quickly as possible because that would mean they can take out full line cruisers easily. See where your position is vs your original position of the SC should be inferior to a full line cruiser? Even surprised, the full line IN cruiser should win more often than not, one on one.

Bombardment Cannons: I do find it funny that they very handy for taking out 6+ prows.  


Cheers,

RayB HA

How do you figure? Shields will go down, sure, and then the WBs will have to break the 6+ or 5+ armor to do damage. If you squadron to focus more BC and WBs, with the current rules of squadroning, it will mess them up if you force them to BFI.

[horizon]

We talk in circles....  :/

[Sigoroth]

@Ray

Why is it that you want to increase the SCs offensive power and yet complain that they're too powerful already (boarding)? Firstly, SMs aren't that great at boarding line cruisers. They get +2 for being SMs, but the enemy get +1 for higher BV. If the SC suffered even 1 point of damage on the way in (which is likely) and the target didn't (which is also fairly likely) then the enemy get a +2 for double BV, putting them square. Sure, you could put a BM in contact to get a +1 advantage or board with 2 SCs, but both of those require multiple ships. So the SMs aren't that great at boarding 1 on 1.

Now, assuming that giving the SC an extra shield helps them in boarding (presumably by reducing the chance of taking damage on the way in) then why is this a bad thing? This is what SMs are supposed to be good at. How is lowering their defences supposed to help the SMs? It'll help them die. Yeah, that's what we want from our SM ships, an unreliable delivery system. How is increasing their firepower meant to help them not be able to challenge the IN?

RCG's  analogy with the armageddon gun is faulty
it confounds effect of numerical power with effect of power of potency
you can always compensate for less power of potency with numbers but this doesn't change power of potency, or simply power.
a weapon's power remains its ability to inflict damage when a hit occur.
a 44 magnum is more powerful than a 22. a BC is more powerful than a lance. naturally if a weapon doesn't shoot or doesn't shoot as often make it less effective. but not less powerful.
(btw, funny that in post 158 RCG then agree the BC is individually more powerful than the lance, but also less reliable)

Firstly, my analogy, not RCG's. Also, you attributed one of my arguments to horizon earlier. Strange, given I'm the only person using teal colouring in this thread. You got an eye condition of some sort? Anyway, yes, a 44 magnum is more powerful than a 22. More powerful than a 9 mm too. So I suppose that makes P90's useless. All sorts of submachine guns in fact. Wonder why they were even made, what with the most powerful gun already on the market and all. All the armed forces should just have 44 magnum revolvers instead of their assault weaponry.

i maintain that if you to review the Space Marine list without prejudice, then a consideration should be given to taking away the BC and giving them something else, whether that be prow LFR batteries or a single lance (possibly 2) for the strike cruiser.

And I maintain that you're crazy. The BC was given to the SMs specifically to make up for their lack of lances, which were specifically denied them because they're anti-ship weapons. Now you want to swap out BCs for lances? Ludicrous. BC = anti-defence, Lance = anti-ship. What's so hard to grasp about that?

out of curiosity, which do you all think is better in a one on one fight, a strike cruiser with 2 shields at 160 points vs a lunar at 180 points?

Better? Against each other or other targets? Well, firstly, I'm not arguing for a 160 pt SC. I'm arguing for a 145 pt 1 TH 2 shield SC. For which I would have to say the Lunar is superior. The Lunar has more firepower, greater chance to cause hull damage and does a greater proportion of damage when it does (against SC).

[BaronIveagh]

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.

Let me pause to throw on the breaks on the crazy train again.  As has been pointed out in the past, not all marine chapters follow the codex astartes, some are even in open defiance of it, and fluff very clearly, very carefully, states that the Codex is not enforced by the Imperium as law.  This has been fluff since second edition, and has been reiterated about fifteen times since.  Rather, the Imperium only seems to found new codex chapters, in the normal course of events.

Second, again, the idea that the SM fleet must always always always be inferior to the IN flies in the face of the simple, well established, fluff fact that the current IN is, even by comparison to some Imperial Guard regiments, a very new thing, with IN's mainline cruiser and many of it's derivatives, being only a tenth the age of the average SM SC.  Only IN's battleships date back to the second founding.  This means that the fleet that SCs are 'balanced' against is not IN but rather Chaos (as Chaos = IN at the time this 'balancing' took place).  

Since the codex is not enforced as law, it's unlikely that every space marine chapter was ordered to hand over all their ships to be downgraded when IN switched between the Murder and the Lunar as their mainline cruiser.  This is actually spelled out in IA:X, with SM using ships that hadn't been seen in Imperial arsenals since the great crusade.

Third:  IN would, in all honesty, not care a bit that one SM cruiser might take one IN cruiser in a stand up fight.  Why?  Because, like the fact that a single SM can take a single guardsmen in a stand up fight, it doesn't matter.  The cold hard numbers show that even if all the space marine chapters   in existence (capable of fielding approx 12,000 ships) went rogue simultaneously, they'd still be out numbered by the IN (approx 1,960,000 ships) about 163.3 to one.

[fracas]

sorry for the misattributions
i sometime answer posts on my iphone as i brush my teeth in the morning
and being red green color deficient doesn't help ... teal just look like pale text to me


@sig
1. clearly there is a different between power and efficacy. i didn't confound the two. thus i stand by my earlier statement that the BC hit die is more powerful than the lance hit die, per die. I have no problems acknowledging the number of die to varies and 3 listed BC may only inflict one hit die whereas 3 lances inflict three hit die. I have already acknowledged this as a reliability factor.
2. if the BC was given to SM to compensate for the lack of lance, wouldn't it be easier to just give them a lance?
3. BC is not need against defenses since most of them have only one hit and the BC ability to inflict critical is useless. a lance would do fine.
4. I find it odd that the SM is given the best imperial weapon to deal with necrons and eldar, in space encounters mind you. A weapon not available on any IN line cruiser.
5. i'd be OK with SM and BC if the BC loses its critical hit ability


@horizon
but isn't circles part of the fun of internet debates?

[RCgothic]

Whilst the lance is always maximally useful, the BC is only maximally useful under ideal conditions that usually don't involve hitting ships. Therefore it makes perfect sense as a weapon for vessels you don't wish to have challenge your Navy.

[RayB HA]

Admiral_d_Artagnan, Sig,

If I gave the impression I wanted the SC to have greater offense (beyond the torps in the launch bay), I'm sorry. But I'm pretty sure I didn't....

I said reduced offense, reduced defense or both. Both being where I am right now. Basically smaller cruisers that have as much as they can for their size plus all the goodies that come with being SMs. Having 2 shields as standard is over the top!


BaronIveagh,

Good point on the history angle. But SM chapters are getting built and destroyed all the time, the new blood is going to be quite substantial. But the original design aimed to be destroyed by 'Chaos' ships is an interesting point. So does that mean the SCs should be even cheaper/weaker! 


Horizon,

We're talking in a spiral! 

Cheers,

RayB HA
 

[horizon]

I said reduced offense, reduced defense or both. Both being where I am right now. Basically smaller cruisers that have as much as they can for their size plus all the goodies that come with being SMs. Having 2 shields as standard is over the top!

No it isn't. 2 shields should be standard. 1 shield the exception.
2 shields, 1Th. standard. Yay us all.

Horizon,

We're talking in a spiral!  

A Downward Spiral.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN6sfJ1qFQg&feature=fvsr

[BaronIveagh]

BaronIveagh,

Good point on the history angle. But SM chapters are getting built and destroyed all the time, the new blood is going to be quite substantial. But the original design aimed to be destroyed by 'Chaos' ships is an interesting point. So does that mean the SCs should be even cheaper/weaker! 

The last SM chapter founding was around 700 m41.  They seem to take place on average about once every 400 years or so, though they tend to cluster.  According to the timeline, 7 foundings have taken place since the introduction of the Lunar, out of 26 total foundings.  However, one of these was the 21st (Cursed) Founding, and two of them only saw the creation of one or two chapters.

And actually it means they're plenty weak now, if you stop and think about it.

How many hits does the average Murder take from a SC?  Both hare equally fast, but a lance murder will tear a SC apart simply because of the difference in effective range.  The prevalence of long range lances in fleets pre introduction of the Lunar means that the SC's armor was much less relevant. 

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Admiral_d_Artagnan, Sig,

If I gave the impression I wanted the SC to have greater offense (beyond the torps in the launch bay), I'm sorry. But I'm pretty sure I didn't....

I said reduced offense, reduced defense or both. Both being where I am right now. Basically smaller cruisers that have as much as they can for their size plus all the goodies that come with being SMs. Having 2 shields as standard is over the top! 

You wanted SM to be able to take out defenses as well as be raiders. That means they need an upgrade in their weapons because, face it, the SC by itself at this point in time will not be able to do what you want it to do. If that doesn't qualify as wanting an increase in their offense, I don't know what you mean anymore.

As it is, the SC can do what it is designed to do which is deliver the SM to the planet in question. However, due to pathetic shields, this is a 50-50 proposition. Adding that extra shield means it is now more suited to do so esp at the expense of 1 TH. So we who favor it are reducing the offense a bit (because THs don't really blow up stuff) while tweaking the defense a bit (loss of a bit of CAP in exchange for better shields). Having better shields just gives them more chances to survive at any pointage and can actually fulfill your idea about their being raiders because while they cannot win over the defenses instantly they can win over time.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Third:  IN would, in all honesty, not care a bit that one SM cruiser might take one IN cruiser in a stand up fight.  Why?  Because, like the fact that a single SM can take a single guardsmen in a stand up fight, it doesn't matter.  The cold hard numbers show that even if all the space marine chapters   in existence (capable of fielding approx 12,000 ships) went rogue simultaneously, they'd still be out numbered by the IN (approx 1,960,000 ships) about 163.3 to one.

The math is not just about ratio. It's about concentration as well. Just because you have that many ships doesn't mean the IN can concentrate all of them in one place. SM wouldn't be so foolish as to mass together into one fleet. So more likely, the ratio would be much, much lower since the SM would be doing those hit and run missions Ray is so fond of.

Also, one should not be factoring in only the SM ships since now the CSM ships would be added into the mix since the former estranged brothers would be back in each others' good graces and those CSM fleets can rival the IN ships. So give the obvious traitor Legions more ammunition by providing the loyal-but-who-might-just-turn Chapters with more lance bearing ships? I think not.

[Sigoroth]

Let me pause to throw on the breaks on the crazy train again.  As has been pointed out in the past, not all marine chapters follow the codex astartes, some are even in open defiance of it, and fluff very clearly, very carefully, states that the Codex is not enforced by the Imperium as law.  This has been fluff since second edition, and has been reiterated about fifteen times since.  Rather, the Imperium only seems to found new codex chapters, in the normal course of events.

This has nothing to do with policing codex infractions. It has to do with what the navy is comfortable allowing the SMs to be capable of. The navy is the only defence against SM uprisings. The only way that the Imperium has of keeping them in check. This was specifically brought about. Therefore saying "but they don't enforce codex restrictions" is meaningless. The IN don't care how the SMs fight on the ground. Codex detail is irrelevant to them. The limitation on SM naval power would be enforced regardless of whether there even was a codex.

Second, again, the idea that the SM fleet must always always always be inferior to the IN flies in the face of the simple, well established, fluff fact that the current IN is, even by comparison to some Imperial Guard regiments, a very new thing, with IN's mainline cruiser and many of it's derivatives, being only a tenth the age of the average SM SC.  Only IN's battleships date back to the second founding.  This means that the fleet that SCs are 'balanced' against is not IN but rather Chaos (as Chaos = IN at the time this 'balancing' took place).  

This is meaningless.

Since the codex is not enforced as law, it's unlikely that every space marine chapter was ordered to hand over all their ships to be downgraded when IN switched between the Murder and the Lunar as their mainline cruiser.  This is actually spelled out in IA:X, with SM using ships that hadn't been seen in Imperial arsenals since the great crusade.

Again, codex is irrelevant. All that matters is that IN > SM. There would be no change to the SC going from Murders to Lunars either.

Third:  IN would, in all honesty, not care a bit that one SM cruiser might take one IN cruiser in a stand up fight.  Why?  Because, like the fact that a single SM can take a single guardsmen in a stand up fight, it doesn't matter.  The cold hard numbers show that even if all the space marine chapters   in existence (capable of fielding approx 12,000 ships) went rogue simultaneously, they'd still be out numbered by the IN (approx 1,960,000 ships) about 163.3 to one.

Utterly irrelevant. if you go by the numbers then the SMs as a faction are irrelevant. They could never have pulled off a rebellion as seen by the Horus heresy and there would be no impact on the Imperium if they were all wiped out. Since we know this to not be the case then the numbers don't matter. Therefore we must look at them on a one to one basis. This is apropos as the IN would generally be far more dispersed than the SMs anyway, reducing their numbers to a 1 on 1 fight as far as most rebellions are concerned anyway.

[Sigoroth]

sorry for the misattributions
i sometime answer posts on my iphone as i brush my teeth in the morning
and being red green color deficient doesn't help ... teal just look like pale text to me

Ah, so I was right. I was going to ask red/green colour blindness too, but thought I might appear snide rather than just curious.

@sig
1. clearly there is a different between power and efficacy. i didn't confound the two. thus i stand by my earlier statement that the BC hit die is more powerful than the lance hit die, per die. I have no problems acknowledging the number of die to varies and 3 listed BC may only inflict one hit die whereas 3 lances inflict three hit die. I have already acknowledged this as a reliability factor.
2. if the BC was given to SM to compensate for the lack of lance, wouldn't it be easier to just give them a lance?
3. BC is not need against defenses since most of them have only one hit and the BC ability to inflict critical is useless. a lance would do fine.
4. I find it odd that the SM is given the best imperial weapon to deal with necrons and eldar, in space encounters mind you. A weapon not available on any IN line cruiser.
5. i'd be OK with SM and BC if the BC loses its critical hit ability

1. - I didn't confound the two either, it's just that talking about power alone is irrelevant, you have to talk numbers too. Therefore saying that SMs get the most powerful hamster thrower out there is just meaningless.

2. - No, since the lance was specifically taken away from them. Giving them a gunnery chart "lance" was a stroke of genius, particularly for the numbnuts who run things at GW.

3. - Again, lances are a no-no. To get the same amount of firepower against defences from lances as the 3 BC on a strike cruiser you'd need 3 lances. There's no way that a SC should have that kind of firepower, since those 3 lances would perform just as well against ships. Also, half the stationary defences in the BBB have multiple hits, as do most Tau defences and that's not even counting Ramilles, ABSF, Hulks or pirate stations. Since space stations have a lot of firepower it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me that a force tailored to assault them would want to shut down as much of this as possible for as long as possible. Also, the smaller defences have armour 6, so the BC really is a weapon tailored to take out orbital defences of all kinds.

4. - Lances are greater than BC against Necrons. WBs are greater than BC against Eldar. So in what way are BCs the best weapon against either of these races? If we go by the formula that 3 BC = 2 lances = 6WBs then against Necrons escorts or their (typically) abeam capital ships most of the time those 3 BC are going to be worth only 1 lance. The extra crits aren't typically worth much either since they repair on 4+ rather than 6+ and don't take as much damage from crits as other races. Eldar already have 4+ armour and take crits on a 4+ as it is, so 1 WB dice = 1 BC dice and yet we have 3 BC to 6 WB. I'd rather have the WBs thanks.

5. - If bombardment cannon were too strong, or they were unrestricted in range (30cm is their max) or if the SMs were overpowered or if it was particularly unfluffy of BCs to crit more, you might have an argument. As it is the SMs work off of disabling their foes with THs and BCs and they're not that great at it anyway. BCs critting often seems fine too.

[RayB HA]

BaronIveagh,

Even though the foundings happen every now and then the act of founding will last ages. So I think its better to think of it as a founding era or 'contract', they'll be pumping 'new' chapters out frequently, they don't wait for a specific dip in population. 

Admiral_d_Artagnan,

I don't think SCs need anything extra to deal with orbitals, system ships and a few real ships. SMs shouldn't 'normally' be assualting a planet that is heavily defended in orbit. This would be a huge mission taking weeks or months to organise consiting primarily of IN ships with a smattering of SM ships to quell key targets: like low orbital defences, key defensive structures and possibly assassinations.
Under normal circumstances I could imagine SCs diving into low orbit as quickly as possible with their deadly SM cargo to make use of the element of suprise. But then shortly after turning back to deal with the rest of the defenses they hadn't disabled or destroyed on the way in. Then picking up the survivors on the ground and retreating, waiting for the IN and IG to take the world while they support or just leave to lick their wounds ready for the next mission.


Having a 2nd shield seems too exceed what the AM are capable of producing on mass. I'm fine with the odd SC having a 2nd shield but not all of them.

As I do utterly hate token weapons especially ones that are a key part of lore, I'm against reducing the Lb to str1, unless the TH's had their 4+ save against everything including turrets and BMs!

Cheers,

RayB HA