Space Marine Fleet ER

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

THe nice thing is, the SC is not produced en masse. Compared to the IN ships anyway.

[Sigoroth]

Having a 2nd shield seems too exceed what the AM are capable of producing on mass.

The feasibility of a 2 shield CL was a concern for me too. However, since ships can be refit to have an extra shield it's possible for even a Dauntless to have 2 shields. As for en mass production, as d'Artagnan pointed out, in comparison to IN ships strike cruisers aren't produced en mass. For the SMs I'm sure the AM would crack out the good shields. However, it does raise a concern I had but forgot (twice). That is that I don't think the SC should be able to be refit to 3 shields. So the 2nd shield should count as the refit.

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!

Yeah, no. I don't think that THs should get a save against turrets. If the Manta can't the TH shouldn't. Mind you, I don't think that THs should count as fighters either. No one would send out a squad of 20 marines to shoot down enemy torpedoes. Perhaps a THA could be or whatever.

Anyway, that's all beside the point. Under the current rules a single TH is no more 'token' than its 4 WBs, or 3 BC. By itself it's not much. When combined it becomes something. In battles SCs form squadrons. They're too small a unit by themselves usually.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Yes, the SC should not be given the additional shield refit.

[BaronIveagh]

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.

Actually, dissecting the fluff for the two large scale SM rebellions that have taken place, 2/3rds will actually form large fleets, while 1/3 break off into raiders.  

Secondly, CSMs are not even in one another's good graces I highly doubt that they'll miraculously cast aside 10k years of rivalry.  And if CSM's are joining, your whole argument falls apart as they're going to have swarms of lances anyway given their prevalence on CSM ships.  

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.

Because the only thing that says they can't have it is the codex and neither the IN nor the AdMech seem to be capable of controlling warship production in areas fully under Imperial control, let alone outside it?  

....
This is meaningless.
...

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.

...

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.

Sig, we've had this discussion before and the only thing you feel has any meaning in this area is your own opinion.  AS far as the Rebellions go: Horus had direct control over a massive fleet, including half of the body that was to become IN.  Blackheart also gained control over a sector fleet in addition to the fleets of other SM chapters.  In no case I can find has the IN quashed a SM revolt.

Additionally, IN has rebelled on occasion, most notably during the Plague of Unbelief (which means that the Gareox Incident could really use a re-write to match the rest of fluff due to the majority of the segmentum being in the throws of Apostasy.  I really think that Bakka, assuming it remained loyal at all, had better things to do)  where Tempestus and Pacificus rebelled against the Imperium (though an actual war seems to have been prevented by editorial fiat, with the entire population of the capitol world suddenly going berserk at once for no apparent reason and all the people involved killing themselves or being killed by madmen.  

Throw in the Nova Terra Interregnum and their involvement in the Horus Heresy and IN has split the Imperium three times as often as Space Marines.

Further, if I'm reading the fluff correctly, IN actually contracts rather than disperses in a crisis (except against the Tau, for some reason they like to divide their forces and lose there...), since again, the number of warp routes between worlds is limited, and making a double warp jump seems to cause havoc with SM warp drives.

[fracas]

@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.

1.  i like to talk about parts, then assemble the parts and discuss that. in this regard what weapon is assigned to each faction should imo, consider its power first. Then you adjust how many of the weapon they get.

2. the marines do have access to lances already in their escorts. i have no problem with marines capital ships armed with lances in limited numbers instead of BCs.

3. most defenses are 1 hull points. 3 batteries or 1 lance hardly matter much to me. besides, i don't see marines fleet taking on more than weapon platforms, definitely not orbital fortresses.

4. each BC die does more against necron than a lance die. the 4+ to critical is devastating against necron, which has to spend double to repair. against corsair eldar, a BC is no better than a WB, but against craftworld and dark eldar capital ships, the 4+ to hit is better than the 5+ to hit. thus the BC is a better anti-xenos ship weapon.

5. the 4+ critical is superfluous to SM as they already have the ability to inflict hit and run criticals.


again, just a matter of opinion differences. where we end up depends on where we start.
if we start from the beginning i say give them lances instead of BC.
if we start from where marines are now then having both lances and BC is likely too much.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The IN does have a problem with your item #2.

[Sigoroth]

1.  i like to talk about parts, then assemble the parts and discuss that. in this regard what weapon is assigned to each faction should imo, consider its power first. Then you adjust how many of the weapon they get.

Why? What if a particular weapon system gave 1 hit per point of strength, but would require 3 broadside hardpoints per point of strength? Technically it's more "powerful" than WBs, lances or BC, since per "die" it does more damage. But so what? I'd do more damage with a battleships regular broadside than this weapon.

2. the marines do have access to lances already in their escorts. i have no problem with marines capital ships armed with lances in limited numbers instead of BCs.

An escort is not a true warship, and the IN are extremely edgy about allowing the Nova. In fact, it's the exception that proves the rule.

3. most defenses are 1 hull points. 3 batteries or 1 lance hardly matter much to me. besides, i don't see marines fleet taking on more than weapon platforms, definitely not orbital fortresses.

No, most defences are multiple hits. SMs are specifically mandated to assault planets. What kind of argument are you running where you think that SMs should get specifically anti-ship weapons and at the same time should not be engaging orbital defences?

4. each BC die does more against necron than a lance die. the 4+ to critical is devastating against necron, which has to spend double to repair. against corsair eldar, a BC is no better than a WB, but against craftworld and dark eldar capital ships, the 4+ to hit is better than the 5+ to hit. thus the BC is a better anti-xenos ship weapon.

What? Necrons repair critical hits on a 4+ rather than the usual 6+. Therefore the BC is less effective against Necrons than against other races. Since balance is achieved by averaging all situations it follows that in those situations where a weapon performs below average that it is of less value than alternatives. Therefore BC < WB or lances against Necrons by definition. Of course we may not have achieved balance. So assuming for the moment that the IN had access to BC at the formula given (3BC = 2L = 6WB) then I would take a mix of WBs and lances against Necrons, no BC at all. This ratifies the notion that the BC is suboptimal against Necrons. Against Corsair eldar, WBs are twice as good. Against CWE/DE they lose some efficiency, but are still better than BC by a loooong margin. It seems that the BC is actually the worst anti-xenos weapon.

5. the 4+ critical is superfluous to SM as they already have the ability to inflict hit and run criticals.

What? That is the point of the SM fleet. They try to shut down the enemy long enough with crits to get into boarding.

again, just a matter of opinion differences. where we end up depends on where we start.
if we start from the beginning i say give them lances instead of BC.
if we start from where marines are now then having both lances and BC is likely too much.

If we start at the beginning, and the BC had never been introduced, I'd have called for the SMs to be a straight WB fleet. This wouldn't have been very satisfactory all things considered, but I'd likely not have had the imagination to come up with a separate gunnery weapon that hits/crits on 4+. The BC is a very good solution to the problem at hand.

[Sigoroth]

Sig, we've had this discussion before and the only thing you feel has any meaning in this area is your own opinion.  AS far as the Rebellions go: Horus had direct control over a massive fleet, including half of the body that was to become IN.  Blackheart also gained control over a sector fleet in addition to the fleets of other SM chapters.  In no case I can find has the IN quashed a SM revolt.

The only thing that I "feel" has any meaning in this area is sense. You accuse me of belligerence as if you've provided even one sound argument. Your arguments, for lack of a better word, are confused, sometimes contradictory, ill explained and generally vague as to their aim.

You say on the one hand that the SMs are an irrelevant force, due to their woeful comparative numbers, but then say that the Imperium are powerless to stop them. You say that SMs with lances aren't a threat to the might of the IN, but also that the IN are too toothless to be able to put down any rebellion. This is an oxymoron. Either they are a threat and so need to be monitored or they are not a threat and cannot resist policing. You can argue that they are a threat and the IN wants to police them but can't, OR you can argue that they aren't a threat and the IN can police them but don't care to, but you can't argue that they aren't a threat and they can't be policed.

You also have a very confused argument about the codex. You say that the only limiting power on SMs is the codex (false premise), and then you point out infractions of the codex that have not been punished and say that this means that the Imperium is unable to enforce the codex, therefore the SMs can do what they want. This is a non sequitur. The fact that the Imperium has been unable or unwilling to enforce some codex restrictions in the past does not mean that they are unable or unwilling to enforce other, more important, codex restrictions. Secondly, there is nothing to say that the only limit on SM power is the codex.

Presumably a rule book is not what stops SMs from doing whatever the hell they want, but rather the reasons why the rules were written is behind what stops them from doing whatever the hell they want. So they don't avoid warships because the codex tells them to (and therefore a chapter which doesn't follow codex can ignore the rule), they avoid using warships because of the political implications of doing so, which do not going away simply because a chapter doesn't use the rule book.

You also say that SM rebellion isn't a cause for concern, because there have been a heap of other non-SM rebellions. This is a non sequitur. Just because there are other threats it doesn't mean that the SMs aren't a threat. The Imperium is an autocratic draconian theocracy. Justice is almost non-existent and all that matters is the rule of law, the rule of the cult of the Emperor. When someone steps out of line the powers that be tighten their fist more, even if this might be counter-productive. This is the abiding psychology of the Warhammer 40k setting. It's the archetypical grimdark setting. Not a nice place to live. So all the rebellions made by humans: planetary governors, sector commanders, IN admirals or others are handled in the same typical manner.

Space marines are different. Why? Because they're not just humans. They're super humans. They're the Nietzschean übermensch. Super humans are great for protecting humanity from itself and from other enemies (Chaos, xenos) but when you want to be protected from super humans you can't simply rely upon other super humans. If you do then you're at the mercy of these super humans, and who will protect you from them? Therefore there is a real call to action to ensure that humanity has a check on super human power. In this case it is the IN. So far this is just general psychology of power stuff. When you add to this the specific circumstances surrounding the SMs and the Horus Heresy then this call to action becomes an imperative. Before the heresy the SMs were flawless. They were the pinnacle of humanity in faith, virtue and ability. A role model to aspire to, and apparently infallible. The heresy is pretty much the original sin. The proof that the SMs can fall. A betrayal of faith and hope. On top of this they killed the Emperor, the man-god protector and light of humanity. These two specific betrayals set up a clear psychological need for the Imperium to be able to protect itself from these super humans. Add these events to the general psychology of power and the specific political setting and all other insurrections pale into insignificance. Yes, this includes the NTI. Humans rebelling just means that the Imperium needs to tighten its fist some more (as far as they're concerned). SMs rebelling means that the Imperium needs to find a way to control them, to limit their power.

In another argument you stipulate that the IN doesn't do the quashing, but rather other SMs do. You also note that IN commanders have gone over to the rebels before. What this is meant to prove is unclear. You seem to be saying that the IN can't beat the SMs as they either surrender or just plain aren't used. How this translates into an argument that the IN should be OK with SMs getting more powerful is unclear. In the first case, the fact that the IN haven't put down SM revolts is immaterial to the point that they should be able to. If loyalist SMs get there first and clean house then good on them. In the second case, the fact that an IN commander chooses to go over to the rebelling SM side is irrelevant because it is a choice, which is the point of the segregation of power. To spread the power so that more people have to rebel for the rebellion to be effective. If the SM ships were more powerful then the IN commander wouldn't have much of a choice. He should be able, if he's loyal, to put down the SM revolt. This is the Imperium's check on SM power.

Next you say that Ultramar is a fief all its own, and that Imperial law does not apply. Apart from this being patently false it seems absurd given your earlier arguments that SMs are exempt from Imperial law anyway. You obviously mean that the Imperium is unable to enforce their views since the Ultrasmurfs are in power. Since you've previously drawn no distinction between Imperial law and its ability to enforce its views I find it somewhat amusing that you do so here, at least implicitly. However, ignoring that and moving on to the main point, you imply that should the Ultrasmurfs so choose to make lance equipped ships or even full blown warships there is not much that the Imperium could do about it, since they don't own the shipyards, etc.

So you're essentially arguing that the IN can't stop the Ultrasmurfs from ignoring codex restrictions. The Ultrasmurfs. Ie, the biggest codex fanbois in the WH 40k universe. Even ignoring the notion that they very most likely wouldn't want to rock the boat (if you'll forgive the pun) by producing warships for SM use and the fact that they don't even need to do so since they could just make ships for the local IN over whom they'd have great influence, we're talking about the guys that are the most likely to NOT do it even if they had the desire and need. Riiight. And even ignoring all that(!) your premise is false. If the Ultrasmurfs did decide to make warships for their own use the Imperium could and very most likely would do something about it. That "something" would be to send in a massive warfleet to ensure the Ultrasmurfs returned to the fold. According to your numbers theory this would be easy to do after all ...

[RCgothic]

Very eloquently put, Sigoroth.

[RayB HA]

Sig,

Once again, great post! Although a little in BaronIveagh 's face. 

On occasion some SM chapters do have resources beyond what would normally be acceptable to the imperium. But these exceptions quite often have a balancing factor. The Ultra Marines may have influence over their subsector and even take command of joint fleets occasionally. But they have been proven loyal since the very birth of the Imperium. If things did go tits up the local IN would still have to 'decide' whether to join or resist.
 
The primary method of preventing a full blown rebellion in the Imperium is to divide the power as much as possible. This seems to get more and more exagerrated the farther you get towards the Imperial 'border'.
One other way of doing this is to seperate the various roles of war. There will be a little overlap for SMs as they have their own ships. Still, their primary function is rapid response, planet based, key objective missions. 

Cheers,

RayB HA
 

[fracas]

@Sig
Lets start at the beginning. For this we have to look at what Chaos gets (as the precursor to "modern" IN): lances and batteries. These are standard weapons for ships then and now. After the Heresy, imo the best way to limit the power of the SM is to limit their mission capability from being to do it all to just doing one thing, which is to deliver marines across the void. Thus they should be hard, armor 6 and shielded (2 for strike cruisers) with capacity for thunderhawks launches. Given limited hull space and energy output per power plant size, the ship's armament of weapons will be diminished. Diminished, rather than altered. Most weapons will be limited to range 30cm, and lances should be sparsely available. I feel this approach allows SM to maximize their primary role and minimize any secondary role that might compete against the IN. I believe this is better than limit what weapons they get. Thus comparing strike cruisers to dauntless and endeavor hull sizes means that if they get armor 6 and 2nd shield, the strike cruiser should be offensively weaker than either.Thus i have no problem with SM getting lances.

I feel this is more flufly than for them to be armed with a new weapon, a weapon with greater punch than weapons available at the time of the heresy, when marine powers were unchecked, and afterward their power limited. Why would the IN agree to give them a new weapon that is better than what the IN have?
I still feel BC is better than both lances and batteries, per hit die rolled. Against necron it is more than 3x likely to inflict criticals. It doesn't matter that necrons can repair on a 4+ because they repair on a 4+ against all 3 weapons. And the more they have to roll to repair, the more they will fail. Against holofield BC is clearly better than lances. Against armor 5 craftworlds and dark eldar capital ships BC hits on a 4+ rather than WB on a 5+. How is this not better than WB? Yes again my calculations are per hit die. Once we see what each weapon is capable of for game balance you can adjust how many each ships should have, and or how many they can bring to bare.
Against high orbital defenses which only have one hit a lance hit vs a BC hit die is the same. Orbital docks, stations, and fortresses have more hits yes, but i just don't see marines fleet mission of delivering SM should encompass taking on orbital stations and fortresses? The primary weapon of SM are the SM, not their ships. Surgical insertion strikes rather than bombardment. Special forces rather than grunts. I just do not see them announcing themselves by taking down an orbital fortress.

In addition to losing BCs, I think the SM should also lose torpedoes. The requirement to contract with AdMech for resupplies i think too onerous for most chapters. Perhaps these should be limited to Dominion fleets.


Balance of the armaments have to consider both unit power and circumstantial availability i understand. But i feel first is decide on unit power then debate its availability.



btw: "balance is achieved by averaging all situations" ... and i agree

[Sigoroth]

@Sig
Lets start at the beginning. For this we have to look at what Chaos gets (as the precursor to "modern" IN): lances and batteries. These are standard weapons for ships then and now. After the Heresy, imo the best way to limit the power of the SM is to limit their mission capability from being to do it all to just doing one thing, which is to deliver marines across the void. Thus they should be hard, armor 6 and shielded (2 for strike cruisers) with capacity for thunderhawks launches. Given limited hull space and energy output per power plant size, the ship's armament of weapons will be diminished. Diminished, rather than altered. Most weapons will be limited to range 30cm, and lances should be sparsely available.

I'm with you up until the last 2 sentences. I can't see any reason why the SMs can't have tailored weaponry to suit their role. Lances are a catch-all weapon. They're necessary so as to be able to consistently deliver damage in all circumstances (the most telling of which is against warfleets). Well, we want to limit SM damage capabilities in some specific circumstances, i.e., against warfleets. So it seems that they simply shouldn't have lances at all. So just more WBs.

However, in some specific circumstances where we do want the SMs to excel (against stationary targets) we see either armour 6+ or large multi-hit stations with a lot of weaponry. The BC is the ideal foil to these defences. No weapon in the game is better against defences than the BC.

I feel this approach allows SM to maximize their primary role and minimize any secondary role that might compete against the IN. I believe this is better than limit what weapons they get. Thus comparing strike cruisers to dauntless and endeavor hull sizes means that if they get armor 6 and 2nd shield, the strike cruiser should be offensively weaker than either.Thus i have no problem with SM getting lances.

I feel this is more flufly than for them to be armed with a new weapon, a weapon with greater punch than weapons available at the time of the heresy, when marine powers were unchecked, and afterward their power limited. Why would the IN agree to give them a new weapon that is better than what the IN have?
I still feel BC is better than both lances and batteries, per hit die rolled. Against necron it is more than 3x likely to inflict criticals. It doesn't matter that necrons can repair on a 4+ because they repair on a 4+ against all 3 weapons. And the more they have to roll to repair, the more they will fail. Against holofield BC is clearly better than lances. Against armor 5 craftworlds and dark eldar capital ships BC hits on a 4+ rather than WB on a 5+. How is this not better than WB? Yes again my calculations are per hit die. Once we see what each weapon is capable of for game balance you can adjust how many each ships should have, and or how many they can bring to bare.
Against high orbital defenses which only have one hit a lance hit vs a BC hit die is the same. Orbital docks, stations, and fortresses have more hits yes, but i just don't see marines fleet mission of delivering SM should encompass taking on orbital stations and fortresses? The primary weapon of SM are the SM, not their ships. Surgical insertion strikes rather than bombardment. Special forces rather than grunts. I just do not see them announcing themselves by taking down an orbital fortress.

You yourself mentioned the limiting factor of any given ships power plant. How this power is converted to damage should therefore be considered. Essentially, this means you have to take into account the number of shots, not just their power. You consider the 4+/4+ to be too powerful, but if it takes more power to deliver that then you have less power for other attacks. Basically, instead of saying that the IN had WBs and lances and that's it, and then SMs get an über powerful new toy, consider that the IN always had the BC but just never used it because it wasn't efficient as a weapon of war. A big, inaccurate, cannon seems fine against targets that can't manoeuvre. Besides, SMs already have access to planet killing weaponry. Surely that's more powerful point for point than a single lance.

On the topic of assaulting larger planetary defences like fortresses and space stations, I firmly believe this to be within the mandate of the SMs. As these defences are stationary then you can liken them to a piece of terrain of the planet itself. If the fortress were on the surface of the planet the SMs would be expected to be able to assault it. It is no different just because it happens to be in space. It makes sense that, as a surgical assault force, they would want to take out such a valuable tactical target. Destroying an enemy artillery and resupply platform would be invaluable to any ground operations, particularly as this would clear the way for your own resupply. This would be part and parcel of SM standard operating procedure. Also, if some strike cruisers are able to use their BC to knock out the guns of a particularly strong defence long enough to offload their cargo on the surface then that's a successful delivery.

In addition to losing BCs, I think the SM should also lose torpedoes. The requirement to contract with AdMech for resupplies i think too onerous for most chapters. Perhaps these should be limited to Dominion fleets.

I don't agree. Making the SM reliant upon Imperial resupply is great as far as the Imperium is concerned. Also, torpedoes are quite good against defences. Defences can't move out of the way so it allows the SMs to snipe from outside range of return fire until they're down. Only if there is one or more space stations providing AC support would it force the SMs to come into range, but even then the torps are good for soaking this AC.

Balance of the armaments have to consider both unit power and circumstantial availability i understand. But i feel first is decide on unit power then debate its availability.

Well that is how it's usually done of course. What I don't understand is why it's important that, per shot, a SM weapon can be no more powerful than an IN weapon. This doesn't seem to make sense to me. Overall we're interested in making the SMs less capable against Warfleets without compromising (or to as small a degree as possible) their abilities within their primary role. The bombardment cannon at the formulated ratio does this, even if it is more powerful on a die for die basis. It is worse against Eldar than WBs, it is worse against Necrons than lances. It is worse against fleets than lances. It is better than anything against defences. Where is the problem?

[fracas]

i only see SM strike cruisers to be able to take out escorts in space encounters. everything else they should leave to the IN. I do not think SM should be given power to lay waste planetary defenses. what is to stop a renegade chapter to destroy port maw for instance. should not happen and should not be able to happen. SM should be protected as they are ferried from their base to their deployment and with little additional ability.

i am not against SM being a viable force in BFG. but they should be a fringe fleet, a one trick pony. Get SM to your target, be maneuverable enough to get there, be armored enough to survive the maneuver. with this as core, batteries and a spare lance here or there is more than enough. when you get down to it this is plenty unique as it is, a hard nut to crack fleet that gets at you from the inside (hit and run). no need for a BC.

i guess another part of my problem with the BC is that i don't see it as core rules/weapon mechanics, especially since it is not available to the IN. probably similar in attitude to your stance against MSM.

btw, i would assume WB requires the least per shot, but with a rapid rate of fire. lances would be continuous focus beams. but who knows and energy requirement and power consumptions are conjectures at this point afaik.

[RCgothic]

i only see SM strike cruisers to be able to take out escorts in space encounters.

Wouldn't be much point playing SMs as a fleet then.

[Sigoroth]

i only see SM strike cruisers to be able to take out escorts in space encounters. everything else they should leave to the IN.

Apart from the very limited playability of the fleet I think you're wrong. Firstly, SMs are mandated to assault planets. So assaulting planetary defences would be a part and parcel of this. Calling in mobile fleet elements to assist the SMs in clearing defences so that they can land seems contra indicated by the fact that SMs have dedicated ships. Otherwise they'd just be in transport ships and fly around with the IN. The SMs are also first on the scene most of the time (which is apropos given that the IN should be less concerned with planetary rebellions and more concerned with enemy ship movements) and surely they should not be forced to wait for however many months it would take for a suitable IN force to come by just to tackle defensive elements that are a known factor.

I do not think SM should be given power to lay waste planetary defenses. what is to stop a renegade chapter to destroy port maw for instance.

Presumably the IN. Apart from that, Port Maw is very heavily defended and even an entire SM chapter fleet would have a very hard time of it. If anyone could do it though, it should be the SMs.

i am not against SM being a viable force in BFG. but they should be a fringe fleet, a one trick pony. Get SM to your target, be maneuverable enough to get there, be armored enough to survive the maneuver. with this as core, batteries and a spare lance here or there is more than enough. when you get down to it this is plenty unique as it is, a hard nut to crack fleet that gets at you from the inside (hit and run). no need for a BC.

A part of viability is interest don't forget. But also, where you say that all they need is a "spare lance here or there" and stipulate no need for a BC, I say no need for a lance, at all. If you were going to drop the BC then it should only be replaced with WBs, torps or THs. No lances at all.

As for being a one trick pony, well, they pretty much are. However, since they're not even brilliant at boarding they rely upon whittling the enemy down, or gang tackling a (preferably) weakened enemy cruiser. A part of their survivability lies in their armour, but also a part of it lies in the enemy having many systems off-line and so being unable to shoot properly. If you took the 4+ crit away from the BC then the THs would lose value, as the strength of a high crit fleet is in overwhelming the repair capability of the opponent. If you only manage to keep pace with their repair capabilities then the TH may as well not even attack.

i guess another part of my problem with the BC is that i don't see it as core rules/weapon mechanics, especially since it is not available to the IN. probably similar in attitude to your stance against MSM.

It is nothing like MSM. MSM breaks the abstraction. Hell, there isn't even any mechanic fault to the BC, it's just atypical. There's nothing wrong with that. Also, why would the IN even want it? It's a rubbish weapon system. Would you go for a Dominator with 12 WBs or 6BC? Best case scenario it puts out a little more fire than a Gothic, but the Gothic doesn't care where you put it.