Space Marine Fleet ER

[RayB HA]

Hi Guys,

Horizon,

Nate did ask me about having the 2nd shield last year. I said no. He's put it out there in response to the community. I just think it needs limiting.   

You really reckon a fleet of Dauntlesses could win against a fleet of SC's?
Don't get me wrong, points for points will balance them for 'normal' fleet choices, but the Dauntless is too expensive for what it is on its own and the SC in comparison with all of it's goodies is too cheap. The LDauntlesses will have majority armour ignoring weaponary, which would be a factor, in adition to out numbering the SCs. The SCs will have TH's which should do a fair amount of damage, Dauntlesses are easy to cripple and will make tasty boarding targets not to mention harder to repair crits. Dauntlesses only having 1 armour 5+ shield the BCs will be able to score nice crits after the wbs have easily taken the shield down. In this confrontation I can't really see the SC's losing except to bad luck, or inexperience...

The Ironclad is a 2 shielded SC that loses a TH but swaps wbs for BCs (the later isn't too important). I thought you'd be okay with that? But you want a 2 TH SC with 2 shields... That should cost a lot! Say 180pts+, the same as a full IN cruiser.

The 2nd shield will be popular because it eliminates a weakness, these sort of upgrades are always popular. It makes people happy to have 'their' stuff upgraded. GW has been doing this with their core games for decades. It does keep people in the hobby with 'their' army. There are clear advantages to renewing armies/codexs.
The problem with this 'upgrade' is that it is too much of a stretch for fluff to have ALL your light cruisers with 2 shields, it improves SCs far too much making them equal IN cruisers in value.
I don't really see SCs as being too vulnerable, they are just light cruisers but are nearly as tough as a full chaos cruiser. They are fast, manueverable and well armed and armoured for their size. Having better defenses than full cruiser aswell is just plain greedy!   

The price listed for the upgrade in the 'experimental' list is far too cheap and too avialable (as it is optional it should be at least 25pts).

BaronIveagh,

A SC should be able to take a whole company, but it is rarely the case that it will be filled to the brim. SM forces are taken from multiple companies they don't just stick in one specialized clump. Even if they did take a full company the SC itself is a massive resource sponge it would fit the value of its cargo.

Sig,

You're of the mind of dropping the TH to str 1. In that case I could see a 2nd shield being squeezed amongst the other goodies. As standard though I think this would make the SCs too passive. And make the vulnerable escorts the only real threat. 

RCgothic,

The cat doesn't have to go back in the bag but it can't stay here! 

The 2nd shield is an option in a experimental ruleset. It still has time to be limited.

Cheers,

RayB HA
 

[RCgothic]

the Dauntless is too expensive for what it is on its own and the SC in comparison with all of it's goodies is too cheap.

You're joking on this right? The Dauntless is one of the most points efficient choices in the entire IN, and the SC is generally regarded as being at the opposite end of the spectrum.

[horizon]

Hi Guys,

Horizon,

Nate did ask me about having the 2nd shield last year. I said no. He's put it out there in response to the community. I just think it needs limiting.   

Clearly a case of Nate doing the right thing. And secondly showing the community has more sense about the Marine fleet then you.

You really reckon a fleet of Dauntlesses could win against a fleet of SC's?
Don't get me wrong, points for points will balance them for 'normal' fleet choices, but the Dauntless is too expensive for what it is on its own and the SC in comparison with all of it's goodies is too cheap. The LDauntlesses will have majority armour ignoring weaponary, which would be a factor, in adition to out numbering the SCs. The SCs will have TH's which should do a fair amount of damage, Dauntlesses are easy to cripple and will make tasty boarding targets not to mention harder to repair crits. Dauntlesses only having 1 armour 5+ shield the BCs will be able to score nice crits after the wbs have easily taken the shield down. In this confrontation I can't really see the SC's losing except to bad luck, or inexperience...

In a 1:1 battle the Daunless could thwart the THawks (on BFI it still has 2 lances. And the Dauntless ain't expensive at all. You weird man.
In a fleet battle where the IN has a carrier at hand the Dauntless become even better vs Strike Cruisers.

Ya know, the Dauntless is 35 pts cheaper.   Start thinking about that.
35pts cheaper and it is better then the Strike Cruiser in a fleet engagement.

The difference gets even better on the large game:
4 Dauntless = 440pts
3 Strike Cruisers = 435pts

4 Dauntless = 12 lances.  12 lances vs a 1 shielded ship: MWHAHAHAAA. even 9 lances have fun.

The Ironclad is a 2 shielded SC that loses a TH but swaps wbs for BCs (the later isn't too important). I thought you'd be okay with that? But you want a 2 TH SC with 2 shields... That should cost a lot! Say 180pts+, the same as a full IN cruiser.

In REAL EFFECT we would want a SC with 2 shields and 1 THawk (have you been reading??)
In the draft we got the compromize standard SC can take 2nd shield for +15pts.

The 2nd shield will be popular because it eliminates a weakness, these sort of upgrades are always popular. It makes people happy to have 'their' stuff upgraded. GW has been doing this with their core games for decades. It does keep people in the hobby with 'their' army. There are clear advantages to renewing armies/codexs.
The problem with this 'upgrade' is that it is too much of a stretch for fluff to have ALL your light cruisers with 2 shields, it improves SCs far too much making them equal IN cruisers in value.
I don't really see SCs as being too vulnerable, they are just light cruisers but are nearly as tough as a full chaos cruiser. They are fast, manueverable and well armed and armoured for their size. Having better defenses than full cruiser aswell is just plain greedy!   

hahahaa. The 2nd shield made the marine strike cruisers:  b a l a n c e d. BALANCED. balanced.

Ask powergamers: they would take 2 Barges + Firestorm RSV/Hunters in 1500pts. Nothing else. Strike Cruisers per Armada are down on the list of being a good ship.
Their armour is good, their protection is weak. The Emperor's Finest protected by a measily shield.

No fluff stretch at all.

The price listed for the upgrade in the 'experimental' list is far too cheap and too avialable (as it is optional it should be at least 25pts).

Flat out wrong.

A SC should be able to take a whole company, but it is rarely the case that it will be filled to the brim. SM forces are taken from multiple companies they don't just stick in one specialized clump. Even if they did take a full company the SC itself is a massive resource sponge it would fit the value of its cargo.

What? It is imminent fluff of SC that they can transport complete companies. And since their task is planetary assault I guess they'll have a lot onboard in ALL engagements they do. What's the point of a Strike Cruiser without forces doing a planetary assault?

You're of the mind of dropping the TH to str 1. In that case I could see a 2nd shield being squeezed amongst the other goodies. As standard though I think this would make the SCs too passive. And make the vulnerable escorts the only real threat.

You still don't get it. admiral d'artagnan wants this, sig, I do. RcGothic as well iirc.

You isolate this while we want to make the fleet complete with the carrier variant and all. A single SC with 1 bay is grand enough if it has 2 shields.

The cat doesn't have to go back in the bag but it can't stay here! 

The 2nd shield is an option in a experimental ruleset. It still has time to be limited.

Says who? You're kinda being in the minority regarding the ideas about the 2nd shield.



ps sorry about sounding ehm mocking in this post but your stance is so weird and off I am having issues.

lol

[Sigoroth]

While I realise that a good deal of this thread is dedicated to basic differences of principle in terms of offence vs defence and also with the lunatic fringe sticking up their hands for lances again, but has anyone noticed the Crusader Barge? I mean really Ray, 12 THs? No wonder you're opposed to the 2nd SC shield, you're deranged.

[Vaaish]

At this point, I'm growing weary of the theoretical discussion. Ray, just give us playtest battle reports because right now everything you are saying about both the dauntless and the SC are flying in the face of years of tabletop results in many different circles.

You quite frankly aren't going to convince any of us about your point of view without battle reports.

[BaronIveagh]

@BI

For counters to all your arguments see my previous post, ie, the one you quoted and ignored.

The only response I can find that has any bearing is your accusation that it's contradictory, and that contradiction is entirely based on your interpretation of Imperial culture and psychology, which, as I pointed out, is flawed.  

Your assumption is that the Imperium is culturally identical to the modern west, (NOT the middle ages which it is based off of) and that the thought process of the people in it is identical to current cultural and psychological profiles.  However, as any first year anthropology student can tell you, cultures change with time, and behavior is linked to culture.  A person from even so recent a period as the 1930's does not have the same world view as a modern person, the culture has changed since then, and their reactions toward events would be markedly different.  


As is pointed out in the Soul Drinkers novels, it's not that a SM chapter cannot be easily crushed militarily, it's that it's not always politically or culturally acceptable.  

While I realise that a good deal of this thread is dedicated to basic differences of principle in terms of offence vs defence and also with the lunatic fringe sticking up their hands for lances again, but has anyone noticed the Crusader Barge? I mean really Ray, 12 THs? No wonder you're opposed to the 2nd SC shield, you're deranged.

It's nice to see the HA join me here on Sig's 'lunatic fringe'.  We can all have tea and scones and talk about SC lances without having to hear that all existing fluff is wrong save those parts that agree with him.

You quite frankly aren't going to convince any of us about your point of view without battle reports.

Vaaish, may I remind you that battle reports in this area are not considered proof?  While I have little doubt that Ray has access to a better class of player than I do, I don't see it making any headway in this field.  

Everyone claims that a given fleet has a certain 'feel' and changes to this 'feel' will be met with hostility.  What that 'feel' is, however, seems to vary from player to player, as we've seen in this thread as people try to pin down exactly what a SM force 'should' be.

[Vaaish]

Battle reports will at least give us a frame of reference as to what is going on in Ray's group. Right now we've just got him saying basically everything we've seen with the marine fleet is flawed/overpowered/unnecessary but we have no idea why he thinks that or what's led him to those conclusions outside of mathhammer. Having battle reports, regardless of if we could play better or worse, gives us more to go on to understand his reasoning.

It isn't "proof" so much as a common point of reference which seems to be dividing Ray from most everyone else.

[Sigoroth]

The only response I can find that has any bearing is your accusation that it's contradictory, and that contradiction is entirely based on your interpretation of Imperial culture and psychology, which, as I pointed out, is flawed.  

Then reread it. Slowly.

[BaronIveagh]

Then reread it. Slowly.

I did, twice now.  Again, your whole argument hinges on Imperial Culture being nearly identical to modern western culture.  You tout the psychology of power, and ignore how that psychology differs between the Middle Ages and the modern era due to cultural influence.  Hell, you break out Nietzsche and ignore that his philosophy was a direct outgrowth of the culture of the time and that fact that his philosophies are sliding into irrelevance (outside of angsty teenagers in black) after only a century of cultural evolution.

One would suggest that we're effectively arguing Tacitus as opposed to Machiavelli, and which applies more strongly to the culture of the Imperium.  

[RayB HA]

Hi Guys,

RC Gothic,

Really, you think the Dauntless is cheap for what it is? In comparison to a Gothic (not my favourite cruiser) it has less than half the firepower, and far less resilience (6+prow, +1 shield, +2 hits), is really vulnerable to bombers and has to close to attack with its prow.

Horizon,

Hold your horses... I really was asking if 'you' wanted 2 shields as is or with the -1 TH.

3 SCs vs 4 Dauntlesses is a great ratio example. I still feel that SCs should win. But then it all depends on how you both play I suppose.

SM companies are collections of specific types of troops and equipment, a battle force will be selected from numerous different companies and then shiped off in a SC (or more). The size of these battle forces will vary depending on need. A SC can hold a whole companies 'worth' of SMs, given their differing equipment and even vehicles, what a SC can hold is subjective. A Chapter could have upto 10 SCs and 3 Barges if it were lucky, that's enough room for 19 companies as BaBs can have 3 each. Even a conservative fleet of say 6 SCs and 2 BaB would have room for 12.

Who knows whats best is opinion mine might be different  ). I know it may seem like it but I'm not dismissing your opinions. The 2nd shield sounds like a great idea to me, but it also sounds like a bad idea too!

Powergames are who you have to design rules for. The Barge fleet is crazy good in small games! It shouldn't happen. SMs would never send a barge out by itself!

Sig,

Yeah that was a horrible typo! Thanks for catching it! 

Vaish,

I am at the point where I like my version, so playtesting will happen soon. I'll also use the armada rules and the 2 shield 1 TH SCs. I won't be playing with dice until it seems 'fair'.

From my experience SM fleets win more often than not, except against eldar! 

Cheers,

RayB HA

[RCgothic]

Hi Guys,

RC Gothic,

Really, you think the Dauntless is cheap for what it is? In comparison to a Gothic (not my favourite cruiser) it has less than half the firepower, and far less resilience (6+prow, +1 shield, +2 hits), is really vulnerable to bombers and has to close to attack with its prow.

Off-side firepower is situational. The LDauntless has 75% of the full-on firepower, for 60% of the price, and is far more manoeuvrable. It also barely feels being crippled, losing no shields or turrets. They are a bit of a glass cannon, but supported by carriers their vulnerability to bombers goes away to a large extent, whilst their manoeuvrability allows them to skirt enemy engagement zones.

3 Dauntlesses vs 2 Gothics is 9 lances vs 8 and 18 hits vs 16 for 30pts fewer. Gothics are really unoptimised for taking on Dauntlesses, but even against Lunars the Dauntlesses wouldn't be a bad choice. Gothics are totally optimised for blowing away SCs on the other hand, which pay a good tranche of points for Av6+ which the Gothics will simply ignore. The SCs also cost more than the Gothics and have less direct firepower than the Dauntlesses.

Dauntlesses are seriously good vessels. Strike cruisers just aren't.

[horizon]

From my experience SM fleets win more often than not, except against eldar! 

I've beaten Marines with uneducated Tau. With AdMech, with Chaos, with Eldar (CE & CWE).
The allround view is that Marines (armada) are one of the weakest fleets in the game.

[Sigoroth]

I did, twice now.  Again, your whole argument hinges on Imperial Culture being nearly identical to modern western culture. You tout the psychology of power, and ignore how that psychology differs between the Middle Ages and the modern era due to cultural influence.

No, it does not. This is patent nonsense. Firstly I'm specifically talking about a draconian autocratic theocracy. This is nothing like western civilisation. Secondly, the psychology of power is not culturally relevant. That's why it's the psychology of power, and not the psychology of some society or other. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with western culture.

 Hell, you break out Nietzsche and ignore that his philosophy was a direct outgrowth of the culture of the time and that fact that his philosophies are sliding into irrelevance (outside of angsty teenagers in black) after only a century of cultural evolution.

Nietzsche's (or Zarathustra's) philosophy of aspiring to become übermensch has nothing to do with this topic, and therefore neither does your opinion on the relevance of Nietzschean philosophy. What I said was that the SMs are übermensch. This goes beyond Zarathustra from aspiration to actualisation. So we're not talking about replacing a moral set coming from God to one coming from a benign pursuit of perfection, we're talking about the psychology of those that are not übermensch in a world in which übermensch exist.

Hell, just pick up any X-men comic and we see this struggle being played out. The numerically inferior homosuperior vs the masses. We see it in the Star Trek eugenics wars, when superior humans were created. The conclusion is always extermination or control. It is never "hey, sure guys, you fucked us over pretty bad, but whatever, it's all good, you go do whatever you want".

One would suggest that we're effectively arguing Tacitus as opposed to Machiavelli, and which applies more strongly to the culture of the Imperium.  

We're arguing neither. For a start, Machiavelli is purely result oriented. He was a pragmatist. If a measure was ineffective he'd have counselled abandoning it in favour of a more efficacious approach. We're talking about a superstitious tradition bound bureaucracy.

[BaronIveagh]

No, it does not. This is patent nonsense. Firstly I'm specifically talking about a draconian autocratic theocracy. This is nothing like western civilisation. Secondly, the psychology of power is not culturally relevant. That's why it's the psychology of power, and not the psychology of some society or other. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with western culture.

Any psychology, even that of power, is influenced by culture.

Secondly, it's actually neither autocratic, nor, outside of worlds directly ruled by the church, a theocracy.  All parties are technically answerable to another.  Even, in theory, the ordos of the Inquisition. 

The actual structure of the Imperium is more akin to Rome under the Empire, with the High Lords of Terra subbing in for the Senate. 

Hell, just pick up any X-men comic and we see this struggle being played out. The numerically inferior homosuperior vs the masses. We see it in the Star Trek eugenics wars, when superior humans were created. The conclusion is always extermination or control. It is never "hey, sure guys, you fucked us over pretty bad, but whatever, it's all good, you go do whatever you want".

You obviously have not read X-men for quite some time.  And, I might point out, that in Star Trek the eugenics wars actually did end with both sides living on, though the leaders of the super humans were executed or exiled for their crimes.

We're arguing neither. For a start, Machiavelli is purely result oriented. He was a pragmatist. If a measure was ineffective he'd have counselled abandoning it in favour of a more efficacious approach. We're talking about a superstitious tradition bound bureaucracy.

Now who's being contradictory then?  If, as you say, Tacitus applies, then the Imperium would never have a 'counter' to SM at all, and would use culture and tradition to control the space marines.  Which they do.

If Machiavelli applies, then the Imperium would not trust the SM to hold to their oaths and set up a counter to their power.

[Sigoroth]

Any psychology, even that of power, is influenced by culture.

No, it's not. This is pointless anyway, since I was talking about the culture of the Imperium, not the culture of Australia or the USA or wherever.

Secondly, it's actually neither autocratic, nor, outside of worlds directly ruled by the church, a theocracy.  All parties are technically answerable to another.  Even, in theory, the ordos of the Inquisition. 

The actual structure of the Imperium is more akin to Rome under the Empire, with the High Lords of Terra subbing in for the Senate. 

Of course it's autocratic. You have lords within the Empire that have the power of life or death over millions. How is that not autocratic? What is that, a democracy? And yes, it's a Theocracy too. Apart from one of the High Lords being from the church, the church is able to do anything in the name of their Emperor. Anyone saying boo about him can be summarily executed. There are routine inquisitions into heresy and worlds are conquered in the name of the Emperor.

You obviously have not read X-men for quite some time.  And, I might point out, that in Star Trek the eugenics wars actually did end with both sides living on, though the leaders of the super humans were executed or exiled for their crimes.

Who cares if it's not the current theme of X-men comics, you get the point. As for Star Trek, that's called control. As a force they were destroyed and disarmed and the practice of genetic engineering discontinued. Their leaders were killed or exiled. So as a force they were destroyed, as a group they were controlled. They were not left under arms to do whatever the hell they wanted.

Now who's being contradictory then?  If, as you say, Tacitus applies, then the Imperium would never have a 'counter' to SM at all, and would use culture and tradition to control the space marines.  Which they do.

If Machiavelli applies, then the Imperium would not trust the SM to hold to their oaths and set up a counter to their power.

I actually said NEITHER applies. You present a false dichotomy. Further, your arguments are again confused as to your aim. You seem to just want to "score a point", so to speak. With the implication being that if you win one argument then I must be wrong and you must be right. However, let's have a look at what you've proposed. You say a Tacitus form of control. So this is an admission that the Imperium must control the SMs. If they must control the SMs then the SMs can't do whatever they want. Now, regardless of whether you believe that tradition is the main controlling factor or not, that tradition had to be established at some point, and that point is the Horus Heresy. Any SM ships getting lances is, therefore, a break with tradition which, according to you, cannot happen. Therefore no lance ships for SMs. So if you are right about this one point then you are wrong overall.


At the heresy the navy was set up to be the main power in space. This power was specifically denied the SMs. To be honest, this should be enough of an argument to nix any "aw, give my SMs lances, we need everything!" arguments. So, what have you to present that requires that SMs get lances? So far I've seen no reason for them to get them, and plenty of reason for them to not.

In my opinion the BC is a great addition to the SM fleet. I doubt I'd have had the imagination to come up with it. It struck me as a bit gimmicky when I first saw it. Only upon reflection of the role of SM ships and the differences between lances and BC did I fully come to appreciate the weapon. This appreciation was heightened when considering the interaction effect between BC and WB in a purely sequential game (which BFG is). The stupid 2010 FAQ undid some of the good work made by the framers of the BC rules. The point here being that the SMs have a replacement weapon for the lance. In those circumstances where a lance would perform better the SMs should not be efficient.