Space Marine Fleet ER

[Sigoroth]

@BI

The Imperium has a psychological imperative to control the SMs. They cannot leave the ultimate form of control to the SMs. Also, your argument of ruffled feathers is irrelevant. The Imperium don't care about the best way to motivate people. It is a society that reverts to force at the drop of a hat, regardless of whether or not it's the best approach.

Your problem is that you only recognise non-force forms of control without realising that all these forms of control derive from, and are meaningless without, force.

You point out the limits of force as if it were active. Sure there are other forms of control. But these exist only so that you don't have to use the stick every time. When you hit people with a stick when they step out of line they'll eventually stop stepping out of line to avoid being hit by a stick. According to your "logic" you would never need the stick again. Good to know, now we can tell all the countries of the world to disband their police forces, they're not needed any more.

As for the psychology of power, yes it is independent of culture. You example is poor and your conclusion is erroneous. For a start the resignation is a natural consequence of failure. Those in power would therefore make it a priority to never fail, or rather, to pass off command to those below so that they can be blamed for failure. This is what happened in feudal japan. Family heads would have someone to blame if things went wrong. If you were the one directly in charge of an operation then you were actually powerless. Therefore you didn't have any power to hold on to. The psychology of power is universal.

I do not assume a western culture at all. I assume the culture written in the 40k universe. It is actually more paranoid and selfish than western culture. I have no idea why you make this idiotic claim about my assumption of a western culture (which I never did) as if the Imperium could be described in some fluffy feelgood carebear kind of way. The Imperium is more like Spanish Inquisition or papal Italy. And yes, while I may never have lived in the 40k universe I'm reasonably sure that you haven't either and I feel qualified to comment on the putative psychology of people in a given, hypothetical, setting.

Further, I can argue using this same requirement that the Nova fluff was written in a state of 'ignorance' by Chambers, and therefore does not meet your requirements either.

Ahah! So you admit that since the fluff is often contradictory that some of it must be wrong, or at the very least, could be wrong. Therefore it should not be accepted as gospel, therefore is not, in itself, evidence. It has to also make sense in order to be acceptable.

I reject this requirement.  In effect you are demanding: 'You may site no sources but those that agree with my position.'

No, I am demanding that you may cite no sources but those that take into account the state of play, that is, the lance as an anti-ship weapon and the SMs in a post HH galaxy. This is not an unreasonable request, given the fact that fluff is not, in itself, evidence. Since the Nova fluff meets these requirements it is superior to all the sources you have cited. The fact that the only pieces of fluff that exist which meet these criteria support my position is not surprising, since I arrived at my position after reviewing the evidence.

Oh, and the Nova fluff has not been retconned. Also, the Sword fluff shows that WBs can consist of laser banks. Therefore WBs can be used for pinpoint Oribital bombardments. No lance required.

You're trying to argue ninjō, personal feeling in opposition to societal obligation, however, in many parts of the world even hardcore gangsters would come quietly, not because of any threat the police woman posed, but because that's what is expected of them.  Force or the threat of force don't come into it at all, its' what people would think of you if you did, and what you would think of yourself. 

Let me turn that analogy around: Lets say your seven foot man decides he does want to make a break for it, and the police woman is armed with a shotgun.  What's to keep him from taking that shotgun off of her?  Particularly if the seven foot man is very skilled in this exact act. 

Answer: Not a damn thing.

See, the 'power' and 'control' that come from a weapon only lasts as long as the target is intimidated by that weapon.  Once that is no longer a factor, that control evaporates.

You're trying to control SM, a group mentally conditioned to 'Know no Fear', through the intimidation factor of a weapon.  How well do you think that's gonna work?

Wow, this is terribly wrong. Firstly, no stable society on earth, and I mean none, depend solely upon ninjō. There is always a big stick in the offing should that break down. Secondly, in that example, the thing stopping that 7ft tall man from taking the shotgun and making a break is being shot in the face. Sure, he might take his chances. But if he isn't quick enough he's dead. Take the shotgun away from the policewoman and what happens if the 7ft man wants to make a break for it? He gets away. It's that simple. Of course, he most likely won't want to make a break for it. Why? Not from some feeling of obligation, or loss of face, but because then he'd be hunted down and maybe killed by overwhelming force.

Now, let's look at speeding fines. I can't stand them. I think it's just another form of revenue raising, that the so called 'crime' is not a crime at all and if it were responsible for an increase in road toll then the process of fining a person does not address the problem. Yet when I get fined I pay the fine. Hmm, why is it so? Because if I didn't then I'd get called into court, then ordered to pay an increased fine, which if I refused would result in the sheriff coming around to seize assets that they can sell to cover the fine (which is always in excess of the actual fine) and if I tried to resist the sheriff I'd be arrested. If I tried to resist arrest I'd either be beaten into submission or killed and, if I survived I'd be thrown in jail. All for going 5kms/h over the speed limit, something for which I feel no guilt or social obligation whatsoever. Big stick. An utterly necessary component of any societal control. Strangely enough, I don't recall ever having heard of someone having been killed over a speeding fine. Does that mean that the government is incapable of enforcing their views, because they don't kill speeders?

[Sigoroth]

Hi Guys,

I played a couple of games as SMs this weekend using the rules from Armada. I had a fleet of 10 SCs vs an IN fleet and a Chaos fleet. Both were serious victories in the SM favour but these weren't true playtests so I'll arrange some proper playtests against IN and Chaos. If I could get some lists to playtest against the 1500pt 10SC fleet I'd appreciate it.  

In what way were these not true playtests?

The deciding factors of the IN game was high leadership allowing easy movement through asteroid fields, almost immunity to ordnance including against the THs. NCs only scorched the SCs. 3 Lance Dauntlesses 'just' crippled a SC after its shields were already down and was braced.

I myself would prefer that the SM leadership was no more than Eldar.

Against Chaos, the 90* turn and str 4 TH waves were the game changers as they could strike at range, the SCs did take a few heavy blows and 2 were crippled but were hidding behind their squadron mates.

Why were the THs so damaging? They usually aren't.

The response from my opponents was IN: You just out manuevered me, then I was sunk as I couldn't shake you off my aft. Chaos: THs are evil, if you only had one per SC I wouldn't have to worry about them.

IN: hmm, well being in the aft isn't that damaging, since he'll be able to turn and still hit with broadsides. But also by splitting forces and turning in opposite directions he can come full circle and be able to attack trailing ships with their opposite number.

Chaos: I'm very surprised at the apparent efficacy of the THs. As far as I'm concerned a-boats, including THs, are a poor alternative to bombers. Since Chaos can easily handle waves of 4 bombers I'm surprised that he found the THs difficult. If he found waves of 4 difficult then I imagine he'd have a hell of a time against waves of 6 from the carrier variants.

The 'need' for a 2nd shield wasn't felt. But as I said these weren't playtests, they were just friendly games.

Well given that you're against the 2 shield variant and you won I doubt you'd "feel the need".

[BaronIveagh]

@BI

The Imperium has a psychological imperative to control the SMs. They cannot leave the ultimate form of control to the SMs. 

Please site proof of this claim, as stands this is only your opinion.  Particularly since SM now directly control drone ships loaded with Exterminatus weapons and highly advanced cloaking devices. (Deathwatch, pg 314)

Again, you seem to think that the threat of force, which is control through fear would have any impact on Space Marines at all.

As for the psychology of power, yes it is independent of culture. You example is poor and your conclusion is erroneous. For a start the resignation is a natural consequence of failure. Those in power would therefore make it a priority to never fail, or rather, to pass off command to those below so that they can be blamed for failure. This is what happened in feudal japan. Family heads would have someone to blame if things went wrong. If you were the one directly in charge of an operation then you were actually powerless. Therefore you didn't have any power to hold on to. The psychology of power is universal.

Actually, that's not correct.  In feudal Japan a samurai would occasionally offer himself up as a sacrifice, it's true, however, it was just as common for the local daimyo to commit ritual suicide to protect the clan's honor.  It depended on the nature of the disgrace involved.

And, again, I point out that those in power are the ones stepping down.  Not the underlings that were in charge who failed, the bosses.  Your assertion does not match the observed result.

And yes, while I may never have lived in the 40k universe I'm reasonably sure that you haven't either and I feel qualified to comment on the putative psychology of people in a given, hypothetical, setting.[/color]

I've actually lived in some rather entertaining cultures at various points.  A tip: always wait to see who sits where before sitting down to eat.  I made the error of sitting in the wrong spot once, and fortunately they understood that I was unaware that the seat I selected was reserved for gay men.  Though much laughter took place while they explained it. 

Ahah! So you admit that since the fluff is often contradictory that some of it must be wrong, or at the very least, could be wrong. Therefore it should not be accepted as gospel, therefore is not, in itself, evidence. It has to also make sense in order to be acceptable.

No, I said that using the rules you set forth, all fluff could be argued to be wrong.  And, I might point out, that I refused to accept that rule. 

No, I am demanding that you may cite no sources but those that take into account the state of play, that is, the lance as an anti-ship weapon and the SMs in a post HH galaxy. This is not an unreasonable request, given the fact that fluff is not, in itself, evidence. Since the Nova fluff meets these requirements it is superior to all the sources you have cited. The fact that the only pieces of fluff that exist which meet these criteria support my position is not surprising, since I arrived at my position after reviewing the evidence.

Actually, what's not surprising is that you try to stack the deck in favor of your argument when you have no actually proof of your position.  The Nova fluff in no way meets the requirements you set forth, as it's vague and does not actually state that lances are what makes the Nova subject of concern, anymore then a ship with torpedo launchers.  The lance is an anti-ship and orbital bombardment weapon, a very powerful and accurate one.  A torpedo is strictly limited to anti-ship operations, particularly in BFG.  If you have to take rules into account, you have to take ALL the rules into account.  Not just those that support your argument.

Oh, and the Nova fluff has not been retconned. Also, the Sword fluff shows that WBs can consist of laser banks. Therefore WBs can be used for pinpoint Oribital bombardments. No lance required.

*sigh* The sunsear laser battery is inaccurate against ground targets, dealing damage over a 10km area.  I never stated that they did not have laser weapon batteries.  I stated that WB are inaccurate, which they are, where as lances are accurate.  Otherwise the Sword would not roll of the gunnery table, nor would the laser shots scatter over a 10km area when it is used for orbital bombardment. 

On the Nova retcon: Torpedoes, rather then lances, are the anti-ship weapon that IN is now concerned about proliferating.  (BFK, pg 6)

There is always a big stick in the offing should that break down. Secondly, in that example, the thing stopping that 7ft tall man from taking the shotgun and making a break is being shot in the face. Sure, he might take his chances. But if he isn't quick enough he's dead. Take the shotgun away from the policewoman and what happens if the 7ft man wants to make a break for it? He gets away. It's that simple. Of course, he most likely won't want to make a break for it. Why? Not from some feeling of obligation, or loss of face, but because then he'd be hunted down and maybe killed by overwhelming force.

Again, stop and think, your counter suggestion does not address the central issue with this manner of control: And They Shall Know No Fear.

You CANNOT control through fear (whether of injury or consequence) someone for whom fear is an alien concept. 

It is one of the oldest pieces of fluff in the game, predating the addition of the Horus Heresy.  SM are implicitly unable to be afraid.  Why do you think Lords Militant have to negotiate with them to get their co-operation?  The idea of a 'big stick' approach to controlling people who cannot be afraid is ludicrous. 

Let me put it this way: the possibility of being killed is a system of control through fear.  The average every day human is afraid to be injured and afraid to die.  This is a fact and this is how your 'big stick' approach is applied.  The average Space Marine has no concept of this.  They have been mentally altered to the point they cannot even relate to being afraid. 

So, again, how would a 'big stick' approach to control have any effect on a group of people for whom fear is an alien concept?

[Sigoroth]

I have already outlined why it is imperative for the Imperium to control the SM.

The psychology of power is universal. Politics differs per culture. Eastern cultures typically have adopt a greater group identity than the individual one shown in western cultures. In this case everything is done to protect the standing (power) of the group, rather than the individual. By those members that adhere to this philosophy this could lead to sacrificing themselves. To those that adhere less and have a greater personal concern, then this is achieved by the sacrifice of a pawn.

Either way, those in power do not give up power without a fight. However, no Japanese warlord would turn a blind eye to a vassal amassing an army with the notion that he'll behave himself because his code of conduct says so. If he did he'd be inviting disaster. If this vassal had already betrayed said lord then there's no way he'd let it slide.

I've actually lived in some rather entertaining cultures at various points.  A tip: always wait to see who sits where before sitting down to eat.  I made the error of sitting in the wrong spot once, and fortunately they understood that I was unaware that the seat I selected was reserved for gay men.  Though much laughter took place while they explained it.

Well, here I am trying to explain to you that the "lances for SMs" seat is reserved for gay SM fanbois, but there you sit anyway.

No, I said that using the rules you set forth, all fluff could be argued to be wrong.  And, I might point out, that I refused to accept that rule.

The alternative being that all fluff is right, therefore the Nova fluff is right therefore SMs can't have lances.

Actually, what's not surprising is that you try to stack the deck in favor of your argument when you have no actually proof of your position.  The Nova fluff in no way meets the requirements you set forth, as it's vague and does not actually state that lances are what makes the Nova subject of concern, anymore then a ship with torpedo launchers.  The lance is an anti-ship and orbital bombardment weapon, a very powerful and accurate one.  A torpedo is strictly limited to anti-ship operations, particularly in BFG.  If you have to take rules into account, you have to take ALL the rules into account.  Not just those that support your argument.

Very clear proof. It's called logic. HH -> demarcation of power -> IN > SM in space -> no lances, since it's a purely anti-ship weapon. Further to this there is the actual fact of the written rules. SMs have no lances. You're the one trying to change the situation, so YOU'RE the one that has to provide the proof. Which you have not done.

Well I say <EXPUNGED> the lance as an orbital bombardment weapon. This is a bullshit notion brought in from another game. If you think a LASER is going to cover an area in the 10's of kilometres then you're high. And WBs are VERY accurate when shooting at something stationary, such as the GROUND! So I'm not going to play that <EXPUNGED> whereby you try to sling in the lance as some sort of necessity for the SMs based on something other than BFG. It is not.

The lance is a PURELY anti-ship weapon. Torpedoes are an anti-DEFENCE weapon, like WBs. That is, they are easier to use against a stationary target. So torpedo = better SM weapon than lances. Therefore there is nothing wrong with torps for SMs, nor has there ever been anything wrong with torps for SMs, and nor does the NOVA, which is barely acceptable because it was an escort, even HAVE torpedoes! The ONLY reason the Nova is objectionable is because of the lance! There can be no other reason. Seriously, where the hell did this torpedo crap come from? Hell, the torp has a role for SMs out of BFG too, it's called exterminatus.

Again, stop and think, your counter suggestion does not address the central issue with this manner of control: And They Shall Know No Fear.

You CANNOT control through fear (whether of injury or consequence) someone for whom fear is an alien concept.

No, what you CANNOT do is control without the threat of force. Great, SMs don't fear death. Big deal. They do however fear the extinction of their chapter and their reputation being shattered. If a SM were threatened with death in furtherance of his chapter's cause, he'd not give in (though he'd still die). If he and his chapter were threatened with annihilation in a pointless and humiliating act of defiance then I'm pretty sure they'd tow the line. There are always consequences, and since SMs care about these consequences then they can be controlled. Otherwise they'd be mindless beasts that would attack whatever took their fancy.

So, scenario. IN knocks on SMs door, with a 200 ship force waiting to shoot and says "surrender all your lance armed ships or you're <EXPUNGED>". SMs go "No way! We're not afraid of anything, bring it on bitches!". IN opens fire, SM chapter annihilated. IN moves on to next chapter. They say the same and show them what happened to the last chapter that said no. SMs give IN all lance armed ships and grumble about it. End of story.

in essence, the Imperium would treat any expansion of naval power as a minor rebellion.

[horizon]

Hi Ray,

Watch the language? I will just start typing Dutch.


On the playtest: Fleet Lists Needed. Setups and everything. (Nate had to do this as well in his Nova Cannon thread, we are a demanding bunch).

I don't know how your opponents play... but I would love to get a game against you (or anyone else on this forum), alas the distance is too great and vassal is just not my cup of tea.

As for 2 THawks being too much? haha, we said it needs to be 1.

Sig is right: you don't want the 2nd shield, so you feel the need less.

So more info from test needed.


Also:
this is what you see these days:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308774

Marine fleets popping up. Using 2nd shields. No longer people are being told" Ya, well, Marines are iffy and prepare for a lot of losses. "

[BaronIveagh]

However, no Japanese warlord would turn a blind eye to a vassal amassing an army with the notion that he'll behave himself because his code of conduct says so. If he did he'd be inviting disaster. If this vassal had already betrayed said lord then there's no way he'd let it slide.[/color]

History actually disagrees with you.  I draw your attention to Nobunaga and Hideyoshi. 

The alternative being that all fluff is right, therefore the Nova fluff is right therefore SMs can't have lances.

Except it doesn't say that.  Where exactly in that piece of fluff does it say specifically 'Space Marines may not have lances'?  After all, that's the requirement that you have for my references. 

Very clear proof. It's called logic. HH -> demarcation of power -> IN > SM in space -> no lances, since it's a purely anti-ship weapon. Further to this there is the actual fact of the written rules. SMs have no lances. You're the one trying to change the situation, so YOU'RE the one that has to provide the proof. Which you have not done.

Except that the demarcation of power was NOT between IN and SM but rather IN and IG.  It's been made clear in fluff several times now, most recently IIRC in Deathwatch. 

Well I say FRAG the lance as an orbital bombardment weapon. This is a bullpoop notion brought in from another game. If you think a LASER is going to cover an area in the 10's of kilometres then you're high. And WBs are VERY accurate when shooting at something stationary, such as the GROUND! So I'm not going to play that bullpoop whereby you try to sling in the lance as some sort of necessity for the SMs based on something other than BFG. It is not.

(Corrected for language per Ray's request)

Well, it could be because the starvar is actually a cluster of smaller laser turrets rather then a single weapon, to start with.  A rather simple reason might be that the turrets are too small to hold the lance's more accurate aiming mechanism.  This is more or less born out by the lasburner, as to cram a lance weapon into one of those turrets requires a massive reduction in size (and range, and power.  The thing pretty much only shoots point blank, about 5cm in BFG and would be a str 0.5 weapon).

The lance is a PURELY anti-ship weapon. Torpedoes are an anti-DEFENCE weapon, like WBs. That is, they are easier to use against a stationary target. So torpedo = better SM weapon than lances. Therefore there is nothing wrong with torps for SMs, nor has there ever been anything wrong with torps for SMs, and nor does the NOVA, which is barely acceptable because it was an escort, even HAVE torpedoes! The ONLY reason the Nova is objectionable is because of the lance! There can be no other reason. Seriously, where the hell did this torpedo crap come from? Hell, the torp has a role for SMs out of BFG too, it's called exterminatus.

And yet they take no exception to SM having Firestorms (Armada, pg 24).  I would suggest that it has less to do with the lance and more to do with the ship's over all performance being vastly superior to anything else in it's weight class.  And torps are very much an extremely dangerous anti-ship weapon.  Sure they can hit a defense, but so can anything else.  Put a guided upgrade in and they might as well be fighting the Tau.

And exterminatus weapons come in a lot of flavors besides 'torp'.  Virus Bombs immediately spring to mind.

No, what you CANNOT do is control without the threat of force. Great, SMs don't fear death. Big deal. They do however fear the extinction of their chapter and their reputation being shattered. If a SM were threatened with death in furtherance of his chapter's cause, he'd not give in (though he'd still die). If he and his chapter were threatened with annihilation in a pointless and humiliating act of defiance then I'm pretty sure they'd tow the line. There are always consequences, and since SMs care about these consequences then they can be controlled. Otherwise they'd be mindless beasts that would attack whatever took their fancy.

Well, not mindless, but actually SM do only take the wars that strike their fancy, showing up and leaving when it suits them.  And, frankly, again, no, they don't fear the annihilation of their chapter when they think they're in the right.  That's been a recurring theme of just about every SM rebellion since the heresy. 

So, scenario. IN knocks on SMs door, with a 200 ship force waiting to shoot and says "surrender all your lance armed ships or you're fucked". SMs go "No way! We're not afraid of anything, bring it on bitches!". IN opens fire, SM chapter annihilated. IN moves on to next chapter. They say the same and show them what happened to the last chapter that said no. SMs give IN all lance armed ships and grumble about it. End of story.

*sigh* No, because the result would instead be: 'You not only insult us but slew our honorable brothers and are interfering in our chapter's business.' at which point five surrounding chapters show up and pound the IN force.  It was called the Badab War, and it turned into a massive clusterfrag of epic proportions for all sides involved, and the only ones that prospered were the Ruinous Powers.

[RayB HA]

Hi Guys,

The reason why I say they weren't 'real' playtests was because I played against (in my eyes  ) lesser skilled players and we didn't swap roles which is always important in a playtest.

I will get on to to doing some 'real' playtests this week. Some with out dice.

The fleets were IN: Emperor, Tyrant + Dauntless, 3x L Dauntlesses (not in a squadron), and 2 Dominators.
Chaos: Desolator, 2 Hades, 4 LMurders (squadrons of 2). The reason for no Devs was that in the IN game he saw how waves of 4 THs could weather a crazy amount of AC. Also he thought that it would be very difficult to be offensive with his AC.   

TH's were damaging against chaos only in that they effectively took 2 Hades and a Murder out of the game after the fleets met. He braced against the H&Rs (fair enough as there were 20 of them) but with +1 to the rolls, Engine room coupled with fires chipped away at thier hits while the rest stopped them from shooting back.

BI,

Thanks for your editing, it is much appreciated.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

And yet they take no exception to SM having Firestorms (Armada, pg 24).  I would suggest that it has less to do with the lance and more to do with the ship's over all performance being vastly superior to anything else in it's weight class.  

And you would be wrong. Read it again. Esp the part about the lance. If you can't understand, here's the simple explanation. Lance makes it a gunboat and not intended for assault or deployment. IN objects. Period.

Really, show us WHY the SM really NEED lances without resorting to fluff examples, within the context of the game. It's that simple.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Hi Guys,

The reason why I say they weren't 'real' playtests was because I played against (in my eyes  ) lesser skilled players and we didn't swap roles which is always important in a playtest.

I will get on to to doing some 'real' playtests this week. Some with out dice.

The fleets were IN: Emperor, Tyrant + Dauntless, 3x L Dauntlesses (not in a squadron), and 2 Dominators.
Chaos: Desolator, 2 Hades, 4 LMurders (squadrons of 2). The reason for no Devs was that in the IN game he saw how waves of 4 THs could weather a crazy amount of AC. Also he thought that it would be very difficult to be offensive with his AC.   

TH's were damaging against chaos only in that they effectively took 2 Hades and a Murder out of the game after the fleets met. He braced against the H&Rs (fair enough as there were 20 of them) but with +1 to the rolls, Engine room coupled with fires chipped away at thier hits while the rest stopped them from shooting back.

Cheers,

RayB HA

Not an ideal list for the IN but even then those Dauntless' should have forced at least 4 SCs to BFI.

Chaos list I can't figure for the life of me why he couldn't force the SCs to BFI. Has chances to force 7 ships to BFI. Of that's a 1.5k fleet try my fleet: Hades+4 Murders and Styx+2 Devs. That's my take on all comers list.

[RayB HA]

On the topic of 40k fiction,

I would say that a lot of it you can't use as canon. You just can't, too much of it contradicts itself.

GW have been really careless recently (last few years) with their IPs. They seem to be spreading themselves to thin, having too many projects on the go at any one time, not checking with each other as they go and then invalidating background or unbalancing rules. I think they should have been more collaborative and just worked on a couple of projects at a time but at an increased rate, so everyone in the studio is on the same page.

The other problem is with FFG and BL, as they invent new lore the harder it is for the GW studio to check that they are not contradicting new material. I consider their material as 2nd tier background and GW studio rantings as 1st tier which will supercede anything else.

On the NO lance issue I can see SMs having lances in small quantities as it shouldn't really be much of a big deal. A SC having a lance instead of an escort seems dicey but I wouldn't consider it the end of the world, it just shouldn't be predominant.

The 'big stick' issue is getting pretty long.   I would say that SMs do 'fear' consequences that are not a direct aspect belonging to combat. For example: not getting replacements and other resources from the imperium. If 'fear' is too insulting a word think of it as being 'concerned'.  

Cheers,

RayB HA

[RayB HA]

Admiral_d_Artagnan,

I braced with one squadron every turn (when the shooting started). The Dauntlesses caused me to brace. The Chaos lances caused me to brace, but in the end no kills, just damaged and crippled SCs. Deployment meant that the Chaos prow lances couldn't get at me for a few turns.

What is your bracing threshold? I brace if I think I might get crippled, but it depends on the circumstances.

Your fleet seems fine, but I think there is room for improvement. I'm not a fan of the Styx as it is too good a gun boat for me to reload with a clear conscience (actually I have a similar problem with most carrier HC variants). Dedicated carriers/ordy are awesome like the Dictator. Anyways, how about 2xHades, 5xDevs, warlord and rerolls(other wotnots). As you are fighting a fleet with 20 resilient AC, you really need a lot of AC to make a dent (or just don't bother). Luckily the Devs have those horrible 60cm range broadside lances (I often lock-on with Devs, when their AC is out).   

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

So how were you getting 20 THs after the first turn? Next having a couple of ACs like in my list balaces things out quite well and I still have more than enough lances to deal with your 10 SCs.

Aside from which crippled SCs are getting towards useless and losing in a game which will last 5-6 turns unless you disengage which means you will lose the game.

As for limited quantities in cap ships, enough already. Now you want 1 in X points. Next iteration, 1 in less X points. And so on and so forth. I say keep the lid on which means that lance rule in the latest FAQ is dog poo. They have the BCs which are almost as effective if not as good as the lance.

The SM excel in Planetary Assault and Exterminatus, which is where they should be at.

Adding the second shield will help them win the Running the Gauntlet scenario which should also be their forte.

They should be able to win fleet engagements but not most of the time.

Nothing so far shows me they NEED lances on their cap ships. You want lances, take Novas.

[RayB HA]

Admiral_d_Artagnan,

I added comments on the chaos fleets to my last post after posting it as my computer started complaining and I didn't want to lose the post.

I reloaded to bring the THs on the table to the then full strength (it went down to 18) (not with the crippled squadrons, they were on lock-on if viable). It's not that odd is it? 

I'm not in favour of giving SCs lances as it adds 'nothing' useful or needed for cost in fluff.

I really want both 1 shielded and 2 shielded SCs in the fleet.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Vaaish]

I find that the chaos fleet was rather... ill chosen. Even if he couldn't put a dent in YOUR thunderhawks he can still launch assault boats of his own. True, they will get -1 to their hit and runs, but unless you are rolling really poorly you should get something off it. Beyond that, he could have at least done something to slow you down a little. It seems a bad move to just completely hand over the ordnance game to you regardless of how much actual damage he would have done.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Admiral_d_Artagnan,

I added comments on the chaos fleets to my last post after posting it as my computer started complaining and I didn't want to lose the post.

I reloaded to bring the THs on the table to the then full strength (it went down to 18) (not with the crippled squadrons, they were on lock-on if viable). It's not that odd is it? 

Cheers,

RayB HA

It went down to only 18? So they weren't attacking?