Space Marine Fleet ER

[horizon]

From 20 to 18? That's 2 less... with crippled ships? Reloading / Locking on after an attack?


You did a playtest without the usual simple cruiser clash setup (prow on) That's just daft to me.

[Sigoroth]

I think what Ray meant is that in the 1st turn he launched ordnance, not all of which was expended by the time his turn came around again. In the 2nd turn some of his SCs were crippled and those and a few others he locked on with while the remaining SCs launched up to his new maximum of 18 THs.

@Ray

It was a very risky strategy of your opponent to go without AC support at all. In essence he allowed you to form larger waves of THs than what is recommended he take. The thing with a-boats of any kind is that you don't want large waves hitting you, because it'll shut down a ship. Normally this isn't an issue because the opponent usually uses bombers because bombers > a-boats. Everyone recognises the threat of large bomber waves and actively tries to mitigate their effects. A-boats can be ignored when in waves of 1 or 2. You just rely upon turrets and repair dice to neutralise them. But in larger waves where you will see many crits past turrets you will not have the repair dice to be able to do so, that's when you need to be concerned.

I would recommend your Chaos opponent take a Desolator, a couple of Devs, three Carnages and some Cobras. Abeam locked on Carnages will average as much damage against the closing 6+ prows of the SCs as Murders would, but they have less reliance upon mobility (don't care as much about engine room crits), don't close the distance (which the SCs want) and present a much tougher aspect for the WBs and BC of the SCs. Also their firepower increases as the SCs get closer. The Cobras (of which you could buy 6) would serve to snipe THs with their torps as well as lay down some direct fire at larger waves (1 dice per squadron of 3). In an extreme circumstance you can move a Cobra onto a large wave of THs to save a capital ship from taking them. The Devs would support the Carnages with their long range lances (initially locked on) and release a-boats to break up the larger TH waves (small waves can be relatively easily ignored). The Desolator is a cheap, tough, high turret weapon platform that should be enough to force an SC to brace all by itself.

On the issue of limited lances in SM fleets, it has been pointed out again and again that SMs don't allow the Imperium to look over their shoulders. How would the IN audit the SMs to know just how many ships have lances? The only way for the IN to be able to police any sort of limitation would be a complete ban, so that if one shows up they know that it's not allowed. So it has to be a line in the sand type limitation. Any other type and the SMs will just ignore it and move their ships around to hide true numbers (much like the BTs do with chapter numbers).

@BI

The demarcation of power is of course between SMs and everyone else. Of necessity it is also between the IN and IG, since any one person controlling both of these would have a tremendous amount of power. However, it was the SMs that controlled these at the time of the heresy and it was from the SMs that control was stripped. Since the SMs are, themselves, a formidable army then there is a greater need for demarcation between them and the IN than between them and IG.

To be honest, I think that the RSVs should be stripped from the marines. Let's face it, they were only given to them because there was no model for a SM escort at the time the rules were originally written for SMs. They later got models and these rules were added to the RSV rules, presumably because SG didn't want to invalidate people's fleets. I say that I think they should be removed not just because it gives the SMs another lance ship, but also to fix the escorts that they do have. I think the Nova and Gladius should drop in cost by 5 pts each. However, this would bring them down to the same cost as their RSV equivalents while they themselves are superior. Dropping the RSV costs would bring them down to the cost of their IN equivalents while they themselves are superior. So I think RSVs should get the boot.

However, assuming that they're still around, there are 2 arguments against your notion. Firstly, RSVs are actually IN vessels given/loaned to the SMs. Since the IN (AM or whoever) have control over their numbers and it's an escort, they feel fairly comfortable. Secondly, we don't know that they don't feel uncomfortable about SMs having RSV Firestorms. There's no RSV Firestorm entry for us to read the fluff on. The fluff on the Nova is clear however. You could argue that it's only the opinion/interpretation of the people who wrote the SM rules, but the same can be said of any fluff. This piece of fluff though was written in the knowledge of how a lance functions in BFG.

A lance is pretty much a high powered, very focused weapon with greater than normal accuracy (so better cogitators or whatever). Now, if that accuracy were represented in BFG to increase chances of success under all circumstances, rather than just the difficult circumstances, then the SMs could have them. For example, if it was merely counted as 1 WB dice per point of strength (adjusted to balance accordingly) but got +1 on the roll to hit then there would be no issue. It not make it anti-ship, nor even anti-armour (well, a little bit given the givens). It would just be a more accurate weapon. However, this is not what a lance is in BFG. In BFG a lance is a specifically anti-ship weapon. This is a sphere in which SMs should not excel, therefore SMs should not get a lance. I put it to you that all the fluff and rules and whatnot of other game systems and backgrounds views the lance as the former (ie, accurate) rather than the latter (ie, anti-ship).

Just lastly on the notion of 5 chapters taking on a 200 ship battlefleet; if they had the space borne resources to be able to do this then this would be evidence of the fact that the Imperium needs to control them. Five chapters gathering all their resources should only be able to amass some 55~70 capital ships with the rest being escorts. A 200 ship IN battlefleet should be able to defeat such a force fairly handily. They must have a lot of lances on those SM ships. All the more reason for the IN to confiscate them.

[Sigoroth]

Oh, I forgot about torpedoes. Does anyone think that torpedoes should be restricted from SMs at all on any basis? Does anyone think that they are not within the modus operandi of SM assaults? Or that they make SMs too powerful against ships? I'd like to know where this notion came from.

[fracas]

I brought it up earlier that there should be some restriction on torpedoes for crusading SM but not dominion lists

[BaronIveagh]

@Sig

Be that as it may, at this point BFG is the one out of step with the rest of 40k atm.  The problem with the first part of your counter argument is the fluff in Armada itself, stating that they're crewed by chapter serfs and commanded by techmarines.  Meaning they're not on loan.  The second is their stated function, which is to patrol SM controlled space.  If this follows the same pattern as Ultramar, which seems to be the ur example of a SM dominion, then the SM have their own shipyard facilities.  These may or may not be run by the admech, if 'current' fluff holds.

On the lance rules vs WB rules argument: You could argue game balance, except that the SC's BC has a high enough str that under most circumstances, it still is equal to, or more power than, a str 2 lance, found on the most common IN cruiser.  Your argument that 'because the rules make it specifically an anti-ship weapon' overlooks that fact that every weapon in this game is specifically an anti-ship weapon, as there are only two types of possible targets (three if you count ord markers) ships and defenses, and all the weapons work against those.   The fact is long range lance fire is just as good at popping defenses, with a lot less damage to the ship.

Let me offer a counter argument to yours: thanks to THQ/Relic, BL, FFG, and GW, the lance strike is slowly working it's way up there with the bolter and the land raider in people's minds when they think 'Space Marines'.  So, do we meet new players expectations and grow the hobby, or do we accept that the game withers away until only a handful of grognards play it?

And as far as the Badab war goes, the local IN and IG also joined in on the side of the SM.  It turned into a very big mess very quickly, with some parties more interested in the show of fighting then fighting, and some more or less refusing to turn their guns one one another, and the Inquisition playing every side trying to ensure the war dragged on.  In the end, the only real result was some SM chapters shuffled around what worlds they owned, the Lamenters got nearly wiped out by a combination of angry marines and their Cursed Founding magic bad luck, and the Astral Claws became the Red Corsairs. 

@Ray: While I know what you mean (C:BA and C:GK have some rather heavy handed retcons) I've found sources with lance style weapons on SM ships in WD articles all the way back to before the creation of BFG.  To suggest this is a new trend is not quite accurate, though I prefer to argue it with the most current fluff.  I believe that there's something about a super accurate giant laser beams in space that appeals to 40k writers.   

[Vaaish]

I don't see why torpedoes should be restricted. They work best against stationary targets like defenses which seems like an ideal application for marines since it allows them to soften these targets from outside of the range of their guns.

[horizon]

Limiting torps on Marines?

Why?

No need to imo.

[BaronIveagh]

Limiting torps on Marines?

Why?

No need to imo.

Horizon, from the person that thinks I'm mad to pay for the guided torps upgrade, that's not a surprising point of view.

The point was that torps can be just as much an anti-ship weapon as a lance.  If one is going to adopt the hard line approach that anything that does not use the  gunnery table makes something a warship, and therefor prohibited, then torps would also qualify, particularly with the guided upgrade.  

[horizon]

But what's the deal?

Barges & Hunters have standard torps. Barge have it as a tertiary weapon. Plus they'll be boarding torps most of the time (turns).

When you say it like that all weapons are useable as anti-ship.

[BaronIveagh]

When you say it like that all weapons are useable as anti-ship.

 

[Sigoroth]

@Sig

Be that as it may, at this point BFG is the one out of step with the rest of 40k atm.  The problem with the first part of your counter argument is the fluff in Armada itself, stating that they're crewed by chapter serfs and commanded by techmarines.  Meaning they're not on loan.  The second is their stated function, which is to patrol SM controlled space.  If this follows the same pattern as Ultramar, which seems to be the ur example of a SM dominion, then the SM have their own shipyard facilities.  These may or may not be run by the admech, if 'current' fluff holds.

BFG would be out of step if they allowed SMs to have lances as they currently sit. Only now it would be the rules that are out of step, rather than nomenclature. I'd rather the latter than the former. As for the Firestorm RSV, the arguments still apply: 1) controlled distribution; 2) may hate the SMs getting it for all we know; 3) should be removed from SM lists anyway.

On the lance rules vs WB rules argument: You could argue game balance, except that the SC's BC has a high enough str that under most circumstances, it still is equal to, or more power than, a str 2 lance, found on the most common IN cruiser.  Your argument that 'because the rules make it specifically an anti-ship weapon' overlooks that fact that every weapon in this game is specifically an anti-ship weapon, as there are only two types of possible targets (three if you count ord markers) ships and defenses, and all the weapons work against those.   The fact is long range lance fire is just as good at popping defenses, with a lot less damage to the ship.

Ah, so we should not only give them lances, but long range lances. Riiiiight. You know, what would be great for popping defences? Nova Cannon. Obviously the SMs should have those too. The point being that they should be as specifically task oriented as possible so that they're not so good in non-assaulting arenas. Of course all weapons can be used against ships. Else they wouldn't really be weapons. What we're talking here is optimisation. The lance is optimised for hard targets, ie, ships. The BC is optimised for easy targets; defences. Of these two, which should you give to a fleet that is supposed to be good at assaulting defences and bad at fighting warfleets?

Let me offer a counter argument to yours: thanks to THQ/Relic, BL, FFG, and GW, the lance strike is slowly working it's way up there with the bolter and the land raider in people's minds when they think 'Space Marines'.  So, do we meet new players expectations and grow the hobby, or do we accept that the game withers away until only a handful of grognards play it?

This is truly laughable. If you really want to make a place for lances, write some fluff allowing some specific type of WB to produce a "lance" strike from orbit, or give SMs the "assault lance" which is only useful for boarding and orbital barrages (maybe a type of turret). In no way should we be pandering to the expectations of SM fanbois that happen to glance BFG's way. If we were to do that then the SMs would be the strongest fleets out there. Yes, I said fleets. Because if we're bowing to SM player expectation then there would be an SM fleet for each of the major chapters, each with special rules and some individual ship  types. You'd probably see a chainsword wielding ship for blood angels or space wolves.

I believe that there's something about a super accurate giant laser beams in space that appeals to 40k writers.   

I agree. It is this appeal that let's them just write it in to their fluff without consideration for the state of play. So they are ignorant. Of course, for those fluff pieces that predate BFG this isn't a lack of foresight on the writers part. In fact, the lance as written of is not objectionable. A more accurate laser is fine. One that is differentially more accurate against ships however is not. This could be considered, then, to be a poorly written rule.

I think that the lance worked fine for the purposes of BFG until it came time to write the SM rules. At this point the writers stopped and thought "uh oh". Their solution was far more elegant than I'd have thought possible, even if it didn't strike me as such at the time. My initial thought was "gimmick for SMs, how typical". Mind you, there may have been an element of the gimmick to it, in order to satisfy some of the cravings for special attention that SM fanbois have (I delineate between fanbois and players here, as I have a SM army and fleet, yet don't feel the need to prop SMs up with so many special rules).

[Sigoroth]

I brought it up earlier that there should be some restriction on torpedoes for crusading SM but not dominion lists

A few questions and comments:

1) So you were the only person who raised this as a concern? Why do you think SMs shouldn't get torps?

2) Your restrictions seem backwards to me. A crusading fleet would be assaulting planets far more than a Dominion fleet and so seems to me to have the greater need.

3) Where would the source of this restriction come from? Would it be a self-limiting restriction? If so, why would the SMs choose this? If not, presumably we're talking an Imperium based restriction. How would they police this? As far as I can tell, due to the lack of auditing of SM forces the only possible way to enforce any restriction would have to be 'all or none'. So they're either allowed or disallowed. This would mean that any sighting of disallowed weaponry could be acted upon. Otherwise it would never be enforceable.

[BaronIveagh]

BFG would be out of step if they allowed SMs to have lances as they currently sit. Only now it would be the rules that are out of step, rather than nomenclature. I'd rather the latter than the former. As for the Firestorm RSV, the arguments still apply: 1) controlled distribution; 2) may hate the SMs getting it for all we know; 3) should be removed from SM lists anyway.

And 1-3 are all assumed by you, rather then having a shred of evidence to back it up.  

Ah, so we should not only give them lances, but long range lances. Riiiiight. You know, what would be great for popping defences? Nova Cannon. Obviously the SMs should have those too. The point being that they should be as specifically task oriented as possible so that they're not so good in non-assaulting arenas.' Of course all weapons can be used against ships. Else they wouldn't really be weapons. What we're talking here is optimisation. The lance is optimised for hard targets, ie, ships. The BC is optimised for easy targets; defences. Of these two, which should you give to a fleet that is supposed to be good at assaulting defences and bad at fighting warfleets?

The problem is that atm they're not really good at either.  Squadroned defenses can make a mess out of SC if they are mixed WB/lance platforms.   It gets even uglier in a 'fortress assault' where a Ramilies is standing in for a planet.  You know, exactly the kind of mission that SM are supposedly optimized for?

This is truly laughable. If you really want to make a place for lances, write some fluff allowing some specific type of WB to produce a "lance" strike from orbit, or give SMs the "assault lance" which is only useful for boarding and orbital barrages (maybe a type of turret). In no way should we be pandering to the expectations of SM fanbois that happen to glance BFG's way. If we were to do that then the SMs would be the strongest fleets out there. Yes, I said fleets. Because if we're bowing to SM player expectation then there would be an SM fleet for each of the major chapters, each with special rules and some individual ship  types. You'd probably see a chainsword wielding ship for blood angels or space wolves.

Oh, yes, the horror of new ships.  You might have to think at the table as opposed to use a calculator to decide your moves.  And, my God, who would want new players, particularly SM fanboys that spend more on armies then most people do on cars?  That certainly wouldn't help the cause of BFG at all, what with their absurd spending habits that draw GW like flies to a corpse.

Keep up the snark, Sig, and I'll write a BL story that will meet all those nice criteria you sited earlier and give strike cruisers lances, and then where will you be?

Well, probably whining that it's BL so it shouldn't count, unless it goes in BFG 2.0, and then you'll whine how dare anything change.

And we already have a power weapon for BFG, the power ram.  

I agree. It is this appeal that let's them just write it in to their fluff without consideration for the state of play. So they are ignorant. Of course, for those fluff pieces that predate BFG this isn't a lack of foresight on the writers part. In fact, the lance as written of is not objectionable. A more accurate laser is fine. One that is differentially more accurate against ships however is not. This could be considered, then, to be a poorly written rule.

I think that the lance worked fine for the purposes of BFG until it came time to write the SM rules. At this point the writers stopped and thought "uh oh". Their solution was far more elegant than I'd have thought possible, even if it didn't strike me as such at the time. My initial thought was "gimmick for SMs, how typical". Mind you, there may have been an element of the gimmick to it, in order to satisfy some of the cravings for special attention that SM fanbois have (I delineate between fanbois and players here, as I have a SM army and fleet, yet don't feel the need to prop SMs up with so many special rules).

Sig, the thing you seem to come back to is that there's this crunch rule in how lances work in BFG.  I might point out they work pretty much the same in other games, and yet, none of those seem to have the same problem. with SM having lances.  Or IN using bombardment cannons for that matter.

1) So you were the only person who raised this as a concern? Why do you think SMs shouldn't get torps?

Hmm... I seem to recall agreeing with him.  And my reason was that it's an anti-ship weapon that has to be replenished fairly often and therefor not really something SM are going to want to have to set up lines of supply to replenish.

IIRC a voss pattern ship carries 12, a cobra 24, a IN cruiser 42.  One would assume that a Hunter follows the same number as a Cobra.

2) Your restrictions seem backwards to me. A crusading fleet would be assaulting planets far more than a Dominion fleet and so seems to me to have the greater need.

Capacity to replenish.  A SM dominion can use their industrial base to produce torps, a crusading fleet has no such close line of supply.

3) Where would the source of this restriction come from? Would it be a self-limiting restriction? If so, why would the SMs choose this? If not, presumably we're talking an Imperium based restriction. How would they police this? As far as I can tell, due to the lack of auditing of SM forces the only possible way to enforce any restriction would have to be 'all or none'. So they're either allowed or disallowed. This would mean that any sighting of disallowed weaponry could be acted upon. Otherwise it would never be enforceable.

Practical ability to supply.  An SM crusade fleet is on the move and has to replenish supplies from worlds they rescue or liberate, as they're independent from IN lines of supply.  Unless they happen to free a forgeworld or a major hive world, they can't effectively resupply torps.  Torps are difficult to manufacture under idea conditions, and one would imagine nearly impossible on SM crusade forge ships.

[Sigoroth]

And 1-3 are all assumed by you, rather then having a shred of evidence to back it up.  

No, they're not assumed. The first two are possibilities, the third is a judgement call. Anyway, the point is that their existence is not an argument against the lance being the problem of the Nova. For all we know the IN may not have a problem with RSV Firestorms because of the first two reasons posted (possibly other reasons that I have not thought of too). For all we know the IN may have a problem with RSV Firestorms. You are the one making the assumption that they have no problems with then and that therefore the Nova is not objectionable because of lances and therefore lances are not objectionable for SMs. Lots of assumptions there.

The problem is that atm they're not really good at either.  Squadroned defenses can make a mess out of SC if they are mixed WB/lance platforms.   It gets even uglier in a 'fortress assault' where a Ramilies is standing in for a planet.  You know, exactly the kind of mission that SM are supposedly optimized for?

This is nonsense. SMs are great at planetary assaults, blockade runs and exterminatus. They are great against defences. Even if they weren't, the solution sure as shit wouldn't be to give them lances! 

Oh, yes, the horror of new ships.  You might have to think at the table as opposed to use a calculator to decide your moves.  And, my God, who would want new players, particularly SM fanboys that spend more on armies then most people do on cars?  That certainly wouldn't help the cause of BFG at all, what with their absurd spending habits that draw GW like flies to a corpse.

This is probably the strongest argument against SMs getting lances that I can think of. Well done, just shot yourself in the foot there.

Keep up the snark, Sig, and I'll write a BL story that will meet all those nice criteria you sited earlier and give strike cruisers lances, and then where will you be?

LOL! As if BL means anything. Besides, if you can write a piece of fluff that shows a clear need for a particular SM chapter to use lances, explains how they get the resources to refit their ships, accounts for the process of refitting and explains why the IN would be fine about doing so (convincingly!, not just some crap about them not feeling threatened or being unable to do anything about it) THEN you'll have a more convincing argument than you've ever had before. In other words, if it makes sense taking into account all factors then it's more reasonable than some "fact" from some codex or other. Mind you, for it to be considered for BFG then it would also have to be reasonably generalisable. That is, something that it would be plausible for several chapters to do, not just one chapter out of the thousands.

Mind you, if you're going to be an author, I suppose I should point out that it's 'cite', not 'site'.

Well, probably whining that it's BL so it shouldn't count, unless it goes in BFG 2.0, and then you'll whine how dare anything change.

You obviously know nothing about me, despite our long 'discussions'. Typical of a mindless fanboi I suppose. I am a great advocate for change. I have been since first posting way back on the initial GW BFG forum (yes, GW, before red SG forum, before black BFG forum). If I am opposed to a change it is not out of some irrational desire to maintain the status quo. If I ever argue for no change it is simply because I think they've got it right! That's pretty rare.

Sig, the thing you seem to come back to is that there's this crunch rule in how lances work in BFG.  I might point out they work pretty much the same in other games, and yet, none of those seem to have the same problem. with SM having lances.  Or IN using bombardment cannons for that matter.

What? So, in other game systems lances are more accurate against ships are they? 

Hmm... I seem to recall agreeing with him.  And my reason was that it's an anti-ship weapon that has to be replenished fairly often and therefor not really something SM are going to want to have to set up lines of supply to replenish.

Well they need to resupply all forms of ordnance, be it ammo for projectile weaponry or THs or THs themselves. Don't see this as much of an issue. But hey, I don't suppose you have to take torps.

Practical ability to supply.  An SM crusade fleet is on the move and has to replenish supplies from worlds they rescue or liberate, as they're independent from IN lines of supply.  Unless they happen to free a forgeworld or a major hive world, they can't effectively resupply torps.  Torps are difficult to manufacture under idea conditions, and one would imagine nearly impossible on SM crusade forge ships.

I don't see this as being an issue to be honest.

[RayB HA]

Horizon,

They weren't playtests. They were just friendly games...  

I have a habit of attacking with AC in the enemy turn so that I can waste enemy AC in their turn and then add to the H&R crits with reloaded SCs in the immediate turn after. Basically getting 2 full strength ordy phases one after another to overwhelm the enemy before they can react (move or launch).

So when I say I had 20/18 out they would usually be reloaded almost immediately after use.


Torpedoes are fine in the hands of SMs. Afterall they do use them in planetary assaults and exterminatus! Also strangely enough SMs use boarding torps quite often aswell. It also fits very well for taking out stationary defenses from range.

Cheers,

RayB HA