Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Ok, so I have a question to pose to all of you who know anything about BFG. Why is a space marine cruiser priced only 12 points more than an imperial dauntless, has almost the same stats + thunderhawks... and 6+ armour all round? Plus the strike cruiser is a lot faster... although they do not have torpedoes. The batteries are the same and the Space marine vessel has bombard cannon.
Is there a reason for such a bargain to come so cheap?
Another question, why do space marines get super leadership in BFG, even better than eldar, and related to the same do you thing that "cheeses" marines out?
One last one, the lance weapons on Nova frigates, are 5 pts more expensive than a cobra (or whatever they are called) and come with a lance that can be fired front/left/ right! Is this a typo? is there a reason for this?
Ok, now on to my point. I want to play space marines. The campaign organizers believe that space marines are "too good"??? to the point where they want to make me change the statlines of the ships in order to "balance" them out... also, making me use the eldar leadership table instead of the marine table. I do want to play... and I also want to see if I can use the Black Templar fleet rules. But what do you guys think?
NOTE: this is not a flame/troll war. Im just curious as to how marines play our on the table, and the notions of why this would be an issue for them. The group has already banned necrons (which I have heard are really nasty, although I have played against them to no ill effect) and I keep reading threads where space marine fleets are really "bland" and are not really interesting.
You're kidding, right?
SM are the most underpowered fleet in the game (except perhaps orcs). I don't even play BFG anymore because I got sick of the power imbalance (though I wait patiently for a new SM list to come out before picking it up again... so probably in 2020 ).
In answer to your question, you need to look at the wider context. But first, let's take a look at the ship itself.
First, you'll notice that weapons batteries and bombardment cannons are WORSE than just weapon batteries or just bombardment cannon. This is because you have to fire one weapon system after the other, meaning that you create blastmarkers that handicap the secondary system.
The you'll notice that thunderhawks have a speed of 20cm, 2/3 of that of torbedos. Those same thunderhawks are incapable of causing any damage to an enemy capital ship unless they roll a "fire" result on the crit table.
The combination of these points mean that you have a severely undergunned light cruiser.
As for the other advantages you mention, high leadership, boarding torpedos, etc, are either far less cool than you think, or are to balance other deficiencies.
We have high leadership because we can't realistically squadron our ships. With only one sheild and 6 HP, a SC will nearly always brace when it takes fire, so anything it's squadroned with will lose half of it's (already meager) firepower. This means we have to roll more leadership tests than most fleets.
Boarding torpedos are rubbish against anything not an escort, because they (unlike a thunderhawk) have to roll armour AND a crit, which means they have very little impact. Normal torpedos are almost always better for damaging the enemy.
High armour is self defeating. Because people know it is our strength, they stock up on lances. So you actually have 4+ armour (effectively) against a smart player.
I could go on, but the weaknesses of SM fleets are well documented. It's not impossible to win with SM, but you are setting yourself up at a huge disadvantage.