Page 12 of the linked document states:

SCs use a teleport attack to Hit and Run in BFG, so, logically, teleportarium.

No, it uses the phrase "hit and run attack." My quote was all under the Hit and Run subsection.

Please include the quote that supports your argument, Baron.

Battlefleet Gothic, Blue Book, Page 35, 'Teleport Attacks':

"Ships which are close to their enemies may attempt to initiate a small-scale boarding action with their Teleporters. However, active shields interfere with the teleport beams, so such attacks can only be made against an enemy who's shields have been knocked down."

This is almost word for word how a teleportarium works. As far as RT not having every capital ship having a teleportaium or it' equivilant, it's due to the fact that it's of much greater utility to the players than it is in other games. Of the named SM strike cruisers in fluff that we get much detail on, they almost universally have teleportariums. Them being near universal may be particular to SM chapters who specialize in ship to ship actions. The only ship to get VERY specific is Nicor , which has an array of teleportariums as to allow mass teleportation, but that's a space marine grand cruiser.

I guess, to me this falls under the "what's your flavor of the game?" type question. You want all your Strike cruisers to carry a Teleportarium? Put em in there! You don't, don't! The only things I would say are "pre-wired" into the vessel are a launch bay and a storm drop pod bay. Anything else is open for interpretation! Perhaps all strike cruisers carried a teleportarium during the Pre-Heresy era. Perhaps since then, some have either been refitted due to malfunction or some other more pressing purpose. I could repost the exact text of the boarding attack rules but suffice to say the Baron is correct! However, In a more Granular game like RT, One could also interpret this as just a catch-all for small scale boarding attacks that do not involve either assault shuttles or boarding torpedoes!

Using the straight BFG rules EVERY ship is assumed to have a teleportarium! This is obviously no longer true in RT or even in GW's background. Remember that at the time BFG was written, All Terminators could carry short range teleporters that essentially turned them into jump troops! This also is no longer allowed so a little retconning may be in order now! It's up to you! Just sayinn...

I'm with Radwraith on this. The fluff has been changed over the past four years, a great deal in some cases, and I feel like in order for every Astartes vessel to have a teleportarium (to say nothing of every vessel light cruiser and above), you'd have to houserule the teleportarium as "not archeotech anymore," and I don't feel like doing that.

But hey, your game, your rules

In fact, a launch bay isn't even completely necessary. A strike cruiser is 50-60 spaces large. That means it can carry 10-12 auxiliary craft (i.e. Thunderhawks). 10-12 T-hawks is more than what's needed to deploy a company, and they can double as cargo lighters to resupply the ship.

Hell, by RAW, you could deploy an entire Astartes company (as infantry, at least) in 4 Thunderhawks, including an attached Dreadnaught, and Librariam, Chaplain and Techmarine staff. For that matter, if they chose to use the Thunderhawk Transporter variant instead, they can drop in 2 RH1N0 chassis vehicles or 1 Land Raider per bird.

I did the working out based on the size of a squadron of Thunderhawks (5) a while back, and it turns out that, if they had them aboard, and chose to go all-out, with no Thunderhawks flying as escort/cover rather than troop-carrying, a Strike Cruiser had the capacity to land roughly 5 companies of astartes per hour. Without using drop pods (with drop pods, it comes to 7 companies in the first hour, and then they need to recover the pods).

I'm with Radwraith on this. The fluff has been changed over the past four years, a great deal in some cases, and I feel like in order for every Astartes vessel to have a teleportarium (to say nothing of every vessel light cruiser and above), you'd have to houserule the teleportarium as "not archeotech anymore," and I don't feel like doing that.

But hey, your game, your rules

Minor points:

1) IA X was more recent and still has the teleportariums and even the 'super' teleportariums on Nicor . HH books from IA also mention them in passing.

2) BFG actually takes place in the past, or in sectors where more of the better toys are used, as far as FFG's games go.

. (The Gothic War having taken place 700 years earlier, the third War for Armageddon takes place in Segmentum Solar, where we keep all the best toys, and the Badab War has the Inq and SM chapters breaking out super duper archeotech that hasn't been seen since the Horus Heresy, and obscure strike cruiser variants with both prow launch bays and prow torpedo tubes, which I might add, I hope puts the 'dorsal' 'prow bombardment cannon' to rest).

Most likely in areas with more ship to ship combat (remember that BFC has had very, very few fleet actions since the Crusade that founded it) they're more 'standard' than they are here.

Also, again, ships are supposedly rare in Calyxis, but it abuts the Scarus Sector (warp route from Sepherus Secondus connects to Tomish, being spinward of Calyxis), which is home to one of the Bastion Fleets, meaning that right next door, relatively speaking, is one of the largest ship building operations in the IoM, as well as the massive reserve fleets, due to the fact that from Sepherus Secondus it's NOT THAT FAR TO THE EYE OF TERROR, a fact that has been referenced in RT books.

As I said; Everyone is free to interpret as they wish. I don't think there's a wrong answer!

Prow or dorsal, What's the difference? On a Light cruiser the firing arcs remain the same!

As I said; Everyone is free to interpret as they wish. I don't think there's a wrong answer!

Prow or dorsal, What's the difference? On a Light cruiser the firing arcs remain the same!

Because the name of it is literally 'prow bombardment cannon' right in the rules. As opposed to, say, the Battlebarge's 'dorsal bombardment cannon'

Fair enough! It's still irrelevant to me but if it's important to you I understand!

BTW Baronlveagh: I am always amazed at the level of legitimate 40k Arcana you manage to come up with! I know you run the Dark Reign website but your knowledge is impressive still! (In case you're wondering; that's not sarcasm! Just an honest salute!)

LOL Strike Cruisers were something that got hashed over very thoroughly in 2010. The big debate within those that worked on FAQ 2010 was if strike cruisers should get lances. Everyone admitted they were broken, and needed more options. The sticking point was the fluff about the Nova and how it concerned the Navy, The anti-lance side was absolutely fixated on the fact it was lance armed, and not the fact that it's over all design was as a brutally fast, highly efficient, cap ship killer.

In RT it's a bit different, but at the time, lance fire really was what frequently sealed the deal when it came to ship losses, so fluff and crunch sort of bled together in their minds. The compromise however was absolutely stupid, to make the lance option underpowered and over priced. The actually balanced, gameplay wise, option was a str 2 lance for free (it works out to roughly the same damage, and just swaps one brutal mechanic for another).

Not that there was not plenty of idiocy to be had: FDTs, Defiant (which never was fixed. it's still useless to this day unless you just need something to pad out points, and even then a escort squadron is better), Jovian, certain testers doing everything they could to trash Battlefleet Bakka just to piss me off since I was the only one on the testing team who had ever actually played that fleet list...

I note that in the original rules (BFG), The Bombardment cannon wasn't really any different than the lance! Other than fluff, What was the fuss about?

I note that in the original rules (BFG), The Bombardment cannon wasn't really any different than the lance! Other than fluff, What was the fuss about?

BC uses the gunnery table, lance doesn't. That's really about it gameplay wise.

It was otherwise entirely fluff and certain testers seething hatred for all things SM. The writers wanted to give the SC more variety, but couldn't add ships that had not already appeared in other GW pubs, and had sort of a round table thing going on with the testers. Basically the prow weapons on SCs were switched up a bit so that you could take a wider variety of weapons to give SM players more options, and the option to take an extra shield to try and make SC less broken. The extra shield pretty much everyone agreed was reasonable, but when it came to offering other weapon choices, a brawl more or less broke out between those who were more concerned with game balance, and those more concerned with fluff. The lance in particular was extremely thorny due to the wording of the Nova's fluff, but fluffwise was countered by GW putting SCs with lances in the fluff for Planetstrike.

The other (insane) issue was that Defiant has been broken since introduction because it's str 1 lbs and number restrictions make it not worth the points. The only real solution is for it to be two str 2 lbs, but at the time, and again when BFG:R was done, the mental gymnastics to try and not do that were amazing. Seriously, someone pushed three LBs as a possible solution, despite the fact that every time one was crippled, it would break RAW, just to try and avoid giving it that 4th LB. Because as all right thinking IN players know, better Death than Assault Craft.

And if you think that's unreasonable, you can only imagine Jovian, and the foaming at the mouth when that showed up. Since it's basically an IN version of the Styx. IF you read FAQ 2010's restrictions on it, you can get an idea of how rabid opposition to an IN cruiser sized carrier was. Effectively, no list but Bakka can take it, and then only one of them, and only if you take a bunch of other stuff first. Granted, I agreed that it was a bad fit for the fluff for Bakka, it was a ship for Battlefleet Gothic, but was cut for space in the blue book, and put in BFG Magazine. But just the 'neckbeard rage' at the idea, not because the ship had not existed for YEARS but because very few people had BFGM, they got a weird idea of what IN was 'supposed' to be.

The biggest irony of it was that they were lecturing the writers of those rule books and magazines about what they had written.

I note that in the original rules (BFG), The Bombardment cannon wasn't really any different than the lance! Other than fluff, What was the fuss about?

The biggest irony of it was that they were lecturing the writers of those rule books and magazines about what they had written.

Now that is funny!

Beware of raging neckbeards though! (Just ask Matt Ward!)

As Grognard's go I'm pretty clean shaven but I have seen the rage you're talking about. Many of said neckbeards seem to forget that, despite all their setbacks, the IoM is still the dominant force in the galaxy! And that is largely because of the Astartes! I'm no fanboy but that just is the way the background is written!