Space marine fleets: why no cruisers?

[Crimson Longinus]

 

So there has been some rumours about BFG returning in some form, and this got me thinking about marine fleets yet again. 

And one thing I find peculiar, is that marine capital ships are either battle barges, which tend to be battleship sized, or strike cruisers, which are light cruiser sized. And this is a bit weird.

Most common imperial ships are cruisers, yet for some reason marine fleets do not field ships of this size class at all. Why? Is there reason besides that GW did not make kit for such when they originally published BFG?

[Mazer Rackham]

The Lore reason goes back all the way to the HH, when the Legions had fully integrated fleet, army and materiel support. The remits were shifted with the Codex Astartes, and the Adeptus Terra and High Lords saw an opportunity to curtail the power of the Legions when they became Chapters.

 

Essentially, Space Marines are allowed to have powerful ships for the sole purposes of Chapter fiefdom policing, and planetary assault, which is why their ships are so heavily armed and armoured, but they lack the staying power in a space-superiority fight.

 

It's essentially the Rock/Paper/Scissors game that was the response to the HH imbalances of power.

 

Now, that's not to say that some classes of Astartes vessel don't make the Imperial Navy nervous. Marines have some high-speed light ships with formidable weapons and armour for their size, and of course First Founding Chapters may take more potent 'Naval' hardware - the Space Wolves have a Mars Class Battlecruiser, and an Emperor Battleship - much to the chagrin of Navy Commanders...

 

This was reflected in BFG Armada/FAQ 2010 rules which allowed one of the Players ships to be a Venerable Battle Barge (you can but a ship from Navy, Chaos or some other Sector Fleet lists, for example).

 

Edited November 6 by Mazer Rackham

[Crimson Longinus]

17 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

The Lore reason goes back all the way to the HH, when the Legions had fully integrated fleet, army and materiel support. The remits were shifted with the Codex Astartes, and the Adeptus Terra and High Lords saw an opportunity to curtail the power of the Legions when they became Chapters.

 

Essentially, Space Marines are allowed to have powerful ships for the sole purposes of Chapter fiefdom policing, and planetary assault, which is why their ships are so heavily armed and armoured, but they lack the staying power in a space-superiority fight.

 

It's essentially the Rock/Paper/Scissors game that was the response to the HH imbalances of power.

 

Now, that's not to say that some classes of Astartes vessel don't make the Imperial Navy nervous. Marines have some high-speed light ships with formidable weapons and armour for their size, and of course First Founding Chapters may take more potent 'Naval' hardware - the Space Wolves have a Mars Class Battlecruiser, and an Emperor Battleship - much to the chagrin of Navy Commanders...

 

This was reflected in BFG Armada/FAQ 2010 rules which allowed one of the Players ships to be a Venerable Battle Barge (you can but a ship from Navy, Chaos or some other Sector Fleet lists, for example).

 

 

Yeh, I know that the authorities wanted to limit the power of marine organisations after the HH, though to me it is a bit unclear why this would affect cruiser sized ships specifically. Like you can have small capital ships, and huge capital ships are perfectly fine too, but the medium sized ones? Those are right out! Or are cruisers in particular somehow essential for anchoring space battle lines or something?

 

Also, if this is indeed a post Heresy limitation, would it mean that the Legions had cruiser sized ships? So chaos marines would still have them?

[Mazer Rackham]

I think the cruiser restrictions are more of a blanket thing, but Imperial Navy Cruisers are the backbone of the Sector Fleets, the Battlecruisers especially can hold down entire sub-sectors depending on the configuration - there are some which are supremely self-sufficient and equipped to deal with numerous threats. Lunars are regularly paired with Gothic class, for example. They have enough tonnage to take a pounding and enough weight to dish it out.

 

12 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

Also, if this is indeed a post Heresy limitation, would it mean that the Legions had cruiser sized ships? So chaos marines would still have them?

 

Very much so. In fact almost all of the Chaos ships in BFG are pre-heresy relics, and they have plenty of Grand Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Heavy Cruisers and Cruisers. The Imperium by comparison seems to go for Cruisers and Light Cruisers as I would imagine they're easier to build, easier to deploy widely, and have an economy of force where that's important.

[Xin Ceithan]

To further add to the descriptive confusion, you might want to check out the notes on HH era exploration / Legion fleets ( it’s in one ofthe early HH Black Books IIRC) 

 

There is an overview of some types / classes of vessels ( not all familiar to BFG ) used by the Legions.

It also states that during the Great Crusade / Heresy there was a tendency to classify any capital ship carrying a sizeable / deployable Legion force as a “Battlebarge”  

 

Which might explain why the Space Sharks or the Executioners get away with the odd asset that isn’t strictly conforming to the Navy classifications, e.g. the “Night Hag”  (as seen in the BFG section of the IA books on the Badab War ) 

[Mazer Rackham]

2 minutes ago, Xin Ceithan said:

Which might explain why the Space Sharks or the Executioners get away with the odd asset that isn’t strictly conforming to the Navy classifications, e.g. the “Night Hag”  (as seen in the BFG section of the IA books on the Badab War ) 

 

The Night Hag, a favourite of mine - it's a cruiser in displacement, but it's more akin to 'Pocket Battleship' in how it operates. It was actually not a naval shipyard vessel at all, but a refit or private commission for a Rogue Trader.

 

Speaking of Heresy books, there is a BFG Heresy fanfic rulebook put together that looks just like a HH Black Book.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 11/6/2025 at 8:57 AM, Crimson Longinus said:

 

So there has been some rumours about BFG returning in some form, and this got me thinking about marine fleets yet again. 

And one thing I find peculiar, is that marine capital ships are either battle barges, which tend to be battleship sized, or strike cruisers, which are light cruiser sized. And this is a bit weird.

Most common imperial ships are cruisers, yet for some reason marine fleets do not field ships of this size class at all. Why? Is there reason besides that GW did not make kit for such when they originally published BFG?

What do you mean no cruisers? You just mentioned they have strike cruisers…which are the size of light cruisers…so by all accounts are cruisers…

 

On 11/6/2025 at 9:39 AM, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Yeh, I know that the authorities wanted to limit the power of marine organisations after the HH, though to me it is a bit unclear why this would affect cruiser sized ships specifically. Like you can have small capital ships, and huge capital ships are perfectly fine too, but the medium sized ones? Those are right out! Or are cruisers in particular somehow essential for anchoring space battle lines or something?

 

Also, if this is indeed a post Heresy limitation, would it mean that the Legions had cruiser sized ships? So chaos marines would still have them?

BFG and 40K space battles in general are basically just WWII in space.

 

cruisers are extremely important to any fleet because they screen capital ships, they conduct commerce raiding, protecting commerce, and show the flag missions.

 

cruisers are extremely important for keeping aircraft, torpedo boats/destroyers away from your battleships/carriers. Any fleet without sufficient cruiser numbers will be very vulnerable in terms of capital ships. Frigate and destroyer sized ships simply don’t have the fire power to fill that role without using 2-3 in place for a single cruiser.

 

however for marine fleets I’d equate strike cruisers with Cold War helicopter cruisers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_cruiser_Vittorio_Veneto

 

and a battle barge I would equate with a heavily armed flat top amphibious ship.

similar to the tarawa class load out as originally built, but more offensive punch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa-class_amphibious_assault_ship

marine ships are primarily meant to get marines planet side, and provide the support necessary. 
heavily armed and armored to be capable of independent operations to a degree, but not so much so as to be able to rival an imperial navy battle group.

 

remember while navy combatants can carry and deploy some troops, the navy generally uses dedicated troop transports to move guard regiments around and deploy them planet side.

 

edit

a model for a concept of a Cold War strike cruiser.  You’ll note the bow gun appears to be the 8” gun tested in the 80s(bombardment cannon) and something like 32 harpoon missiles (torpedo equivalents?) then obviously the flat top and hangar for helicopters, either in an attack role or a transport role.

 

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/18507048505411381/

 

seems like it would fill the same role at as a marine strike cruiser.

edit 2

battle barges might also be best likened to one of the concepts for the Iowa refits of the interdiction assault ship. Front half battleship, back half aircraft carrier.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

On 11/9/2025 at 6:50 AM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

What do you mean no cruisers? You just mentioned they have strike cruisers…which are the size of light cruisers…so by all accounts are cruisers…

 

Given that I specifically exempted light, cruisers, I obviously mean the larger cruisers. Standard cruisers, battle cruisers, heavy cruisers and grand cruisers. Ship that in BFG had eight or ten hit points. I just find it peculiar that marine fleets seem to completely skip these size categories. 

 

And yes, like some people have mentioned, marines sometimes use standard imperial cruisers and CSM use all sort of older ships. But when I am talking about "marine ships" I mean design specifically for marines, the ships with the hammehead prow with launch bays, bombardment cannons and heavy armour. And I am curious of why "medium sized" capital ships of this variety do not seem to exist. 

 

On 11/9/2025 at 6:50 AM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

BFG and 40K space battles in general are basically just WWII in space.

 

cruisers are extremely important to any fleet because they screen capital ships, they conduct commerce raiding, protecting commerce, and show the flag missions.

 

cruisers are extremely important for keeping aircraft, torpedo boats/destroyers away from your battleships/carriers. Any fleet without sufficient cruiser numbers will be very vulnerable in terms of capital ships. Frigate and destroyer sized ships simply don’t have the fire power to fill that role without using 2-3 in place for a single cruiser.

 

however for marine fleets I’d equate strike cruisers with Cold War helicopter cruisers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_cruiser_Vittorio_Veneto

 

and a battle barge I would equate with a heavily armed flat top amphibious ship.

similar to the tarawa class load out as originally built, but more offensive punch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa-class_amphibious_assault_ship

marine ships are primarily meant to get marines planet side, and provide the support necessary. 
heavily armed and armored to be capable of independent operations to a degree, but not so much so as to be able to rival an imperial navy battle group.

 

remember while navy combatants can carry and deploy some troops, the navy generally uses dedicated troop transports to move guard regiments around and deploy them planet side.

 

edit

a model for a concept of a Cold War strike cruiser.  You’ll note the bow gun appears to be the 8” gun tested in the 80s(bombardment cannon) and something like 32 harpoon missiles (torpedo equivalents?) then obviously the flat top and hangar for helicopters, either in an attack role or a transport role.

 

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/18507048505411381/

 

seems like it would fill the same role at as a marine strike cruiser.

edit 2

battle barges might also be best likened to one of the concepts for the Iowa refits of the interdiction assault ship. Front half battleship, back half aircraft carrier.

 

So this answers why the ships they do have exist. This does not still answer why the Medium sized" marine capital ships do not exist. 

 

[Tacitus]

18 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

So this answers why the ships they do have exist. This does not still answer why the Medium sized" marine capital ships do not exist. 

 

Are you looking for the fluff reason, which has been provided, the game balance reason, or are you looking for the business reason?

[Crimson Longinus]

15 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

Are you looking for the fluff reason, which has been provided, the game balance reason, or are you looking for the business reason?

 

All of them really. The fluff reasons do not seem particularly convincing to me, or I am just not getting them. But of course if the fluff reasons are just post hoc rationalisations for business reasons, that would be expected.

 

 

[SpecialIssue]

The role of SM ships is first and only to enable the independent deployment of Marines, as deigned by Guilliman's Second Founding, and the political impetus to limit the power of the Adeptus Astartes in the eyes of the other institutions of the Imperium, as said before.

 

The Battle Barge is the large-scale platform enabling deployment of Marines en masse and as a logistics/command hub. It accomplishes this mission of transporting and safely deploying Astartes through its significant mass and durability. This is seen in the original BFG tabletop with its large number of HP, best armour possible in the game all-round, and large, high quality ordnance capability.

 

Strike Cruisers have the HP of light cruisers reflecting their smaller mass, and high quality but limited ordnance (1 squadron which is nonetheless rare for something their size in the game). But most strikingly, they combine the best armour possible in the game on all facings like BBs, with the fast movement speed and great manoeuvrability (90 degree turns!) of light cruisers. They seem perfectly adapted to safely deploy Astartes of company or less through both speed, manoeuvrability and significant durability for their size.

 

These 2 classes (along with smaller escort boats) fulfil the primary mission of independently deploying Astartes well, through most conceivable scenarios from full-scale invasion to blockade-running. Within the confluence of other factors such as the number of marines needed / available in Chapter operations, the manpower requirements of larger ships, and the political lens of avoiding void-to-void fleet power, is there any justification / efficiency in mandating a ship size between these?

 

Looking at the design of BFG, I think there was a clear design philosophy put into the design of the SM fleet, with the line designed not just according to commercial reasons but according to thematic and lore rationale. BFG came and went before the commercial team started to have a say in the design team's focus (6th edition).

 

For further thoughts on Astartes naval warfare, there's an old analysis I made linked in my signature that may be of interest.

[Tacitus]

3 hours ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

All of them really. The fluff reasons do not seem particularly convincing to me, or I am just not getting them. But of course if the fluff reasons are just post hoc rationalisations for business reasons, that would be expected.

 

 

Try this to help you understand the fluff reasons.  The (Pre WWII) Washington Naval Treaty.  Post War (WWII) Japan not even having cruisers today.  The German Navy was similary stomped down.  Even the Loyalist Marines still "lost" the Heresy War and were curtailed in similar fashion. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Given that I specifically exempted light, cruisers, I obviously mean the larger cruisers. Standard cruisers, battle cruisers, heavy cruisers and grand cruisers. Ship that in BFG had eight or ten hit points. I just find it peculiar that marine fleets seem to completely skip these size categories. 

 

And yes, like some people have mentioned, marines sometimes use standard imperial cruisers and CSM use all sort of older ships. But when I am talking about "marine ships" I mean design specifically for marines, the ships with the hammehead prow with launch bays, bombardment cannons and heavy armour. And I am curious of why "medium sized" capital ships of this variety do not seem to exist. 

 

 

So this answers why the ships they do have exist. This does not still answer why the Medium sized" marine capital ships do not exist. 

 

Again it combined with others’ answers about keeping Marines’ military capabilities limited completely explains it.

 

56 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

Try this to help you understand the fluff reasons.  The (Pre WWII) Washington Naval Treaty.  Post War (WWII) Japan not even having cruisers today.  The German Navy was similary stomped down.  Even the Loyalist Marines still "lost" the Heresy War and were curtailed in similar fashion. 

Tbf only 2 navies today operate cruisers, not that classifications are relevant any more.

[Tacitus]

13 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Tbf only 2 navies today operate cruisers, not that classifications are relevant any more.

True that modern destroyers are approaching the size of WWII cruisers - in fact the Zumwalt Destroyers displace even more than WWII New Orleans class Heavy Cruisers.

[Karhedron]

12 hours ago, Tacitus said:

True that modern destroyers are approaching the size of WWII cruisers - in fact the Zumwalt Destroyers displace even more than WWII New Orleans class Heavy Cruisers.

 

Naval doctrine has changed a lot in the last 80 years, particularly with the rise of aircraft carriers and guided missile destroyers. I remember the BFG rulebook for the Despoiler class Battleship it mentioned that carriers did not phase out traditional battleships (which is of course the opposite of what happened in real-world naval warfare).

Edited yesterday at 03:44 PM by Karhedron

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

20 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Naval doctrine has changed a lot in the last 80 years, particularly with the rise of aircraft carriers and guided missile destroyers. I remember the BFG rulebook for the Despoiler class Battleship it mentioned that carriers did not phase out traditional battleships (which is of course the opposite of what happened in real-world naval warfare).

Small correction.

the carrier did not phase out the battleship.

 

post war the allies remained strong allies aside from the soviets. After the war the allies had no hostile navies that had battleships, and the whole point of battleships was to fight other battleships. 
it generally took about 3 fleet carriers to sink a battleship, it was very inefficient.

[jaxom]

On 11/6/2025 at 2:00 PM, Mazer Rackham said:

it's a cruiser in displacement, but it's more akin to 'Pocket Battleship' in how it operates

Please excuse my ignorance, what is a pocket battleship?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

Please excuse my ignorance, what is a pocket battleship?

Not really a real or official thing.

generally a large ship, often larger displacement than contemporary heavy cruisers, but far short of contemporary battleships, and main armament likewise an in between heavy cruisers and battleships, like the deutchland class ships. Actually about the only ships I’ve heard that term used with IRL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee

Edited 17 hours ago by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Mazer Rackham]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

Please excuse my ignorance, what is a pocket battleship?

 

Your pardon, I forgot that the term is not universal - it's an unofficial British Naval term used to describe certain ship's unique characteristics and capabilities in naval warfare. A pocket battleship refers to a type of heavily armed cruiser capable of engaging enemy heavy cruisers and acting as commerce raiders.

 

Essentially (very roughly), it's the navy equivalent of what a Rogal Dorn is to the Baneblade - it has a smaller footprint, it's a bit faster, but can hit almost as hard and take it in return.

[jaxom]

Much appreciated!

[Tacitus]

14 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Small correction.

the carrier did not phase out the battleship.

 

post war the allies remained strong allies aside from the soviets. After the war the allies had no hostile navies that had battleships, and the whole point of battleships was to fight other battleships. 
it generally took about 3 fleet carriers to sink a battleship, it was very inefficient.

Even before the war was over, Battleship orders were cancelled.  Which is why we don't have any Montana Class Battleships.  And while Carrier vs Battleship may have been inefficient (though I'm not sure that's accurate as you're counting ships not air wing) it was laughably one sided.  Two German Battleships sank a carrier.  Compared to Taranto, Pearl, and all the sinkings in WWII.  The Yamato sank at most three ships, two destroyers and an Escort Carrier.  Carriers ended the battleship.