I would really like the imperial blackship be made official. I love the rules, its extremely fluffy, and it gives the space marines a desperately needed battlecruiser class vessel.
Oh, that's a governor, I'd got that in my head as a macharus.
Yeah I like that one.
;D
Agreed on the Voss CL's.
the Yahoo group is debating this:
Iowa Class Battlehip:
Battleship/14 HP
Spd: 15 cm
Turn: 45 (cannot use CTNH)
Shields: 3 (4?)
Turrets: 4
Armor: 6+
Weapons:
Nova Turret 1:
3* Nova Cannons
Arc: L/F/R
Nova Turret 2:
3* Nova Cannons
Arc: L/F/R
Nova Turret 3:
3* Nova Cannons
Arc: L/S/R
All shots from a Nova Turret have to be in the same arc. So Turret 1 could
engage in the Left arc, Turret 2 can engage in the Forward arc, while Turret
3 engages in the aft arc, But all three shots from Turret 1 would have to go
in the left arc.
Inspired by the real life Iowa Battleships.
Discussion is further then this... but just to pass on the hot news from Yahoo. ;)
Yes!
*Voss Prow Light Cruisers (Endeavour, Endurance, Defiant) should get a 6+ prow at no extra cost. These vessels are never used as they are. They die (I experienced and tried...).
<snip>
* Despoiler statistic change (PROW LAUNCH BAYS :) ).
<snip>
But, most 'broken' the voss prows.
So voss cruisers with 45* and a prow deflector? hmmm, I could see live for that. Pondering...
But the designers should be slapped for giving a no on prow armour for them. A clear example of overestimating the capacity of the vessels. I mean, the Defiant is (along the Hellebore) the most useless vessel ever.
Despoiler from how model is build:
prow launch bay str4
port/starboard launch bays str 2
port/starboard weapon batteries str 10 @ 60cm
dorsal lance str 3 @ 60cm lfr
The HA's (all three of us now!) are discussing it, but here's my thoughts. The Voss ships are broadside-heavy like true IN cruisers, and they definitely shouldn't be in the front of the line, unlike the Dauntless, that has its primary firepower in the front. Both ships aren't that different othertwise, and the Dauntless doesn't seem to suffer for not having prow 6+ so I just don't see why this is such an issue.
I use these Voss models all the time- more of my light cruisers are Voss than Dauntless, and I simply haven't seen the kind of bad luck you're seeing.
Don't get me wrong, Horizon, I really like the idea because its themeful, and the hard trade as opposed to allowing it something to buy is a selling point in my mind. It's just that I just don't see these things as inherently broken the way you do.
- Nate
6+ voss prow means cheaper access to battleships
As they function more like cheap cruisers with 6+ prow
Not a fan of the idea
No, as AC are better than lances.
The 10 point difference when the Emperor was at 345 and Oberon at 335 (using original rules of 60 cm WBs) was fine. So since the Emperor costs 365 points, the 60 cm WB Oberon should cost 355 points.
Insert Quote
It's an Emperor with lances installed. If anything, it should have 45 cm lances, not 45 cm WBs.
6+ voss prow means cheaper access to battleships
As they function more like cheap cruisers with 6+ prow
Not a fan of the idea
The 3 Dauntless + Emperor is a well known 750 pt fleet. Saying that giving the Voss patterns 6+ prows makes this easier because you wouldn't need to take full line ships is disingenuous. As it stands the 3 Dauntless + Emperor fleet has no need of a line cruiser. In fact, the Dauntless act like mini Chaos ships in this fleet. That is, they act like sharks, attacking the enemy opportunistically while letting the Emperor act as the corner stone of the fleet. There is no need for line cruisers in this fleet.
Anyway, as far as my recommendations for the IN are concerned, I'd like to recommend that the Oberon goes back to its original profile. No idea what they were thinking about dropping the ranges down ... makes it useless. I don't care if that means propping its cost up to 355, to keep it in line with the Emperor. This ship needs the range boost. I'd also like to recommend bringing the Armageddon back down to its original cost of 235 pts. Hell, you guys finally print a ship some ships that're balanced and then immediately go and ruin them. What's with that?
The HA's (all three of us now!) are discussing it, but here's my thoughts. The Voss ships are broadside-heavy like true IN cruisers, and they definitely shouldn't be in the front of the line, unlike the Dauntless, that has its primary firepower in the front. Both ships aren't that different othertwise, and the Dauntless doesn't seem to suffer for not having prow 6+ so I just don't see why this is such an issue.
I use these Voss models all the time- more of my light cruisers are Voss than Dauntless, and I simply haven't seen the kind of bad luck you're seeing.
Don't get me wrong, Horizon, I really like the idea because its themeful, and the hard trade as opposed to allowing it something to buy is a selling point in my mind. It's just that I just don't see these things as inherently broken the way you do.
- Nate
Well, firstly, all the Voss CLs are overpriced. The Dauntless is not. Secondly, as you've noted, the Voss CLs really are just miniature line cruisers. The vast majority of their firepower is broadside oriented, like a line cruiser, their prow weaponry is torps, like a line cruiser and they only move 20cm, like a line cruiser. The Voss models look like they have a 6+ prow. Their high price says that a 6+ prow wouldn't be unreasonable at no additional cost. Their layout suggests that their role should be in a line breaker capacity, for which a 6+ prow would be appropriate.
The Dauntless, on the other hand, is cheaper, faster, and focuses more of its firepower (while having the same total firepower), making it a true CL. The focus of firepower can't be understated either. If a Dauntless has a target in its forward arc only it gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in its for arc and a side arc it still gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in all three arcs then it has the same firepower. Only if it has a target in one or more broadside arcs and no prow target does the Dauntless have less firepower than a Voss. What this says is that for a Voss to be a better choice than a Dauntless you should be using it in a line-breaker role, for which it needs 6+ armour.
The only other possibility really is to run it like a slow Dauntless around the flanks, only presenting its side to the opponent (rather than the prow like a Dauntless) in which case you get less firepower. So, in this case you're trading firepower and speed and cost for an increase in survivability. While I wouldn't make this trade, given how essential speed is to outflanking an enemy and/or chasing escorts it is fine if some people want to make this trade. However adding a 6+ prow to the above does nothing to adjust this scenario. Remember, the Dauntless still has superior firepower if there's a target to the fore and one side.
So, imagine that you're using the Voss as a Dauntless but going abeam, in essence trading speed, firepower and cost to get an increase in survivability. Adding 6+ prow armour doesn't alter that unless you happen to have a ship in your fore arc as well. With 5+ armour and an enemy in your prow and side arcs the Voss would be identical in survivability to the Dauntless. It is only if you can avoid a foe to your fore that your survivability increases. Therefore the 6+ prow would only serve to maintain the trade-off of firepower, speed and cost for survivability when using the Voss as a flanker. Not a cost that I'd pay, except as an excuse to take some cool models, but one that someone might pay.
What the 6+ prow does mostly, apart from maintaining the above mentioned trade-off, is allow the Voss to be used like a miniature line cruiser, which is what it looks like, and what its stats otherwise lend itself to. What's wrong with that?
On the 90°/45° issue, I think it should remain 90°, again at no change in cost. Reasoning: well, it has half the firepower and shields of a line cruiser, with two thirds the hits for two thirds the cost. Surely, in terms of balance, the offset for the loss of firepower/shields is the 90° turn rate. Secondly, even if you're going to do nothing other than make a cruiser smaller it should get some speed/turn bonus for the loss of mass.
As for the designers saying "NO" ... well, who gives a crap? Do they play the game? Do they talk to the community? If they want to make decisions like this then I say they should get on here and explain their reasoning, and open themselves up to the barrage of common sense they'd get in return. Maybe some of it will stick.
Oh, someone mentioned earlier that you could get a resin kit of the Voss. Where from? How much? ETC!?
QuoteInsert Quote
It's an Emperor with lances installed. If anything, it should have 45 cm lances, not 45 cm WBs.
That's a swap that I wouldn't mind if it didn't come with a cost increase.
Here are a few things I am approaching the HA's about
1. Thoughts on the Oberon BB. I never liked that the ship has reduced-range prow/dorsal WB’s compared to eth Emperor, though I do admit that it is themeful. Some have suggested that we “fix†the ship and raise the price but give it all 60cm WB’s, others have said leave it as-is because they like how cheap it is. What are the thoughts about this having a Tyrant-flavored option to pay for all-60cm WB’s for some given cost? Now the player can decide between cheap or shooty. I haven’t play-tested this yet, but I’m thinking +20 points sounds pretty fair.
2. Going up the thread, you can see what my thoughts are concerning the Voss CL's having both 90deg turns and 6+ prows. These ships having "either/or" as opposed to "and" is a general consensus among the HA's, but we are still discussing this ship because frankly the Voss CL's are marvelous vessels that are sadly underrated and very effective when used correctly. In keeping with their cruisers but smaller theme, how about in addition to this, they are given an option to buy an additional shield for +10 points? Once again this is still under discussion and far from decided, and in truth I haven't even playtested this yet so it may end up being a non-starter.
Thoughts?
- Nate
Oberon:
I like the lances to 45cm, batteries to 60cm approach for no cost change.
Paying +20 for all 60cm seems good to me as well.
6+ prow is ok already. Might still be a bit overpriced but I think not by much. Give it 90' turns and it should be about right. Forget about the second shield.
Hi Sigoroth! Not all of the changes to were done with the HA's input! That being said, I am really interested in hearing why you think the Armageddon should be brought down to 235. From much of the feedback I have seen, it is MUCH better than an Overlord for the same price, even without the 60cm WB's. I'm not saying we're not going to entertain it, I just want to hear your thoughts.
Separately, I agree the Oberon should not have been dumbed down, though the logic is sound- the ship is supposed to be OLD. I can bring this up with the HA's. Ray's back so he may already be reading this as well.
I especially want to address the Voss cruisers, but I will address that separately as a reply to another one of your posts.
- Nate
Hi Sigoroth! Not all of the changes to were done with the HA's input! That being said, I am really interested in hearing why you think the Armageddon should be brought down to 235. From much of the feedback I have seen, it is MUCH better than an Overlord for the same price, even without the 60cm WB's. I'm not saying we're not going to entertain it, I just want to hear your thoughts.
Separately, I agree the Oberon should not have been dumbed down, though the logic is sound- the ship is supposed to be OLD. I can bring this up with the HA's. Ray's back so he may already be reading this as well.
I especially want to address the Voss cruisers, but I will address that separately as a reply to another one of your posts.
- Nate
The Oberon range upgrade option is fine. I wouldn't mind it as a forced upgrade, but to me that's what it would be anyway. I see no use in the ship as it stands.
You're right that the Armageddon is much better than the Overlord. This, however, is because the Overlord is utter rubbish. Let's take a base cruiser with 12WB@30cmL+R and 6 prow torps for 180 pts. Add dorsal lances - 210 pts. Increase range of broadsides to 45cm - 225 pts (this is cheaper than if given the option to upgrade, because of the forced choice). Now, increase the range again, this time to 60cm but drop the strength down to 8. If this were optional I'd say that it should cost nothing. However I, and a lot of other players, would prefer the 12WB@45cm version, so I'd say that if this were a forced choice it should actually bring the price down to 220 pts. Now you can add another 5 pts just to cover any possible undercosting, bringing us back to 225 pts maximum. Of course, I still wouldn't take it because of how useless its firepower is.
For the Armageddon, let's take a Lunar (180), add dorsal lances (210), extend range to 45cm (230), add 5 pts for error = 235 pts. Basically there should only be a 5 pt difference between an Armageddon and a 12WB@45cmL+R Overlord (because lances are better at range). The 8WB@60cmL+R Overlord is crapper though, so the larger break.
If I were to make the range upgrades on the Armageddon optional I would simply make the base ship cost 215 pts with dorsal lances (error included), allow the WBs to be upgraded for 10 pts and the lances for 15 pts. Even this one is cheaper than the current incarnation.
As for the Voss ships, they cost two thirds of a line cruiser. So let's see what two thirds of a line cruiser would be:
Hits - 5.33
Speed - 20cm
Turns - 45°
Shields - 1.33
Armour - 6+/5+
Turrets - 1.33
Prow Torps - 4 F
P+S WBs - 8 L+R
Compared to the stats above the Voss has +0.67 hits, +0.67 turrets, -0.33 shields, -6+ prow, +45° turns, -2 torps, -2WBs (offside)
So, assuming that we do a straight swap of armour for turn rate, equalising these two attributes, do you think the loss of firepower and shielding (slight) makes up for the slight raise in hits/turrets (less than 1 in each case)? I think the rounding up of the turret makes up for rounding down the shields. I don't think that the +0.67 hits comes close to making up for 2 torps and 2 offside WBs (given it's a line-breaking ship after all).
So, from a balance perspective, if you're going to add another shield I don't think it should cost anything, since the Voss would still be overpriced at 6+ prow and 45° turns.
I believe the 90° turn is far more justified than the 2nd shield. For a start, it's a cruiser in miniature. One would presume that better handling would simply be a natural consequence of the lowered mass. The 2nd shield is unprecedented on an IN CL. Not saying that it isn't doable, or that 90° turn rate is unavoidable, just that the former is harder to justify than the latter.
As for being a "small cruiser" as opposed to "large escort" I get this in terms of its role. But what I want to know is, just what do these ships bring to the line? If they're identical in capabilities but smaller then what was the point of the IN making them in the first place? I would have thought that they'd have made them so that they could act in the line, but also to cover the weak spots of the IN line. I would have thought this would have been the entire point of making the ship in the first place. Huzzah for the 90°/6+ prow Voss!
Does anyone notice no restriction was ever placed on how many Dauntless or Endeavor CL’s a fleet is allowed to have?
6+ prow and 45' turns should fix it.Admiral, that is a typo... should be 90*...right?
Sigoroth, before I say anything else, I received your off-line reply yesterday, and it’s too bad theire’s no emoticon here for ROFL LMAO!!! It’s nice to know you’re carefully monitoring your vegemite intake! Also, PLEASE feel free to keep kicking my @$$ and keeping me honest. I expect nothing less.
(so what if I'm stupid?) ???
In any case, your above analysis makes good sense, but one of the reasons I hate using the Smotherman formula for anything other than a soft baseline is because it does not account for how ships behave in a given fleet. A classic example is the Dauntless. Going by the Smotherman formula the Dauntless doesn’t seem that far out of balance, but the way its firepower is distributed on the ship makes this guy awesome for the points considering how it fits in an IN fleet.
By design, IN vessels are supposed to have shorter arms than Chaos, and 60cm weapons are supposed to be reserved for battleships in the Imperial Navy. This is what makes the Overlord the oddball- it’s the only cruiser-weight ship in the whole IN with 60cm batteries, and that’s where the point premium comes into play. If you consider the ship to be 2/3 a Retribution (or technically a tad less than that once you start counting shields & turrets), the points make much more sense. You are right that at range, 8WB’s aren’t rolling a lot of dice; at best it will do good to drop a BM on the enemy past 45cm before its lances go to work. However, when you consider the IN does best to go prow-on until it can cross the T, then the Overlord comes into its own when reaching out at the enemy’s prows, and when doing so it’s the only IN cruiser in the fleet that can gun on with the battleships it is supporting. (Which brings us back to the Oberon…)
Did I mention how much I hate slide-rule profiling?!? How a ship fits into a fleet incorporates far more than its weapons loadout and hull characteristics. The fact that the IN has access to exceedingly cheap cruisers comes with a premium in and of itself.
Actually, a second shield is perfectly justifiable if the ship is going to be a line-breaker and a “cruiser but smaller†immersed in the gun line as opposed to an “escort but bigger†such as the Dauntless, designed to be a fleet greyhound or escort patrol leader for lonely patrols, running pirates down, scouting missions where it may have to male a quick getaway, etc.
So you know, we are examining several options with the Voss ships right now, one of which being the ship getting the 6+ prow for free (meaning no change in turn rate). I personally don’t like this outcome, but the stark reality is the Endeavor/Endurance are fantastic ships that are never going to get their due as long as the Dauntless remains a better deal for the point cost, which in the larger scheme is what really needs to be addressed.
I addressed this somewhat in the line above, but immersed in this paragraph is a $10k question: “what was the point of the IN making them in the first place?â€
Does anyone notice no restriction was ever placed on how many Dauntless or Endeavor CL’s a fleet is allowed to have? From a fluff perspective, the Imperium is vast, far more so than can possibly be patrolled with any regularity, and entire sub-sectors sometimes go generations without the visit of a single capital ship of the Imperial Navy. Light cruisers are intended to fill this gap by being cheap capital ships with relatively undemanding weapon systems that can be built by secondary yards in considerable numbers. These are typically sent out in pairs or at best with a few escorts tossed in as under-strength cruiser-destroyer groups on lonely patrols through systems at risk from or frequented by pirates and such, freeing larger capital ships for the many wars the Imperium is engaged in at any one time.
Fluff is great, but here’s the real scoop. From a game (and model-selling) standpoint, the Dauntless was created as a counterpoint to the fact that ship-for-ship, Chaos capital ships are intentionally cheaper than their IN counterparts. Before BFG proved itself to be popular soon after 2000, the intention was for the four core fleets to be all that was developed for the game, with Orks and Eldar never intended to be more than peripheral components of a rule-set that was supposed to center around the conflict between Imperials and Chaos in general and the 12th Black Crusade in the Gothic Sector in particular.
Because the game actually did prove to be popular, the decision was made to expand the game beyond the Gothic Sector. This proved to be a bit difficult for several reasons. Think about it- for all the threat Chaos poses to the Imperium (and they do, no doubt), in the larger scheme of things Chaos is but one of several grave threats the Imperium faces at any given moment. In reality, the Eye of Terror (and to a smaller extent the Maelstrom) is the only real bastion of Chaos in the whole galaxy; everywhere else they exist only as small, isolated bands or lonely flotillas that become a threat only by cutting off remote systems or by subverting pre-existing Imperial authority. Even at the Eye of Terror, Chaos only holds firm to one actual forge world and whatever shipyards they managed to hold onto after the 13th Black Crusade, and in sum their resources are but a tiny fraction of the Imperium’s. For example, the first Armageddon War was between Chaos and the Imperium, but that entire war was waged from the Chaos side primarily from a single Space Hulk.
In the larger scheme of things, Chaos isn’t even the Imperium’s biggest threat. The Orks assail the Imperium in several different warzones at any given moment, each one as large as the Waagh! of Armageddon (what made Armageddon so significant was its importance to the Imperium as a linchpin of several different forgeworlds, the presence in the system of St. Jowen’s Dock and its vital shipyards and repair facilities, and not least its proximity to Holy Terra). The Tyranids are becoming an even greater threat; so far the only significant victory the Imperium has gained against their encroaching advance that didn’t cost the Exterminatus of a system was at Maccrage, and even that was at the expense of nearly an entire battlefleet. The list of threats go on and on, and the game can be expanded ad infinitum to an extent as varied and encompassing as Wh40k itself.
- Nate
Which is why I would object vehemently if he even puts forth an inkling of an idea that he wants to change the Dauntless.
Ok, got my computer out of storage and can now access my stored ship profiles. So for the IN here's one of the ships I had in mind:
Potentate Class Carrier 220 pts
Hits - 8 Speed - 20cm Turns - 45°
Armour - 6+/5+ Shields - 2 Turrets - 3
Armament Speed/Range Strength Arc
P+S L. Bays as craft 4 -
P+S Lances 30cm 2 L+R
Prow Torps 30cm 6 F
The Defiant is poor. Even with 6+ prow.
Yeah, so Endeavour is 120, deduct 15 for the prow and it is 105. So 120 is good with 6+ prow.
As for the Defiant, a pair of those has 4 Lances that shoot 30cm L/F/R. How is that a bad thing?You really do not want Defiants to be that close to the enemy. They are easy to surpress carriers.
-Zhukov
They are easy to surpress carriers..
Support weapons want to stay back, but the defiant has short range and so must be close which puts it in position to be surpressed easily. This only changes if you squadron with a larger cruiser for protection, but does nothing to change the oddities of having a support ship tied to a line ship. Even then I would only think that putting it with a dictator would have any use.
Styx has 60cm weapons, Devestation has 60cm weapon.
Mars has a Nova Cannon.
Dictator is unique (torps+attack craft) do head on along Gothics/Lunars/Dominators.
And having a support ship tied to a line ship is an oddity? I'm not following that at allLine ships: Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, etc.
QuoteAnd having a support ship tied to a line ship is an oddity? I'm not following that at allLine ships: Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, etc.
Support ship: Mars, Dictator (special case)
It would be odd to squadron the defiant to a lunar or gothic since the LB make it an odd composition. It would fit better squadroned with a mars or dictator since the armament is a better match. Without the 6+ prow it really needs to be squadroned to do anything useful since the larger cruiser can protect the weaker CL. Unlike a line cruiser, the defiant is much easier force BFI which hurts it even more since keeps it from reloading ordnance. Because of that you want to keep the things out of the line of fire, but paying 280 points for 4 LB isn't the best use of your points. That leaves squadroning the defiant. Put it with a mars and the lances and torpedoes don't so much. Put it with a lunar or gothic and things are a little better but you don't really have much option with the 2 LB making an endurance or endeavour a better choice. That leaves the dictator but even there it's a bit doubtful if there aren't better ways to spend the points.
Obviously it can't have 4LBs, so that leaves doing something sensible with the remaining armament. Perhaps +15cm on the lances, or 2 torps in addition.
What I meant with 1:1
To take a Defiant you need to take an Endeavour first.
So that is already an 'extra cost' for the Defiant. It cannot be taken freely. Thus when both ships would be equal one would need to pay less for the restricted ship to balance it out.
To be clear, is the optional 6+ armor/45 turn an alternate option you intend to include, or is that just saying one or the other will see the final draft? It would be interesting to see something like 'some voss patterns were given additional armor on their prows, though this hampered their ability to rapidly turn.'
S4 torps on the Endeavour and Endurance welcome - optional 6+/45' does make them more like mini cruisers. Had a couple good games with the new rules last night, even though the Endurance isn't really to my taste and I'm left a little bit bemused by the S2 WB, but it still performed well.
The continued restriction of the Defiant and Endurance is unwelcome though. You buy ships to fill a role - roles that the Endeavour doesn't share. This will always make them deeply unattractive to me. Why so tied to this method of restriction anyway? If you want to make them rare variants, why not 1 per X points? That way you can still take them to fill their role, and keep them rare and denying the ability to spam them. Restriction of this kind works for Tau, because you're given a points break if you take the restricted escorts compared to not taking them, and there's always room for escorts in a list. It doesn't work for cruisers.
I also think the Defiant needs a little more help than just a points break. Its 2 lances are pitifully weak, and against 2 turrets its AC roll just 2 attacks on average - not enough to reliably score even one hit. In fact, mine didn't do any hits past shields last night. Its best use is to provide a CAP for two other cruisers, but at 120pts it's expensive for that, even without including the price of the mandatory Endeavour.
What about giving it S4 bays, fighters only?
Any chance the Endurance could go to 1Lance F/L/R instead of 2WB? Even at a cost increase. I like coherent armaments, me. Smiley Then again, when you have a squadron of three, it does become a sensible 6 WBs.
Sigoroth and Horizon have made another subtle point about the Defiant – the designers are no longer in charge ...
Thus, we had to go with an alternate weapons fit for the prow. Rather than go with the 2x30cm WB's, we went with 2x30cm lances, which gives it considerably more punch and counterbalances the launch bays not being as hard-hitting as 4 bays would be.
The Defiant may be difficult to use by itself, which is why it is attached to an Endeavor, with which it works brilliantly, especially now with the -10 point drop and the Endeavor’s +2 prow torps. If you think of the Defiant and Endeavor not as two separate vessels but a single one worth 240 points, you are getting a heck of a lot more hitting and defensive power for +20 points over a Dictator.
Sigoroth and Horizon have made another subtle point about the Defiant – the designers are no longer in charge, the HA’s are so we can fix this any way we want. I’ll be honest with you all. It took a leap of faith on their part to simply hand the three of us this game. It is something I take seriously, and while I don’t mind incorporating tweaks or making changes they were interested in seeing happen anyway, I would feel disingenuous if the HA’s started ripping up profiles in ways we know they wouldn’t approve of simply because we can.
For the rest it is meh. Ofcourse the HA shouldn't just adapt all and everything but the Defiant is such a poo-piece a complete profile rewrite is needed and warranted.
IF the Defiant can't take anything other than 2 AC broadside (total) and IF it can't take torpedoes for its prow weaponry THEN why not just drop its points cost? Bring it down to 110 pts.Because it would still be rubbish for 110pts.
I actually like the direction they've gone with the S4 torps and 45' turns.
As for the Endeavour and Endurance, well bring their prow torps back down to 2 (keeping their total armament in line with a Dauntless) and just give them the free 6+ prow with 90° turns. Simple really.
The Defiant on the other hand brings less total and focusable fire than a Dauntless and is slower to boot. However it can support the fleet via its extra launch bays (launching CAP so larger carriers don't have to) and can operate in the line having 6+ prow and 2 turrets.
[/color]
Because it would still be rubbish for 110pts.
I actually like the direction they've gone with the S4 torps and 45' turns.
2LBs is nothing - next to no offensive power at all. It will also struggle to protect a fleet with a mere 2 fighters. The very least it needs torps as well to encourage it to reload.
I believe someone suggested str2 l/r/f prow battery and str2 l/r/f dorsal battery along with the str4 torps.
I hope we go with that option.
Hell NO should it get S3 Lances! Not that I think that would make it overpowered (15WBe), but it is not meant to be a super-dauntless with L/F/R Lances and AC, it is a mini-dictator.
I think lastspartacus's suggestion was eminently reasonable. It NEEDS the torps in order to give it a chance of getting a reload ordnance special order, and given 4wbs (the firepower of a sword) in addition to torps, it would have 16WB equivs (and that's counting the LBs as 6WBe despite being more like 4WBe offensively), compared to a dauntless's 17WBe, and the Endev/Endur 20Wbe - hardly overpowered.
It would still be undergunned, but it might just carve itself enough of a role to make itself useful with that load out.
It would be undergunned, INCLUDING its launch capacity. It's not too many weapons on one cruiser.
The other Voss variants would be 4WBe more powerful than the Defiant, INCLUDING its LBs.
Why does everything have to have the same power? Do you really think the Emperor has equal gunnery with the Retribution? The Defiant has a role and it's not supposed to be shooting at stuff. Who cares that the other Voss variants would be more powerful as long as the ship is priced accordingly. If that is so, then everything is still balanced.
The Emperor and Oberon are within half a WBe of the Retribution.
The Dictator has identical WBe to the Lunar and Gothic. What they lack in WB power, they make up in LB power. So your "Carriers should be undergunned" is nonsense.
Even with a dorsal S2 WB, the Defiant is 4-6WBe weaker than its cousins, and would be 10WBe weaker in direct firepower alone.
Yes, if you drop the price, it is going to start looking more attractive, but I'd far rather it be the equal of its peers, rather than the runt of the litter.
Hell NO should it get S3 Lances! Not that I think that would make it overpowered (15WBe), but it is not meant to be a super-dauntless with L/F/R Lances and AC, it is a mini-dictator.
I think lastspartacus's suggestion was eminently reasonable. It NEEDS the torps in order to give it a chance of getting a reload ordnance special order, and given 4wbs (the firepower of a sword) in addition to torps, it would have 16WB equivs (and that's counting the LBs as 6WBe despite being more like 4WBe offensively), compared to a dauntless's 17WBe, and the Endev/Endur 20Wbe - hardly overpowered.
As for why 45' turns is fine - These are mini line cruisers. Their role is identical to that of a line cruiser.
The Imperium builds them because it is vast and it needs to show the flag of a capital ship in more places than it would otherwise be able to with standard line cruiser. It is still effective in the line of battle, and it can head up a flotilla of escorts in standard combat missions just as well as the dauntless can (better even), and in defensive situations is also worth more than a dauntless. Its role is that of a line cruiser, and it doesn't need to be given additional roles by making it more manouevrable.
As to why the player would take them instead of a line cruiser: They're a cheap way to cover your bases (another reason why the endeavour-endurance/defiant link needs to be severed), adding more WB, lances or LBs if that's what you need. They're also an alternative to the line cruisers, if that's your preference. You may prefer to field more ships than fewer - as long as they're viable alternatives to line cruisers then this will work. It's also fluffy, which again will work as long as they're viable alternatives.
>>Within half a WB? So what about the lances and the LBs?
No, within half a WBe (Weapon battery Equivalent). The Emperor has 22WBs, and LBs worth 24, for a total of 46WBe. The Retribution has 24WBs, Lances worth 9, and Torps worth 13.5 for a total of 46.5WBe.
And to some extent that's why the Emperor is more expensive, and the Retribution is still considered underpowered for its cost. Obviously you have to consider the role. But in pure firepower terms, they're pretty even. For someone to be calling the defiant undergunned, when it's both clearly overmatched by every other variant and has the most tenuous role, it's a bit mind boggling.
I also absolutely hate the idea that a Defiant is going to be forced to be part of a squadron with another carrier just to make it worth reloading. One of the reasons for having one is because you don't HAVE another carrier. Giving it torps is such an obvious fix for this. The 45' isn't such a loss for these ships - they can still turn and fire their broadsides entirely forward or backward. It's vital on the Dauntless, because if it's facing the wrong way it's as good as useless, but the Voss have no such weakness.
Sure, against a single escort-type pirate a Dauntless is going to be better at chasing it down and destroying it, but if:
There are multiple pirate ships
And/or you've found a position the pirates have to defend (such as their base)
And/or they've got AC
And/or you're engaging in a skirmish with escorts from another power
And/or you have to defend a fixed position (such as a planet from invasion)
Then the Voss is far and away a better choice, and these are all vital roles that must be performed. The dauntless is good at one thing and one thing only - hunting down and destroying a lone, fast enemy vessel. The Voss are so much more than that.
Not necessarily. That depends entirely what the threat is, but agaisnt multiple ships or where a position must be attacked or defended and fighting is the only option, the Voss is an entirely better choice than the Dauntless.
The other two are good ships, and I don't need much prodding to take them. The Defiant needs more firepower, and a reason to reload without slaving it to another ship. Both it and the Endurance need to be able to be taken by themselves.
I'd much rather have +2 torps than 90' turns.
As I've said before, the reason for making them smaller is so there can be more of them and so they can be in more places at once.
And to some extent that's why the Emperor is more expensive, and the Retribution is still considered underpowered for its cost. Obviously you have to consider the role. But in pure firepower terms, they're pretty even.
For someone to be calling the defiant undergunned, when it's both clearly overmatched by every other variant and has the most tenuous role, it's a bit mind boggling.
Admiral, I think you over-rate carriers.
On a 6x4' board, starting at opposite long edges, with the Endeavour Closing and Defiant Abeam, the defiant, doing everything it can to evade the Endeavour, will get off 3 AC waves before the Endeavour gets into weapons range, doing 6 attack runs. The Endeavour is free to go on Lock-on to try and swat the waves, and free to brace if it fails, as it isn't doing anything else. Assuming the AC don't get swatted, it will do 4 attack runs against a braced ship, and 2 against an un-braced one (because the Endeavour will imminently be in firing range and would rather Lock On.) The Endeavour takes 1.33 hits average before entering weapons range.
Thereafter, the Defiant's lances will only damage the Endeavour's hull in 1/4 of shooting phases. The Endeavour will do 0.6 hits with its torps, (1.3 hits if S4), and then 0.3 hull hits (1.3 if locked on). The Defiant cannot brace, as it depends on its AC, and it cannot lock on, as it depends on its AC.
In the following turn, the Endeavour closes to close range, and from then on it's all going the Endeavour's way. As soon as it's crippled, S1 AC pose no real threat, (being shot down 75% of the time by 2 turrets) and S1 lances won't ever get past 1 shield. The Endeavour, with S4 WBs, can still pose a threat, even when crippled.
Carriers are only more expensive than their counterparts when they get the full 4AC per 2WBs. IN is also deliberately overcharged for its carriers, more than other races. AC Power also scales with size of wave. 2 Carriers launching waves of 2 are less powerful than a carrier launching waves of 4. Carriers were also priced with the ability to build up enormors waves of attack craft, which has since been nerfed. All of this makes the defiant less powerful than it should be - it's 130pts, it should be able to defeat the other Voss, but it can't.
Which brings us back to the duel:
On a 6ft board, it will take the Endeavour 7 turns to bring any part of the board within weapons range - without AAF, thanks for pointing that out (5 turns). The Defiant has no choice but to let the Endeavour get in range. The Defiant is already as far away as it can get, so the Endeavour merely needs to plot an intercept course - even if it attempts to hide behind celestial phenomenon, the Endeavour can just intercept it on the other side. Sure, on an infinite board, the Defiant could run away and cripple the Defiant before it has a chance to catch up, but that's just not the case.
I see you also massively overestimate the power of AC. 2 Bombers at (D6-2) average 1.5 attacks each, but 1/2 the time 1 will be dead and 1/4 of the time both will be, giving an average 1.5 attacks total. (0.5 hits per wave) Better to send 1 fighter and get 2.5 attacks for 75% of the time, giving 2 attacks average (0.67hits). But then the Endeavour can shoot them down with torps, and then you're looking at 0.375 attacks from the remaining bomber. (0.125hits). That's also not including brace saves, and the Endeavour can happily swap from AAF or LO to BFI if neccessary - it doesn't need its firepower until it reaches weapons range.
This is far less than your supposed 2-3 attacks per bomber (which is a natural 4 and a natural 5 - not average rolls), it's more like 1 attack per marker if you make use of fighter suppression, otherwise it's 0.75.
And shooting the waves will reduce this average further. The Defiant is out of range for the majority of the journey, so it's no great loss of firepower. Considering that the Defiant will only get three attack runs before the Endeavour catches up, and it struggles to do half a hit per attack run,
Horizon, the problem is you're still insisting on having 2 prow weapons vs my preference for one. If prow weapons were more focused on one type of weapon system, you wouldn't have to have those puny WB and torp strengths and would not need to have dorsal weaponry included and I would prefer to keep dorsal weaponry on IN and Chaos ships limited to BCs. and HCs.
You design philosophy objection is even flawed with your design. 2 prow weapons on a ship with 6+ armor? This is much more flawed than the lances. Secondly, the design of the Voss is based on an all 5+ design. The 6+ is just how we think the design should have to make it worth taking. If we keep to the existing 5+ I will agree it can take 2 weapon system. If it goes to 6+, then I would say it should only take 1, WBs, lances or torps.
Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.Now I think you're doing apples and oranges. ;)
Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.
Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.Now I think you're doing apples and oranges. ;)
That's a ridiculous position. I suppose you'd like to pop back in time and tell the admiralty that Nelson class battleships can't have all-prow main weapons, because other battleships of their size and armour don't? The power and location of weapons hardpoints is defined by the class and subtype of vessel, not its battlefield designation.
The attached file is a battle simulation, HA's Proposed Endeavour vs HA's proposed Defiant. Endeavour starts on the on the left, Defiant on the right. Defiant gets first turn:
Defiant heads north, launches 2 bombers (trading power for immunity to torps)
Endeavour goes on AAF, covers 64cm in 2 turns. Gets intercepted in 4th Ordnance Phase, fails to brace, shoots down one bomber, takes 2 attacks, but no hits.
Defiant launches again, and now has a choice - try and do a U-turn, or try and escape along the top border.
Endeavour turns north to intercept, and goes AAF. After turning west, Defiant also goes AAF, in an attempt to take advantage of the Endeavour slightly overextending itself.
Endeavour is intercepted by AC a second time. Its turrets fail to down a bomber, they get 4 attack runs, and score 1 hit. Endeavour comes to new heading, and positions itself on the tail of the Defiant.
Defiant launches again, now in nearly shotgun range, but Endeavour's turrets shoot down the entire wave.
Endeavour fires back with 4 torps, 1 shot down, 1 hit.
Endeavour is now in a perfect position, able to fire a full broadside at Defiant, with no lances in return because the defiant moves on. In addition, the Endeavour can fire torps into the Defiant's path, which are twice as damaging as Defiant's bombers, forcing it to retain fighters on CAP - stripping it of any offensive ability. If Defiant turns to bring its lances to bear, its lances only have a 1/4 chance of getting past the shields, and invite a Lock On from Endeavour. It can't get away, because blast markers in contact slow it down.
Defiant is rapidly crippled, boarded, and captured. The End.
This scenario is not significantly changed with 5+ Prows, 90' turns, the Defiant doing U-turn instead, or Celestial Phenomena.
Me too! It's been a bit of an HA free zone around her the last week and a bit. Could do with some input.
Look at the illustration provided then.
"All Imperial Ships with 6+ prow have only 1 prow weapon."
So what? The Voss ships are differently engineered. That's an entirely arbitrary and ridiculous restriction, because they require their multiple prow weapons to function.
From a model profile standpoint, the Voss is simply too different in layout and mission profile to say it compares to the Mars-type cruiser hulls. Having 6+ armor does not in and of itself demand that the ships have only one weapon system. Letting these ships take 6+ armor as an option (as opposed to a fundamental requirement on the larger ships) in itself refletcs the fundamental difference in design. Voss is purposely and by intention as different from Mars-pattern ships as Chaos ships are, keeping in mind that until relatively recently, Chaos ships were (and in some cases still ARE!) Imperial ships.
- Nate
I don't see why the weapon batteries just cant go on the dorsal. Spreads things out nicely for crits, and just makes alot more sense. And theres more precedent for it.
Nate, please explain to the need for 45* turns if a 6+ prow. I don't understand the need to nerf the turning ability.
Me too! It's been a bit of an HA free zone around her the last week and a bit. Could do with some input.I haven't seen or heard anything to make me believe what we did to these ships doesn't appear to fix 90% of their problems, keeping in mind we are never going to achieve 100% with anything we do to this game system.
Now that the Voss is for the most part sorted, here's a new argument: should the Vengeance GC variants (both Chaos and Imps) get 6 prow torps as an option?
- Nate
Voss cruisers don't have the engine power of a Dauntless. if you beef up the prow, the extra armor makes it clumsier to turn. That's why it's an option.
Sig, what about the Defiant?
Okay, proposal:
Since Nate has made clear that stats as been cannot be changed (why? bugger! They should!) I propose the following battleship for the Imperial Navy.
A new design to replace to poor performing Retribution :
Revolution Class Battleship
345 points
12 hits
6+/5+ armour
speed 20cm
turns 45*
turrets 4
shields 4
port weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - L
starboard weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - R
dorsal lance battery strenght 3 @ 60cm - LFR
prow torpedoes strength 9 @ 30cm speed
As a model the Retribution model is perfect.
<grin>
Okay, proposal:
Since Nate has made clear that stats as been cannot be changed (why? bugger! They should!) I propose the following battleship for the Imperial Navy.
i like this but rather have it as an option to the ret rather than a completely different ship
for instance:
instead of 60cm batteries, refit allows the ret to increase its firepower but at the cost of reduced maximum range
or allow the ret to take a targetting matrix ala the mars
One little thing to maybe consider is giving the Endurance a small buff and switching the prow batteries with one lance. Never liked its low damage output, or had any intentions of ever taking one over the endevour, so at least it could have some armor punching capability.
Okay, proposal:
Since Nate has made clear that stats as been cannot be changed (why? bugger! They should!) I propose the following battleship for the Imperial Navy.
A new design to replace to poor performing Retribution :
Revolution Class Battleship
345 points
12 hits
6+/5+ armour
speed 20cm
turns 45*
turrets 4
shields 4
port weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - L
starboard weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - R
dorsal lance battery strenght 3 @ 60cm - LFR
prow torpedoes strength 9 @ 30cm speed
As a model the Retribution model is perfect.
<grin>
If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.
That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/
Aside of the "standard" Voss CL changes I am shocked by above. Very!If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.
That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/
CL's are NOT getting a 60cm lance. However, the AdMech rules do have a screw-up that IS getting fixed in the FAQ. According to the AM rules, the Endeavor/Endurance can trade their prow torps for a single 30cm L/F/R lance. That is rubbish, is not WYSIWYG to the model and does NOT match what we wrote. Here's what should have happened:
AdMech Voss CL's (ALL of them) can purchase one 30cm L/F/R dorsal lance for +10 points.
Jee Nate! Talk about missing the point...
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1979.0
We (a lot) want the Retribution like I propose in the Revolution design.
Thus we want a Retribution NOT with 60cm str12 batteries but with 45cm str18 batteries.
:)
I have to agree with Sig. What possibly unintended consequences could there be? They get a buff and people take more of them?
Anyway, if they're holding up the FAQ, then leave them as is for now and come back later. I can always houserule them in the meantime.
"getting a buff" is the biggest problem we're seeing as we go through this process. With the exception of ONLY the Devastation (which is already ridiculously under-costed), every suggestion for ships in the current rules is for some kind of profile improvement. If we take this kind of up-creep on-board, down the line the trend will be to compensate by up-creeping the ships that get left behind by the changes, and it becomes a never-ending cycle, which is the biggest problem with WH40k today.
Aside of the "standard" Voss CL changes I am shocked by above. Very!If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.
That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/
CL's are NOT getting a 60cm lance. However, the AdMech rules do have a screw-up that IS getting fixed in the FAQ. According to the AM rules, the Endeavor/Endurance can trade their prow torps for a single 30cm L/F/R lance. That is rubbish, is not WYSIWYG to the model and does NOT match what we wrote. Here's what should have happened:
AdMech Voss CL's (ALL of them) can purchase one 30cm L/F/R dorsal lance for +10 points.
Almost every AdMech player I know takes the lance instead of torps.
Everyone who does has modelled their Voss AdMech CL with a dorsal lance on top. I have.
The AdMech prow in fact: does not have torp slits like standard IN prow... (sensor array would make more sense).
140pts (130+10) for such a little bugger.... naaah. :/
A pledge to NOT FAQ this mentioned AdMech change.
This is a boo - hiss.
:)
Personally the voss should've been seperated from the FAQ anyway.
Thanks for this, but it needs to be more tightly worded.
- The Endurance/Defiant will be unhinged from the Endeavor and instead be limited to a TOTAL of two per 500 points (not two each).
I'm a little annoyed that the endeavour series gets 6+ prow at the cost of 90' turns. Since you are reducing the cost of the ships, can we not get the option for 6+ prows for +10 points and retain the 90' turns?
I don't mind the Endurance and Defiant solutions.
I'm a little perplexed by the Admech change. The free lance swap fits nicely with the rest of the fleet. Since they are light cruisers, having a 60cm lance like other admech cruisers is too much, but swapping torpedoes for a 30cm lance has never felt overpowered and felt flavorful in the most advanced Imperium fleet. This does balance out with the -10 point cost reduction the CL so that taking the lance will end up costing the same as it does now and boosts the CL since they aren't giving up torpedoes to take the lance, but it makes me wonder at bothering at all. Why not just leave the admech costs as is and let the swap the lance for free?
It just feels weird to have a CL with broadside, dorsal, and 3 prow weapons
I know players want more from these ships, but they by intent simply were not designed to offer that to the Imperial fleet. To be honest, we wouldn't be offering any of this at all except that it fits the actual models that were produced quite well. To be honest, the only reason broadside-strong CL's need this at all is to give them a chance to close with the enemy prow on before swinging their guns around. That is the ONLY reason this is even being entertained, and the longest part of the discussion was to drop the price and change NOTHING as opposed to even offering the up-armored prow as an option at all.To be honest the bold part is debatable. As you have read most view the design as light cruiser of the line.
We aren't getting S4 Torps. :(
"getting a buff" is the biggest problem we're seeing as we go through this process. With the exception of ONLY the Devastation (which is already ridiculously under-costed), every suggestion for ships in the current rules is for some kind of profile improvement. If we take this kind of up-creep on-board, down the line the trend will be to compensate by up-creeping the ships that get left behind by the changes, and it becomes a never-ending cycle, which is the biggest problem with WH40k today.
The Voss CL's needed a tweak. We took it on board, and the Voss CL's are improved: for no profile change, they are now cheaper. Incidentally, this price change (-10 points across the board) will apply to their AdMech variants as well.
I know players want more from these ships, but they by intent simply were not designed to offer that to the Imperial fleet. To be honest, we wouldn't be offering any of this at all except that it fits the actual models that were produced quite well. To be honest, the only reason broadside-strong CL's need this at all is to give them a chance to close with the enemy prow on before swinging their guns around. That is the ONLY reason this is even being entertained, and the longest part of the discussion was to drop the price and change NOTHING as opposed to even offering the up-armored prow as an option at all.
If we're claiming WYSIWYG as justification for profile increases, make the Exorcist 260ish and 3 lbs on each side to bring it in line with the Styx. It could use it, though Horizon and I disagree on this issue.
If we're claiming WYSIWYG as justification for profile increases, make the Exorcist 260ish and 3 lbs on each side to bring it in line with the Styx. It could use it, though Horizon and I disagree on this issue.
There is a case for such an argument, though the Exorcist isn't unbalanced and the fluff tends to view them as old junkers that are pretty much useless. I don't find this terribly convincing myself. It would be more convincing if they were civilian grade materials. Anyway, if we're going to go down that route the Retaliator needs the boost much much more.
@Ad'A
The Endeavour and Endurance should be identical costs. If Smotherman comes up with something different then that's because Smotherman is crap.
If you gave the Voss CLs 6 prow torps then they would be more powerful than a Daunt (simply +2WB broadsides). I quite like 2 torps and 2WB they have. They're a broadside ship with some torps to clear fighter screens or make opportunistic attacks.
So what do we want from the Voss? We want a Light Cruiser of the line. A ship that stays with the cruisers (so 20cm speed), can get into the line of battle (so 6+ prow), support the cruisers on their way in (modest forward torps), fight it out when it gets there (broadside firepower), and, unlike the larger cruisers, react to changing battlefield conditions (90' turns).
But...you can do that with 45* turns...
The play-test battles were 8 against 8 CL's, as follows:
4x Dauntless (torp)
4x Dauntless (lances)
2x Cobra
1x Firestorm (I would have preferred 3x Cobras, but I wanted the points to be exactly equal for the play-tests)
vs.
4x Endeavor
2x Endurance
2x Defiant
The first play-test last weekend was with the variants getting an extra shield. What came up was Sigoroth's biggest complaint- the ships became too resilient compared to the Dauntless. 6+ armor and 90deg turns together turned into the same problem but for a completely different reason that DIDN'T come up in the play-test but came up in a game yesterday: Endeavors with 6+ prows and 90deg turns together gain the capability to come in line-abreast with the bigger ships, then quickly go abeam and use their broadsides far more effectively than the larger cruuisers. More importantly, they can present an abeam aspect to enemies far more easily than regular cruisers can, which is too much like escort behavior vs. cruiser behavior and is a potent ability in and of itself.
How did you test that in a battle between nothing but CLs?
Every good scientist needs a control.lol
QuoteEvery good scientist needs a control.lol
The only real test for a hypothesis is reality. And I doubt that you'll find a lot of players out there who field an IN fleet consisting only of CL's.
IF you want a proper test use an Armaggedon list as intended (meaning a list consisting mainly of CL's and BC's) an look how it performs against a regular navy fleet (meaning an emperor, Mars, a combination of Lunar/Gothic/Dominator, some dauntless' and some Cobras to fill up points). I'll doub't that the Armaggedon list will be on the winning side...
My 2 cents: If i get the designers intenion correctly the CL's should work as a kind of "half cruiser", so 2 CL's should do the work of 1 regular cruiser in another fleet. The probem is, that due to the mechanics (especially of shields) such a "half cruiser" is usually worse than 0.5 cruisers. Maybe not at 1 on 1 (or in this case 1 on 2 ;D) but surly on the fleet level. so to bring them in line I see 3 options
1) forget about the whole "Half line cruiser" Idea an make them real light crusiers. meaning beef up speed/turns and make the weaponary more front-centred or better flexible (F/L/R)
b) improve their combat stats so that they can hold a line: 2nd shield will do the job, but 2/3of a regular Crusiers armament should also do it if you want to stay with 1 shield
c) decrease their price a good bit. At ~80-90 points I would consider to use some of them (but even than not more than say 3 ships on 1500 Point and only if the opponent isn't too competitive) but not at the current price.
From a historical view the whole concept is a bit weird: CL's were usually never more than oversized escorts (or refitted civil ships) and could never stand a chance against real ships of the Line.
. No special weapon mechanic! "This cruiser is equipped with a Wave Matter Motion Destroyer: If it hits a targget less than 30cm away, roll 2D6. On a roll of 12, the target is destroyed! On a roll of 2, the Wave Matter Motion Destroyer causes the firing ship to take 2D6 Fire criticals!" Yeah, nothing like that
Grand cruiser, 10 hits, 2 shields, 15cm move, 45 degree move, 2 turrets. 5+ armor
Dorsal heavy lance, 1 strength, 30 cm, LFR
Port heavy lance, 2 strength, 30 cm, L
Port weapon battery , 6 strength, 45 cm, L
Starboard heavy lance, 2 strength, 30 cm, R
Port weapon battery, 6 strength, 45 cm, R
pts to be determined.
The Jovian was a close one- this really has no business in an Imperial fleet if one looks at the fluff storyline irregardless of game balance because the point as HA's in the end is if we incorporate anything at all, it has to fit in the story, be true to the fleet's "flavor" AND be balanced.
Simply getting rid of the Dominator would be a fluff violation because Kar Durniash (the place that INVENTED the Dominator) is far closer to Bakka than Cypra Mundi is. If Obscurus fleets can have unlimited Dominators, it would be wrong to say Bakka can’t.Ok, fluff violation it may be, but it is the simplest solution. Whatever you decide to do the NC options should be more limited unless you've changed your mind about NC spam :)
None of these are much better than anything currently in the Imperial fleet, and that is ALSO intentional.Yes and No. The victory would outpace the Apocalypse despite having two fewer lances because it is capable of firing them at max range for no penalty. The Jovian is set to become the best cruiser carrier available to the IN. Stuff like the Mercury and Havoc are just plain nonsense. They are cool ideas, but they need fixing first. Neither have to be BETTER than what we have, but it would be nice for them to make sense too.
the Endeavor and Endurance are +10 points because they actually come with two FDT's for "free" in that they always have them and always pay for them by being +10 points more expensive in their basic cost.I missed that when I was reading the PDF. Seeing that, I'd get rid of the Fleet defense turrets as an upgrade altogether and just incorporate them into the profiles and costs like with admech. that will add the flavor to the fleet and simplify the list building and focus the fleet more on shooting and less on AC.
This list CLEARLY violates several statements in it's OWN fluff! The ability to take an emperor (which we all know is a huge "WTF" when you insist on a low-carrier setup.The domius astra was an Emperor battleship and it was the flagship of battlefleet bakka. So using it can hardly be a "violation of the own fluff".
Hey nate.
Just becuase they are the 'best of' does NOT mean they should be in the game. The real 'best of''s made it into armada because they held a monocre of sense and balance without blowing the other fleets out of the water... or just didn't capsize the whole idea of an imperial fleet.
This list CLEARLY violates several statements in it's OWN fluff! The ability to take an emperor (which we all know is a huge "WTF" when you insist on a low-carrier setup. Also, this fleet is begging for "nova cannon spam" up the wazoo with unlimited mars and dominator ships.
Nate, your great, but have a look at the fleet list I suggested, and maybe we can prevent this fleet from being a disaster :D
the fleet i am proposing will have access to all of the vessels that use the imperial gc hull, where in other fleets they are difficult to access. Also, making room for the Governor which is a tried and tested vessel, and new varients for the hull that we can come up with.As I said before: this is simply not an attractive option. There is absoluty no reason why anyone should choose this list over any other.
Again: viewing them as 'crap' is your opinion.Ok than show me someone who really plays them except for "Style" reasons...
Or maybe you can take a pair of dictators
I made a competative 1500 point fleet out of segmentum solar, using 4 endeavor light cruisers (or two endeavors and two endurance's), 2 mars battle cruisers and 2 avenger GC's.This tournament list for Adepticon? Please tell us how it went when you are finished :)
And why the hell is everybody afraid with NC spam? Under current rules NC are teethless tigers, only real dangerous in their shortest distance from 30 to 45cm.
3. Even with the new rules using CG's is no advantage. Just not such a big disadvantage as it was before. They have still too much tactical flaws compared to battlecruisers as well as being somewhat overpriced.This is blatantly false. Have you even used one outside of theoryhammer? The vengeance is one of the best gunships an IN fleet can take with the price it has and if you think that they are flawed tactically, perhaps it's just your tactics that are flawed. I use two in my fleet regularly and have always found them to be a far greater tactical asset than any of the other battlecruisers. The three turrets and three shields plus the extra hits while keeping all the maneuverability of a regular cruiser makes them an very versatile resource. The only other ship I put in a battlecruiser slot with any regularity is the Armageddon when I want a nice ranged lance boat. You hardly face CG in IN fleets because the models are expensive and most people aren't fond of the look.
I REALLY like the idea of the Jovian being a reserve vessel in Battlefleet Bakka, which recycles the Bastion Fleets rule of not being able to take a reserve of a reserve. I can also see Emperor BB's only being available as reserves unless Admiral Rath leads the fleet. I will have to crunch this more, but not tonight.
It goes without saying the Mercury needs some tweaking. How about 20cm speed and 10x60cm batteries, still keeping the pops-with-a-bang characteristic? Once again this will need some playtesting before it is dug into much further, but you can only cram so much into an Imp BC hull before it starts becoming a hack job, which we need to avoid.
The Spacefleet Tyrant is a great model for the Siluria, but we can’t call the model out by name because you can’t get them anywhere anymore (even eBay’s been tapped out of these for quite some time!).
Siluria = much better then the Voss ones. The voss ones still need 6+ prows and 90*. The Siluria has not the kinda wasted 2torps. Can focus fp on a 25cm / 90* hull. Competition for the Dauntless.... to be honest it is better then the Dauntless. Dauntless must choose strong prow weaponry or weak abeam. Prow on it is vulnerable. The Siluria can str2 lance / str 6 = like str4 lance with an abeam presence.
Love this Battlefleet. Only thing I would change is to disallow ships from this fleet to be used as reserves in other fleets. Then this list can wallow in its own putrescence forever, and I can just laugh at anyone who uses it.My pc just got a sarcasm overload. lol
Love this Battlefleet. Only thing I would change is to disallow ships from this fleet to be used as reserves in other fleets. Then this list can wallow in its own putrescence forever, and I can just laugh at anyone who uses it.My pc just got a sarcasm overload. lol
I will hunt you down with a fleet of Siluria's, Vipers & Havoc's. ;)
The viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?While I agree with you in the overall point of view, I'd actually say the exact OPPOSITE here. Why take the viper when you can take a cobra for less with +1 to RO rolls?
I really need to agree with Sig here.
There is no real redemption for this fleet. It's just "Lets mishmash every bit of the left over ships that never made it into Armada into a single document".
It just DOES NOT WORK! The special ships in the fleet are bad jokes, and just don't function in an imperial fleet.
Bakka is huge in BFG, being one of the earliest lists to grace the game. However, it also became a dumping ground for every crackpot ship that was ever made. The result? the ships that were actually creative made it into the Armada book, the rest were discarded.
the ONLY ship that I like is the Siluria, because its a "super light cruiser" concept. The viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?
This fleet suffers from so many flaws, it's benefits are being overshadowed. Scrap this and try again.
QuoteThe viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?While I agree with you in the overall point of view, I'd actually say the exact OPPOSITE here. Why take the viper when you can take a cobra for less with +1 to RO rolls?
QuoteThe viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?While I agree with you in the overall point of view, I'd actually say the exact OPPOSITE here. Why take the viper when you can take a cobra for less with +1 to RO rolls?
Eh? No difference in RO rolls. That seems to have been dropped.
Eh? No difference in RO rolls. That seems to have been dropped.Referencing the trade that cobras can do to drop the 1wb in favor of +1 ld to RO rolls.
The Havoc seems fine too, particularly if you account for the +1 turret on the Falchion and 5 pt cost reduction for the Firestorm as proposed in the flawed ships thread. Again, as there's neither Falchion nor Firestorm in this list, it's not a big deal.The thing is, nothing in the flawed ships thread makes a lick of difference since it's not getting an official stamp. Add to that the sword is already available in the list and the havoc becomes useless as you lose one turret and unrestricted weapons arcs while gaining.. +1 wb. There's quite literally no time a sword wouldn't be better than this thing and it's the same cost!
Love this Battlefleet. Only thing I would change is to disallow ships from this fleet to be used as reserves in other fleets. Then this list can wallow in its own putrescence forever, and I can just laugh at anyone who uses it.
My pc just got a sarcasm overload. lol
I will hunt you down with a fleet of Siluria's, Vipers & Havoc's. ;)
Funnily enough, the most tolerable elements of this document.
Hi,
Bakka:
Lord Admiral Rath, what Ld?
Victory Battleship: prow torpedoes please. As original Cold Passage iirc.
Vanquisher: BB without a dorsal? With a broadside value at 30cm of 18 eqv wb. I'll never take this one. :/
It also contradicts the reason you gave me for not giving the Oberon a range upgrade.... ;)
Mercury CB: special rule: like the IN wants 25cm odd cruisers... ;) It is an essence a battlecruiser of the Tyrant. Tyrant with range upgrade + NC = 215pts.
Thus now we pay 45 points for 2 dorsal lances (=30pts), 15cm extra range on some batteries (=15pts) and a special rule with a pro and con. The con exceeding the pro.
But the Tyrant is overcosted in itself, the 25cm speed isn't needed thus the special rule a downfall. Thus the Mercury should be 250pts top. As a CB it is already restricted.
Jovian = go away with this rubbish ship. :)
Siluria = much better then the Voss ones. The voss ones still need 6+ prows and 90*. The Siluria has not the kinda wasted 2torps. Can focus fp on a 25cm / 90* hull. Competition for the Dauntless.... to be honest it is better then the Dauntless. Dauntless must choose strong prow weaponry or weak abeam. Prow on it is vulnerable. The Siluria can str2 lance / str 6 = like str4 lance with an abeam presence.
Point increase needed to equal Dauntless.
Havoc & Viper are cool.
Fleet : problem with less carriers the Emperor will always be taken I reckon. Drop it. Add Oberon.
That's about it.
I really need to agree with Sig here.
There is no real redemption for this fleet. It's just "Lets mishmash every bit of the left over ships that never made it into Armada into a single document".
It just DOES NOT WORK! The special ships in the fleet are bad jokes, and just don't function in an imperial fleet.
Bakka is huge in BFG, being one of the earliest lists to grace the game. However, it also became a dumping ground for every crackpot ship that was ever made. The result? the ships that were actually creative made it into the Armada book, the rest were discarded.
The ONLY ship that I like is the Siluria, because its a "super light cruiser" concept. The viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?
This fleet suffers from so many flaws, it's benefits are being overshadowed. Scrap this and try again.
QuoteEh? No difference in RO rolls. That seems to have been dropped.Referencing the trade that cobras can do to drop the 1wb in favor of +1 ld to RO rolls.
The thing is, nothing in the flawed ships thread makes a lick of difference since it's not getting an official stamp. Add to that the sword is already available in the list and the havoc becomes useless as you lose one turret and unrestricted weapons arcs while gaining.. +1 wb. There's quite literally no time a sword wouldn't be better than this thing and it's the same cost!
The funniest part is how we were warned by the game designers not to get the fans involved with this process. We were told we would waste most of our time trying to justify what we were doing to people who only wanted what they wanted and nothing else, and in the end they would just be pissed at us anywayThese game designers are lame and insecure. With a game like BFG fans are the heart, the ones who kept the game alive.
Bob loves this ship, and so do I, and it has proven to be somewhat more popular over the years than I anticipated, especially at some of the GamesDays I attended over the years.
Here’s why the Long Serpent is such a great ship- Nova Cannon have by default become a weapon players ONLY use to hang back and use as BFG artillery. You wonder how I was so lucky with my NC rolls? I’ll tell you how: the Imp fleet is shorter-ranged than Chaos and plays best in a knife fight. NC’s DON’T HAVE TO BE ARTILLERY! Push your ships forward and get into the knife fight. Sure you will get less NC shots in, but they will be far more accurate for the shots you do get in. This ship is designed to MAKE players take advantage of how NC’s are SUPPOSED to work best for Imperials, and that is the true genius of the Dominator- one of the things I agree with Sigoroth about.
Giving this ship torps (even as an option) would completely defeat what we are trying to do with it. We are dumbing down the guns a bit to make it a Tyrant-BC and reducing the cost to boot, but only a bit- it should be a bit overpriced because of how it fits in the Imp fleet. Once again, if you don’t like it, don’t take it.
I am concerned with how many arguments on this thread consist of, “this list sucks because I can take better ships for less points and smash a Bakka fleet to dust.â€
The funniest part is how we were warned by the game designers not to get the fans involved with this process. We were told we would waste most of our time trying to justify what we were doing to people who only wanted what they wanted and nothing else, and in the end they would just be pissed at us anyway.Perhaps it would help if you explain what IS the intenion, because some rules/ships simply don't make much sense. Or at least I/we can't see them.
Baron, that does not make them good rules.
Nice ship though!
Let's take the Victory for example.
Compared to the Retribution you have
- +20 points
- -S3@60cm dorsal Firepower
- Nova Cannon instead of S9 torpdeos
If we consider the Hammer of Scaro -Variant we essentially have a Retribution with 3 points of firepower less but 10 points more expensive.
This does not make sense, especially since the Retribution is already considered underpowered/overpriced by most people. So what you call "character" is de facto a crap variant of an already crap battleship.
Why should I even consider it?
If anything the Victory should be dropped to at least 320 points if you want people even consider taking one. And, as Sig said, even at 300 points its not overpowered.
We don't hate the list because we are insubordinate children... We hate it because it fails to live up to it's own fluff and because it is not comparable to the other imperial lists.
Nate:
ok, so you don't really want to do much to change any of the profiles and you seem to want to build an all guns fleet. With the change (and rightly so) to make the emperor very expensive with Rath on board, and the need to take three other cruisers to get one of the two remaining carriers in the fleet you really aren't leaving many options to make the fleet work. The problem is you are trying to limit the access to AC but you aren't really replacing it with a viable alternative. Fleet defense turrets are alright, but limit you to helping a single ship and force you to use the same restrictions as squadroning your ships but with few real benefits. This in turn limits the number of tactics you can use if you want to get the full effect of the turrets to block AC. This doesn't really encourage their use which is one of the key pieces of flavor in the Bakka list.
I would suggest scrapping the mechanic completely (I don't care how long the rule has been around, longevity isn't a good baseline for utility) and instead make the turrets on the ships better by allowing rerolls a la Tau or letting them target both AC and torpedoes in a single turn or letting ships in base contact mass turrets but treat that massing in all ways like onboard turrets so they effect bomber attack runs as well as lending extra dice to shoot down ordnance. Any of those methods gives them a pretty good boost against ordnance and reduces the need for bringing AC of your own.
Now, since you don't seem to want to make any changes to the profiles themselves, you need to do more adjustment the fleet list. Drop the Sword and Cobra since these two directly compete with the Havoc and Viper leaving little reason to bother with these two.
To further build up the idea of a big guns fleet, I'd think about scrapping the Mars and replacing it with one of the other IN battlecruisers or grand cruisers. That will force any AC to come from reserves either via the expensive Emperor, or via reserve which will likely limit you to one carrier since you would be taking six cruisers to get two carriers. With the Siluria, it would still be possible to pull in two carriers, but not what I'd call practical since you'd be sacrificing quite a bit.
Those changes should result in fewer carriers and thus less AC appearing in the list while not penalizing the player for taking less AC and making the newer ships more attractive.
Now as far as reserves go, I think you should limit the jovian so that it can never be taken as a reserve in any other fleet list. There is only supposed to be one so it shouldn't be showing up all over the galaxy and other IN fleets will benefit from it far more than the bakka list.
I HATE the Smotheman formula, but let’s use it for the sake of argument because that’s what everyone seems to like using when discussing how unfair the HA’s are. I’ll even stick to comparing it to a Retribution, which at 345 points is very well costed for the Imperial fleet. If this debate is going to devolve into the Retribution itself is too expensive (which it is NOT), then you can ignore this post entirely.Most use examples from other ships to determine point costs, backed up with smotherman for adjusting/checking.
The same kind of consideration has been made for the Mercury, and it’s price has been adjusted as well. However, the “Tyrant BC†isn’t such a far-off analogy. While the argument has been made that the Tyrant is overpriced, the fact is Imperial cruisers by design aren’t supposed to have 45cm weapons at all, and the +5 points (which is a pittance) pays for that premium. You don’t have to like it, but that was the design intent, and you can protest it by never using them. In any case, a Tyrant with NC’s costs 215 points. Strap on 2x60cm dorsal lances, and Smotherman says add +30 points. Even if we do nothing else, this ship now costs 245 points. Now up all the guns by +15cm, and Smotherman says the upgrade costs 1.5 points x10Wb’s, giving us 260 points. We’ll ignore the +5cm speed because it’s offset with how the ship goes pop when it dies. What do you get? That’s right- the exact price listed in v1.0, and the HA’s DIDN’T EVEN USE SMOTHERMAN TO GET THAT FIGURE!You did not factor in:
I understand the longevity argument, and I know some people don’t like them. However, FDT’s are tested and work. Getting rid of them to create a brand-new and untested mechanic will only create an entirely different set of problems, and re-hashing something from another fleet that makes that fleet unique (Tau turrets) is bad for the entire game and completely anathema. It was already decided that unique traits form each fleet would never EVER be recycled for other fleets unless absolutely unavoidable, and we won’t be starting now. This fleet list does NOT constitute “unavoidable.â€
The Sword and Cobra are supposed to be the two most ubiquitous escorts in the whole galaxy so taking them out would violate fluff. Fluff aside, there isn’t any real reason to get rid of them- these are different enough from the Havoc and Viper to not create any conflict. This can be left up to player preference. Lots of people never use Tyrants because Dominators are a better deal, but that doesn’t make Tyrants junk worthy only of being removed from the game.
Keep in mind the Mars is available as a regular fleet choice because we wanted the fleet to be AC-poor, not AC-absent! Taking out the Mars would involve restructuring this entire fleet list to prevent AC from becoming either more prevalent or nearly absent, since the number of carrier hulls available to the Imperial Navy is rather limited.
@ BaronI: I did not want extra lb on the the CG's. ;)
| Ship | Obscuras | Tempestus | Pacificus | Solar | Ultima |
| Lunar | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | Yes |
| Gothic | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Dictator | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | ? |
| Tyrant | Yes | No | ? | Yes | ? |
| Dominator | No | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| Dauntless | Yes | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| End/End/Def | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | ? |
| Armageddon | Yes | No | ? | Yes | ? |
| Mars | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | ? |
| Overlord | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | Yes |
| Vengeance | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | ? |
| Avenger | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | ? |
| Exorcist | Yes | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| Retribution | Yes | No | ? | Yes | ? |
| Emperor | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Oberon | No | No | ? | Yes | ? |
| Apocalypse | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | ? |
| Falchion | No | No | ? | Yes | ? |
| Sword | Yes | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| Firestorm | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | Yes |
| Cobra | Yes | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| Invincible | No | Yes | ? | No | ? |
| Nemesis | No | ? | ? | No | ? |
| Victory | No | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| Vanquisher | no | yes | no | No | no |
| Furious | Yes | Yes | ? | No | ? |
| Cardinal | Yes | Yes | ? | No | ? |
| Jovian | No | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| Serpent | Yes | No | Yes | No | ? |
| Orion | No | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| Daemon Slayer | No | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| Hawking | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Enforcer | No | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
| Siluria | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Viper | No | Yes | ? | No | Yes |
That's not even remotely one of the reasons why I don't like it. It's an atrocious concept. You cannot pick out bombers from such range without using weaponry that stands a substantial chance of damaging the ship you're attempting to protect.
1cm = 1000km
Lets see,
AdMech makes it that a ship has 2 turrets able to assist a friendly ship within ~15cm iirc.
It are 2 turrets that can hit enemy ordnance at a distance of 15000km on a 4+.
While such a ship could direct its batteries at ordnance a phase earlies at ordnance being away 30000km (30cm ranged vessels), 45000km (45cm) or 60000km (60cm).
Depending on strength this will vary between 1 (or even 0) and 3 dice hitting on a 6+.
A Gothic with 4 lances has 4 shots on a 6+ at 30000km. The Desolator 4 lances @ 60000km.
Actually you do it by predicting the most likely path that bombers would take, adjust for TOT and figure the probable vector. Now fill the sky there with flak style fire. the shards will probably have near zero effect on an object the size of a ship, but would be quite deadly to AC.
I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny. Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth. OMG! IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!! IT'S THE END!
Let’s start with some basic caveats: Nova Cannon have been +20 points over str-6 torps since 1999. If we are going to debate this, then you can once again stop reading now and ignore this post entirely. It’s a comparison I HATE to make because it’s like comparing apples to basketballs, but we’re using the Smotherman rules here so let’s move on. If we assume a NC is +20 points over str-6 torps, then a simple extrapolation (since I refuse to slide-rule this any more deeply) is that it would be +10 points over str-9 torps or free against str-12 torps. We can of course nit-pick this further to say each torp is worth 1.5 WB’s@30cm, but like I said, I’m not going down this road and will instead simply cheat by saying “Smotherman says†a NC should cost roughly 40 points. In any case, this argument ends with a Retribution upgrading its prow torps for a NC for +10 points, giving us 355 Points.
I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny. Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth. OMG! IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!! IT'S THE END!
The reason why the Exorcist and Retaliator should have the extra LB is because of its size. It's certainly much bigger than any cruiser chassis would be. These being pre-heresy to heresy designs as well means they are available to current fleets. The Jovian is on a modern chassis where the doctrines are more favorable to shooting rather than to AC. That is the objection to the Jovian.
I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny. Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth. OMG! IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!! IT'S THE END!
The reason why the Exorcist and Retaliator should have the extra LB is because of its size. It's certainly much bigger than any cruiser chassis would be. These being pre-heresy to heresy designs as well means they are available to current fleets. The Jovian is on a modern chassis where the doctrines are more favorable to shooting rather than to AC. That is the objection to the Jovian.
The idea that shooting is favored assumes that fleet strategy is uniform across the entire Imperium. Considering the variation from one area to another and the variety of threats it faces, this is unlikely, and further, even a single sector can change over time. Consider that despite Bakka detesting AC, they adopted the Jovian, a pure carrier, due to their abysmal performance against the tyranids in Ultramar. It is not very far fetched to suggest that in some areas AC carriers are more common then they are in the Gothic, Armageddon, or Bakka sectors, particularly when AC ships seem to be preferred for anti-pirate details.
While some classes of ship seem fairly ubiquitous, we then have ships like the Tempest that are unique to certain regions, arising out of the particular needs of those fleets.
I submit that we need an additional fleetlist, of AC oriented IN. It is not even unlikely given fluff, and seems to be something that at least some people want.
Perhaps Battlefleet Calixis? Assuming FFG would be interested.
It's almost puzzling to me the BaronI is so good at being on the opposite side of the consensus.
The Jovian is fine. I like the ship, its one of those things I would never run.
I dislike it when people decry something as a thing which should never have been without justifying their position. The Jovian is a perfectly good, non-broken, ship. The fundamental reason that people don't want it is that they have a preconception of what each fleet 'must' be. IN 'must' be big guns. The idea of IN as AC is anathema to them, and, when they encounter it, they don't know what to do. So they cry for the HA to limit it further. My God, it might show up in a fleet with other carriers. Oh noes! :o
Frankly, everyone on this board has complained when the HA has proposed a change. Sigoroth, in particular, has argued against almost all of them, as though any change would destroy him utterly. Personally, I like a lot of their ideas. I think we need more ships. I'd make every ship BFGM ever printed legal and then start making new ones.
Because this game has been stagnant for over ten frikkin years. The few people who still play it have been using the same strategies against the same fleets for a decade, including having the probability of any given result memorized.
Not even suggest alterations to existing ones.
Not one of you has given a valid reason for this level of restriction for the Jovian. It was fine as it was. Now it's 'the' most restricted ship in the game, which is flatly broken.
What Nate should have done before folding like superman on laundry day was ask to see your battle reports. Proove that this would be a bad thing
Because I want to see the game grow and change. Or because I serve as an Arch-priest to the Ruinous Power known as the Changer of Ways, depending on who on this board you talk to.Growth and Change should be kept in check, because: is BFG broken as it is? No. Thus changes need to be done carefully.
I dislike it when people decry something as a thing which should never have been without justifying their position. The Jovian is a perfectly good, non-broken, ship. The fundamental reason that people don't want it is that they have a preconception of what each fleet 'must' be. IN 'must' be big guns. The idea of IN as AC is anathema to them, and, when they encounter it, they don't know what to do. So they cry for the HA to limit it further. My God, it might show up in a fleet with other carriers. Oh noes!Noodles. ;) where has someone asked for a limit on the existing carrier options for the Imperial Navy? At no time anyone did! Look at the fan thread: Oberon made better, Dictator cheaper, Defiant better. Is that limiting carrier capabilities for the IN? No. It is working within the existing playfield.
Frankly, everyone on this board has complained when the HA has proposed a change. Sigoroth, in particular, has argued against almost all of them, as though any change would destroy him utterly. Personally, I like a lot of their ideas. I think we need more ships. I'd make every ship BFGM ever printed legal and then start making new ones.Urgh. Never. Not like this. As you can see I like and dislike some ships in the Bakka PDF. Making something legal should be done carefully.
Why?as said, BFG ain't broken (aside of Eldar ;) ). Looking at 40k/whfb growth/change is very bad.
Because this game has been stagnant for over ten frikkin years. The few people who still play it have been using the same strategies against the same fleets for a decade, including having the probability of any given result memorized.
I want to see how you deal with something NEW. Something you haven't faced a thousand times, and mathhammered fifteen times over. Do you know why 40k is still going? Because it gets refreshed every few years. New units, new rules, fresh strategies. It makes it *fun*. Mean while, GW has taken a big dump on us longer then Dark Eldar, and when we FINALLY get something going I sit here and listen to people try and STOP it.Because there are countless tactics possible within the current parameters.
Not offer new ideas.Then to think Sig and I developed MMS. Talk about changing. ;)
Not even suggest alterations to existing ones.
They just throw in their heels and scream 'This sucks, we don't want it! Throw this out, it's garbage!'
Not one of you has given a valid reason for this level of restriction for the Jovian. It was fine as it was. Now it's 'the' most restricted ship in the game, which is flatly broken.I did not ask for a restriction. I asked for a removal. Insert the Dominion from the Book of Nemesis. :)
The idea that shooting is favored assumes that fleet strategy is uniform across the entire Imperium. Considering the variation from one area to another and the variety of threats it faces, this is unlikely, and further, even a single sector can change over time. Consider that despite Bakka detesting AC, they adopted the Jovian, a pure carrier, due to their abysmal performance against the tyranids in Ultramar. It is not very far fetched to suggest that in some areas AC carriers are more common then they are in the Gothic, Armageddon, or Bakka sectors, particularly when AC ships seem to be preferred for anti-pirate details.
@Sig:
Actually turrets are more akin to Hydra batteries or the Vulcan Megabolters you would see on a battle titan. However, I'll point out: ships within 15cm are close enough to share LD so this would imply that they have some means of high speed, real time communication inside that range. If this is true, then FDT makes perfect sense, working together similar to modern ships sharing targeting data. and CIWS.
Nate, whoever told you not to ask us was right.
The only possible weapon I can think of that could cause a kill at 15,000km without saturating an area of space are guided missiles, which the IN isn't big on. There's no need for them - just drop them.
Er, no it doesn't. It makes no sense whatsoever. Even the weapons you describe would not be able to fire at those ranges. Also their ability to predict the location of manoeuvring bombers from so far away so far in advance is ludicrous. That's not even taking into account the cover the ship itself would provide. Oh, and the fact that this is all being accomplished by secondary weaponry with no loss of primary weapon power. Ludicrous concept.
Not when the Despoilers are still fresh in everyone's minds. IN would still be very, very wary about a new almost, purely LB ship because of what happened with the Despoilers.
I think I'll swap Jovian for dominion in my list. People seem to like that much better.
Then to think Sig and I developed MMS. Talk about changing. ;)
Or where we started about a 90* Protector years ago.
I did not ask for a restriction. I asked for a removal. Insert the Dominion from the Book of Nemesis. :)
Low AC still works. Exhibit A: 1 Falchion/Cobra and 5 Vipers. That's up to 15 torps delivered THROUGH a CAP onto a single target. Target annihilated.
FDT aren't needed or wanted.
I have no objection to some special rule allowing a ships main guns to have an easier time hitting AC. Certainly this sort of thing can be justified. What is implausible is having secondary weaponry powerful enough to do this. And yes BI, it does require power to achieve this in a timely manner. Of course I know that a moving body will keep moving until acted upon by some force. I'm not an idiot. I had, however, assumed that you knew that we're talking a specific time-frame here, as determined by muzzle velocity (ie, power input). Else all projectile weapons would have unlimited range. Also, it's more likely that you'd be able to hit straight flying targets rather than jinking targets and could use the ship you're trying to protect for cover. And yes, BI, they would be able to use it as cover. Bombers are tiny, ships are huge, the two are close together. The shadow the ship will cast is certainly enough to consider cover.
The only real reason for range limitations is targeting capability. Sure you can launch a warhead an infinite distance, but the question is will you be able to predict where the ship will be when it hits, and if it has enough time to react and move the 100 meters to get out of the way.
Even if the weapons were travelling at one million kmph, a ship would have almost 2 minutes to move out of the way. Even a few seconds is potentially enough to make a course correction. (presuming that the systems are automated).
Anyways, BFG isn't truly a representation of spaceship battles. It is a little, but it is more WWI/II naval battles. Even some fleets take more after modern fleets (TAU), and others, more ancient fleets (Eldar)
BaronI, in 'flawed ships' the Dominion isn't a +15 point upgrade for the Armageddon, it's +25. Remember the armageddon got reduced 10 points, and in the case of how I would represent it, it would have only 4 torps, to fit with BFT. Making this more like 30, a reasonable (albeit still low) price for 4lb.
The Victory doesn't need 20cm speed for its NC, the Apocalypse has 15cm and it does fine. Besides, if your enemy can shoot at your NC battleship, you're doing it wrong. (or probably couldn't use the NC anyways)
BTW: Wouldn't a single escort by itself be illegal?
Funny, in RT the turns are considered to be 1/2 hour. Seemed about logical to me.
However everyone knows GW doesn't do math when writing fluff! They aren't scientists! I mean they wrote fluff about 30 space wolves JUMPING from thier exploding strike cruiser onto a chaos ship, propelled by the explosion (I don't care how superhuman you are... that is a shit-ton of radiation, enough to break carbon-carbon bonds, destroying you at a molecular level). Not only that but they jumped what? 30,000 km? in a reasonable time frame? so they were travelling at least 250,000 KMPH. Which means they should impact the void shields and be molecularizedulated (my new word ;)) like a bug on a windshield, times 100,000. Then the 30 space wolves take over the chaos cruiser (what the hell?) and turn the weapons on the chaos fleet around them (who is running the guns if they killed everyone?, a ship must have at least 10-15% of its crew in order to move! JUST MOVE.)
Anyways, cruisers travel at ~40,000 kmph according to FF. Pretty reasonable, most satelites do about 12kmps, or 40,000kmph.
And a bomber goes at 2500 per hour? Wrong. They would need to do 22kmps. Pretty epic.
Sig, I'm quite familiar with ToT (and that a projectile would take about 3 hours to travel that distance with a 1.1kmps muzzle velocity). I'm also familiar that macrocannon projectiles travel um, 60,000km in one combat turn, and bombers about 20,000km. I would suggest that a bomber is much slower then a bullet. So how much time is a single round of combat really?
Given the listed speed for a Fury interceptor is 2,500kph, and they move 20,000km, this means that a combat turn's real time is approx 8 hours.
Further, bombers are not exactly known for being slippery targets. Particularity when they're as large as a 747 like the Starhhawk is. The bigger it is, the more inertia it has, and the more sudden changes in direction put stress on your fuselage, since thrust stresses are not even across the bird. If you were to try and jink in something like this, the stresses would snap your bird like a twig.
Sig, I'm quite familiar with ToT (and that a projectile would take about 3 hours to travel that distance with a 1.1kmps muzzle velocity). I'm also familiar that macrocannon projectiles travel um, 60,000km in one combat turn, and bombers about 20,000km. I would suggest that a bomber is much slower then a bullet. So how much time is a single round of combat really?
Given the listed speed for a Fury interceptor is 2,500kph, and they move 20,000km, this means that a combat turn's real time is approx 8 hours.
Well, the approximation given is that one game turn represents one hour. Regardless, it obviously does not take this amount of time for the shot to reach the target. Predicting where the target will be with any degree of precision minutes ahead of time is unlikely. More likely requiring seconds at the most.QuoteFurther, bombers are not exactly known for being slippery targets. Particularity when they're as large as a 747 like the Starhhawk is. The bigger it is, the more inertia it has, and the more sudden changes in direction put stress on your fuselage, since thrust stresses are not even across the bird. If you were to try and jink in something like this, the stresses would snap your bird like a twig.
This makes sense when they're flying at top speed on their way to the target, however, once there they will have to slow down to line up attack runs and attempt to avoid flak fire, making them far more manoeuvrable by necessity. This is the time when the FDTs are trying to shoot them. When they're at their most manoeuvrable, right next to a friendly target and possibly hidden by it. And they're using weaponry powerful enough to reach this far in a timely fashion enough fashion, but not powerful enough to hurt the friendly target nor so powerful as to even cost the firing ship a single point of its main guns firepower. On top of all this, this weaponry is somehow 3 times more accurate (while taking less than 1 third the firepower).
Face it, it's a bad rule. In order to do this sort of thing it makes much more sense to use main guns, and giving Bakka ships some special rule when doing so is fine. FDTs just suck balls though.
What I think would be interesting and logical from baronI would be that fdts place a bm on all pieces of ordinance within 15cm. Say they are launching a flak field of minor projectiles at the ordinance.
This would make sense from a defensive standpoint, although not very effective it is gamplay and scientifically sensible.
No I'm saying that it doesn't need to be that complicated. It would be by no means good, but it would fulfill the role. Not only that but as BMs it would destroy entire waves Or salvoes making it better than fdts in a way. I think it's a decent enough representation of the rule.
I would give it to every capital in the list. Only one bm can be placed per ordinance marker.
Why would the Despoiler be fresh in anyone's mind? According to the fluff for the Gaerox Incident, the Inquisition covered the entire thing up afterwards, so only the members of high command at Bakka and the Inquisition would know what went on. (which is why the more or less lack of AC is considered an aberration by IN standards) What little fluff we have to go on for other sectors occasionally mentions pure carriers in the employ of IN.
Sig, the dominion is 250 In BoN.
BaronI, in 'flawed ships' the Dominion isn't a +15 point upgrade for the Armageddon, it's +25. Remember the armageddon got reduced 10 points, and in the case of how I would represent it, it would have only 4 torps, to fit with BFT. Making this more like 30, a reasonable (albeit still low) price for 4lb.
I was using it's official stats rather then the 'flawed ships' stats. and even at 30 it's damn cheap. 2 escort carriers cost 120.
Why would the Despoiler be fresh in anyone's mind? According to the fluff for the Gaerox Incident, the Inquisition covered the entire thing up afterwards, so only the members of high command at Bakka and the Inquisition would know what went on. (which is why the more or less lack of AC is considered an aberration by IN standards) What little fluff we have to go on for other sectors occasionally mentions pure carriers in the employ of IN.
AM would also know and they're the ones who build the ships. Sorry, won't fly. What fluff? Show me. Haven't seen any fluff, no matter how little, about pure carriers in the employ of IN.
Tempest is a modified sword with a launch bay, that is often equipped with assault boats. See my post a page ago.
I'm Actually confused as to why the emperor is not on the fleet carrier list. Is it something with launch bays and little or no weapons?
*sigh*
Ark Imperial a Majestic Class, battleship sized super carrier, Shadow Point, chapter 9.
Tempest class strike frigate, Rogue Trader corebook, Page 195 (fluff lists one of it's configurations as an aboat carrier)
Defiant class light cruiser, Armada, page 19.
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I'm certain that there are other vague-er references to carriers in other books, but those were the ones that I remember the class being named.
I was being nice and not pointing out the obvious? Though I suspect that the Emp has too many guns for D'Art to consider it a 'pure' carrier.
DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING! Give the man a lollipop. Yes, Emperor is not a pure carrier, not the way the unofficial Nemesis or the official Styx would be. So sorry you've still struck out. Still no proof of a pure carrier for me.
Gotta fight somewhere, little boxes are the best. Can't maneuver? Baron, I'm afraid you've been tainted by the dark ones.
Even battleships can turn eight times in 120cm.
General:
180cm x 120xm (BFG = centimetres ;) yay !!!)
Is standard size.
Is Perfect for battles up to 2000pts.
Has lots and lots of room to manoeuvre.
Horizon says yay to cm.... Do you know how hard it is to get a cm tape measure in the us? It's like hunting for diamonds.
@ BaronI, six to twelve metres is sick. With 1200cm between... :/ what's the point of the first turns.
To keep in mind some scenarios are aimed at 8 turns.
D'Art, if the Defiant isn't a pure carrier, then the Styx isn't either. Nor is the Jovian. All three of them have lances. In fact, the Styx has MORE non carrier based firepower then the Defiant and the Jovian combined.
In fact, having glanced around a bit, not one race in this game has a 'pure' carrier by that measure. (This includes Tau, who make AC look easy) Even escort carriers have a str 2 weapon battery. Hell, even the Nemesis has a str 3 60cm lance battery.
So, quite possibly, with the Majestic and Tempest, IN may actually have the ONLY 'pure carriers'.
I agree on Jovian out, Defiant in.
Calixis is rather similar to my Tartanus write up. I wouldn't do something in the Koronus expanse or Calixis, as control of the fluff isnt exactly anyone's here.
I think it doesn't make sense that the Voss' Cls are anywhere other than solar, other than in rare circumstance. For some reason the HA/Gw likes tossing them into every other fleet list.
Getting people to accept the 'Nemesis/Majestic' as a ship would be harder than the Jovian. As current, there are no ships with more than 8 launch capacity. Tell me, what do you think would happen if there was a cheap (less than 500pts) 12 Lb carrier within IN?
Just because some author wrote it in the fluff somewhere doesn't mean that he was thinking about BFG or even all elements of the 40k background for that matter. It was just something cool they thought up. I mean, the Soul Drinkers ride around on a [party?] hulk that is the largest ever? And its named the brokenback......
Some things are inherently cool and well founded ideas. Such as the Tempest and the Ignus. Both work well with BFG. It's too bad that they wrote the Tempest is supposedly 'just made around Koronus', however there are things worth ignoring ;).
If there was, I think what would happen first would be that D'Art, Sig, and Horizon would have to go to the emergency room for the embolisms they would suffer at the thought of all that AC on the loose in BFG.
If there was, I think what would happen first would be that D'Art, Sig, and Horizon would have to go to the emergency room for the embolisms they would suffer at the thought of all that AC on the loose in BFG.
The Jovian really is fine. You can't take them in the sort of numbers that you can Styx, though if you feel really uncomfortable with them, a hard limit of no more then 1 per 1500points or a fraction thereof would probably be limiting without being absurdly so.
If there was, I think what would happen first would be that D'Art, Sig, and Horizon would have to go to the emergency room for the embolisms they would suffer at the thought of all that AC on the loose in BFG.
I couldn't give a rats arse how much AC is on the loose. I have many many carriers in my fleets. I have 3 Despoilers a Styx and 4 Devs in my Chaos fleet. I have a Tau fleet. My IN opponent has 3 Emperors and several Mars and Dictators. I don't think AC is overpowered nor do I care if I come up against an all AC fleet.
Most games are fought in the 1,500 points area anyway so it still means 1 Jovian and 1 Mars/Emperor.did you catch the update on the list? The emperor requires Rath to be taken so it's nearly 500 points right there now. You still need another 4 cruisers to take both a Jovian and a mars. I guess you could do siluria's to still have over 500 points left needed to get both the jovian and mars, but you'd be pretty strung out in the end.
Sig, back on page 25 you were demanding the Jovian be nerfed to hell because it let IN get 14ac for all of 15 points less. Never mind that the Emperor that you got for those 15 points is vastly superior to the Jovian.
Also the RT list basically says that any fleet (besides Nids and Necrons) can by proxy have any number of these as allies. Due to the fact that they count as 'transports' (given a flaw in itself.)
The current typical doctrine of the IN is to shy away from dedicated carriers. Chaos has access to the INs previous attempt at a dedicated carrier (the Styx) simply because of age. Ie, this is how they did it back then, they don't do it that way now, the renegades have the old stock. Therefore Chaos should be more able to bring this sort of AC more easily than the IN. It should be highly unusual for the IN to be able to outstrip the carriers of Chaos, since they've shied away from them.
You bring up specific examples from fluff of how this ship was converted to do that, or how this one battlefleet has a slightly different take on things, blah blah blah, but how we should be representing fleets in BFG is by the most typical. You could argue that variance is also typical, and I would agree. So this variance should be represented by a selection of unique or rare vessels or upgrades or options or refits. The point being that since they're unusual then they should be represented as such rather than allowed unrestricted. It may be theoretically possible for some admiral to form a fleet of Majestics and Jovians, but how likely is it? It might be true that the IN have some strange backwater battlefleet which has a completely different feel to the norm, but if you put out a list of all the IN battlefleets in the galaxy on a board and threw a dart at it blindfolded, what are the chances of hitting that list? For the most part it should simply be acknowledged that yes, there are exceptions somewhere in the IN, but we're just using mainstream elements to represent the feel. You want something else make some UHR and play it. That represents the "rare" element fairly well I should think (the more liberal opponents that allow it representing the more liberally viewed sector authorities that allowed divergence from the norm).
I don't mind making a set of standardised "official" house rules. A pool of ships or rules or refits that specifically require opponents permission to use. For example, the Nemesis or Ark Majestic could have its stats made, balanced, ratified, etc and then be put into this category. So players everywhere will have the same notion of what a Majestic class is, but its use will depend upon the opponent and therefore it won't be an automatic inclusion for all IN fleets. So, in other words, rare.
Again, here's the thing Sig, you assume that the three lists we have are 'typical' (Gothic, Armageddon, and Bakka) however, all three follow very different strategies. Armageddon favors the Torpedo and Lance and eschews NC. Bakka eschews AC for guns. Battlefleet Gothic, being the game's namesake, gives a list that leaves out quite a few ship classes named in it's own bluebook fluff, in favor of presenting a generic list that has little to do with the actual battlefleet's roster, but rather is a sampling of all the ships that took part in the Gothic war, including those that came in from other sectors. For example, where is the Relentless class cruiser?
Hell, from what we know of Segmentum Obscurus, it's not unknown for IN to still be using Chaos ships, since 'modern' IN ships are actually pretty new.
Considering that the Mars is the very oldest of the 'Modern' cruisers and BCs, and is a hybrid carrier, I find it odd that there are not more carrier variants out there.
Sig, if you'd like I can document this 'Ships compendium 2.0'.
No, I assume that the Gothic list is fairly typical. The Armageddon list is fairly typical of Navy doctrine too. It uses Lunar type hulls commonly and torpedoes and has no odd ships that break the feel (super carriers and whatnot). So it's still in line. The inclusion of SM ships does nothing to alter the feel of IN, btw. So using the Armageddon list as an argument to show that you can already get a tonne of AC in an Imperial list and therefore IN should have Jovians and Majestics out the wazoo is worthless. The Bakka list is not typical. The FDT rule is terribad for a start, and this alone is enough to warrant quarantining the list. Apart from this it has 7 new ships. Seven. That's a massive list of new ships. The Jovian by itself is enough to destroy the feel of the Imperial Navy in any normal list. With Bakka not having easy access to carriers and there being a limit on it then it's fine for this list (though it's strange that they eschew AC and yet make a Styx knock-off).
Bakka messes a little with the feel of the IN, and this seems to me an example of a non-standard battlefleet. Hence my suggestion for labelling the entire list as UHR. Gothic and Armageddon both fall in line with the feel of the IN, so they're fine.
D'Art, I hate to point this out to you, but IN has had a way to get an extra 2 LBs (of resilient AC, no less) for cheap ever since Armada came out. If that's your concern, you're a tad late.
D'Art, I hate to point this out to you, but IN has had a way to get an extra 2 LBs (of resilient AC, no less) for cheap ever since Armada came out. If that's your concern, you're a tad late.
Not on one ship. And as far as Armada goes, it should stay at that limit. I never liked it then either. Which is why I prefer the SC goes down to Str 1 TH.
.... maybe I'm missing something, but Lots of LBs with lots of hitpoints and high armor is good because it's weaker, but lots of lbs with few hitpoints and weaker armor is bad because it's too strong?
.... maybe I'm missing something, but Lots of LBs with lots of hitpoints and high armor is good because it's weaker, but lots of lbs with few hitpoints and weaker armor is bad because it's too strong?
What are you talking about?
I don't like the Jovian because it breaks from IN doctrine as well as game balance.
I don't like the SC having more LBs than an LC should be able to carry and still have weapons in the same hardpoint.
I am wary of BF:Armada because it really gives IN a lot of options and flexibility by allowing access to SM ships and a 1:1 ratio for BC:Regular Cruisers. This even while it removed access to WB heavy ships like the Overlord and Dominator.
Ok, you don't like Jovian because it breaks balance. But, using the Armageddon list, I can get a Defiant, for 130, and a SC for 160 (with the +1 shield), and have better AC AND overall performance, and more HP. I'm not seeing how Jovian breaks balance compared to this.
And did you miss the part where I said I am wary about Armada and never liked the flexibility it gave IN in that regard? Aside from which, do you really see people fielding Defiants? SCs yes but Defiants?
So, it's not about actual game balance, but what you WANT actual game balance to be.
Now that you don't have to take an Endeavor to get one, I expect to see more Defiant around.
Nope, it's what the original game designers wanted the game to be. Again, Chaos is supposed to be the AC heavy fleet. IN has torps and NC. Eldar are the highly mobile race (which probably was a mistake in execution) and Orks were...well they have their own problems.
But mainly the reason why the Jovian was rejected before was because precisely it gave IN easy access to AC.
And really, Defiants aren't taken because the Endeavor was a mandatory requirement. People take Endeavors and Endurances more than they take Defiants.
Just because it is published, doesn't mean it becomes official. Really there is a difference between the two. And for years the Jovian has been rejected precisely because of what it brings to the IN. The fact that Armada came out and it wasn't in there should give you a clue. You should be getting this by now.
Even now, it's proposed to be allowed in a list which restricts it (not enough) and with that you should realize, it is not a ship that IN should be getting. Sig has pointed it out already. It's an AC heavy ship in a fleet list which supposed to be has minimal AC. The Mars or Dictator, hell even the Defiant should have been enough for this list if the fleet list is supposed to be gun heavy.
If we take the stuff from the existing lists, the options should be the Oberon, Ret and Apoc, Vengeance and Avenger. Exorcist available if the Oberon is not available. Armageddon, Overlord and Mars. Surround them with Lunars, Gothics, Tyrants, Endeavors, Endurances and Defiants and improve the Direct Weapon's ability to hit ordnance and there you have Bakka.
I don't know why the non-standard ships have been used. I don't really see the IN needing any of them so it's looking more a case of someone wants to insert them in. If that's the case, then junk Bakka.
As to the second part, I'll help make things clearer for you: people do not take the Defiants because majority thinks they SUCK.
Except that, as I said, the Gothic list is a mishmash of ships from other sectors created for game purposes rather then representing what the battlefleet actually has on hand. It's like saying that selection of famous ships from the Normandy Invasion fleet represents a typical countries Navy.
Further, I don't see you calling for the removal of Admech, which has used FDT for years. Your basic assertion that Armageddon is OK but Bakka is broken hinges on the idea that 'light cruisers with nothing but LBs, GOOD, battle cruisers with nothing but LBs, BAD.'
Still not clear on this 'feel' buisness, and I'll explain why: Most of the time, when someone has said to me in the context of TT gaming that something doesn't 'feel' right they really mean 'because it breaks my favorite strategy with/against them' and/or 'I have to revise my list to remain competitive'. Maybe it's because I write reviews of gaming systems/supplements, but I've heard this same phrase over and over when rules revisions have happened to a number of systems, and after questioning the speaker closely, this is what they really meant, the majority of the time.
D'Art, congratulations, you've successfully created a list no one will ever play because it is, somehow, even LESS interesting then Vanilla BFG. Seriously, D'Art, this idea is so hoary it's positively Lovecraftian.
This one can be made without even needing a new list using Gothic and the reserve rules except for adding a special rule and possibly a battleship selection for under 2k points.
Now, if anyone would like to play a list NOT unearthed from a cyclopian tomb in an unnamed city in the desert, we can at least TRY OUT what the HA is pushing rather then bitching about these new fangled coal powered contraptions. (What next? Smokeless lanterns?)
As fr as non-standard ships go, some of us have been using them for years already, and found most of them to suck a lot less then might appear at first glance, due to something called 'tactics' rather then depending on list choice to win it for us.
Engage Rant Mode:
Seriously, and D'Art just tipped over my apple cart again, all I hear out of you people is 'CHANGE SCARES US!' 'NEW SHIPS ARE SCARY!' 'WE DON"T WANT ANYTHING NEW.'
Assuming that you are the correct gender, for the love of GOD GROW A PAIR!
Let me try and spell this out because some people are not getting this.
GROW OR DIE.
Either we grow the game, and get GW to take a second look at it, or the game dies. It's an unpleasant fact, but bluntly, a fanbase can only really keep a game going so long (see D&D 1st ed), until it's eventually just a handful of aging fatbeards sitting around talking about how much better things were before.
Right now, we have a chance most other gaming communities DON'T GET.
Thanks to FFG making the RT RPG, we ACTUALLY might be able to turn this around if someone at GW realizes there might be some interest in this. They've already shown some signs of coming around to this mode of thought with IA 10.
But if we STAY THE SAME we're sunk. Hell, the fluff in our game doesn't even match up with the rest of the 40k fanbase anymore. And, much as some of you might despise them, our hobby needs their support, as THEY'RE the ones that GW is pandering to.
Our existing ships and fleets and etc HAVE NOT DONE THIS.
Rather then sitting here trying to make it stay the same, what we SHOULD be doing is trying to find ways to improve it. If the HA thinks that bringing in non-standard ships will do it, I say: Go For It. Let's try it out. Who gives a flying rat's ass if it changes the flavor of IN if it funnels players from other 40k based games into our camp!?! The 'feel' of IN has not save us thus far, and I'm quite happy to see someone's sacred cow go to the chopping block if it brings in more players.
/rant
Sig, what about the idea that range isn't related to power, but accuracy?
I feel the Jovian is a cool ship, just in something besides the Bakka fleet.
TL/DR. :)
BI, you really need to understand that the community is not against new ships or content. They are against things that don't fit the feel of the existing fleets. As the HA have stated before and probably will again, not to mention the admiral and Sig, there are certain themes that the various fleets were built around and that determine the type of ships we place in them. Some ships, like the Jovian, violate those themes for one reason or another and require special treatment (in this case, the jovian is only allowed by reserve in Bakka and can't be used in any other IN fleet list) so they don't alter the fleets from their intended function.
For IN that means you shouldn't be making a 25cm battleship with 90` turns or dedicated carriers as the core of your list. If you want to do that, you need plausible reasoning for the ship as well as plausible capability to create such a vessel. In the former example, the Imperium is declining in technical knowhow and such things are beyond their capabilities to produce. In the latter, it's been stated over and over that the IN mindset is that of a big gun fleet rather than a carrier fleet. This isn't to say they aren't capable of producing dedicated carriers or haven't experimented with them, just they would rather bigger guns than more bombers and thus a craft that forgoes nearly all gunnery for carrier capability should be decidedly rare as with the Jovian.
Nope, range is definitely related to power. However, if you have crap accuracy your effective range could drop. IJN battleships had bigger guns than their American counterparts for the most part, but the yanks did better because of more accurate radar. Improving yank accuracy would do little to improve their range, whereas improving Jap accuracy would. They had the more powerful guns, so better potential range.
Apart from notions of how one would justify the IN already having powerful enough weaponry to shoot far but just crappy electronics (easiest thing to upgrade), it still doesn't fly here. Because to get accuracy on this scale you would need to have power regardless of how top notch your electronics are. To be shooting at a bomber in the middle of its attack runs while it's avoiding defensive flak and possibly about to go into the friendly's shadow you would have to be talking in the seconds for your shot to arrive, not minutes. That means that at a maximum of 15,000 kms we're talking roughly the 1.3% C that BI brought up in his ME2 quote. That's a hell of a lot of power, and it's going to damage whatever it hits, even if it's just some frozen peas into metres thick armour.
And again, your penchant for being obtuse misses the point again. I definitely get what you want to happen. However, I do not think another IN list is the way to go about it.
I am not saying change should not be incorporated. I am saying there are other races out there other than IN which need more lists than IN RIGHT NOW.
Yes. Grow. Grow the other races. Add more ships to their lineup. Add more unique (but not broken) rules. At this point in time, IN is already well developed without having to add another list in there. Unlike Dark Eldar or Necron or Nids. These other races need to be brought up in their fleet list varieties. That is what is needed to grow this game. Not another IN fleet list which in and of itself is conflicted. It wants a list with minimal ordnance and yet has access to ships which have the most LBs. That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
IN has 3 lists already, 4 if you include the AM. Inquisition is coming up next. Compare this to 2 for Chaos, 2 for Orks, 2 for Eldar, 2 (technically) for Tau, 1 for SM, 1 for DE, 1 for Nids, 1 for Necron. The sheer number of variety in both ships and fleet lists for IN compared to the other races is already far ahead compared to the other races that I do not think another one is beneficial for the game.
The new IN ships are ok. But does IN REALLY REALLY REALLY need them? Answer me that in the affirmative. Prove to me that IN needs this change in order to help the game "grow". Does it really? All I see is it helps IN grow. But what about the others? I could create two or three more IN lists each with their own flavor and own ship designs but heck I would rather grow the other races first.
This coming from an IN player.
*sigh*
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp. The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build. Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.
Actually there's 3 lists for SM now (have not seen new ones in IA 10), 4 for IN, 3 for orks (counting clanz lists as 1), 2 for eldar, 2(3?) for tau, 1 for DE, 1 for nids, 1 for necrons.
And you would be wrong. The original BFG has always been a Jutland in space combat. Also it is not only feel. IN have always had expensive carriers, even the Emperor which needs 330 points at least to be able to field one. That's what the designers designed the game around. To counter the large number of carriers, IN have access to torps and the NC. One may think that it is not balanced but somehow it actually worked then and up to now.
If you want to consider the WWII carrier feel, you have to look at the Tau with their carrier and torp focused armament.
Fine, so others have a few more. However, there are still some which needs additions. I think these needs to be focused on much more than IN which already have 3 lists+Admech+the upcoming Inquisitor and I think I am still missing 1 or 2.
Even if it were true that IN are the most readily available, what about Chaos? Chaos should have just as much variety if we are talking about availability in the market. Unfortunately, for the other races, until they get around to releasing plastic sprues (which essentially means, GW or SG showing support), they will be left out in the cold. However, doesn't mean we can't design new ships for them in the meantime.
And I would prefer to see new IN lists which evolve because the other races' lists have also evolved to answer the existing innovations of IN and even Chaos lists. That way, growth can then happen instead of another IN list popping up with ideas which are at odds with what the fleet should be like or with weapons and ships which people don't really like even if they are balanced and are just inserted "just because".
Bakka feels just like that: a fleet list where ships published before could be chucked in to make official even if the vessel rules run contrary to IN game design and adding a weapon system which frankly the game can do without.
Frankly, I'd rather Bakka be made after the other races have been brought up to par with IN then figure out what to really add in and subtract out then choose which ships really need to be added in.
The Mercury leaves me a bit wtf - it wouldn't make a sensible choice, due to not outgunning an Overlord and going up like a bomb when destroyed, but it wouldn't break anything to include it - arguably the very fact that it has 5cm speed is also a massive drawback - it has a wider turning circle than the rest of the fleet (due to 12.5cm between turns), and will outpace them when it's required that the fleet go slowly. I can certainly see the class as a relic of an experiment into faster ships that the IN eventually concluded: actually, all this extra expense/liability isn't worth it. It's unusual, but it doesn't break things.
The Jovian DOES break things:
Firstly, it's against the fluff of battlefleet bakka to include "attack carriers" - The Jovian is most certainly an attack carrier - it has the vast majority of its power is in its AC (1 other WBe per AC). Neither the Defiant (3 other WBe per AC) nor the Emperor (2.625 other WBe per AC)have such a large proportion of their power in AC. Those other carriers either have enough big guns to avoid the label "attack carrier", or don't provide enough AC for more than an escort role. Even if the Jovian were to be included, it shouldn't be in the bakka list.
Secondly, even though it's not as complete a package as the Styx in the chaos list, it provides the IN with AC in powerful wave sizes at a points efficiency far in excess of the Emperor. If you want to include offensive AC, the Jovian would be an auto-include.
Thirdly: Whilst IN might not have AC Superiority, it definitely has ORDNANCE superiority with its torpedos. Allowing IN to go on a par with chaos in AC as well would make it nearly impossible to defend against. The IN can do perfectly well without AC superiority, but other lists would struggle.
And as far as FDTs go:
It's still a horrible rule, and it's good that AM only have it as a random upgrade. If bakka are supposed to be stronger against AC, why not a universal +1 turret, or a left columns shift when direct-firing at Ordnance?
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp. The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build. Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI. In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well. The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier. From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.
*sigh*
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp. The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build. Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI. In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well. The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier.
From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.
Except in space, range is not reflective of power at all, power dictates relative velocity instead.
I would suggest that the FDT is a rapid cycling laser system with advanced motion prediction. The ToT at 15,000 km would be within parameters.
Jovian being published right away after bluebook makes it look to me like something that got cut for space by GW rather then something the designers decided to toss. In BB, each IN ship is more or less mirrored by a chaos equivalent, with a few exceptions. The exceptions were more then likely cut content to reduce printing costs.
QuoteOk, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp. The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build. Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI. In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well. The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier. From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.
The LIST construction may change but the FEEL does not. Now we know your group tends to play with a whole lot of non standard rules and ships anyway which DOES change the feel. So if you could put all of that out of mind and look at what we have in the rule books, you can see that it's set up so that IN ends up with a weaker fleet if they take primarily carriers. (dictators are 220 and defiants are limited to 1 per 500 points) This is indisputable FACT regardless of what fluff you pull from outside sources or how you may FEEL about it.
Newer offering from FFG quite frankly DO NOT MATTER when it comes to the set themes that guide the overall creation of each fleet. Those were set in stone when the game was made and repeatedly adhered to by HA (with some prodding) and players alike in the creation of ships that fit within the framework laid out for us. Anything outside of those themes can safely be assumed as one of or highly experimental or ancient vessels.
Escort carriers are almost purely defensive vessels. It seems that a gun lobby under pressure to build carriers from the argument of necessary defence or to escort torpedoes would do just this. That is, the Tempest seems an alternative to a dedicated attack carrier, so is quite consistent with the big gun lobby.
But here again we come back to power. For those lasers to remain damaging enough at those ranges to take out the bombers (we're not talking simple projectiles now, those lasers would have to cut through the bombers) it would require rather enormous levels of power. Most likely the turrets would be quite large too. So we're looking at some loss of main gunnery due to power/space requirements and also most likely some loss of close fire capability since they're larger turrets and likely wouldn't track so well as normal turrets. Unless of course, the FDTs were added on top of the normal turrets, simply displacing some main guns.
Lastly, I would be wondering at the mechanic that allows these guns to simply function as a turret on the defending ship. For example, why would you fire them when the ship is actively being attacked and the AC is at its most manoeuvrable and most hidden, rather than when they're on their way in? Also, why should they reduce bomber attack runs (assuming they do)? It's not likely that the bombers will be able to jink away from laser fire, it's not as though there would be flak to try to avoid. Either the bombers would be hit or not.
This concept of secondary weaponry being able to extend their effective range to main gun levels with much greater accuracy and efficiency than main guns and no loss of other performance whatsoever is untenable. It certainly could be done by shifting resources, such that it is being performed by main guns. And it makes more sense to shoot these anti-ordnance guns in the shooting phase where the AC is flying on the way in, rather than when they're in the attack.
And, again, no, Jutland was very much different from the way this game is played. One, while I'm sure Hipper would loved to have been able to teleport genetically enhanced killing machines aboard the Iron Duke, I don't recall that happening. Two, everyone was on the same technological level. While if this game was IN vs IN at all times, you might have a point, most of the time it's Tsushima style fleet tactics vs WWII style fleet tactics vs Peloponnesian war style fleet tactics, vs War of 1812 style fleet tactics vs modern fleet tactics against the saucermen (necrons).
And, if it was meant to Jutland in space, there would have been no AC at all, except as scout ships. However, initially, we got the v1 AC rules, which made most battles Midway in space, except then people abused it to the point it became necessary to nerf it.
Further, you're forgetting that the ordinance game has changed. All torps are now a single str 6 counter regardless of actual str. This means that your torp waves of the past arn't there anymore and Chaos, in particular, is going to just move out of the way and keep rolling bombers and aboats rather then fighters to eliminate torps unless you've bought the guided torps upgrade.
IN depends heavily on torps as an AC counter, and with the new changes, there's no need for AC to counter them against IN except at close range. You can no longer blanket an area with torps by having squadrons or other ships combine salvos, as the entire salvo is still a single str 3 marker regardless of str. This means that Chaos, in particular, with it's fast ships and strong long range game will be able to focus more ac against ships rather then for purposes of defending against torps.
Yes, they do, as we saw with the changes to the Rogue Trader list. According to GW, FFG is canon now and, bluntly,if we want stuff approved we have to at leat pay lipservice to GW's decrees
(along with the 'Fenksworld Calamity' where radical inquisitors sabotaged the Apocalypse Class battleship Tempest's Child and used it destroy over 20 other warships and demolish quite a bit everything else in it's path. One would imagine that this would have dealt a heavy blow to any big gun lobby in the newly founded sector fleet)
QuoteIN depends heavily on torps as an AC counter, and with the new changes, there's no need for AC to counter them against IN except at close range. You can no longer blanket an area with torps by having squadrons or other ships combine salvos, as the entire salvo is still a single str 3 marker regardless of str. This means that Chaos, in particular, with it's fast ships and strong long range game will be able to focus more ac against ships rather then for purposes of defending against torps.
This means jack squat since it has nothing to do with anything I said. I said IN was a weaker AC fleet. I didn't even mention torpedoes in that. You can still blanket an area with torps too, just you can't combine the salvo if you want to blanket anything. So what if Chaos ordnance got stronger because of the torpedo change, that not what we are talking about.
When FFG explicitly states that the entire Imperial Navy hates big guns and focuses on carriers or some other major shift in doctrine, we will have an issue. Since it doesn't, anything that is mentioned has to be reconciled with the framework we have. That makes ANYTHING FFG comes up with an anomaly when used in IN battlefleets. You can't use single instances or rare occurrence to upturn the entire doctrine of the fleet.
Quote(along with the 'Fenksworld Calamity' where radical inquisitors sabotaged the Apocalypse Class battleship Tempest's Child and used it destroy over 20 other warships and demolish quite a bit everything else in it's path. One would imagine that this would have dealt a heavy blow to any big gun lobby in the newly founded sector fleet)
Actually this would serve to enhance the big gun lobby. The fact it caused so much carnage is actually a strong point in favor of more big guns. They can point to it and say look how much damage this ONE ship caused. We need more of those!
I honestly would be fine with a turret bump and allowing ships in BTB to have any massed turrets behave in all respect like the turrets on the ship itself. That should show the increased capabilities of the turrets without having to justify them shooting outside of BTB.
My point is that if IN is supposed to be balanced against Chaos with torps vs AC, this balance has been upset already and that increasing IN AC would help correct this.Feel isn't personal. It's the overarching theme of each fleet. It's what defines the fleet as different. IN is torpedoes, 6+ prows, and NC with expensive carriers to encourage more guns and torpedoes. Chaos is cheap carriers, speed and range. Having a dedicated carrier available at will to all IN fleet lists is breaking the feel. Having an experimental dedicated carrier limited to a single ship that must be taken as reserve and can't be taken in any other fleet list is fine because it shows that it doesn't fit with the typical theme of the fleet.
Again, no fluff anywhere states that IN is uniform. In fact, most fluff states that IN varies tremendously from location to location. Armageddon is fairly close to the Segmentum Obscuras boarder with Segmentum Solar and differs from Gothic in (gasp) having a variety of unusual ships including a 'pure carrier', and at the same time, does not have some ships that appear in the gothic sector. Bakka is at the opposite end of the galaxy from Cypra Mundi.I say that is incorrect. While the external appearance may (and does) change from sector to sector, the classes remain the same. Every fleet list available points to a particular core set of ship classes available across the Imperium and in service with almost all fleets. Even bakka has the mars, lunar, gothic, tyrant, sword, and cobra. What that shows is a rather impressive uniformity in ship classes across the imperium. Since those ships form the bulk of the fleets, you will see a fairly standard tactical doctrine and capabilities with minor flavoring by the classes or variations that are atypical like the Oberon or overlord.
I would suggest that there is the possibility that they are very different indeed.
...I could see your point if it had done it by shooting rather than by ramming and then exploding... crippling an entire front of an Imperial Crusade in the process...
(also, pointing and saying requires a pulse. The Inq slaughtered the officers on board, so...)
QuoteMy point is that if IN is supposed to be balanced against Chaos with torps vs AC, this balance has been upset already and that increasing IN AC would help correct this.Feel isn't personal. It's the overarching theme of each fleet. It's what defines the fleet as different. IN is torpedoes, 6+ prows, and NC with expensive carriers to encourage more guns and torpedoes. Chaos is cheap carriers, speed and range. Having a dedicated carrier available at will to all IN fleet lists is breaking the feel. Having an experimental dedicated carrier limited to a single ship that must be taken as reserve and can't be taken in any other fleet list is fine because it shows that it doesn't fit with the typical theme of the fleet.
I say that is incorrect. While the external appearance may (and does) change from sector to sector, the classes remain the same. Every fleet list available points to a particular core set of ship classes available across the Imperium and in service with almost all fleets. Even bakka has the mars, lunar, gothic, tyrant, sword, and cobra. What that shows is a rather impressive uniformity in ship classes across the imperium. Since those ships form the bulk of the fleets, you will see a fairly standard tactical doctrine and capabilities with minor flavoring by the classes or variations that are atypical like the Oberon or overlord.
The massive variation that Armada speaks about is more likely in the composition using the standard classes. So you may see some sector fleets who rely more on light cruisers and escorts because they tend toward anti-piracy operations while other may have fewer escorts and more heavy ships because they hold key points of entry like around the cadian gate. The thing is, despite that "massive" variety, the ships involve don't differ much if any. That means you won't see things like dedicated carriers often even if you are in the backwater ragtag fleet sector.
If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps? By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.
Actually, the only ships that appear to be ubiquitous are the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, and Mars (and, interestingly enough, all of them, are variants on the Mars hull, the oldest 'modern' IN hull. Personally, I suspect that this is due to them being dispersed far and wide during the reconquest following the Age of Apostasy). Armageddon has to take Sword and Cobra as Space Marine vessels, implying that the Battlefleet does not use these vessels (preferring the Falchion which can serve as either/or).
QuoteIf Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps? By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.
Really, this is your argument? Bringing up one ship? So what! The presence of one ship doesn't change the OVERARCHING theme of the chaos fleet. Ever wonder why it is that the slower grand cruisers rarely appear in chaos lists? They don't fit the theme. Stop splitting hairs.
extra turrets instead of FDT's would not break bakka. considering FDT's allow for turret massing (but better) within 15cm.
as nate hasn't been here for hmmm, 5-10 pages of talk. I highly doubt that we'll have any impact on the officialness of whatever comes from bakka. and whether we think its the right direction to go or not.... its happening.
the best thing we can do is to throw in with plax and make the 'official' house rule lists and ships that we believe are needed. neh?
QuoteIf Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps? By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.
Really, this is your argument? Bringing up one ship? So what! The presence of one ship doesn't change the OVERARCHING theme of the chaos fleet. Ever wonder why it is that the slower grand cruisers rarely appear in chaos lists? They don't fit the theme. Stop splitting hairs.QuoteActually, the only ships that appear to be ubiquitous are the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, and Mars (and, interestingly enough, all of them, are variants on the Mars hull, the oldest 'modern' IN hull. Personally, I suspect that this is due to them being dispersed far and wide during the reconquest following the Age of Apostasy). Armageddon has to take Sword and Cobra as Space Marine vessels, implying that the Battlefleet does not use these vessels (preferring the Falchion which can serve as either/or).
My mistake on the escorts. Funny that these ships make up the core of the fleets and by extension the core of their capabilities and tactics. That should tell you that there might be a few changes here or there but overall an IN fleet on one side of the galaxy will act similar to an IN fleet on the other side.
Now enough of this silliness. You've managed to generate pages of useless dialog on something that really has no bearing on the list under discussion. Simply put, BFG (the original and armada) is THE FINAL word on how Imperial fleets operate because it is first of all the most extensive and secondly the entire point of the game is about fleet operations which other sources only touch briefly. Anything you find in any book, be it 40k, black library, or FFG, contrary to what we have in BFG on this point quite simply is an anomaly and CANNOT EVER be use as a valid point to suggest the doctrines common to the Imperial fleet.
So, dialog on why fleets might have different ships has no bearing on on the fact that Bakka has a bunch of non-typical ships???
Explanations of how the FDT might work have no bearing on a discussion of why the FDT can't work?This is somewhat more valid but why are you trying to explain magitech? there is no merit in it and has no effect on the rules. It's useless discussion. The goal here is something that makes up for the low AC in the list. While FDT in their current state is an attempt at that it's a rather half hearted attempt. They are easy to avoid and pricey to add when you could just use those points on mars or reserve in another carrier. Blathering on about X flak system or mechanics of projectiles in space or if a system could track and hit such small targets at range isn't helping write good rules.
A single ship doesn't change the way a fleet feels, unless it's the Jovian?That single ship doesn't fill an intended hole in the list and is actually a little bit of a downgrade to take so no it doesn't. The jovian is more problematic because it's got little arms outside of the launch bays. I think it will be alright for the most part though it might need another caveat that it can only be taken in games larger than 1k or 1.5k due to it's rarity and to keep it from showing up in low point games or as a regular in normal games. Limiting it to reserves and the bakka list only does help out considerably.
And, and this is my personal favorite, that if IN has four ships more or less in common across the Imperium, they all have to follow the same combat doctrines. That's like saying that the Steel legion and the Catachans both have the sentinel, las gun, heavy bolter, and frag grenade in common, so they obviously fight their battles the same way.
As far as being definitive, I'll reserve my opinion on that until Battlefleet Koronus comes out in the next month or so. It's hyped as the most in depth examination of IN to date, but I'm not sure I'm buying that.
Bastion can do either with a light salting of grand cruisers.
This is somewhat more valid but why are you trying to explain magitech? there is no merit in it and has no effect on the rules. It's useless discussion. The goal here is something that makes up for the low AC in the list. While FDT in their current state is an attempt at that it's a rather half hearted attempt. They are easy to avoid and pricey to add when you could just use those points on mars or reserve in another carrier. Blathering on about X flak system or mechanics of projectiles in space or if a system could track and hit such small targets at range isn't helping write good rules.
That single ship doesn't fill an intended hole in the list and is actually a little bit of a downgrade to take so no it doesn't.
Apples to oranges. There are far fewer ways to employ a capital ship effectively than a heavy bolter or a lasgun. So, yes, if your fleet has the same type vessels in it it's probably going to perform or be used in a similar way. Form very much determines function here. You forget that three of those ships represent 3/5 of the line cruisers. You really think that when 3/5 of the line ships your fleet is built around are the same there's going to be a huge change in the tactics or composition?
It's dealing with a single battlefleet and from the tidbits they've released, it doesn't say much different than BFG. I really wouldn't put stock in marketing tags; they're designed to make you think it's the most awesome thing ever.
I don't notice the Reserve fleets rule making the Hades or Murder or Carnage slow and short ranged with +6 prows.Yet another senseless half point. I'm guessing you are attempting to use this as proof for something. Not that it matters because no one takes any of the reserve chaos vessels regularly since they have that huge downside if they try special orders.
*points to it's str 6 torp launcher* It's doesn't fill an intended hole? I'll grant it's slower speed is a downside, but no other chaos cruiser, regular, heavy, or grand, has that.
Yeah, if it was 60% I might see your point, but Mars, Lunar, Tyrant, and Gothic only constitute 25% of known IN cruisers.What are you doing adding in grand cruisers, battle cruisers, and light cruisers to come up with that? None of those form the core of the fleet and none of those are listed as being extremely numerous.
Yet another senseless half point. I'm guessing you are attempting to use this as proof for something. Not that it matters because no one takes any of the reserve chaos vessels regularly since they have that huge downside if they try special orders.
No dice. Chaos isn't the NO torpedo fleet, but it isn't one of their real strengths like with IN. There are several builds that grant chaos access to them. Heck, you can take a pack of infidels if you want backed up with a planet killer not to mention every chaos battleship has the option for torpedoes.
What are you doing adding in grand cruisers, battle cruisers, and light cruisers to come up with that? None of those form the core of the fleet and none of those are listed as being extremely numerous.
Actually works pretty well, even on a 6x4 table. Works better with a Mercury but I get an extra two rerolls this way.p/quote]
If it works so well, why aren't people taking them all the time? Because they are crippled by the SO rules that make them unreliable. This is especially true in your example since the Hades HAS to RO to be useful. Again, a useless discussion that has no relevance to the list at hand.QuoteThey all count as cruisersInvalid. Battlecruisers are limited, grand cruisers are reserve fleets, and it is never mentioned that light cruisers are more prolific except in cases of attrition. That points to the core of the fleets being a majority of line cruisers with some light cruisers. Really, why are we even talking about this?QuoteSo, what do the rest of them use?Again a useless discussion since we don't have such information. Of course, seeing that the blue book also says a sector battlefleet tends toward 50-75 ships, you have to assume that there are far more than 600 lunars if you are going to have the numbers work at all and maintain that the lunar is the most numerous cruiser even if we figure that 95% of those ships are escorts.
If it works so well, why aren't people taking them all the time? Because they are crippled by the SO rules that make them unreliable. This is especially true in your example since the Hades HAS to RO to be useful. Again, a useless discussion that has no relevance to the list at hand.
So, what do the rest of them use?Again a useless discussion since we don't have such information. Of course, seeing that the blue book also says a sector battlefleet tends toward 50-75 ships, you have to assume that there are far more than 600 lunars if you are going to have the numbers work at all and maintain that the lunar is the most numerous cruiser even if we figure that 95% of those ships are escorts.
I thought I read somewhere that there were ~20 lunars in battlefleet gothic. Which would make them much more numerous than any other line cruiser. (as I think every other one besides the dominator had no more than 5 or 6, dominator with 1)
Why would the Hades have to RO? The Cobra squadron are the ones that would have to RO, and the 'unreliable' rule doesn't mean much for escorts. (when was the last time you had a crippled escort?)
Blue Book says there are six hundred, then there are six hundred. After all, to suggest otherwise would invite in all sorts of Black Library/FFG fluff and god knows, we don't want that.
Except that's not what the bluebook says. It says OVER 600 which could be anything from 601-8,000 or beyond. Of course without firm numbers this is all speculation but to reconcile the size of the typical sector fleet with with the lunar being most common and not resorting to the entire fleet being made up of escorts, there have to be quite a few more lunars than just 601.
Besides, when was the last time you saw any of the chaos ships show up in an IN list outside of theoryhammer with any regularity?
Eh, it still implies less then 700.Stop being obtuse. There is no means by which you can say it implies 700 or 800 or even 650. The fact is any number over 601 that you choose is speculation. However we can speculate it's far more than 700 if you accept that a sector fleet is generally 50-75 ships and that less than 90% of those ships are escorts.
QuoteEh, it still implies less then 700.Stop being obtuse. There is no means by which you can say it implies 700 or 800 or even 650. The fact is any number over 601 that you choose is speculation. However we can speculate it's far more than 700 if you accept that a sector fleet is generally 50-75 ships and that less than 90% of those ships are escorts.
Look around, I think in the last three years I've seen exactly one list posted that someone actually bothered to take a Chaos ship via reserve. In fact, since you happen to have one, how often does that ship make it to the table as an IN ship? Far more rare than your Long Serpent I'd wager.
To produce enough for every sector in the segmentum to have 10, it would require that 18.6 be produced every year since thier creation in m38. While I'm sure tht the Lunar really is easir to build, it would have to be 186 times easier, which I doubt.
QuoteTo produce enough for every sector in the segmentum to have 10, it would require that 18.6 be produced every year since thier creation in m38. While I'm sure tht the Lunar really is easir to build, it would have to be 186 times easier, which I doubt.
We really have no way to tell for sure. But if you think of it in terms of the Murder requiring most of it to be crafted by hand as seems the case with nearly lost older tech in the imperium, and the possibility that the Lunar could be assembled in a more automated fashion it could conceivably be far faster to construct the Lunar. It did only take 11 years to build the lord daros. Assuming they keep that rate up and the ship is representative of the most primitive environment, that planet alone could build around 300 ships in the time since the murder was phased out.
I'm still not sure how they made the Lord Daros, unless the metal ores on the planet were very nearly pure.Does it really matter? They did and it took 11 years and we know that the tribesmen had to smelt the metal before sending it up. That means the Imperium could feasibly have a very high number of lunars well above 600 produced in the time span.
QuoteI'm still not sure how they made the Lord Daros, unless the metal ores on the planet were very nearly pure.Does it really matter? They did and it took 11 years and we know that the tribesmen had to smelt the metal before sending it up. That means the Imperium could feasibly have a very high number of lunars well above 600 produced in the time span.
Now if we could put this to rest and move back on topic.
With the FDT meant to make up for the lower ordnance in bakka, I think they need to be more attractive or built into the base stats of the ships if they are to accomplish the intended purpose or people will ignore them in favor of pulling the Jovian in under reserve rules. Part of the issue with them is that they are pretty easy to avoid once they've chosen a target to protect and by the wording it seems as if the vessel they are on wouldn't be able to use the turrets in their own defense either which could make a ships with them easier targets for AC.
+1 turret is a great idea. No increase, just very limited carriers. It makes perfect sense.
+1 turret is a great idea. No increase, just very limited carriers. It makes perfect sense.
Makes sense but isn't very effective though. It means that most cruisers will still only have three turrets. For keeping thawks from wiping out your escorts it would be good, since you could give escorts 6 turrets at that point. For cruisers though it means that unless you keep huddling your escorts with them in b2b contact, they're still up a creek.
Yeah, but how did they transform the raw ingot into a finished product? And if the planet was feral, how did they build the ship there in the first place? Feral worlds arn't exactly known for thier shipyards. And how did savages produce that much? Pre-industrial mining only produced a few thousand tonnes of metal per year. Even weird supermines like the gigantic strip mines of Sephris Secondus only produce 'billions' of tonnes of ore according to fluff.
The trick is to have the ships doing the boosting shielded by the ships getting boosted. Remember that AC have to attack the first ship they come into B2B contact with
And this is a problem because?
And you better believe that as soon as that first group of AC pulls the FDT into the attack, any other group is going to try as hard as possible to make sure the first base they hit is the one that doesn't have the turrets helping.
Not free since one can take Bakka ships as reserves.
And this is a problem because?
Well, if you like seeing your cruisers blown away by AC while they use guns to chew up your escorts, it's no problem at all.Not free since one can take Bakka ships as reserves.
I'd give them it free too. If the whole fleet isn't using them, it gets pretty diluted as anyone who's had an admech ship with them can tell you, so as reserves they really don't have the big impact you might think they would.
You don't have to give every turret you have to the target. Squadron your ships in base to base contact, with frigs in b2b contact with ships like grand cruisers or battleships. Make sure to manuver so that nearby squadrons can keep supporting fire on one another.Doesn't that slightly defeat the purpose of the FDT as it currently is though? It's supposed to be helping ships within 15cm to give the effect of B2b without needing to be in base to base so you can boost your AC defenses where needed. It's a bad rule if you pay points for something you could already accomplish better with the existing turret massing rules. Limiting the turrets to one designated ship per turn means that the 15cm "range" is unnecessary since you will mass turrets anyway and at that point why are you paying for the turret anyway? It needs the restriction on a single designated ship removed if the HA keeps on with the current rule.
BI, you're not ever supposed to be immune to ordnance. If you don't like AC, then ban it from your games, don't try to make a gunfleet not have to worry about AC at all.
As Sig points out, they shouldn't be immune. Giving them +1 turret for minimal points, not free, should be enough balance. It will be a big impact. For the price of an Escort, assuming at 5 points, that's 5-6 ships that will get an additional 1 turret each. Now how can that be not a big impact?
Doesn't that slightly defeat the purpose of the FDT as it currently is though? It's supposed to be helping ships within 15cm to give the effect of B2b without needing to be in base to base so you can boost your AC defenses where needed. It's a bad rule if you pay points for something you could already accomplish better with the existing turret massing rules. Limiting the turrets to one designated ship per turn means that the 15cm "range" is unnecessary since you will mass turrets anyway and at that point why are you paying for the turret anyway? It needs the restriction on a single designated ship removed if the HA keeps on with the current rule.
As Sig points out, they shouldn't be immune. Giving them +1 turret for minimal points, not free, should be enough balance. It will be a big impact. For the price of an Escort, assuming at 5 points, that's 5-6 ships that will get an additional 1 turret each. Now how can that be not a big impact?
What's immunity to Bombers worth? Give any IN cruiser +1 turret and mass turrets and it's immune. Make it so they can't mass turrets and you end up with dead escorts.
^what artagnan said.
^what artagnan said.
I was about to say something witty, but then an idea occurred to me: You know, this fleet has nearly nothing to stop turret suppression and is also vulnerable to torp bombers, and nothing we've really discussed will do anything about that.
First of all, people take torp bombers?
Torp bombers are better against higher turret entities than regular bombers, but adding a turret to every ship should still help them against these.
Turret suppression isn't that great. It only really helps against ships with 4+ turrets. Even then its only a really solid benefit against 5 and 6. Most people don't think of doing it unless they specifically intend to attack a Battleship. Which usually they wont do unless its the only ship left of their enemy.
And how do you figure that?
Guess it must just be a metagame thing. Most people I know would rather have more carriers than ones with better ordinance.
Wait... did you say IN AC fleet? I've never heard of such a thing! Every IN list I've ever heard of uses them nearly only defensively.
And how do you figure that?
Simple. The usual way to prevent turret suppression is fighters on CAP. But Bakka is so LB poor that any ships with LBs are going to have big targets painted on them. Once you eliminate what little CAP is possible, just start sending in the clowns.
And BaronI, why does this bother you so much? You clearly play such non-standard games already that no official list is going to change it for you.
Baron... where are you from. You have the strangest metagame/table size that I've ever heard of, and your love for Bakka is astounding.
I don't think anyone has proclaimed so much excitement for this lists existence as you. Me, certainly I think its decent, however the HA like to mimic the past way too much.... I think they should've left this in the cold earth that it came from. Built something from scratch.
Then again, I only really like the Vanquisher, the Siluria and Havoc are decent additions too, although I think that they could be made more fluffy/unique.
The Mercury is... just... too far flung from IN designs. I could see a heavy fp IN cruiser with improved thrusters (like the Ignus), but this is just... weird.... radically different from any sort of logic. I imagine the Tech-Preist that came up with the idea for it was already mad.
The Jovian. Although it's fine, Valhallan had a point in my thread... it would never compare to the exorcist (in that world) without being too uniform with standard IN designs. Baron, honestly why do you want this vessel? Is it because you like LBs? Or is it just because of the unique nature of the vessel? Or like your SM lance argument, that it adds some variety to the fleet?
I really detest the reserve rules, as they are ridiculously confusing to interpret, and destroy almost all restrictions across sector fleets. The Jovian shouldn't be a reserve in this list, as it is an active vessel. It is dumb that it has to be listed as reserves just so that people can't take it elsewhere. Retroactive approach on rules...
If you look at 'flawed ships' you can see a more sensible way to do reserves/allies. Basically if agreed by your opponent, you can spend up to 1/3 of your points on another fleet list. Working exactly the same as if you were building a fleet that was only 1/3 the size from that fleetlist.
No sense in the 'I need three of this to get that' making all-too-typical ratios. I can't believe how confusing allying/reserving in general has become with all these documents. And I just can't believe that it was made into an 'always allowed' rule by the HA. There is no disadvantage even to doing it. I would at least say that the reserve vessels can't use FC re-rolls.
Vaaish, I think you missed what I was doing. I was massing turrets and THEN applying the bonus from FDT on top THAT that bonus. As a very extreme example, Dominus Astra would be the target, that would be 12 turrets if it was massing with three frigs, assuming that it got the entire FDT bonus.
massing turrets still defaults to the profile when calculating bomber attacks. FDT's are special in that they 'move' a given turret to a ship w/in 15cm thus fdts do reduce bomber attacks.I realize that, I was under the impression he was putting the frigates with FDT in b2b with the battleship to gain both turret massing and the bonus to reduce bomber rolls.
Honestly, is there anything right with FDTs at all?Not much. There seems to be too many holes in the concept when it's applied on a fleet scale rather than a one of upgrade like with admech due to the much higher book keeping and the cost to benefits.
Why on and how where you robbed in the bfg tournament?
Did you throw a ship of the table?
massing turrets still defaults to the profile when calculating bomber attacks. FDT's are special in that they 'move' a given turret to a ship w/in 15cm thus fdts do reduce bomber attacks.
i think this is how it goes down for bakka:
bombers = dandruff.
aboats in large waves (ie nids) cause a serious problem.
lots of torps causes issues as well.
if bakka wants to get torps off... they'd better focus on bringing as many salvos as possible, at least 1 full squadron of cobras/vipers in a 1500, probably 2.
It really is starting to seem like we are going nowhere fast with this.
Is there anything we can -agree- on?
Aside from scrapping the list and starting over.
...sooo the only thing we can come to an agreement on is that we do -not- like this list. Should we work on a different sector instead?
Possibly because there are other motives at play here. Even if they are respected members of the community, they are still human. This means they have their own axes to grind.
I expect that this has a lot to do with "I really want this, and so do my friends. I have the power, I am doing it".
We could probably delete "bakka" and replace it with "Ham sandwich".
Again, the utter unrelenting nature of his responses clearly suggests this is a pet project for at least ONE of the HA. I know this from experience in regards to the Diasporex Nomads list.
The only issue with such an unrelenting attitude is that this fleet really has no place, nor is there a demand for it! We could be spending our time far more constructively by trying to produce a hero ship for the Dark Eldar or making nids more appealing to new players.
All right Zelnik, but one question.... what color is 'with a vengeance'?
I get the feeling it's teal, as that is what Sig always uses. Everything he says is 'with vengeance'.
We could probably delete "bakka" and replace it with "Ham sandwich".
Delete FDTs: Delete.
Vanquisher 300 (or less) pts: 290 with +5 speed, 280 otherwise. Either way, that's a yes.
Victory 330 pts: Yup. It has less firepower than the Retribution overall, and a more conflicted role.
Delete Jovian: Also Delete with a Vengeance.
Add Dominion: I'm actually indifferent.
Vanquisher 20cm speed: Hell yes. If that means all 45cm range, so be it.
+1 Turrets (possible increased cost): Yup.
Delete Victory: Nope.
Vanquisher somewhere else: Indifferent.
Delete Mercury: With a vengeance. +5cm speed is no compensation for its awful firepower, conflicted role and horrible firebomb rules.
Add Ignus: Indifferent.
Ham Sandwich: Come on guys, let's take this seriously. Nope.
So, now that Battlefleet bakka has been renamed "Battlefleet Ham Sandwich"
Let us discuss it's list.
Bread
1-2. If only one slice of bread is present, the sandwich is "open faced"
Ham
The sandwich may have unlimited numbers of Ham, but must have at least one ham present.
Mustard
0-1.
Mayonnaise
0-1. May not be taken if mustard is present.
Vegitables.
The sandwich may have any numbers of standard sandwich aligned vegetables (Onion, lettuce, green peppers). It may have one non-sandwich aligned vegetables for every three standard pieces of vegetable.
One drink may be had with the fleet.
sparticus, it's hardly baseless.
In this situation, Nate is wielding his HA position like a club. He has created a list that is only suitable for the garbage, and is utterly unwilling to change it when better ideas are presented.
It's great to work with him, but if he wants the support of us forum goers, he has to deal with the terrible truth that we don't respond well to it. Other suggestions have been put foreword, he has ignored them (while quite artistically claiming not to have ignored them).
There are better sector fleets to make then Bakka. I never understood the obsession with it.
In the end, it's Ham Sandwich.
The ham is not OP, every consumer knows that no one will bring more then three slices of ham to a sandwich, otherwise not everyone will eat it.
As of this moment, the Bread Lord Vader rumors are untrue.
New Annoucement, the Waffle Wars continue.. a new Bread lord arises...
Conflicting rules and fluff that sounds like it was made by Matt Ward and C.S. Goto's love child?
One day I hope I'm elevated to the HA. Then I can make any list *I* want official if it looks like it will make GW more money. (See Battlefleet Mandragora, once the lists bug are worked out, coming to a tabletop near you!).
For some reason I just picture d a HA composed of me, Horizon, and Plaxor. Somehow, we might not ever get a list finished, but the boards would be positively aflame the whole time.
Mostly because I would get more people to buy the game by having buxom scantily clad models appear playing it in advertisements.
On the other side, I, apparently unlike everyone else, am enthused with the idea bakka being made offical. I just wish that it was better.
I really think the mustard/mayo exclusivity is unnecessary. I can see how they could go together and have a few fluff examples as evidence. Such as last Christmas, I had a ham sammich with mustard and mayo. So it's obviously doable in any holiday based list. I've also had mustard/mayo cheeseburgers from both Maccas and Hungry Jacks (Burger King for you yanks). So I think that's evidence that there is no inherent conflict here. Therefore I'd allow both to be taken without restriction.
If you mean northerner, then yes :)
Charlyignbitps (however the hell you say it...) should be a gc with wbs and a prow lb
I wouldn't be surprised if he left this thread to die. It doesn't deserve a response.