Carnage/murder: these ships are just fine thanks. They have different purposes in the fleet, as the murder is the only chaos vessel aside from the devistations that was built to squadron. Carnages were designed for Independent action.
Retrib.. Eh i like it how it is. Perfect WYSWYG, fast battleship. if you want your st18, reduce speed to 15.
Oberon: Drop it. It does not need 60cm batteries. most conflicts close into the 45cm range without issue and it does not need to be elevated to 'best battleship ever'. Right now it is the cheapest imperial battleship, and it is fine where it is.
Overlord: I won't resist a strength upgrade, but i am worried it will overpower the vessel.
Dictator: Bite me, i love this ship. Don't call something unpopular without asking other people in the community first.
Firestorms: you sir, are quite mad.
Avenger: This ship works great when there are a pair in a squadron. I suggest you give it a try sometime.
What [the Retribution] needs is more firepower. FP18 at 45cm, and the loss of 60cm WBs. Job done.
Retribution: Possibly leave Lances at 60 whilst dropping WBs to 45? Alternatively all to 45cm.
Dominator: Absolutely nothing wrong with it, 190pts is what you should be paying for FP12 and a forced Nova Cannon. Do Not Touch.
Tyrant: Price drop by 5-10pts.
Mars/Dictator: If the Emperor gets more expensive, then perhaps no price adjustment is required.
Avenger: What LBs? Perhaps raising just a portion of the WBs to 45cm would help. FP8 would be enough without competing with the Tyrant.
I forgot to put in the Apocalypse. It wasn't fixed enough. Fluff says it only suffered problems when firing at long ranges. The Apoc should be able to fire up to 45 cm without any penalty.
The only ones on your untouchable list are the Emperor and Dominator considered for changes. The Emperor considered due to its massively imposing 'take me' compared to other carriers and even gunboats in the list. Although I could see it left alone in favor of changing the other carriers.
The dominator is only up for change in competition with the tyrant. It's been thought as a better method than reducing the Tyrants cost. The dominator is probably rightly costed, but 5pts is something that wouldn't kill it.
I think the Tyrants basic stats shouldn't change, yes pretty much everyone takes the upped version, but the option shouldn't be removed. It is much like the dominators choice for decreased cost/altered wbs.
I disagree with the tyrant being utterly pointless. In a Gothic list, yes there isn't much need to take it since lunars and dom/gothics can do it all better. In an armageddon or solar list they do have use where dominators aren't available except via reserve. They are particularly helpful with armageddons where I've used them to good effect either squadroned with the cb or on their own. They provide the IN a way to build a fleet based around longer range shooting if you'd rather go that route. Once you switch to admech they again have some utility.
Exorcist should also increase the LB stat. WBs are ok.
Depends on what you present. If you present something which is logical and makes sense, I'd back you up.
Personally, I think all the GC carriers should get Str 3 LBs per broadside and up the cost. They are much bigger than the Styx even packed with weapons.
In a nutshell, mine was to make it more appealing compared to Mars (since most of the time, players seem to favor it over the Exorcist) and that it wasn't WYSIWYG.
In a nutshell, mine was to make it more appealing compared to Mars (since most of the time, players seem to favor it over the Exorcist) and that it wasn't WYSIWYG.
You increase the LB strength and you have to increase the points. Maybe you had not proposed the price increase?
Mind you I'm not one of those who like the Mars over the Exorcist. I prefer the Exorcist personally. Mars is just too expensive to take. People like to take it for a flagship but I prefer my flagship's a little more durable. Also if I wanted NCs then I would go Dominator. Since I can't take one with the Exorcist, I would take an upgraded Lunar which still comes out cheaper than the Mars. For the Gothic list, for a flagship, I would most likely go with the Emperor.
Anyway, whatever limited use you may be able to find out of a range upgraded Tyrant, that is not the profile I was calling utterly useless. The base Tyrant profile is utterly useless. 6WB@30cmL+R & 4WB@45cmL+R for 185 pts
Despoiler: Change lances to 45cm [Admiral d Artagnan], Move 4lbs from sides to front [Sigoroth], Remove prow lances, change WBs to 10@60 [Sigoroth]Admiral D'Artagnan said Horizon's suggestion, Sigoroth likes this as well:
Apocalypse: 45cm on its lances [Admiral d Artagnan, RCgothic]This should say: no penalty for firing up to 45cm, shooting at 60cm is still critical hit.
Oberon: there is a consensus here, but the question is to increase its points value to 355. It seems real pretty for 335 with current stats (so much that I might change my vote). I've never used one as I don't run BF Armageddon.The Oberon would still be more conflicted than the Emperor, wasting more of its off-side firepower and therefore being less expensive. I could see it going to 345-350pts with new stats.
Overlord: I think everyone can agree to a mixed solution, where its weapons batteries are dropped to 12@45, as well as its points cost by 10, however you can up its wbs to 60cm, with a loss of 2fp.FP12@45cm (225pts), with option to upgrade to FP10@60cm for 235pts.
Endeavor Variants: Everyone seems set on a 6+ prow. However 90' turns are a bit of discussion material. I feel that a heavily armored prow ship shouldn't be able to turn 90', and this is shown in the Rogue Trader document. Defiant is up for getting torpedos to make it more worthwhile to reload.Strongly disagree here. The 90' turns are vital to distinguish them from just being a small cruiser. Note that the HAs are dropping the price to remove the 90' turns, but we don't want a price drop.
Tyrant: Looks like a 5pts reduction. I'm against removing the option to leave it with its standard weapon layout however It rarely gets used that way, but it's a fun little fluffy quirk/downgrade.So we're talking 190pts for FP10@45cm. I'd maybe even go for a 10pt decrease.
Chaos:I've taken the liberty of adding Horizon's support to the Retribution and Defiant proposals (given that he proposed them in the first place). I also know for a fact that Sigoroth and lastspartacus support 90' turns.
Despoiler: Use modified stats [Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Sigoroth, Plaxor, RCgothic]
Styx: Lower cost to 250 [Admiral d Artagnan], 260 [Sigoroth, RCgothic] (Can we assume Ad'A would support a price drop to at least 260pts?)
Acheron: Increase lances to 60cm @+10 pts [Sigoroth]
Retaliator: 3LB per side WBs at 45cm [Admiral d Artagnan, Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Executor: Increase cost [Admiral d Artagnan], Don’t touch [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Vengeance: Increase cost [Admiral d Artagnan], Don’t touch [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Devestation: Lower lance range to 45cm [Admiral d Artagnan, Sigoroth, RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor], Possibly increase by 10pts [Plaxor, Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Infidel: Give two turrets [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts [RCgothic, Plaxor]
Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech [Plaxor]
GCs:
Add several upgrade options [Sigoroth]
IN:
Oberon: Up range to 60cm [Admiral d Artagnan, RCgothic (350pts), Plaxor, Sigoroth(10pts less than emperor)]
Retribution: FP to 18 but reduce its range to 45. [Admiral d Artagnan, Horizon, RCgothic (possible reduction in lance range or possible +10pts), Sigoroth (possible +10 pts)]
Apocalypse: no penalty for firing up to 45cm, shooting at 60cm is still critical hit. [Admiral d Artagnan, RCgothic]
Emperor: Nothing [Sigoroth], Increase by 10pts [RCgothic, BaronIveagh]
Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost [Sigoroth, RCgothic], Don’t touch [Horizon]
Avenger: Drop Cost [Horizon], 8WBs to 45cm [RCgothic]
Armageddon: Drop by 10 points [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Mars: Drop by 10 points [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Overlord: Firepower 12@45cm [Admiral d Artagnan, Sigoroth, Horizon, Plaxor, RCgothic], Drop by 10 points [Sigoroth, RCgothic, (after changing firepower)], add 60cm range option (after mods) [Sigoroth, Plaxor, RCgothic]
Tyrant: Make 45cm standard [Admiral d Artagnan, Sigoroth], drop by 5points [Sigoroth, RCgothic(5-10pts), Horizon, Plaxor]
Dictator: Drop by 10 points [Sigoroth, Horizon, Plaxor, RCgothic]
Endurance: 6+ prow [Sigoroth, RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor], 90' turns [RCgothic, Horizon, Sigoroth, lastspartacus]
Endeavor:6+ prow [Sigoroth, RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor], 90' turns [RCgothic, Horizon, Sigoroth, lastspartacus]
Defiant: 6+ prow[Sigoroth, RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor], give torps [Plaxor], Use Horizon's Profile (Exchange Lances for S2 Torps, FP4 Total WBs {either FP2 Prow and Dorsal or FP4 Prow}) [ RCgothic, Horizon] 90' turns [RCgothic, Horizon, Sigoroth, lastspartacus], Delete Ship [Sigoroth]
Firestorms: Drop by 5pts [Sigoroth, RCgothic, Plaxor]
Falchion: Increase turrets to 2 [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
As far as the Idolator goes, how do people feel about changing its fraal weapon special rule to be like how it is in the Rogue Trader pdf, where you don't get a column shift for shooting over thirty + it counts enemies as closing if within 30?
Exorcist getting an additional LB per side is because of its size not because it's supposed to be an answer to the Styx because IN isn't supposed to have a lot of AC anyway,
Dictator cost 40 points more than a lunar, only for having S2 lances swapped for LB and +1 turret??? very pricey.
IN:
Oberon: Up range to 60cm [Admiral d Artagnan, RCgothic (350pts), Plaxor (345), Sigoroth(355)]
Retribution: Reduction in lance range [RCgothic], +10 points [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Apocalypse: no penalty for firing up to 45cm, shooting at 60cm is still critical hit. [Admiral d Artagnan, RCgothic, Plaxor]
Emperor: Nothing [Sigoroth], Increase by 10pts [RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Plaxor]
Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost [Sigoroth, RCgothic, BaronIveagh], Don’t touch [Horizon, Plaxor (no increase in LBs, others fine)]
Avenger: Drop Cost [Horizon], 8WBs to 45cm [RCgothic], FP 20 [Plaxor]
Armageddon: Drop by 10 points [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Mars: Drop by 10 points [Sigoroth, RCgothic, Plaxor]
Overlord: Drop by 10 points [Sigoroth, RCgothic], add 60cm range option [Sigoroth, Plaxor, RCgothic]
Dictator: Drop by 10 points [Sigoroth, Horizon, Plaxor, RCgothic]
Defiant: 6+ prow[Sigoroth, RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor], Use Horizon's Profile [ RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor], Delete Ship [Sigoroth]
Firestorms: Drop by 5pts [Sigoroth, RCgothic, Plaxor], Don’t touch [Fracas]
Falchion: Increase turrets to 2 [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
IN:
Overlord: Side WBs fp12@45cm
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm
Tyrant: 180 base cost
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns[/color]
Since 4lb on a CL will never get accepted I guess. ;)
Styx?
pfft, I use it 275 but if you can get it at 260 I'll nod along.
Everyone should remember they can vote for multiple options. I also think that in order to make progress, there's going to have to be compromise on a few issues. If you really object to an idea that's fine, but it would be helpful if we could come to unanimous decisions once a general concensus has been reached.
Anyway, my thoughts on the updated list:
Chaos:
Acheron: Increase lances to 60cm @+10 pts [Sigoroth]
Could someone do the math for how this compares to the other vessels please?
Devestation: Possibly increase by 10pts [Plaxor, Sigoroth, RCgothic][/color]
Now that the Dev is getting a range reduction to 45cm, I propose we put this one on hold until it's been play tested in its current form.
GCs:
Add several upgrade options [Sigoroth, Plaxor, Commander]
This could be interesting. I'd like to see what the options are.
IN:
Emperor: Nothing [Sigoroth], Increase by 10pts [RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Plaxor]
I still think this needs to go up by 10pts to make it slightly less attractive. Could we have a few more opinions pls.
Oberon: Up range to 60cm [Admiral d Artagnan, RCgothic (pts dependent on Emp), Plaxor (345), Sigoroth(355), Commander (355)][/color]
Surely we're just quibbling over price now, and 60cm is going through? 350 is a midpoint, but I think it should be 20 less than an Emperor. If the Emperor goes up to 375, then 355. Otherwise 345.
Apocalypse: no penalty for firing up to 45cm, shooting at 60cm is still critical hit. [Admiral d Artagnan, RCgothic, Plaxor, Commander]
Come on, we're near concensus on this one. I think definitely 45cm, and definitely a critical hit over 45cm, but I'm not sure about the convoluted "Critical hit but not ALL of a critical hit" thing going on. Surely it would be better if it took a Port/SB Weapons offline Critical to whichever/both broadsides fire at over 60? Good suggestion? More opinions needed Yes/No/Other
Avenger: Drop Cost [Horizon], 8WBs to 45cm [RCgothic], FP 20 [Plaxor, Commander (45cm)]
You don't think FP20 is excessive? Even the Retribution won't have FP20 broadside hardpoints. The other GCs have about FP8 per double hardpoint. I don't think the Avenger's problem is its firepower, its problem is its range and role. Giving it GC refits may help (so I'd like to see some suggestions), or upping its range (as suggested). FP20 is excessive. Neither will dropping its price help, because it's already in cruiser territory and being a GC has to be worth something extra.
I'd also propose a motion to increase Torp Firepower to 4 to bring all variants up to 130pts. Not sure about this, but I'd like to see it discussed.
Retribution: Again, I don't want to see the point value go up. It's considered somewhat underpowered so it makes little sense to increase it's cost without doing anything else.
Armour 6+, 2 Shields and 8 hits can absorb 48 shots whilst closing.
Armour 5+, 3 Shields and 10 hits can absorb 39 hits whilst closing.
Avenger: FP16 R45 is as crap as FP16 R30. Vengeance and Repulsive are very near in firepower, a S1 lance difference. So why are people so shy to give the Avenger the firepower it deserves, coming from Vengeances S2 R45 lances and FP10 R60 WB a side? With an increase in pointcost offcourse if necessary.
Armour 6+, 2 Shields and 8 hits can absorb 48 shots whilst closing.
Armour 5+, 3 Shields and 10 hits can absorb 39 hits whilst closing.
The shields and hits only make a difference from an Abeam position, so whether a GC is more durable is debatable. I still think FP20 is far too much. Increase the Avenger's speed or give it additional range, but FP20 competes with a retribution, and a GC is not a heavy BB.
I'm not saying that FP9 is overpowered, I'm saying it competes with the Oberon and it shouldn't, because that's the only thing the Oberon really has going for it. 45cm dorsal would prevent the Apoc being as good in the abeam position, and it shouldn't be too much of an issue as it will want to line break anyway.
Re the Avenger:
The Repulsive is a line-breaker with 30cm weaponry, and it's FP8 short of competing with the Retribution in this role.
The Vengeance is very definitely an abeam ship, and so wastes off-side firepower. It actually has half the Avenger's FP when the Avenger gets into position.
The New Retribution is also a line-beaker, but it's a battleship. It's FP8 better than the Repulsive AND has better range.
The Avenger as proposed with FP20 would be within 4WBe of the Retribution, and so better than the Repulsive.
And it IS Competing with the Retribution, because both are line breakers, and you have to count both sides. The Avenger gets FP40, 46 with Lance refit and 49! with WB refit. The Retribution gets 45. Considering it costs more than 100pts more, that's completely unacceptable.
Find a different way to make it worth its points besides giving it a FP8 boost.
The Apoc and Retribution are both line-breaking gunships. The Apoc has more effective long range power thanks to the lack of attenuation in lances, whilst the Retribution has more close-range damage potential. The Apoc should definitely compete with the Oberon in terms of direct-fire damage potential. It should annihilate it even. But the Oberon should have the long range edge, as it's vital for its support role.
The Oberon is the one you take if you want long-range abeam weapons fire with a bit of AC support. The Emperor is the one you take if you want a carrier-gunship. They all have distinct roles, and I don't want the Apoc treading over the Oberon, because it's the most conflicted of the variants, and it doesn't much harm the Apocalypse to only have 45cm dorsal weapons, but it greatly affects the Oberon to be competed with.
Avenger can go to FP20@30 cm and it would still be overpriced. Right now, Smotherman puts it at 133 points. That's how badly priced it is.
Oberon/Apoc:
The Oberon is conflicted because it wants to lock on and reload. It also wants to be in the middle of an enemy fleet but can't get there.
The Apoc has broadsides as powerful as the new Retribution. It does not want to be wasting the off side. It also has a nova cannon, which it can keep firing up to 30cm so long as the prow is towards the enemy. Therefore line breaker. It doesn't need WBs to support its advance, because it has a Nova Cannon. Its ability to go abeam at long range is a bonus.
The Oberon is a long-range gun platform, with AC support, as opposed to the Emperor, which is a long-range carrier platform with gun support. The Oberon is therefore more vulnerable to comparisons with the pure gunships that the Emperor, and it comes off badly except at the longest range. The only thing the Oberon has over the Apoc is an ability to fire at 60cm without restriction. When the Apoc chooses to fire at 60cm, even without WBs it can match the Oberon in damage output. The 45cm dorsal just gives the Oberon that slight extra edge, in that the Apoc must expend a SO to match it at range, rather than have the WBs naturally reach out that far.
Even real life examples like the Ise and Hyuga sacrificed their aft guns to add a flight deck.
Even real life examples like the Ise and Hyuga sacrificed their aft guns to add a flight deck.
A better example might be the US AVP boats for purpose of comparison. Admittedly, they were rebuilt destroyers, but the basic principal stands.
Hmmm... for some reason to me the avenger doesn't seem like it should have long range. Just an absurd amount of guns so that if it ever shoots, it does significant damage. Its a linebreaker, a badly designed one and that's why it is obsolete. With longer range players will use it like how they use the vengeance, and treat it as such.
I think that with FP20@30cm it makes it unique and a tempting buy (even though it is still considered underpowered by smotherman). Sure it has more fp than a Ret, but there are justifications for this, as in the fluff it says they didn't use dorsal weapons and instead increased port/starboard firepower.
At fp18@45, that competes way too directly with the retribution, and really is just the same firepower in a different package. Vessels when they exchange range for more weapons batteries this usually is quite a bit of difference. (by an average of 25% increase in firepower) meaning that at firepower 20@30cm is the equivalent of fp15@45cm, less than a retribution. Of course by this the retribution would have about fp25@30cm.
Oh and comparison to the Executor converting 1 lance into 3 wbs puts it at 18wbs per side.
Horizon, would like your comment on:
GCs:
Yup, the refits sound interesting. Don't think they should get BCs, and the Dorsal WBs should come down to cruiser level, not BB level. FP6.
Avenger: Still very much against FP20. With the Lance refit, it would nearly outgun a Retribution, and it shouldn't have that level of firepower. I'd be willing to concede FP16@45cm and a +5cm speed boost.
Oberon: The wasted off-side firepower and reduced LBs (and premium thereof), means at least 20pts less than an Emperor. Then again, it would have the best 60cm gunnery of any IN BB (bar the Apocalypse on Lock On)
Apocalypse: I'm going to have to insist that if the Apocalypse gets FP9 WBs (Which it should, as a gunship), then they should be 45cm. It can't be allowed to compete with the Oberon at 60cm. 60cm Lances are good enough. I'd also like to strongly advocate swapping the Thrusters Critical for a WB Offline critical on the side that fires. You know it makes sense.
Defiant: Horizon's profile just makes the most sense. It doesn't combine with the torps into a Dauntless prow armament, and it avoids LB upgrades, and keeps its role as 'Light Cruiser of the Line'.
The Emperor for 35 (30 with the assault boats) points less than a despoiler gains +1ld (great on a fleet carrier), +6wbs capable of firing in an arc.
Avenger:
But the three are line breakers, Repulsive, Avenger and Retribution.
Repulsive gets FP28 WBs and FP9 WBe lances for 37WBe in a line breaking position.
Retribution gets FP36 WBs and FP9 WBe lances for 45WBe in a line breaking position.
Avenger currently gets FP32WBe in a line breaking position. OK, slightly less than a repulsive, but it's cheaper. The big difference is the Repulsive can fire forwards.
Avenger as proposed gets FP40WBs whilst line breaking, with options for WBe 46 or even WBe 49!
That's very definitely battleship level firepower, and grand cruisers are not battleships.
Oberon/Apoc:
The Oberon is conflicted because it wants to lock on and reload. It also wants to be in the middle of an enemy fleet but can't get there.
The Apoc has broadsides as powerful as the new Retribution. It does not want to be wasting the off side. It also has a nova cannon, which it can keep firing up to 30cm so long as the prow is towards the enemy. Therefore line breaker. It doesn't need WBs to support its advance, because it has a Nova Cannon. Its ability to go abeam at long range is a bonus.
The Oberon is a long-range gun platform, with AC support, as opposed to the Emperor, which is a long-range carrier platform with gun support. The Oberon is therefore more vulnerable to comparisons with the pure gunships that the Emperor, and it comes off badly except at the longest range. The only thing the Oberon has over the Apoc is an ability to fire at 60cm without restriction. When the Apoc chooses to fire at 60cm, even without WBs it can match the Oberon in damage output. The 45cm dorsal just gives the Oberon that slight extra edge, in that the Apoc must expend a SO to match it at range, rather than have the WBs naturally reach out that far.
I might agree, if I could be bothered traulling through this thread to find his proposed stats. What were they again?Defiant
Apocalypse - Dorsal WBs increased to str 9. Broadside lance range extended to 60cm and special rule changed. Special rule:
The power requirements of the Apocalypse's multiple lance banks is enormous and firing them often requires redirecting vast amounts of energy from engine and shield reserves. If firing at greater than 30cm range with the broadside lances place a single blast marker directly behind the Apocalypse in base contact.
How's that? No blow outs so no crit at all so no weapons or engines taken off-line, no LO requirement and it automatically "repairs" next turn, ie, the energy recharges. So you've basically got a 4 shield 15cm ship with 30cm range or a 3 shield, 10cm ship (no further BM reductions) with 60cm range.
Sigoroth:
Iconoclast -5 points --YES--
Idolator LFR lance --NO--
Avenger Increase speed --NO--
Avenger 45cm range --NO--
Avenger Reduce cost --YES (in addition to WB increase)--
Defiant (use horizons profile) --NO .... idea what it was--
Firestorms: lance to 45cm --NO--
That's a fantastic idea! Does it become two blast markers if firing out both sides?
Ah, Horizon just pm'd me his stats. Well, the only objection I'd have to this profile would be that dorsal weaponry doesn't appear on the others so why should it appear here?
I think that 4 torps would be a better fit (2 AC 4 torps no guns). Of course this opens the question why couldn't the other variants have 4 torps. The potential reason would be that they prefer the extra swinging firepower to combine with a broadside against the primary target. Not quite as strong though, and not quite believable. I'd prefer not to change the other 2 variants beyond just adding the prow armour. Therefore, I think the simplest and most elegant solution remains to just delete this ship.
Admiral_D_Artagnan please tell me if you are for or against each change. You can pick multiples from the same one, although not all will necessarily go through.
Acheron lances range - probably no. I don't think it needs the range upgrade. It really is good for it's points.
Infidels 2 turrets proposition
Iconoclast -5 points
Idolator Fraal tech revision
LFR lance on the Idolator - I'll skip the escorts for now.
GC Upgrades - depends on the upgrades. Prow torps should be enough.
Retribution Increase in cost to 355 - For FP18@45 cm 355 points to 365 should be good.
Apocalypse Port/Starboard critical instead of thrusters - Have to playtest.
Apocalypse blast marker instead of critical - Have to playtest.
Dorsal fp to 9 on apocalypse - I'm good with this.
Avenger Dropping cost - Not enough.
Avenger at fp20 - Workable but not enough to cover the cost disparity.
Avenger at rng 45 - Prefer this.
Avenger +5 speed - No, conflicts with the other Vengeances.
Overlord dropping by 10 points (This is after the change we already made, making its wbs 12@45cm) and adding a 60cm range option (fp10@60) free swap. - No need to drop points. Just change the broadside stats and add the option.
Using horizons profile on the defiant - nah.
4 torps on defiant - nah.
Firestorms 45cm range lance - And give the SM access to 2-6 45 cm lances? Nah.
ARGH! BLINDNESS| :/
Defiant
hits 6
speed 20
turns 90
armour 6+/5+
turrets 2
shields 1
prow torps str.2
prow battery str2 (30cm lfr)
port launch bay str1
starboard launch bay str1
dorsal battery str2 (30cm lfr)
(these stats have been posted about thirty times on this forum by now)
You add Str 2 LBs per side to the Defiant for the cost and you basically make IN an AC oriented fleet. I don't think it should get Str 2 LBs per side.
As for the stats, I've always been the proponent of just adding one more lance and the option to switch them for full Str 6 torps and I think it should be fine.
One thing I noticed. People keep referring to the Voss ships as vessels which can keep up with the line. While the design does support this to be true in the case of the Endeavor and the Endurance, I think it's a mistake to extend that line of thinking with the Defiant. The Defiant is not a ship of the line. It should stay back and support the line by launching fighters and/or bombers. Carriers should not be sticking with the gunline. Disconnect the thought that the Defiant should stick with the line of battle and you can dispense with the idea that the Defiant should have as much guns as the Endeavor.
As with the Apoc vs Oberon, pure gunships and carriers are a different breed. Do not expect a carrier to have as much firepower, whether by direct or indirect comparisons. Carriers should always lose out the gun battle.
Light cruiser role analysis:
The Dauntless is a patrol cruiser. It can chase down pirates and raiders single handed and overpower individual opponents of a similar tonnage by itself. The profile reflects this, focussing on heavy forward firepower and speed at the expense of all-round protection and toughness. It's essentially a battlecruiser-light, able to outgun or outrun individual opponents, but it really doesn't want to be surrounded.
The Endeavour and Endurance are "Light Ships of the Line". Their focus is on supporting the larger cruisers in a fleet situation. They're more durable than the Dauntless, and thanks to their heavy broadsides they don't mind being surrounded and can more easily engage an enemy that stands and fights. Unlike the larger vessels, they can still react quickly to changing battleship conditions, but pursuing enemy vessels isn't their strongest suit.
The Defiant is an Escort Carrier, not a Fleet Carrier. Its pitifully sized bomber waves are overwhelmed by even modest turret defense, so unlike the other CVs it cannot operate from long range - it MUST stick with the fleet and pick on crippled vessels that the gunline leaves behind, regardless of what speed it may have - this is what makes it a Cruiser of the Line. It's much more useful in a defensive role, using its Fighters and manoeuvrability to put its AC where they're most needed within the battle line.
Unfortunately, its low Ordnance count makes it a low priority for RO checks, and it's even more outgunned by its gunship couterparts (6WBe to 17) than the other CVs are (21 to 33 for Dictator), even before accounting for the fact it has half the Ordnance it's supposed to have on board.
So what's to be done? It can't really fit any more weaponry onto the prow, S2 Lances is already stronger than FP2 WBs and S2 Torps of other Voss.
Option 1: Massive price break. It's a support ship, and it still wouldn't be undercosted at 90pts. This still wouldn't really help it much, as it's a badly broken ship.
Option2: Give it some more AC. This would breaks its ECV role, and will never be accepted officially.
Option3: Give it some Torps. This would help it gain more of a priority in the RO stakes, but the prow is already at max capacity, so this would necessitate a weapons change.
Option4: Give it some more Broadside weaponry. Not reflected by the model.
Option5: Give it some dorsal weaponry. The Zeus-class models can certainly take a dorsal hardpoint, and the argument is that the room not taken up by the undersized launch bays creates enough space to install a modest dorsal armament.
Option6:] More prow weaponry. But the Defiant already has more than standard Voss armament on the prow, there isn't really any capacity left for more.
Of these options, Option 1 is viable, but not attractive, as it doesn't really fix the ship. Options 2, 4 and 6 are not viable. This leaves swapping torps onto the prow and adding and dorsal weaponry.
Horizon accomplished this by S2 Lances -> FP2 WBs and S2 Torps, a slight trade down in firepower to the same as other Voss. FP2 Dorsal was added.
Another option could be:
Prow S1 Lance F/L/R
Prow S2 Torps
Dorsal S1 Lance F/L/R
OR
Dorsal FP3 WBs F/L/R
This is slightly more firepower than Horizon proposed, maintaining its current prow strength but adding Dorsal Weaponry up to half that of a standard cruiser dorsal mount. It would then be able to bring a broadside of 8WBe to one side (2AC are roughly equiv to 2Wbe) similar to the other Voss, and have S2 torps to bump it up the RO priority list, but at the complete expense of any off-side firepower.
Horizon actually took a conservative approach with his profile because the Dorsal mount is a bit controversial, but the Defiant would still be underpowered even with the more powerful upgrade, but as a support ship it may just find enough of a nich supporting an otherwise all-gun fleet line.
Horizon: the Endeavour is short ranged and lacks firepower and hit points compared to other line ships. Where as the other two are useful by increasing LB or lances, both being in demand in IN fleets, the Endeavour simply brings more of the same, in a much more fragile package.Lances aren't in demand in the demand by the Navy with the Lunar & Gothic being mainstay cruisers. Launch bays are to an extend. But the Emperor is very good, and the Mars/Dictator not bad (though on the heavy costed site). Plus IN has torpedoes en masse to edge out lesser launch bays.
Considering the current list limits, I don't see +2 lb turning IN into a AC fleet, as it would then only match the Dictator rather then exceed it. being a Voss ship is either half a Lunar or half a dictator.
Considering the current list limits, I don't see +2 lb turning IN into a AC fleet, as it would then only match the Dictator rather then exceed it. being a Voss ship is either half a Lunar or half a dictator.
You're missing the cost of the thing. If you add the LBs and then it stays at 130, it's now cheaper than a Dictator. 3 Str 4 LB Defiants plus 1 Emperor is would be how many AC for how many points?
The Defiant is an Escort Carrier, not a Fleet Carrier. Its pitifully sized bomber waves are overwhelmed by even modest turret defense, so unlike the other CVs it cannot operate from long range - it MUST stick with the fleet and pick on crippled vessels that the gunline leaves behind, regardless of what speed it may have - this is what makes it a Cruiser of the Line. It's much more useful in a defensive role, using its Fighters and manoeuvrability to put its AC where they're most needed within the battle line.
Unfortunately, its low Ordnance count makes it a low priority for RO checks, and it's even more outgunned by its gunship couterparts (6WBe to 17) than the other CVs are (21 to 33 for Dictator), even before accounting for the fact it has half the Ordnance it's supposed to have on board.
So what's to be done? It can't really fit any more weaponry onto the prow, S2 Lances is already stronger than FP2 WBs and S2 Torps of other Voss.
Option 1: Massive price break. It's a support ship, and it still wouldn't be undercosted at 90pts. This still wouldn't really help it much, as it's a badly broken ship.
Option2: Give it some more AC. This would breaks its ECV role, and will never be accepted officially.
Option3: Give it some Torps. This would help it gain more of a priority in the RO stakes, but the prow is already at max capacity, so this would necessitate a weapons change.
Option4: Give it some more Broadside weaponry. Not reflected by the model.
Option5: Give it some dorsal weaponry. The Zeus-class models can certainly take a dorsal hardpoint, and the argument is that the room not taken up by the undersized launch bays creates enough space to install a modest dorsal armament.
Option6:] More prow weaponry. But the Defiant already has more than standard Voss armament on the prow, there isn't really any capacity left for more.
Of these options, Option 1 is viable, but not attractive, as it doesn't really fix the ship. Options 2, 4 and 6 are not viable. This leaves swapping torps onto the prow and adding and dorsal weaponry.
Horizon actually took a conservative approach with his profile because the Dorsal mount is a bit controversial, but the Defiant would still be underpowered even with the more powerful upgrade, but as a support ship it may just find enough of a nich supporting an otherwise all-gun fleet line.
Art I do agree with you that IN should have a hard time getting lbs, it's in their fluff. However your list is incorrect, you'd need 3 endeavors, 3 defiants, to get the emperor. This little thing is a nice way to make sure you don't ordinance spam, and in fact it is cheaper to buy launch bays with the dictators.
As justifiably as a 6+ prow could be added to FP2 WBs and S2 Torps, yes (+/- 1WBe).
I don't see why I shouldn't drag the Avenger into it. I don't agree that FP20 or a price drop would fix it, I think it needs something else. You disagree. I want a Defiant with the profile mentioned. Without compromise, it seems neither of us will get what we want.
I know where I stand in those options.
I still think people need to take a step back and look at the Defiant and figure out what the role for the ship is. People are thinking about it as a linebreaker because it's siblings are linebreakers when clearly it is not. And because of the idea that it is a linebreaker then it should have firepower comparable to its siblings.
I'm more of the opinion that it is a support ship, providing fighter support mainly to the line but does not have to be in the line itself. Staying in the rear a bit bet the main fleet and the enemy fleet and looking for opportunity targets to engage.
That's RT. Do the RTs have nearly as much access to quality ships like what IN has?
And what about IN not being an AC fleet do you not understand? IN is a torp fleet.
The escort carrier is crap. A Defiant with 4 ordinance... not crap. There seems to be a problem here.
Hmmm... perhaps 1 defiant and/or 1 Endurance per 500?
It's 2 per 500pts. Which is not very limited at all.
With 4AC it would become the carrier of choice, beating out all other options. Why buy a dictator when you could get the same AC for 80pts less? It would also allow AC spam on a scale the IN has never before been capable of. 6 Defiants, an Emperor and a Dictator for under 1500pts, or 36AC, an increase to 150% of the current maximum at those points.
Even with a more severe limitation, 1 per 500pts, it would make no sense to take any other carrier until you'd maxed out on Defiants. You'd have broken the ship in the opposite direction. This is why it could never be AC4.
Now Admiral d'A would like to give it S3 forward facing Lances or S6 Torps, armour5+ and 25cm speed - that's not a Voss, that's a Carrier Dauntless. I'm not averse to such a thing. I'll even propose one:
Furious Class Light Cruiser 130pts
Cruiser 6
Speed25
Turns 90'
Armour5+
Shields 1
Turrets 1
Port/SB LBs S2 Total
Prow Lance S3 30cm F
Special Rules:
+D6 AAF
Prow Lance may be exchanged for S6 Torps.
There. Now that's out of the way, we can return to what to do with the Voss pattern carrier. It has neither the speed, range or power to strike from afar, and will do best hidden amongst the ships of the line, mainly providing CAP, as its bombers are otherwise only good for attacking cripples.
In this role it lacks two things: firepower and incentive to reload. It is not more important to reload 2AC than it is to lock on your 45Gun Battleship or to CTNH with an entire escort squadron. Giving the Defiant Torps will help with this a little. As for other weaponry, after the torps the Defiant would be at max capacity with 1 prow lance or 3 WB, which isn't enough, so it requires dorsal weaponry as well. We want to add to its weight of broadside and not to overpower the prow, so L/R arc would be sufficient.
The new Defiant would therefore have weaponry in the range:
Prow:
2-3WB or 1 Lance 30cm F/L/R
Dorsal:
2-3WB or 1 Lance 30cm F/L/R
2-4WB 30cm L/R
Personally, I don't think it would be overpowered picking the upper end of those ranges, but Horizon's profile has conservatively gone low end.
Technically, RT has access to anything that's not necrons, nids, or orks. But that aside:
IN (Arma) as an AC fleet
2 dicts, 1 Emp, 3 sc
Sharks, torp bombers, 1 FA, 1 rr.
Thats: 22 AC though the thawks and torp bombers will make it more effective then it would otherwise be at that number.
Does that make them Tau, no. But I would say that's a pretty effective AC fleet there.
And did you notice it can only do that by having access to SM's SC? This would actually be the same situation if Defiants were taken under a 2 in 500 limitatio. Now to extend that further, if you double the Defiant's AC loadout, that would add another 6 AC for a total of 28 rivalling quite a bit of the AC heavy fleets out there and note these can all be fighters and/or bombers. With the Armageddon fleet, there's 6 AC performing as fighter-ABs so not doing direct damage.
Lastly, quite a few of us believe that the SC should only have 1 TH available to it since by following the game designers own rules, 1 TH is the equivalent of 2 LBs. This means the SC should be able to carry the equivalent of 4 AC on top of all the other stuff it has. On a chassis not any more bigger than the Dauntless. Quite unbelievable.
Access to SC or no, it's an IN fleet.
As far as Space Marines and unbelievable.... I don't advise talking to me about that. GW fanboys scream and tear at their greasy beards when I point out that a single squad of space marines annihilating whole armies on their own is impossible, no matter how upgraded they are, as eventually someone will start shooting them with something heavy enough to do the job.
As I said, 1 per 500. Which would allow 3, as that is a 1500 pt fleet.
In this case: 1500pts,
28AC
Tau, 1500pts
40ac. and all of them can be mantas.
What's rivaling who here?
Access to SC or no, it's an IN fleet.
Never said it wasn't. Was pointing out what it takes for IN to get them.As far as Space Marines and unbelievable.... I don't advise talking to me about that. GW fanboys scream and tear at their greasy beards when I point out that a single squad of space marines annihilating whole armies on their own is impossible, no matter how upgraded they are, as eventually someone will start shooting them with something heavy enough to do the job.
So let them have their delusion. It is 40k. It does not extend to BFG.As I said, 1 per 500. Which would allow 3, as that is a 1500 pt fleet.
In this case: 1500pts,
28AC
Tau, 1500pts
40ac. and all of them can be mantas.
What's rivaling who here?
And what about Chaos which is the benchmark you should be using and not Tau? With 6 Devs and 1 Styx they come out to 30 AC.
You also have to revise your math. Even assuming your 1 Defiant in 500 points, I can take 3 Dictators (660)+3 Defiants (390 assuming 130 with 4 LBs)+Emperor (365)=1415. So that comes out to 12+12+8=32 LBs. All of those can be bombers as well. Close enough to Tau's 1,500 points.
Assuming 2 in 500 points. That comes out to 3 Dictators and 6 Defiants bringing a total of 36 AC on the table. Closing in on Tau now and definitly much more than Chaos cab bring.
You're missing the point. IN are not supposed to be able to have that much AC compared to Chaos. It's why IN have lots of torps.
And access to AB doesn't offset the 2 AC imbalance. You can still only put the same number of markers on the table as you have total LBs anyway.
Because that solution breaks fluffHow exactly does it break fluff? Surely the only relevant fluff is how much additional weaponry can be put on a hull - In the case of a Standard cruiser, it can have extra weaponry without increase in mass. In the case of a light cruiser that clearly has space going spare, what's preventing the extra weaponry, particularly given that it has a reactor capable of powering full broadside lance decks with power going spare when replaced by LBs?
And what's wrong with deleting the ship? The Dauntless variant you proposed is much more in keeping with what's being proposed.
Assuming that you absolutely must take a line support CVL then the inescapable conclusion for this ship, since it's not allowed to have 4 AC, is that it would only be used as a direct support ship. In which case forming a squadron with a Dictator or, if given torps, another cruiser would certainly put it up there in the priority list to reload. I see nothing wrong with it having to form a squadron with another ship to get this priority.
Give it the same prow armament as the other 2 variants, cost it at 100 pts, give it a limitation of 1/750 or thereabouts (remove the Endurance limitation altogether) and call it quits. If in squadron with a Dictator it brings it up to around CG level firepower (6AC, 8 torps, 14WB) and better survivability (more hits total and 6+ prow). It would get reloaded with the Dictator and if you need to brace then it's not so bad as forming a squadron with another ship, since it's only an extra bit of firepower that gets halved. Also, if you're near a crippled/destroyed threshold with the Dictator you can push the CVL forward to take the next attack. When joining a non-carrier obviously its main role would be to simply provide offensive or defensive fighters and adding a little to the main broadside attack and torps.
Equivalent WB strength and this ship would lose only 3 strength each side for 20 pts less.It's actually closer to 4WB strength each side because of proportionally higher casualties on the bombers in half strength waves. Adding dorsal weapons would make up less than half that, and would cost about the 120pt mark.
LOL I always thought Chaos was about speed and 60cm fire while IN was about torps and hoping to corner the enemy against a magic barrier known as the table edge so that you might use your 30 cm weapons.
It seems like a lot of people around here have very preconceived notions about what a given fleet 'should' be. How do we balance, for example, the people calling for limiting AC to 60 cm with IN's lack of speed? If we're raising the price/nerfing Devastation, do we similarly have to nerf Dictator to ensure that IN stays 'below' chaos in the AC race?
The SC nerf would conflict with (brand new and currently in print) fluff, and most likely not be approved by GW. As far as 40k and BFG being 'separate' things, that's not true, at least as far as the corporate weasels that the HA have to report to go. It's a single IP as far as they're concerned. This is the problem that the HA is going to run into is balancing existing fluff with correcting game balance.
How exactly does it break fluff? Surely the only relevant fluff is how much additional weaponry can be put on a hull - In the case of a Standard cruiser, it can have extra weaponry without increase in mass. In the case of a light cruiser that clearly has space going spare, what's preventing the extra weaponry, particularly given that it has a reactor capable of powering full broadside lance decks with power going spare when replaced by LBs?
The ship's entire description in armada swings around how it has no guns. How it's kept at the back of the fleet because it has no guns. How it's fast and agile because it has no guns, and how everyone died trying to reload the bombers in a hurry when the orks over ran them, because they had no guns.
One must then ask: hows does giving them guns NOT break existing fluff here? Since what you're suggesting would be the exact opposite of existing fluff. Not a modification, a total reversal. It's sort of like making the Ultramarines one of the traitor legions (as an example taken to the extreme). It wouldn't fly.
The Defiant is the least common of the Voss triumvirate but it is the last piece in the jigsaw. A capable carrier, the Defiant is regarded as too vulnerable to operate without support. lacking any guns for self defence [Clearly incorrect, or referring to broadside guns only - it factually already has WBe FP6 lances.] the Defiant is usually relegated to a support role, operating behind the main fighting ships, out of the line of fire. [all the Voss do this, not just the Defiant, which would still do this even with dorsal guns - we're not really increasing its gun firepower anyway.]
A relatively recent development of the Endeavour, the light carriers of this class proved to be a vital lynchpin of the Imperial fleet's desperate struggle to stem the relentless tide of of destruction and death that accompanied the Ork's massive invasion force into the Armageddon sector. Being more agile than the much larger Ork Kroozers arrayed against it [So not faster, more agile (as are all Voss) - and could it be because the kroozers are twice the mass and just generally sluggish? No mention that this is because of a lack of weapons.], these vessels were able to push deeply into the vast greenskin host before unleasing their bombers upon the capital ships of the invasion fleet. Though the Forebearer and Archangel were lost above St Jowen's Dock when they were overrun while struggling valiantly to refuel and rearm their beleaguered attack craft in the heat of battle, [any carrier would be doing this, with or without guns] their brave pilots were responsible for destroying the kill kroozer Grimzag's Ammer and crippling two Terror ships.
The ship's entire description in armada swings around how it has no guns. How it's kept at the back of the fleet because it has no guns. How it's fast and agile because it has no guns, and how everyone died trying to reload the bombers in a hurry when the orks over ran them, because they had no guns.
One must then ask: hows does giving them guns NOT break existing fluff here? Since what you're suggesting would be the exact opposite of existing fluff. Not a modification, a total reversal. It's sort of like making the Ultramarines one of the traitor legions (as an example taken to the extreme). It wouldn't fly.
You're overstating things a bit here:QuoteThe Defiant is the least common of the Voss triumvirate but it is the last piece in the jigsaw. A capable carrier, the Defiant is regarded as too vulnerable to operate without support. lacking any guns for self defence [Clearly incorrect, or referring to broadside guns only - it factually already has WBe FP6 lances.] the Defiant is usually relegated to a support role, operating behind the main fighting ships, out of the line of fire. [all the Voss do this, not just the Defiant, which would still do this even with dorsal guns - we're not really increasing its gun firepower anyway.]
A relatively recent development of the Endeavour, the light carriers of this class proved to be a vital lynchpin of the Imperial fleet's desperate struggle to stem the relentless tide of of destruction and death that accompanied the Ork's massive invasion force into the Armageddon sector. Being more agile than the much larger Ork Kroozers arrayed against it [So not faster, more agile (as are all Voss) - and could it be because the kroozers are twice the mass and just generally sluggish? No mention that this is because of a lack of weapons.], these vessels were able to push deeply into the vast greenskin host before unleasing their bombers upon the capital ships of the invasion fleet. Though the Forebearer and Archangel were lost above St Jowen's Dock when they were overrun while struggling valiantly to refuel and rearm their beleaguered attack craft in the heat of battle, [any carrier would be doing this, with or without guns] their brave pilots were responsible for destroying the kill kroozer Grimzag's Ammer and crippling two Terror ships.
And in terms of guns, you're going from 6WBe lances F/L/R to at very most 3WBe F/L/R and 4WBe L/R. (In fact Horizon's proposal has just 4WBe - much fewer guns)
So yes, we're adding torps, but then again a lack of torps isn't mentioned in fluff, is it? We're just redistributing that firepower to make room for the torps.
@D'Art: the HA would have to get it approved by GW. GW DOES NOT SEE BFG AND 40K AS SEPARATE THINGS. Right now, as we speak, GW is making money off the SC having two thawks because BL just put out a book where several scenes take place in a SC's LB. (and a lot of other internal areas. It's actually mildly interesting, the internal differences described between IN and SM ships.)
If you try and alter fluff that they're currently making money off of, to benefit a system they are thinking of canceling, they're going to say no.
It's going to be hard enough to get minor changes done without making major ones. +2 AC might make it through GW's approval. Adding guns would not. Remember, they've licensed all these ships 'as is' to FFG. They're making money off them. They are most likely NOT going to let us put guns on as ship who's entire description is about how it lacks guns.
Chaos:iirc I went along with all of above, either very in support or just a nod along (re: Overlord point drop).
Despoiler: Use modified stats (Horizons)
Devestation: Lance range @ 45cm
Styx: costs 260
Idolator: Cost 40
Infidel: 2 turrets
Retaliator Side wbs @45cm
IN:
Overlord: Side WBs fp12@45cm, Costs 225, 60cm range swap at fp10
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm Cost 355
Apocalypse: No penalty for firing lances up to 45cm. Dorsal Wbs to FP 9
Tyrant: 180 base cost
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns
Dictactor: 210 points cost.
Oberon:Prow and Dorsal Weapons at 60cm, costs 355
Mars: Cost 260
Armageddon: Cost 235
Firestorms: Cost 35
Falchion 2 turrets
So given that we're stalemated on the Defiant and Avenger, let's go back to what's under discussion:
(I see Plaxor only just beat me to the punch)
Chaos:
Retaliator: 3LB per side [Admiral d Artagnan, Sigoroth, RCgothic, Plaxor, Horizon ]
Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts [RCgothic, Plaxor, BaronIveagh, Sigoroth, horizon,]
==>All Vengeance family class carriers should have S3 LB a side
We need more people to cast opinions on the above.
GCs: Upgrade options passed, Now details: , note if a prow weapon is taken the GC loses it's 'resist prow damaged critical' ability. GCs can only take one upgrade, and we'll leave the points out for now. All proposed are courtesy of Sigoroth:
Frontal Armor Plates [Sigoroth, Horizon]
Prow Torpedos (6) [Sigoroth, Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Plaxor]
Prow Nova Cannon [Sigoroth, Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan]
Prow Sensor Array [Sigoroth, Plaxor, Horizon]
==>Only Torp option, S6
(Dorsal weapons, can't fire with ships other weaponry)
lance battery (2@60cm lfr) [Sigoroth, Plaxor (wouldn't care so much if just made prow) Horizon]
Weapon Battery (9@45cm lfr) [Sigoroth, Plaxor Horizon]
Bombardment cannon (6@30 lfr) [Sigoroth, Plaxor Horizon]
==>NO dorsals
Improved engines (remove improved engines on Retaliator) [Plaxor]
I've decided to reject all the Dorsal options. I think these upgrades may be controversial enough without them, and the "No other weapons may fire" rule is horribly convoluted even if I was in favour.
I also don't think it would be possible to balance 6+ prow, particularly for the Avenger, which would not only cure its fluff-borne obsolescense, but fix everything that's wrong with it as well. So no to that too.
Torps, Nova Cannon, Sensor Array and Improved Engines I'm all for, appropriately costed.
IN:
Apocalypse: Blast marker instead of critical, Revoke previous 'safe' range mod. [RCgothic, Sigoroth, Plaxor]
==>Good one, I like it
Need more opinions. I think this is a really good and fluffy solution, with no convolution to the rules at all, and I can't see why people wouldn't support it over the current rule set. So vote for it people!
Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost [Sigoroth, RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Commander, Admiral Artagnan, Horizon, Plaxor (no increase in LBs, others fine), Vaaish]
This one looks like it's going to the recycle bin. With only five for and three against, the for side needs to find at least another three votes, which seems unlikely.
Avenger: FP 20 [Plaxor, Commander (45cm), Sigoroth, horizon, Admiral D Artagnan RCgothic], Increase Range to 45cm [BaronIveagh, Admiral_D_Artagnan, RCgothic, Sigoroth].
Ok then. So long as neither Dorsal Weapons nor 6+ Prow gets passed, I am perhaps willing to relent on FP20, but ONLY at 20cm range, or if a range upgrade option loses it FP again.
Defiant:Use Horizon's Profile [RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor, Sigoroth, Admiral D Artagnan], Torps 4 [RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Sigoroth, Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan], Lance battery to 3, option to swap with str 6 torps [Admiral D Artagnan, Plaxor], Make LBs str4 (increase cost/revise limitations in fleet) [RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Plaxor (if limited with endeavor again) Admiral D Artagnan]
To recap:
- Horizon's Profile brings the Defiant's Prow in line with the Other Voss.
- Adds Torps to make it a better partner for line ships/more of a relaod priority.
- Does NOT break no-gun fluff (since it patently has guns already - fluff only refers to broadsides)
- Does NOT Increase gun strength, merely redistributed it to make room for torps in the Prow.
- Because the Launch bays only take up half the internal space that the normal batteries do, there is clearly space available for systems to service Dorsal mounts.
- The only currently available model for pure IN fleets has a facility to accept for Dorsal mounts.
I would argue for maintaining its current direct-weapon strength (1 lance on prow and 1 lance dorsal L/R or equiv WBs), but I'd be willing to accept Horizon's reduction for 120pts.
I also vote against 4LBs on a LC.
I also vote against S3 Lances or S6 Torps - that's a Dauntless, not a Voss.[/i]
Confirmed Changes (by all 5 in solidarity):
We're not really 5 any more now, are we? Perhaps "By a Majority of at least 5"
Chaos:
Despoiler: Use modified stats (Horizons)
Devestation: Lance range @ 45cm
Styx: costs 260
Idolator: Cost 40
Infidel: 2 turrets
Retaliator Side wbs @45cm
IN:
Overlord: Side WBs fp12@45cm, Costs 225, 60cm range swap at fp10
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm Cost 355
Apocalypse: No penalty for firing lances up to 45cm. Dorsal Wbs to FP 9
Tyrant: 180 base cost
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns
Dictactor: 210 points cost.
Oberon:Prow and Dorsal Weapons at 60cm, costs 355
Mars: Cost 260
Armageddon: Cost 235
Firestorms: Cost 35
Falchion 2 turrets
Doh, Defiant:
prow torps str2
port launch bay str.1
starboard launch bay str.1
prow weapon battery str.4 @30cm lfr
dorsal issue solved. Strength remained. Different prow weaponry on voss is non-issue to some.
Defiant class system enforcer 100 pts
Hits - 6 Speed - 20cm Turns - 90°
Armour - 5+/6+ Shields - 1 Turrets - 2
Armament Speed/Range Strength Arc
Prow WB 30cm 2 LFR
Prow Torps 30cm 2 F
P/S Launch Bays as craft 2 -
Enforcer isn't legal.
And does the Defiant's siblings have dorsal mounts? Does any LC for that matter have dorsal mounts? The designers could still have kept the FP2 WBs and Str 2 torps but obviously they decided to change it to something closer to a Dauntless' prow weaponry, lowering it by 1 and giving it more flexible firing arcs. Otherwise it is a Dauntless' style prow. I was actually rather surprised they didn't give it Str 2 torps. Sure it would be a more powerful prow but then it would fix your issues about it not having enough equivalent WB firepower esp if pointed correctly.
Enforcer is varyingly legal. It's not in the official FAQ, but it's pretty rare to have someone say no to it, at least in my experience.
As I said: increase LB. Defiant will be fine with 4lb, and this solves the problem of it being so broken as to not be used. A limit of 1 to 500 or 1 to 750 sounds good, and despite all the AC haters screaming, it won't be a second coming of the all AC IN fleet from 1.0 that they're all saying they see in their crystal balls and puffs of green smoke.
As far as SC -1thawk +1 shield: No. It would absolutely cripple existing pure SM fleet lists against AC by nearly halving their LB, and they're weak enough against AC as is, unless you're also giving them all +2 turrets too. (And never be approved by GW for fluff reasons)
Because lances take up three times the space WBs do, and the Defiant's prow is already loaded to the maximum level without people going "Why not the Endeavour/Endurance also?", and replacing the broadside hardpoints creates space in the central region, not in the prow.
I suppose I could rationalise that as extending the prow hardpoint back along the spine to create extra space in the prow hardpoint itself, but I do think that a seperate Dorsal hardpoint is more consistent with the vessel layout.
If you have to ask for permission, then it isn't legal.
No, it would not cripple the SM. Because enemy ordnance would still have to go through the remaining THs and 6+ armor. SC already has 2 turrets. BB should get 4. Even if they would lose out on the ordnance war, so what? They're not supposed to win it anyway or even equal it.
And again, I do not know where you are getting your fluff reasoning. This is BFG, not 40k. If you want your supermen, stick with 40k. In BFG, SM are ordinary in most circumstances. SM handles the planetary assault. IN handles the fleet action.
Hmm... interesting point. However, I might point out that before this faq, IIRC, Custodians were an FW only mini, with no official stats outside IA.Yes, FW did have the stats on a freely downloadable pdf (which is no longer available online, but if you ask them on the mail they'll sent it). That pdf had a fleet list which was not in the book IA3. So, the pdf being labeled as FW produced made it into such status everyone accepted them. Even at tournaments and such.
The AdMech available light cruisers are Endeavour, Endurance and Defiant. Same as Voss.QuoteHmm... interesting point. However, I might point out that before this faq, IIRC, Custodians were an FW only mini, with no official stats outside IA.Yes, FW did have the stats on a freely downloadable pdf (which is no longer available online, but if you ask them on the mail they'll sent it). That pdf had a fleet list which was not in the book IA3. So, the pdf being labeled as FW produced made it into such status everyone accepted them. Even at tournaments and such.
With the fact that every Strike Cruiser does have a launch bay and the Barge 3 the Marine fleet will still have a good ordnance presence.
Of course one should keep in mind that a fan-proposal is also to include an assault strike cruiser with more launch bays (restricted, less gunnery).
Adeptus Mechanicus Endeavor and Endurance light cruisers may replace
their prow torpedoes with a single 30cm range dorsal lance
turret firing left/front/right for no cost
Defiant Class Light Cruiser - As is, but with S2 Torps and 1 Lance moved backwards into Dorsal
130pts
Cruiser 6
Turns 90
Speed 20
Armour 45
Shields 1
Turrets 2
Prow Torps 30cm S2 F
Prow Lance 30cm S1 F/L/R
Dorsal Lance 30cm S1 F/L/R
Port/SB LBs As Craft S1 -Defiant Class Light Cruiser - Identical Prow to other Voss, with FP2 Dorsal Hardpoint - about 30% weaker gunnery overall.
120pts
Cruiser 6
Turns 90
Speed 20
Armour 45
Shields 1
Turrets 2
Prow Torps 30cm S2 F
Prow WBs 30cm FP2 F/L/R
Dorsal WBs 30cm FP2 F/L/R
Port/SB LBs As Craft S1 -
@D'Art: Achem: as I said: read The Emperor's Finest for my fluff reasoning. In a nutshell, if you're going to do close air support and not leave your ship unprotected against enemy AC, you'll need at least two squadrons. Particularly since SC seem to often work alone. And in EF, it's made very plain that SC launch bays are much more efficient then regular IN lbs, (Caine notes that much of the usual detritus is missing, such as stacks of cargo pallets, and general care being taken to maintain the bay in a state of readiness.)
Second: Let me try this again, as you seem to have a serious disjoint here, GW does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, see these things a two separate entities, but rather a single IP. Anything the HA does has to be approved by them. I would prefer that we gave them fixes that might actually get passed. ATM, GW thinks Space Marines piss petrol and shit hundred pound notes, as they're the posterboys for their main line of minis. Regardless of balance issues (which this is also one of) this is a revision unlikely to get approved.
And, frankly, nearly halving an entire fleet's LB strength IS going to cause balance issues. This WILL make them easy meat for, at the very least, Tau and Chaos, and most likely Eldar and IN.
DING DING DING
The AdMech Light Cruisers do have a dorsal hardpoint (single lance). Official rules and all.
So there you have not only LCs with both Prow and Dorsal HPs, but VOSS Cruisers with Dorsal Hardpoints.
Endeavour and Endurance have to lose their torps to make way for these, but Defiant would already have made half of each broadside hardpoint available.
So that's killed the LCs shouldn't have Dorsal HPs argument stone dead, how about we have Option 4?
So I would say keep the Defiant's profile and add Str 2 torps and retain the cost at 130. With 6+ prow, cost has to go 140 or 150 even tho the others would remain the same.
On the Defiant it would be balanced, as it has so little other firepower.Quote from: Admiral d'ArtagnanSo I would say keep the Defiant's profile and add Str 2 torps and retain the cost at 130. With 6+ prow, cost has to go 140 or 150 even tho the others would remain the same.
Not two pages ago, you were suggesting exactly the same profile, hardpoint location not withstanding!
Why don't Endeavour/Endurance have the dorsal lance? Because the IN prefers to have the torps, it suits their fleet better, and they don't have space for it without the trade off. In the case of the Defiant, which would be pitifully weak without it, it has the space available thanks to the reduced broadside hardpoint. Adding this Dorsal Lance would be a no-brainer for any fleet planner!
We're not adding one more lance. We're adding two torpedos and moving one of the existing lance armaments back into a hardpoint that exists but isn't being utilised. The total lance strength remains unchanged at S2.
If you think adding S2 torps to the existing profile is balanced, then so too is a profile with one of the lances moved back.
There are two questions here:
#1. Will it be balanced? Yes. It is exactly equivalent to a profile you found acceptable, and 10pts more than the other variants whilst STILL being underpowered in total weapon and AC strength by 6WBe.
#2. Is there a fluff precedent? Yes, there is. Voss Cruisers have an unused Dorsal Hardpoint, which they may utilise in return for a trade off in one of their other hardpoints. Endeavour/Endurance trade off their torps, Defiant trades off its broadsides.
And yet adding that dorsal lance means one has to sacrifice torps. Based on the text of the AM, one cannot even add the dorsal lance to the Defiant, only the Endeavor and the Endurance. There is no option of 1 prow lance only. You're really complicating things unnecessarily.
And because S3 F/L/R Lances on a Defiant would be broken. But the Defiant isn't getting S3 Lances, it's getting S2.
As for Endeavour/Endurance, they have to trade in their torps because they don't have enough space otherwise. Defiant has nothing but space, given its half-size broadside hardpoints.
I would agree with Plaxor's proposal as there's no functional difference, but this way is just tidier and more elegant.
You would cram the equivalent of a S6 Torps AND a 6+ prow onto a Light Cruiser Prow, and you don't think that's inelegant? The LC Prow is patently smaller than a standard Cruiser, yet would be packed the same armament and protection.
The AdMech don't have the option to give the Defiant a Dorsal lance because:
A: They don't recognise that the Broadside hardpoints are under-utilised
B: If a Defiant traded half its prow armament for a lance, that would just be a lance for a lance.
What I find obvious is that there's a Dorsal Hardpoint just waiting to be used. It doesn't need to trade anything in, because the space is already there.
You have to figure in space equivalents - A single point of Lance strength canonically takes up three times larger than a single point of WB strength. That's why the Apoc is getting FP9 WBs instead of S3 Lances, and the Lunar and Endurance only get S2 Lances for their FP6 WB decks.
Yes, on the Current Defiant, I do believe it has the space to add an additional lance. - The original designers didn't agree there was space, which is why it doesn't, but we're unanimous that they're wrong - which is why we're giving it more weaponry.
But instead of having S3 Lances, we've decided on a load out of S2 Lances and S2 Torps. The space for this is in the Dorsal Position, but because torps need to be launched from the prow, it's the lances that have to move.
Equivalent strength is not the same as physical dimensions. An M14 Battle Rifle is not much longer than an M16 even though it has more stopping power.
You're assuming they didn't agree. We don't really know their exact reasoning.
Again you are missing the point of the dorsal in the AM equivalent of the Endeavor and Endurance. Those two have to sacrifice their torps in order to get the lance? How then can the Defiant get its torps at the same time getting a dorsal lance?
When in your insistence of equivalents, if we reduce the prow lance to Str 1, it would still be the equivalent of FP3 WBs? Which if I remember my math is still 1 FP more than what the Endeavor and Endurance has. Just because they replaced the broadsides with launch bays does not mean it's not taking up space. Launch Bays means attack craft, ordnance for the attack craft, crews and their equipment, fuel for the attack craft and spares for the attack craft, among other things.
Equivalent strength is not the same as physical dimensions. An M14 Battle Rifle is not much longer than an M16 even though it has more stopping power.
And the Emperor's finest was the one who broke up the SM's supremacy just after the Horus Heresy to prevent such a thing from happening again. IN handles the spaceways. SM handles the planetary assaults. If SM think SM needs more AC support, then its time to ask for help from the IN. If SM are working alone, then usually it means they sneak in. On anything major, they work hand in hand with other SM Chapters or IN.
They may have a single IP but they are DIFFERENT GAMES. Can you understand that yet? If SM in BFG were as good as they are on the ground in 40k then their ships would have shown far better profiles than what they have now. GW thinks that way about SM in 40k. By their own fluff though, SM suck in space and so this is shown by the current ship profiles as well as availability of variety.
They have resilient AC which survives on a 4+. That's quite enough considering the other AC fleet like Tau and Chaos still have to get through 6+ armor. The balance issue now is that SC's are more easily killed by direct weapons fire than AC because it has only 1 shield. By giving it 2 shields it increases it's survivability very well.
*sigh* Just read the book instead of lecturing me on what I read in a book you clearly haven't bothered to read yet. And, by the way, not necessarily. Look at fleet based chapters such as BT or chapters that don't depend on IN like DA.
I've argued that with a GW rep as part of another issue, and, guess what? They don't care. (and the fluff has since been changed, I'm told, but haven't seen it yet)
The proposed change would take the average sm fleet (6 sc, 1 BB at 1500) from 15 LB down to 9. This effectively means that it would only have 2 AC to use beyond CAP needs. Considering that in the same point range, TAU can generate 40 ac, and the +4 rule only happens once per turn, and that tau also have the +4 rule, so only 1 of those 40 ac are going to be taken out by thawks on CAP, assuming focused fire. That's 4.5 hits through +6 on an SC. This doesn't factor in anyone shooting, just AC.
Oh, I've read a lot of the books all right and even with BT, they should only get more variety. Which is why the Assault SCs were proposed anyway as well as the Thunderhawk Annihilators to help redress the problem. Aside from which, BT (as well as Space Wolves among others) is NOT the norm for SC but the exception. Aside from which, books I don't really use as the main foundation for rules. There's always a bias with books depending on who is the hero. I've said this before, I'll say it again: if the book is about SM, SM are gods. If the book is about Chaos, then Chaos are gods. If the book is about Eldar, then Eldar are gods and so on and so forth. If the book is about Grots, they would be gods.
So Tau can generate 40 AC. So let him focus all those 40 AC on one ship. If they're doing that then your other SCs should be tearing through the Tau lines. What happens if they decide to spread out their AC? The hits go down wouldn't they?
As for the choices, I only have one which I like best already so I don't need to bother with oranges or reds.
Actually, it was a IG book that happened onboard an SM SC. So, sorry, no gods here. (Except maybe protagonist Cain, since we all know he and Jurgan live [since, chronologically, this happens before most of the other books]. Everyone else is fair game)
D'Art, I know Tau battleships are crap, but you're suggesting that a headlong AAF charge by five light cruisers and possibly a BB a turn or two behind them will carry the day against six battleships that are ignoring the column shift for ranges greater then 30cm and re-rolling inside of 30. You'll most likely to have two SCs crippled or dead before you get within bombardment cannon range, and probably two more the turn after that.
Second: Let me try this again, as you seem to have a serious disjoint here, GW does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, see these things a two separate entities, but rather a single IP. Anything the HA does has to be approved by them. I would prefer that we gave them fixes that might actually get passed. ATM, GW thinks Space Marines piss petrol and shit hundred pound notes, as they're the posterboys for their main line of minis. Regardless of balance issues (which this is also one of) this is a revision unlikely to get approved.
And, frankly, nearly halving an entire fleet's LB strength IS going to cause balance issues. This WILL make them easy meat for, at the very least, Tau and Chaos, and most likely Eldar and IN.
Defiant: with all different stances I think option *delete* is becoming the best option to avoid brick fights haha.
All this nonsense aside, interesting stuff:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=19823&p=381895#p381895
Battle Points:
fleet bp
Chaos 59
Tau 39
Chaos 33
Imperial Navy 31
Tau 27
Eldar 26
Imperial Navy 23
Orks 18
Chaos 14
Necron 13
Imperial Navy 8
Imperial Navy 6
Eldar 5
Orks 2
I know this would probably seem weird, but why not a STR1 dorsal launch bay? It would add ordnance without it matching the bigger cruisers. I know it's not normal but fluffwise, the Voss pattern ships were never standard to begin with.
Retaliator: 3LB per side. More people need to vote on this, or give other options for solving the issues of this ship.
Prow Torpedos (6) we need a cost on this, likely 25 points.
Improved engines (remove improved engines on Retaliator): this is already represented in the GC world so it is justifiable, and it’s something different to give them. Vote on this please.
Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost. I need someone to give me a good reason why this ship needs it, other than the model has a shit-ton of launch bays argument. It’s decent for what it currently costs, and I’m still in the IN can has no launch bays camp.
Avenger: we need a points cost on this, and if it should have an upgrade for fp16@45cm (for 210 points)
Other things not yet discussed:
Blackstone fortresses; why hasn’t anyone brought these up? They are obviously overcosted and have issues. Any suggestions?
Chaos Warmasters needing to be on the most expensive ship. I know people have complained about this in the past, shouldn’t this say the ‘biggest’ class of ship? I.E. a battleship if there is one, then a grand cruiser, then a heavy cruiser etc.
Astartes:
We need people to vote on the options all-ready presented. Also I would like to bring in some things from Nates’ SM document. The Seditio opprimere from that? Yes/no. Strike cruiser variants, including the torp version, and the carrier version? Should they be limited to ½? Changing the prow lb to 3 bombards? Changing the bombard to a lance?
Of course venerable bbs and how they should work. As well as the ‘carrier’ battlebarge variant.
Oh and terminators being costed at 10 points, and working exactly the same as chaos terminators. Also honor guard/captains?
So we only really have the GCs to finish up for IN/Chaos here’s a recap:
Retaliator: 3LB per side. More people need to vote on this, or give other options for solving the issues of this ship.
Still in favour.
Prow Torpedos (6) we need a cost on this, likely 25 points.
Sounds Good.
Prow Sensor Array, this isn’t a bad upgrade, isn’t great, but it’s something other than torps or improved engines to give it.
Sounds Good. +20pts
Improved engines (remove improved engines on Retaliator): this is already represented in the GC world so it is justifiable, and it’s something different to give them. Vote on this please.
Sounds Good. +20pts
Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost. I need someone to give me a good reason why this ship needs it, other than the model has a shit-ton of launch bays argument. It’s decent for what it currently costs, and I’m still in the IN can has no launch bays camp.
Because it has a shit-ton of LBs, and we're setting precedent for 4HPs on a GC to do 6AC with the Retaliator. It's also undergunned by GC standards. If we're not going to give it 6AC, then rip two of the HPs out and give it S2 Lance decks instead at 45cm for 250pts.
Avenger: we need a points cost on this, and if it should have an upgrade for fp16@45cm (for 210 points)
No FP Upgrade. 210pts minimum - has to equal or more than a Dictator.
Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts. This is justifiable by mathhammer, and it isn’t used like cobras are. Right now it’s all right for 30 points, but it would be good for 25.
Stll in favour.
Other things not yet discussed:
Blackstone fortresses; why hasn’t anyone brought these up? They are obviously overcosted and have issues. Any suggestions?
The BSF Looks sensibly costed, apart from the fact its shields can never regenerate. Proposed Rule:
All ships counting as Defences remove D3 Blastmakers from base contact at the end of their Ordnance Phase. All Defences with 12 or more hitpoints remove D6 Blast markers.
Chaos Warmasters needing to be on the most expensive ship. I know people have complained about this in the past, shouldn’t this say the ‘biggest’ class of ship? I.E. a battleship if there is one, then a grand cruiser, then a heavy cruiser etc.
Isn't Most Expensive usually the same thing? I don't see a reason for a change.
Astartes:
We need people to vote on the options all-ready presented. Also I would like to bring in some things from Nates’ SM document. The Seditio opprimere from that? Yes/no. Strike cruiser variants, including the torp version, and the carrier version? Should they be limited to ½? Changing the prow lb to 3 bombards? Changing the bombard to a lance?
Of course venerable bbs and how they should work. As well as the ‘carrier’ battlebarge variant.
Oh and terminators being costed at 10 points, and working exactly the same as chaos terminators. Also honor guard/captains?
I haven't really kept up with the changes in the SM draft.
Actually, it was a IG book that happened onboard an SM SC. So, sorry, no gods here. (Except maybe protagonist Cain, since we all know he and Jurgan live [since, chronologically, this happens before most of the other books]. Everyone else is fair game)
Still biased in favor of IN/SM.D'Art, I know Tau battleships are crap, but you're suggesting that a headlong AAF charge by five light cruisers and possibly a BB a turn or two behind them will carry the day against six battleships that are ignoring the column shift for ranges greater then 30cm and re-rolling inside of 30. You'll most likely to have two SCs crippled or dead before you get within bombardment cannon range, and probably two more the turn after that.
Really now, you can always AAF at an angle, you know, to present your abeam profile as well as make use of terrain. With 2 shields and proper use of terrain, SCs can get to the Tau battleships. Not everyone plays the same size table you do.
So we only really have the GCs to finish up for IN/Chaos here’s a recap:
Retaliator: 3LB per side. More people need to vote on this, or give other options for solving the issues of this ship.
==> All vengeance class carriers, IN and Chaos, up to S6 LB. Any reasons the IN would not have it, can be used against chaos as well. So no crap, all up to S6 LB.
Prow Torpedos (6) we need a cost on this, likely 25 points.
==> OK
Prow Sensor Array, this isn’t a bad upgrade, isn’t great, but it’s something other than torps or improved engines to give it.
==> OK
Improved engines (remove improved engines on Retaliator): this is already represented in the GC world so it is justifiable, and it’s something different to give them. Vote on this please.
==> 20 cm speed for a GC, I can live with it.
Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost. I need someone to give me a good reason why this ship needs it, other than the model has a shit-ton of launch bays argument. It’s decent for what it currently costs, and I’m still in the IN can has no launch bays camp.
==> See Retaliator
Avenger: we need a points cost on this, and if it should have an upgrade for fp16@45cm (for 210 points)
==> NO, NOT FP16 R45, that's crap. FP20 R30 I can live with. Cost REDUCTION. It's way overcosted.
Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts. This is justifiable by mathhammer, and it isn’t used like cobras are. Right now it’s all right for 30 points, but it would be good for 25.
==> OK
Other things not yet discussed:
Blackstone fortresses; why hasn’t anyone brought these up? They are obviously overcosted and have issues. Any suggestions?
Chaos Warmasters needing to be on the most expensive ship. I know people have complained about this in the past, shouldn’t this say the ‘biggest’ class of ship? I.E. a battleship if there is one, then a grand cruiser, then a heavy cruiser etc.
==> Biggest is fine
Astartes:
We need people to vote on the options all-ready presented. Also I would like to bring in some things from Nates’ SM document. The Seditio opprimere from that? Yes/no. Strike cruiser variants, including the torp version, and the carrier version? Should they be limited to ½? Changing the prow lb to 3 bombards? Changing the bombard to a lance?
Of course venerable bbs and how they should work. As well as the ‘carrier’ battlebarge variant.
Oh and terminators being costed at 10 points, and working exactly the same as chaos terminators. Also honor guard/captains?
I'm not talking a giant table, i'm talking 6'x4' here. On my table there would have been 50-75% casualties before they even came in range of the guns.
This assumes a Tau first turn. Tau launch, and then RO, angle ac toward the nearest SC.
SM turn. They angle away to try and present their abeam profile. However, you lose speed toward the fleet, meaning that you're probably outside your own effective range (30cm) you're probably also outside your ability to fire on the incomming AC (was you would have had to close within the Explorer's 45cm range to fire on them. ) Tau player moves AC to be at 60 cm abeam of you between the fleets.
Tau player's turn, fleet moves away from SC, and turns, bringing them slightly abeam of you. You're now slightly closer, but tactically more or less in the same position before, just a few turns later. The AC on it's own has good odds of killing a sc outright, or crippling the battlebarge. Either one is perfectly viable, and there's not a lot that can be done in response. If you get in 6 hits on the battlebarge, you're almost certain to get a crit on top everything else.
All you end up with is a dance around the table. and, unless it's something that stops AC, terrain isn't going to help much.
Then you're playing it wrong because I can have the SCs be in your Tau fleet by turn 2 by doing 1 AAF (my first turn) or 2 AAFs (at the risk of not doing an RO check). 50-75% casualties before they come in range of the guns?
I'm not going to angle away. I'm going to angle towards you on AAF.
Clearly you have not played against a decent, aggressive SM player. 6 hits on the Battle Barge? You're wishing really hard aren't you?
So I don't think people know what improved engines does. It adds d6 to the all ahead full of a ship. Not +5 cm to its speed.
It's not the weakness vs boarding, it's the sheer number of bombers that are plastering a individual target.
Then you're leaving your battle barge and/or at least one SC behind because at least one ship is going to have to BFI or get hammered.
I was commenting on the difference between my table and a 6'x4' table. On a 6'x4' a SM player is likely to lose a SC at least closing with Tau. On my table, it tends toward a 50-75% loss before they can close.
A post earlier you were angling away to go abeam on AAF. Which one is it?
Not really. The average is 4-5 through +6. Six wouldn't be that far out of the realm of possibility. Most 'aggressive' SM players don't bother to BFI with +6 armor if they're trying to close.
It's not the weakness vs boarding, it's the sheer number of bombers that are plastering a individual target.
It now has 4 muahahaha! (This is one of those times I feel like Dr. frankenstein or some evil dictator)
No, what I'm saying is that we've changed the turrets on the BB so we're trying to look at things from that perspective.
Edit: The shield/turret proposal for BBs passed with flying colors. It was almost obnoxious. I also chose to incorporate the SC mod into this, as it is very well agreed by the community (and the vote was 5 for, 1 against).
The sc mod is counterbalanced by the fact that you can take a carrier variant.
Sorry, if I get things wrong let me know. It's hard plowing through all this, and sometimes the way people word things are sometimes ambiguous. I'll move the two Astartes upgrades back up.
And yes, the BB will never ever ever die. Such is the stature of space marines anywhere.
Yep. Honestly +1 shield on the BB I'm kinda against, but I've seen the reasoning for it.... and it makes sense. The fortress monastery, I don't think its an 'I win' button, but it is rather absurd.
Besides it's a defense.... so it's kind of only a scenario 'ship' anyway, just like sigoroth said about the blackstones.
I would be fine with the fortress monastery if it had 5+ armor. I mean it is based on the ramilies star fort.
Or a nova cannon In fleet of dominators. 5 of those traveling at minimal speeds at proppa angles could kill it from extreme distances. One chunk at a time.
Also the planet killer and... well a blackstone fortress coincidentally.
Yeah, this was obviously fanboy work. Wanting their sm fortresses to be nigh-indestructable. Hell the thing can't even be boarded.
Everyone knows that Fortress-monasteries have a weak spot. Look at the Crimson fists, the orks found it.
Then again I do enjoy the crimson fist fluff the most out of any chapter (and by most I mean at all) as they get murdered, and are quite desperate. Stories are always more interesting when the characters know fear (pun intended).
Come on, look at some of the absurd stuff GW has put out lately;
30 space wolves jumping from an exploding strike cruiser to a chaos ship, taking it over and killing the other ships? I mean... there are so many logical issues with that it is just... wrong. How the hell does a space marine jump several thousand miles in a reasonable amount of time, trying to hit something that is so far away at best it looks like the head of a needle, calculate where it will be. Not only that but the immense radiation and heat released from the blast would kill them, I don't care how resistant to death they are. Radiation kills everything forever.
Then there's the fact that in order to get to the chaos ship in time they would need to travel at several thousand miles per hour, meaning when they hit the ship they would have a fly on the windshield scenario. Again I don't care how resistant to thousand mile-per hour impacts you are.
Oh and then they smash through the hull with powerfists, well this I can accept, but the fact that when the ship depressurizes it will launch them into space! Then they kill the entire crew of a chaos cruiser, sure, then fire its weapons on the rest of the chaos battlegroup destroying them. How the hell do they load and aim the weapons? It takes several thousand crew to just operate the basic functions of a cruiser, so they would be stuck in an empty ship waiting to die.
Also why were the chaos generals dumb enough to wait around while their ship gets cleaned out by these 30 space marines? Presumably this would take hours, assuming there are 90,000 crew aboard, and each of the 30 space marines can kill 1 every 2 seconds it would take them an hour and a half. Long enough for the captain to notify the fleet.
I am just amazed about some things GW puts out.
And there
To add: all space stations and alike (apart of the monastry) are MASSIVELY underpowered.
To add: all space stations and alike (apart of the monastry) are MASSIVELY underpowered.
So give us solutions!
Chaos:
Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts [RCgothic, Plaxor, BaronIveagh, Sigoroth, Commander horizon]
Still in Support
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option [Sigoroth], Make normal Ld9 [Sigoroth], largest class instead of most expensive [Plaxor, Commander, RCgothic (why?)]
I can get behind the first two options.
GCs:
Prow Sensor Array [Sigoroth, Plaxor, RCgothic (20), Commander, BaronIveagh Horizon]
IN:
Avenger: 190 [Plaxor, Commander], 210 [RCgothic]
Astartes:
Strike Cruiser: Add +1 bombardment cannon [RCgothic]
Delete this option, others have more developed ideas that this.
Add torp version at str. 3 [Sigoroth, Horizon, Plaxor]
Sounds good.
add carrier version for 15 points [Sigoroth (limited to 1/2 strike cruisers), Horizon, Plaxor]
Sounds good.
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard [Sigoroth, Plaxor, Horizon]
Sounds good.
Battle Barge: Cost increase for +1 turret/shield?
Possibly. Would need to playtest.
SO: Make resemble BB with 3 lb [Plaxor, Sigoroth]
I have no idea what this ship is or what its stats currently are.
Battlebarge: +1 turret/shield [Plaxor, Sigoroth, Horizon, BaronIveagh (only turret at +15 points)]
Sounds good.
Strike Cruiser: Sheilds at 2, launch bay at 1 [Plaxor, Sigoroth, Horizon]
Sounds good.
Defenses:
Space station: needs to resemble model, remove the 4 launch bays and reduce in cost to 100 [Plaxor]
They only need their shields fixed. Make all defences remove D3 BMs from their own base in their End Phase, with Defences12+ removing D6.
Yes, to a level that the defender will have a chance with space stations because now minefields and platforms are way better then a space station.
Um, except, last I checked, a BB has 3 turrets, not 4, Plax. A VBB has 4 turrets.
So, your math on how many hits the BB will take is off, assuming that my stats are as I remember them.
Most of the tau carrier fleets I've met tend to move in a sort of criss-crossing blob while squadroned, due to thier weaker rear armor and the rules for targeting different facings in a squadron.
OK, I'm not sure I follow here. What benefit is there to doing this?
Weeell, 4 Carnage and 2 Styx (at 1240 pts total) would utterly annihilate the Fortress Monastery. I mean, it's not even pretty. Sure, it outweighs the FM in terms of points, but the FM doesn't come close to winning this duel. If it were only 1 Styx then I'd suggest that the FM would eventually win, due to insane number of hits and favourable special order rules, but as soon as you cover the AC gap then the cruisers win. Hell, make it 3 Carnages and 2 Styx for 1060 pts and they'll still win, albeit taking a little longer. This is with the vast majority of the firepower being WBs against 6+ armour and 4 shields.
Sure, if you decide to head straight for it you'll get raped ... but it's a defence. It just sits there. If you can't outmanoeuvre something that just sits there ....
Hang on. From what I gather you're arguing against the proposed reduction in SC launch bays right? And for this you're bringing up a Tau carrier fleet. Well, as I said a carrier variant would be added, so if you really wanted to you could bring your AC back up to pre-nerf levels. However, I don't think things are so bad for the SMs anyway. With 6+ armour and standard turrets (2/4) they're one of the few fleets that could afford to not even take any AC against Tau (not that that's possible unless there's a BB option that replaces launch bays). The other fleet being Necrons of course.
Also, as intimated above and stated by others, we're looking at a 4 turret BB. Also a 4th shield. Like the SC, the BB was "balanced" around the idea that everyone would take a fleet with a balance of WBs and lances against them. This, firstly, didn't end up happening, and secondly, even when it did they sorta still sucked.
The logic behind SMs in space is that they're tough as nails, because their cargo is precious, but not so overly shooty. This latter part they got right for the most part. It may not have seemed that way though, since the Retribution also only had 12 WBs, albeit at longer range. However, that little oversight is fixed, at least in terms of this discussion, and all these changes are just as "official" as each other, so should be considered as a whole. So, when comparing the Ret to the BB, the latter has less broadside firepower, has potentially stronger dorsal weaponry at half range which is inefficient due to interference from BMs placed from broadside firepower (and I strongly suggest this interference is kept) and slightly more potent prow weaponry. So, given the Rets increased broadsides and the BBs slightly increased prow and dorsal weaponry we're looking at roughly the same. Perhaps advantage Ret since its dorsal weaponry can add to the fleets fire on the way in.
So what does the BB get for its +70 pts? Well, it gets SM rules. We know that costs +35 pts as an upgrade. It's not worth that, but that's what it costs. So even paying full price for that, what does it get for the other 35 pts? It gets increased side and rear armour. OK, I'm fine with this, it makes sense. It may even be a little cheap. But then, why does it lose the shield and turret? It seems to me to be unjustly penalised. The point of increasing side/rear armour is to increase its survivability. But losing a shield reduces that survivability to direct fire and losing the turret reduces its survivability to AC. So why even bother giving it 6+ armour in the first place? Why not just drop its cost, keep the 4 shields/turrets and leave the armour at 6+ prow, 5+ side/rear?
The BB should get standard shields and turrets. The armour difference is to represent their extra survivability. Extra. It has short to medium ranged average firepower, with above average cost. Give it back its shield and turret, and bump the cost slightly.
SC isn't being nerfed. It's getting tougher at the expense of some LB capacity - just what a SM ship should be.
Good point on the BB Sig. I can see them trusting in their armor crew skill to divert power to places other than a 4th turret, but 4th shield should be there, and be virtually free.
My my, you DO have alot of faith in a single shield! 0.o
It's the number of hits that point of shield negates before the ship can be killed. A Desolator could do it, but it would be time consuming, something on the order of six turns. Most of the other lance BBs would be run down and killed before they could cripple it. You might be able to kill it with torp bombers by forcing the SM player to choose between using the turrets to stop bombers or stop torps.
WBs though are going to be next to useless. Between 4 shields and +6 it'd take an absurd amount of WBs to inflict hits, particularly if it BFIs. Anything that has to close within 30 cm is probably dead though.
Ah so you want a ship which can take it down in one turn. Well, why didn't you say so?
So if it BFIs, it doesn't have ordnance (AC and torps), BCs go down to FP4 and WBs go down to FP5. So what's your problem? That you'll have a hard time killing it? I should hope so since it houses a significant portion of a Chapter of the Emperor's finest which are precious in that there are only 1,000 of them per Chapter on paper. It should be survivable. What it should not do is be good on the attack but it should be quite hard to take down. Same with the SC.
So far, the only fleets with a prayer below 1k points are Chaos, Necrons and eldar. Orks, Tau, and IN are largely up a creek. Nids I'm not too sure of, no one plays them round here, and I'm too broke at the moment to buy another fleet to playtest it myself.
D'Art, There's a difference between taking one turn to kill it, and six turns if you're lucky. So far, the only fleets with a prayer below 1k points are Chaos, Necrons and eldar. Orks, Tau, and IN are largely up a creek. Nids I'm not too sure of, no one plays them round here, and I'm too broke at the moment to buy another fleet to playtest it myself.
Except that with all these passive defenses and it's superior speed, it's quite capable of closing with and badly mauling any IN battleship. You know, those battleships that Space Marines arn't supposed to be better then?
It's also a point in favor of keeping the existing WB/BC and BM interaction. I have to agree with Sigoroth that it makes things too simple for SM so the current rule should remain though Orks will be hampered if it does.
It's also a point in favor of keeping the existing WB/BC and BM interaction. I have to agree with Sigoroth that it makes things too simple for SM so the current rule should remain though Orks will be hampered if it does.
Do you mean simultaneous fire? Doesn't hurt orks. The heavy guns are lies, they only come into play in obscure circumstance. I usually fire them Once per game if I'm running torps on everything (which is pretty much always) or 3-5 times if I'm not.
Eh, I hate being a party spoiler. Give those CG's prow sensors as an option.
Eh, I hate being a party spoiler. Give those CG's prow sensors as an option.
Hmm... that's nto a bad option, but how much would it cost?
Eh, I hate being a party spoiler. Give those CG's prow sensors as an option.
Hmm... that's nto a bad option, but how much would it cost?
Someone suggested 20 points, which is about the cost of +1 leadership (chaos lord at 25).
I still prefer Prow Torps on the Vengeances.
Anyway, do we have a compilation of proposed changes? Theres so many ships to cover.
GCs: 25 points prow torp upgrade (6) no longer resists prow criticals if upgraded
Improved engines @ 5 points
20 point prow sensor array (see emperor)
[/color]
Improved engines wtf? just 5pts? When was this decided?
Let's say, a total decrease in cost of 15%. That would mean that a current 1000 pt Ork fleet would have another 150 pts to buy something else, which in turn costs 15% less, so this equates to another 172.5 pts worth of ships.
If all the ork ships costs are added together once. Then the cost difference in my document is only 2%. However the 1500 point ork fleet I ran the other day would've cost 6% less, as the cost disparities are presented the most in the escorts. KK's and TS aren't reduced in cost for good reason. If the TS is reduced then it would be allowed in cruiser clash missions. If the KK is reduced it would be too comparable to CLs, and the strike cruiser.
Also the 6+ prow idea got murdered along with all the dorsal options on gcs.
Dear Admiral,
Vote on stuff dammit!
-Plaxor.
P.S. Horizon did, his comment was, "Whatever Sigoroth says about marines is true."
Errr what are we voting on now? I have been making my preferences known.
Sorry must've not caught it.
Chaos:
Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts
Warmasters: add 50 point ld8 option, Make normal Ld9, make it so the warmaster has to go on the highest class as opposed to most expensive
IN:
Avenger: Cost 190 or 210.
Astartes:
Strike cruiser:
Add torp version at str. 3
add carrier version for 15 points
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard
SO: Make resemble BB with 3 lb
Battlebarge: +1 turret/shield
Strike Cruiser: Sheilds at 2, launch bay at 1
IN:
Avenger: Cost 190 or 210.
Using what stats? The original? I wouldn't pay anything over 180.
We should probably mention the Nova, Hunter and Gladius, even if we agree they should remain unchanged.
Nova: for +15pts over the Firestorm you get +10cm speed, F/L/R Lance (the lack of which being the main flaw of the firestorm), and Space Marine Rules. In addition, it's meant to be difficult for SMs to get lances. I think that probably doesn't need to change, even though it's the most expensive Imperial escort. Possibly 5pt reduction to 45pts?
Gladius: for +10pts over the Sword, you get +5cm speed and Space Marine rules. Worth the whole 10pts? Perhaps 5pt reduction to 40pts?
Hunter: for +10pts over the Cobra, you get 5cm speed, 5+ armour, and Space marine Rules. I think that's probably worth 10pts, so no change.
That would be the new FP20 stats. I don't think it should cost less than a Dictator, so 210pts, even if that leaves it slightly overcosted. For that price it doesn't even have to line break to be competitive, it can sidle up to the enemy obliquely and still outgun a Dominator nearly 2-1 and by more survivable in an abeam profile. If the enemy does cross its prow with one or two ships to make it more vulnerable, that just leaves them open to FP40 return fire. Even if the Avenger Braces it hasn't lost anything, kicking out FP20. Alternatively, it can try and sneak into the enemy lines behind a squadron of Lunars/Dominators - 210 is fine for the new profile.
I would advocate for keeping some of the wbs at 45, it is the disadvantage of the unupgraded version to be slightly confused. It is also in the fluff. As well I would only have 11 wbs total, trying to keep it different from the dominator is somewhat important.
Please vote for the things where your name is listed.
Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option: Horizon,Baron, commander
Make normal Ld9 Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, commander
largest class instead of most expensive: Horizon, Sigoroth, Baron
IN:
Avenger cost (give a value, current proposed, 190, 210, 200): Sigoroth, Horizon, Baron, Lastspartacus
Tyrant: Make wbs str12: Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Comander, Lastspartacus
Astartes:
Add torp version at str. 3 (trade for lbs): Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Lastspartacus, Commander
add carrier version for 15 points: Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Commander, Lastspartacus
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard: Admiral D Artagnan, RCgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
Sedito Oprimere: Make resemble BB with 3 lb: Horizon, Admiral D, Rcgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
Battlebarge: +1 turret/shield: Commander
Strike Cruiser: Sheilds at 2, launch bay at 1: Commander, Lastspartacus
Rapid strike vessels: Delete: Admiral D Artagnan, Commander, Lastspartacus
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points: Horizon, Commander, Lastspartacus, Admiral D
Nova: Reduce by 5 points: Horizon, Commander, Lastspartacus, Admiral D
Baron? I thought you were very pro-upgrades when it came to ships. You said it in the marine thread where having lances was a good idea because it eliminates redundancy. Why would you be against the torps and bc option?
Note: torps would go to 6 if the shield/launch bay swap never happen.
Because the fluff can just go with the 45 cm Tyrant. Why bother splitting it since one will obviously get the full upgrade anyway? FP4@45 cm? Not going to do much. Even against Eldar.
Please vote for the things where your name is listed.
Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option: Horizon,Baron, commander
Make normal Ld9 Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, commander
largest class instead of most expensive: Horizon, Sigoroth, Baron
IN:
Avenger cost (give a value, current proposed, 190, 210, 200): Sigoroth, Horizon, Baron, Lastspartacus
Tyrant: Make wbs str12: Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Comander, Lastspartacus
Astartes:
Add torp version at str. 3 (trade for lbs): Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Lastspartacus, Commander
add carrier version for 15 points: Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Commander, Lastspartacus
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard: Admiral D Artagnan, RCgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
Sedito Oprimere: Make resemble BB with 3 lb: Horizon, Admiral D, Rcgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
Battlebarge: +1 turret/shield: Commander
Strike Cruiser: Sheilds at 2, launch bay at 1: Commander, Lastspartacus
Rapid strike vessels: Delete: Admiral D Artagnan, Commander, Lastspartacus
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points: Horizon, Commander, Lastspartacus, Admiral D
Nova: Reduce by 5 points: Horizon, Commander, Lastspartacus, Admiral D
Jeez Baron! you're killin me.Sorry, I'm doing six different things at once. Then I actually thought about the Tyrant and remembered it's long range fluff.
Please vote for the things where your name is listed.
Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option: Horizon,Baron, commander
Make normal Ld9 Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, commander
==> OK; can live with that.
largest class instead of most expensive: Horizon, Sigoroth, Baron
IN:
Avenger cost (give a value, current proposed, 190, 210, 200): Sigoroth, Horizon, Baron, Lastspartacus
Tyrant: Make wbs str12: Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Comander, Lastspartacus
==> Yes, Tyrant as base FP12 cruiser
Astartes:
Add torp version at str. 3 (trade for lbs): Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Lastspartacus, Commander
add carrier version for 15 points: Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Commander, Lastspartacus
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard: Admiral D Artagnan, RCgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
==> I'm OK with these.
Sedito Oprimere: Make resemble BB with 3 lb: Horizon, Admiral D, Rcgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
==> Already got deadly armament. So no.
Battlebarge: +1 turret/shield: Commander
Strike Cruiser: Sheilds at 2, launch bay at 1: Commander, Lastspartacus
==> OK for both.
Rapid strike vessels: Delete: Admiral D Artagnan, Commander, Lastspartacus
==> As these are also covered by the SM escorts, I have no objection towards their removal
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points: Horizon, Commander, Lastspartacus, Admiral D
Nova: Reduce by 5 points: Horizon, Commander, Lastspartacus, Admiral D
==> Yes to both.
Because the fluff can just go with the 45 cm Tyrant. Why bother splitting it since one will obviously get the full upgrade anyway? FP4@45 cm? Not going to do much. Even against Eldar.
No I'm saying make it total fp12, but have 4 of them be at 45cm. It sucks and is practically worthless, but it is a quirk about the ship.
Why not make it 12 and have 4wbs at 45cm? it keeps the flavor, and we can return it's cost to 185 even.
Please vote for the things where your name is listed.
Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option: Horizon,Baron, commander
Make normal Ld9 Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, commander
largest class instead of most expensive: Horizon, Sigoroth, Baron ~~Eh, I'd say either/or. I could see why a Warmaster would want to move his flag to a Styx if his previous flag was, for example, an Executor, despite their vanities, insecurities, powertrips, etc.~~
IN:
Avenger cost (give a value, current proposed, 190, 210, 200): Sigoroth, Horizon, Baron, Lastspartacus ~~200 pts at fp 20, 30cm range~~
Tyrant: Make wbs str12: Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Comander, Lastspartacus
Astartes:
Add torp version at str. 3 (trade for lbs): Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Lastspartacus, Commander
add carrier version for 15 points: Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Commander, Lastspartacus
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard: Admiral D Artagnan, RCgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
Sedito Oprimere: Make resemble BB with 3 lb: Horizon, Admiral D, Rcgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
Battlebarge: +1 turret/shield: Commander
Strike Cruiser: Sheilds at 2, launch bay at 1: Commander, Lastspartacus
Rapid strike vessels: Delete: Admiral D Artagnan, Commander, Lastspartacus
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points: Horizon, Commander, Lastspartacus, Admiral D
Nova: Reduce by 5 points: Horizon, Commander, Lastspartacus, Admiral D
Please vote for the things where your name is listed.
Tyrant: Make wbs str12: Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Baron, Comander, Lastspartacus
I'm not sure how I feel about this - it would pretty much bury the Dominator.
let's:
FP12@30cm.
Delete Nova Cannon option. You have to put some clear space between the Dominator and the Tyrant other than a cheap Nova Cannon upgrade.
Upgrade option to be FP10@45cm for 10pts.
Astartes:
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard: Admiral D Artagnan, RCgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
Ok, why not.
Sedito Oprimere: Make resemble BB with 3 lb: Horizon, Admiral D, Rcgothic, Commander, Lastspartacus
Nope.
I'm not sure how I feel about this - it would pretty much bury the Dominator.
let's:
FP12@30cm.
Delete Nova Cannon option. You have to put some clear space between the Dominator and the Tyrant other than a cheap Nova Cannon upgrade.
Upgrade option to be FP10@45cm for 10pts.
If the Nova Cannon was free, I would still prefer torpedoes. If the Tyrant gets FP12, I won't ever take a Dominator.
But but but Sigoroth.... :)
So you go by the doctrine that the IN would design:
All WB (Tyrant)
All Lance (Gothic)
Mix (Lunar)
for gunnery/line cruisers?
Why didn't they do it in the past then? The Murder designs etc?
I'm not arguing the idea, just thinking out loud.
to really follow the fluff on the dominator's rarity (except in Seg. Ultima!): perhaps. 180 point tyrant, torps, 12WB at 30, no range upgrade, no NC upgrade (just like the gothic. the lunar still has the option 'cuz it's the jack). meanwhile. Dom at 190 with the 6WB at 45.
My only concern is that there is now no difference between a NC Tyrant and a Dominator, other than a 10pt difference.
How do you physically tell the difference? You can't. (I know this is already a problem and not a result of changes.) Is there even a point to having a NC option on the Tyrant, if you can just reserve in a Dominator for less? What is even the point in having two profiles?
I agree on the need for a WB12 Torp boat. If you're going to make the two so close together in role, you MUST keep a way of telling the two apart. If the Tyrant can never have a NC, then it will never be identical to a Dominator which can never have torps.
Tyrant to 180pts FP12@30cm base, with option for FP10@45 for +10pts, NO NC option.
Actually, I don't mind having the base tyrant with the split battery ranges. Yes, it means people always take the upgrade, but it does fit the fluff that the original tyrant wasn't that capable at long range and that it was eventually upgraded with salvaged batteries.
As for Battlecruisers, the reason there isn't a Gothic BC with either dorsal lances or WBs is that the ship would require 10turrets and there are only 8 in a cruiser box, so GW would never condone it.
So getting pretty close to stapling this down. Would like to do it in the next day or two. Please give your final votes for all these, even if you think that you've already stated them I might've not caught them. Also the holdovers are coming back into play, so tell me if you would like a revote on any of them.
Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option
Make normal Ld9
==> OK with this
IN:
Tyrant: Make wbs str12@30cm
Further reduction in base cost (you can vote for both, even though they are mutually exclusive)
Removal of base type
==> OK with this
Astartes:
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard on strike cruiser
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points
Nova: Reduce by 5 points
==> OK with this
Holdovers: (Tell me if you want to bring any of these back for a revote)
Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech and/or LFR lance (likely return to 45 points)
Acheron: Increase range to 60cm, and +10 cost
==> would not do that
Styx: Additional -10 cost
==> OK with this
Devestation: +10 cost
==> OK with this
Emperor: +10 points
==> would not do that
Chaos:No, keep lists different.
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option
Make normal Ld9
IN:No on all.
Tyrant: Make wbs str12@30cm
Further reduction in base cost (you can vote for both, even though they are mutually exclusive)
Removal of base type
Astartes:Yes on SC
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard on strike cruiser
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points
Nova: Reduce by 5 points
Holdovers: (Tell me if you want to bring any of these back for a revote)No
Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech and/or LFR lance (likely return to 45 points)
Acheron: Increase range to 60cm, and +10 cost
Styx: Additional -10 cost
Devestation: +10 cost
Emperor: +10 points
So getting pretty close to stapling this down. Would like to do it in the next day or two. Please give your final votes for all these, even if you think that you've already stated them I might've not caught them. Also the holdovers are coming back into play, so tell me if you would like a revote on any of them.
Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option
Make normal Ld9
IN:
Tyrant: Make wbs str12@30cm
Further reduction in base cost (you can vote for both, even though they are mutually exclusive)
Removal of base type
Astartes:
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard on strike cruiser
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points
Nova: Reduce by 5 points
Holdovers: (Tell me if you want to bring any of these back for a revote)
Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech and/or LFR lance (likely return to 45 points)
Acheron: Increase range to 60cm, and +10 cost
Styx: Additional -10 cost
Devestation: +10 cost
Emperor: +10 points
QuoteAstartes:Yes on SC
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard on strike cruiser
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points
Nova: Reduce by 5 points
Gladii/Nova: With RSV: yes, with no RSV: no
QuoteIN:No on all.
Tyrant: Make wbs str12@30cm
Defiant - I see it has 2 torps in addition to its 2 lances. This is unacceptable. It should have less prow firepower than a Dauntless. Swap the lances for WBs and give it a points break.[/quote]
You were outvoted. I would agree that 1 of the Lances should be L/R Dorsal and not front, but I was outvoted too. We were very divided on this issue and the +2 Torps argument won.Quote from: SigorothGCs - can I get the argument against the dorsal options again? I still don't know why they got the boot.A majority of people felt that allowing GCs to have dorsal weapons, particularly the revised Avenger, but also the others, allowed them broadside and focus damage potential equal to a Gun Battleship which was unacceptable.
Quote from: SigorothDefiant - I see it has 2 torps in addition to its 2 lances. This is unacceptable. It should have less prow firepower than a Dauntless. Swap the lances for WBs and give it a points break.
You were outvoted. I would agree that 1 of the Lances should be L/R Dorsal and not front, but I was outvoted too. We were very divided on this issue and the +2 Torps argument won.
A majority of people felt that allowing GCs to have dorsal weapons, particularly the revised Avenger, but also the others, allowed them broadside and focus damage potential equal to a Gun Battleship which was unacceptable.
actually the one tied with +2 torps was 'sigoroth's idea. So we can just do that, however I don't feel the need for the 1/750 restriction.
Translation:
The vote was tied +2 torps vs 2torps & WB FP2, so Plaxor made an executive decision to go with the one closer to the present profile.
Tyrant, should the base type be cheaper (175) and the upgraded type stay at 180?Maybe. I can see that FP10 with 4@45 is weaker than FP12 that would be 180, but the range does come with a premium. I am really disappointed that so many people have come down against FP12 base though. What are the reasons not to? It's equivalent to the Lunar and Gothic, only for people who prefer WBs.
Idolator, this one has been bugging me, should we instead of making it 40 points give it the new fraal tech (left shift within 30cm) and LFR lances? The model does have a rotating turret....No to the fraal tech. I don't see the purpose in introducing a special rule when a points drop works. As for the L/F/R lance, I'll go with maybe.
AdMech, does anything need to be done for them? I know we didn't talk about them, but does their BB need balanced?
perfect, boring and non-Imperium.
10wb@45 (190pts) /6torps is just good.
To be honest : who would take 6wb if ha can have 12?
What? So are we using FAQ apocalypse rules?
To be honest : who would take 6wb if ha can have 12?
Longer range and a cheaper nova cannon? That's the point....
Why would you nerf the main firepower of your cruiser just to get the auxiliary weapon for 5 pts less? I have always thought this option was pure fail. Never even considered it.
To be honest : who would take 6wb if ha can have 12?
lol, a massive improvement over the original Apocalypse is called rubbish?
lol, a massive improvement over the original Apocalypse is called rubbish?
So why couldn't it be 45cm but firing over it creates the BM? Personally I wouldn't mind taking the full crit effects as long as the Apocalypse can fire up to 45 cm without any crit.
Proposal:
In addition to using the blast marker rules and FP9 WBs as already decided, the Apocalypse gets 60cm Lances standard.
Compare what the vessel actually has for that profile.
It has firepower of similar strength to an Oberon, Launch Capacity roughly equal to an Oberon, one less turret, 5cm more speed, and torpedoes instead of prow sensors.
Based on that, the torps option should be somewhere in the region of the Emperor in price.
hows about option to drop 2 LB for 9 torps, no points change?
hows about option to drop 2 LB for 9 torps, no points change?
I like this idea.
Anyone else think the Sedito Opprimere is too powerful? I think that it should drop its P/S bombards to strength 8 but have its launch bays returned to str.3
Upon further consideration I do think the SO a little too powerful. It's not just a swap of range for BC rules at +X pts. It removes the interaction effect between WBs and BCs, making the SM fire more efficient. Also, the loss of range isn't that big a deal since they're WBs and so the extra range isn't worth so much due to loss of strength.
Also, I still find the loss of the prow TH to be inexplicable. I don't particularly want a more powerful ship, just that this unexplained loss is irksome. I would suggest that it gets its third TH and drop its broadside BCs to 10 at most. Perhaps also a slight price hike.
I'm removing the restriction on carrier SC's unless anyone gives protest. It doesn't seem like they need to be restricted in this way.
Also I've been reading over TH annihilators. It says they are fighters and bombers, but the way they are described as working is as just bombers. I imagine what they're meant to be is resilient bombers, like tau mantas.
Either that or they would essentially be resilient fighta-bombers.
Edit: I've also been looking at the 'powers of chaos' document. I don't know where the need for 'super' marks of chaos came from, having more abilities for ships which worship the gods.
Also the non-nurgle character ships seem unnecessary. I understood nurgle's reason for having one, as Typhus had a fleet 1/3 the size of Abbadon at the onset of the 13th black crusade.
The thousand sons during the 13th were busy in the webway (as only Arhiman's group ever left), and khorne/slannesh ships don't seem different enough/like they would according to fluff. I mean aura of lust? What?
Anyways, as the Emasculator and Hecate are becoming legal, tell me how they should be balanced/where they should be placed (just in 13th I presume?)
Also Chaos Space Hulk? I imagine no one would be bothered if this disappeared.
Edit (2):
So here's some thoughts on the Fortress Monastery; for +125 points, it gains: SM rules (including better LD, resistance to H+R attacks etc.), 6wbs per quadrant, 3 thunderhawks per quadrant (which is more than half of the 4 that the ramilies gets.) 6+ armor. Boarding torpedoes, 2 extra teleport attacks (although these will be deleted with the terminator revision and unnecessary honor guard being deleted)
What it loses: 2 lances per quadrant.
Does not make sense to me. I think that the vessel would be perfectly fine in comparison if it had 5+ armor just like the Ramilies.
Several Chapters, most notably the Dark Angels and the Fire Hawks,
operate from mobile space fortresses. These gigantic craft contain
sufficient accommodation, workshops, training areas and dock
facilities for the entire Chapter and operate as a mobile base for
Chapter operations. While their defensive/offensive capabilities are
alleged to be equivalent to a Ramilies class star fort, they are not
only mobile but warp-capable.
I'm removing the restriction on carrier SC's unless anyone gives protest. It doesn't seem like they need to be restricted in this way.
Edit: I've also been looking at the 'powers of chaos' document. I don't know where the need for 'super' marks of chaos came from, having more abilities for ships which worship the gods.
Also the non-nurgle character ships seem unnecessary. I understood nurgle's reason for having one, as Typhus had a fleet 1/3 the size of Abbadon at the onset of the 13th black crusade.
The thousand sons during the 13th were busy in the webway (as only Arhiman's group ever left), and khorne/slannesh ships don't seem different enough/like they would according to fluff. I mean aura of lust? What?
Anyways, as the Emasculator and Hecate are becoming legal, tell me how they should be balanced/where they should be placed (just in 13th I presume?)
Also Chaos Space Hulk? I imagine no one would be bothered if this disappeared.
Edit (2):
So here's some thoughts on the Fortress Monastery; for +125 points, it gains: SM rules (including better LD, resistance to H+R attacks etc.), 6wbs per quadrant, 3 thunderhawks per quadrant (which is more than half of the 4 that the ramilies gets.) 6+ armor. Boarding torpedoes, 2 extra teleport attacks (although these will be deleted with the terminator revision and unnecessary honor guard being deleted)
What it loses: 2 lances per quadrant.
Does not make sense to me. I think that the vessel would be perfectly fine in comparison if it had 5+ armor just like the Ramilies.
Personally I think that while as a SM ramilies, it's ok, this thing really shouldn't be called a fortress monastery. It's too weak and too small. Descriptions I've read make them all sound rather 'death star' ish and no two are the same. Dorn's Phalanx and Sigismund's Eternal Crusader would be more like a space hulk sized ship. The Tower of Angels is similar to a Ramilies, but described as much bigger.
So I was posed by someone chapter specific rules for Space marines, I thought they were fairly decent, tell me what you guys think/
Ultimately Masters of the Fleet would have to buy 1 re-roll (effectively making them 75 points, but also making the two bonus re-rolls more expensive/limited, which is a big factor for any non-ultramarine fleet who wants re-rolls) but your ships would have some benefit depending on chapter;
Ultramarines & non-listed would receive the 1 re-roll, due to following the codex, and better command structure
Dark Angels would receive either +1 to determine turn order/deployment (or +1 strategy rating) due to their extreme paranoia.
Black Templars would receive THA's for free
Space Wolves would receive +1 to defend against boarding actions.
Blood Angels would receive a +1 to boarding actions, but a -1 to defending against boarding actions.
So, BA would not be better than mere IN in defending against boarding ??? You're joking, yes?
I certainly like that admech idea :)
My only thought is that some of those refits are a tad too underpriced, but its been a few weeks since ive had time to playtest.
As in my ideas are neat, or neat as they are? : )
The idea that they can turn while on AAF is just strange to me.
Well, leaving the Cartouche at 140 pts meant that 3 Cartouche and 12 Dirges (original maximum) comes out at an even 900 pts. 125 pts is fine though.
If you're going to push the FC to 75 pts you can add in a re-roll. Then +1 RR for 25, +2 for 75.
What do you think Horizon?You don't want to know.
If the Warden stays abeam it has 1 lance. @30cm 1 lance = 3wb.
Thus equal to Iconoclast, yet slower speed, yes.
Eh, the Warden doesn't "gain 1 LFR firepower" compared to the Orca, it gains 1 LR firepower. So same total and focusable. This miniscule bonus along with the slightly less "meh" bonus of the extra speed is simply not worth 5 pts. I believe that reducing the armour to 4+ is worth more than 5 pts. So call the difference -5 pts compared to the Orca, bringing total cost down from 30 pts to 25 pts, both with restrictions making their actual value more than their cost (like a CB).
Horizon asked how many I'd take if they were unrestricted at 25 pts. I'd say between 10 to 15% of my fleet cost. So 6-9 in a 1500 pt fleet. This is with them being overpowered compared to other escorts (since the restrictions and sunk costs are balancing factors). I probably wouldn't take any more because even being overpowered compared to other escorts they wouldn't be overpowered compared to cruisers.
Not only that but BFG is becoming too large/unorganized for new players to make sense of it. Rewriting it like this will make it simpler to see. Also when you rewrite the entire game system instead of just a few things it makes it much more apparent.
Not only that but BFG is becoming too large/unorganized for new players to make sense of it. Rewriting it like this will make it simpler to see. Also when you rewrite the entire game system instead of just a few things it makes it much more apparent.Hi,
In Imperial vessels v1.1, you've called the Armageddon class Battlecruiser an Apocalypse class in its special rules box.
I also have to say that I'm extremely against including unofficial ships in any of the flawed ships documents. The point of the project was to fix what was broken, not to introduce new stuff, and the authority of the document will be severely weakened by including unofficial ships.
I'm all for the Battlefleet Tartanus, but it should be kept to a separate document.
Thinking about the 'wolfpack' list today.
The negative in leadership is a huge disadvantage and they don't really get anything for it (other than access to more extensive escorts). Even then an escort fleet is very sub-par. So I was thinking that escorts without a lance would receive a -5pt reduction in cost. Also the larger access to escorts is countered by the capital ship limitation, and overall lower LD of the fleet commander.
Of course allied escorts would follow their own rules and be costed normally, and with the allies rules wouldn't be able to use FC re-rolls/would count as 'mercenaries' meaning they would be forced to disengage if reduced to 1 model.
I demand Sigoroth's thoughts!
base size: you'd still need 10+ hits for the big base. don't limit orks to small bases... unless you call their kroozers BB's... but then you screwed the slowpokes even more on turning.
if boarding torps reroll vs armor, then what do CWE boarding torps get?
non fleet commander characters.... try adding in the gryphon knight idea from MMS. that way select fleets could have access to more reliable SO fleet wide. rather than throw off balance with chaos and bastion IN swarming tones of sub commanders.... call the imperial ones commissars.
after the whole bakkan debacle, yeah the jovian should be out from tartanus. besides its just an exorcist... but worse. dominion's cool. its my favorite ship. please investigate further.
on your other post about the light BB 'vanquisher' at 290... well a lite BB should be like a grand cruiser. The big V is kinda between an unfixed ret and vengeance (with torps) in Firepower, but its not at all un-conflicted in its line breaker role. its 15cm move isn't really a hindrance, it just makes it blunt: point towards large formation of enemies and move forward. without the dorsals it should just aff off the bat. i'd put it at 300, and take it every time.
ahh yes. and rules... (after reading RC's thread)
escorts should be able to squadron with caps - it would be friggin awesome. perhaps even BB's with cruisers. but squadron size would have to remain pretty small.
perhaps allowing single ships to BFI. though ordy squadrons may go a little out of hand.'
ahh yes. and rules... (after reading RC's thread)
escorts should be able to squadron with caps - it would be friggin awesome. perhaps even BB's with cruisers. but squadron size would have to remain pretty small.
However Battleships probably shouldn't be able to squadron with cruisers.
weekend - i'd do it earlier, but i got a pair of exams...
weekend - i'd do it earlier, but i got a pair of exams...
Real life intrudes, lol.
Vanquisher:
This is significantly different from the version going into Bakka. I'd say use Bakka's profile and cost 290pts.
IN V 1.1
Vanquisher
...strange....don't like. The option is..weird...
Victory:
Needs including/fixing?
Mars/Dictator:
Since when have these ships been Torpedo Bombers/Minelayers? I would keep these abilities to the fleet list. Torpedo Bombers are worth nowhere near 40pts, doing roughly comparable damage to regular bombers under FS (especially as they may not launch the turn they themselves are launched - that's a half ordnance rate) And minelayers aren't worth 20pts either. Mines are nowhere near as versatile as AC. I'd rather this was kept to the fleetlists, scenairos and campaigns, otherwise I think every carrier should have the options.
Jovian:Sorry, like I said, I haven't updated it yet. This will be replaced by the Dominion.
Still rearing its ugly head?
Ignis:
Don't like the profile. Its broadsides are too strong for a cruiser, and its dorsals are too strong for a cruiser. It also has battlecruiser level firepower, though obviously range issues. I could just about see FP9@30cm for a cruiser compared to S2 Lances@60cm, but the broadsides should cap out at 12. That would be fine for 200pts.
Ignus
Love it....that means it is waaaaaay to cheap, even with the special rule :) Suggestion: Torps +2 (never liked S4 tubes), Broadside -2, dorsal -2. Price +10 Points. (So still an impressive S18 Broadside)
Option to increase broadsides @45cm for +20Points and/or dorsal to @60cm for +20P
Dominator:
How about FP6@45cm for -25pts? It's just not an attractive option.
Tyrant:
Perhaps it should take a leaf out of the Hydra's book? Swap the ranges of the batteries. FP6@45cm, with a FP4 bonus@30cm. That would make it an attractive option to keep at 180pts.
Hydra:
Just a Tartanus Tyrant? They're not so different that it makes sense to have 2 ships.
tyrant
Well, you decreased the price, which is a good think. But I think I had prefered the other way: 190 Points, but the 45cm Broadside with S6. (if you follow my idea and decrease the Lunar/Gothic the current Tyrant should be 175 Points and the “improved†with S6@45cm 180 Points)
Hydra
at the moment a better Tyrant (+1turret, weapon layout) for the same price...IMO to “close†to the tyrant and not needed or should be changed.
Siluria:
Does it get Dorsal WBs and +10pts as per Bakka? Should definitely be 4HPs.
Silura
I don't like IN ships with 4 HP. Leave this to Eldar or Tau.
Also such a cheap cruiser can be abused to spam BCs or BBs.
Endeavour/Endurance:I think that the HA might've decreased their cost after. I know the discussion basically said 6+ and 90' for no change. But was that no change after HA decided it was 110 pts? I imagine so.... I'll ask sig/horizon, one of them will remember.
Thought we were keeping these at 120pts? I may be forgetting the whole discussion, but with 6+ Prows and 90' turns they're probably worth 120pts.
Defiant:Nope. Remember that discussion? It kept its lances, so it stays at 120.
Thought we were going with a 90/100pt Endeavour/Endurance Prow?
Enforcer:
Is worth more than a Dauntless - Defiant gives up its main broadside for its LBs, whereas on the Dauntless those are just secondary weapons. 120pts.
Viper:
Can we include please? I like it. 35pts.
RetributionSorry, but no. At the very least it will allow us to release a BB with that sometime later. Although this is somewhat unlikely as none will compare to an Emperor, which has 15@60 focusable already.
Should perhaps have an Option that brings Batteries to 60cm ~ 10-20 Points
OberonWe had a long discussion about this one, and that was the 'voted' result. This will not change unless there is a mass uproar to do so.
compared to the Emperor still unattractive, due to the "conflicted design". But as this layout is essential for the ship I suggest point decrease ~ -20 Points.
Overlord
Very underperforming. Perhaps it would be a good idea if the targeting array and/or the 3rd turret is included without any additional costs
Gothic/Lunar
maybe I'm breaking a dogma, but do you really think hatthese ships are priced right? I always had the impression that both are ~10P points overpriced especially if compared to the Dominator or chaos ships. So probably 170P would be better,IMO
Dauntless.
Hate to say this, but the easiest way that other CLs become more attractive is to make the daunt more expensive. Should be at least 120P, perhaps even more.
Enforcer/Tempest
Should only be allowed in a very limited way/very special fleet lists … otheriwse the IN can easily become a “carrier fleetâ€. Especially the Tempest could be a problem: 20 Hangars for 900 Points could be a bit much...
List section[/quote]
Admirals and rerolls are overpriced (Has anyone ever used a Solar Admiral with 3 rerolls? I've already played games with 5000 points and 4 Battleships and never used such a guy ^^) This is not a IN specific thing, but more or less all races are involved. But I have no real idea how to solve this as cheap commanders are somewhat of a race advantage (e.g. having a cheap LD10 Admiral is one of the few advantages that SM have...)
The difference is it only has 2 shields, suffers critical hits twice as often, and those critical hits get a +1 modifier, and so are nastier (Bulkhead collapse 6x as likely as normal). I think its turrets should also go down to 2 or 3. Also, it has neither the Retributions broadside firepower, not its S9 Torps. Hits represent size, not toughness. The lack of toughness is reflected in the shield strength and special rules.
As for the Victory: Turning it into a long range support vessel was the POINT of adding the prow WBs, and I think gives it a more unique role than just being a shitty Apocalypse. The name "Victory" recalls the most glorious age of sail vessel ever built, not some cheap knock off of a more successful class.
Am also curious where you get the idea that the crits get a +1 modifier. From the BFG Compendium, all I see is it rolls 2 dice for crits and no modifiers are involved.
sorry about above. first mention of the ret was 'flawed' (noted). second mention was ret 'revised' and not noted. yeah my profile sugguestion has WBe of 18 for the broadsides, 24 focusable at 60cm (compared to revised ret with 27 focusable at 45cm).
while your correcting some imperial issues i just skipped through the v.1.1 IN fleets revised
*you are recorrecting the vanq?
*and adding in the viper?Eh, you know how it goes.
*tempest squadron of 4 (cost 180) can launch a wave of 4 bombers... i know escorts need higher cost/firepower ratio, but launch capacity? not too sure. i'd up them to 55 as is, OR up them to 50 and take away their bombers.
*why not make the dominator 0-1 in the gothic list? we all agree it only happened because it was the first list made. its not in character at all... what with bakka/tartanus coming along to really have a nitch for the ship.
turret option for the 'geddon?
invincible - imo it sticks out like a sore thumb (kinda like the mercury) in an imperial fleet.
Because if you'd actually read my proposal, you would have seen that I'd suggested it adopted the Repulse Class's special rules from my Battlefleet Urdesh thread. Those give criticals on a 5+, which has an identical average hits to 2D6, but which is much simpler, and the +1 modifier compensates for the additional 2 hits over the 10 hits you yourself would have given it. As a rough guide, it will take twice as many criticals as a regular battleship, and those criticals will be 50% more damaging in terms of hitpoints with the +1 modifier.
I really like the battlecruiser concept, but it has to be done properly, and the Invincible profile as it stands does not lend itself to this. Cruisers should run screaming at the sight of a battlecruiser. Are they really going to be afraid of a ship that has the same shields and hitpoints as them, and only barely outguns them?
A Battlecruiser, at least in the time of Jutland and even into WW2 is as large as a battleship, weapons as tough but not as tough and is faster. To that end, my idea of a true battlecruiser in BFG would be a 10HP ship, with only 5+ armor, 2 or 3 shields and 25 cm speed. I lean more toward 3 shields if it is a 5+ all around ship. If 6+/5+ armor, then the shields can be lowered to 2 but I think 3 can still be justifiable.
I think the FP12@60 cm WB supported by Str 3@60 cm lances are fine since a cruiser can't hope to match those weapons and so should be scared. Those Str 3 lances is not considered barely. Applying your crit at 5+ is fine. No need to add the +1 modifier. Or you can apply the +1 modifier but keep the criticals on 6+.
And there you have your Invincible.
| Turret number | (theoretical) Damage caused |
| 1 | 4.58 |
| 2 | 2.778 |
| 3 | 1.5 |
| 4 | .667 |
| 5 | .19 |
| Turret number | (theoretical) Damage caused |
| 1 | 3.667 |
| 2 | 3.333 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 2.667 |
| 5 | 2.333 |
| 6 | 2 |
| Turret number | (theoretical) Damage caused |
| 1 | 2.75 |
| 2 | 2.5 |
| 3 | 2.25 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 5 | 1.75 |
| 6 | 1.5 |
Battlecruisers (not just at the time of Jutland, but right up until HMS Hood, the last really big battlecruiser), also had similar crew complements.
FP12 and 3 Lances only just outguns an Armageddon, by one lance. Considering they have the same protection and the Battlecruiser takes double criticals, that's not a one-sided fight unless the Battlecruiser keeps out of range (which is a very narrow 15cm band).
So here's the argument for the 12 hit profile:
Uses same model, so is by definition the same size.
Has similar crew complement (one of the way the designers of BFG described hits)
There's no precedent for giving ships using the same model different hits (except for nurgle - but that's down to additional bloated mass, they're not really the same size.)
The 6+ prow is vital because otherwise you might as well interchange it for a Chaos battleship, they become so similar without.Fine.
Double criticals and +1 modifier adequately represent it being less tough than a regular battleship.
FP12 is not enough for a battleship equivalent - the Retribution suffered from this, which is why it was bumped to FP18@45. Instead of that, the proposal is FP15@60. As a Battlecruiser it will need the range more.
The Retribution is significantly tougher, AND outguns it, AND has more torps. The whole POINT of a battlecruiser is that it matches a battleship for firepower. The fact Retribution DOES outgun Invincible is already a concession. Where Retribution makes its points back is in ability to take punishment and to be in the centre of the enemy fleet using both broadsides, whereas Invincible's damage rules significantly disincentivise putting it in the same situation and thus prevent it being able to do likewise. The points value of Invincible is also open to negotiation. Also, a BB model without all its weapons hardpoints would look ridiculous.
I strongly, STRONGLY feel that it should have 12 hits. 5+ and +1 modifier crits are simple and effective at getting across the lack of toughness. There's precedent for adding a couple of fluffy special rules. There's no precedent for a model having fewer than standard hits for a model already established to have .
Plaxor: Emailing you my comments now.
No.
You do realize that the Retribution, before the decision to make it FP18@45cm, is FP12@60cm? The Retribution at FP18@45 cm won't really outgun the Invincible if the Invincible is at FP15@60cm. As I pointed out the difference is 2 dice in the approach and moving away profile and 1 dice only in the abeam profile.
And I STRONGLY DON'T. I don't want a ship with 3 disadvantages which will then cost almost as much as a Retribution because the weapons will be bumped to FP15 (Smotherman puts it at 342). You're going to spend that much points on one ship that will might just blow up the first hit it gets after the shields have been taken down because it rolls a 5+ on a crit and a 10-12 on the crit table? I don't think a battleship should be like that. In this regard, I retract my statement about poor Retribution but only in the sense that no one would ever want to take your iteration of the Invincible if only because it will blow up faster even though it will perform at par with the Retribution.
There is no official precedent yes about ships having less HP on one hull, but experimentally, when this ship came out in the BFG Mag and Annual it broke that precedent so the HA were thinking it was possible.
Again, toughness is a measure of the physical ship itself. Internal structure and armor would be the real life references. Since we are talking about space ships, then shields would be included and these are already lowered. You don't want to touch the armor however as this actually would be the one needing change. Fine. Therefore the HP should also be lower than a typical battleship. Lowering the HP would also justify it getting 25 cm speed. With 12 HP I can't see it happening even with reduced shielding because I think the energy saved won't be enough to add that much speed since the mass because of the structure and armor remain the same as a normal battleship.
However, you want it to have 12 in the expectation that lower shields and penalizing a ship with 2 types of crits would balance it out. I'd rather take HP10 and only 1 crit disadvantage along with the lesser shields. And as I said, I even feel 2 shields were extreme. It should have 3.
Invincible (Smotherman puts this at 315)
Type Battleship
HP 10
Armor 6+/5+
Shields 3
Turrets 4
Speed 25 cm
Armament
Dorsal Lances Str 3@60cm
Port/Starboard WB FP12@60cm
Prow Torps Str 6
Choose penalty from:
1. Roll 2D6 per hit to check for crits or
2. Crits on 5+ instead of 6 or
3. +1 Modifier to crits rolled in the Critical Hits Table.
Tough but not as tough and not easily taken down but still can be one shotted in the right circumstances and something which can be taken and reasonably expect to survive.
Inadequate Bulkheads: The Invincible Class Heavy Battlecruiser was designed without many internal bulkheads in exchange for its speed. This greatly increases its susceptability to critical hits: Critical Hits against an invincible Class Heavy Battlecruiser are normally scored on a 5+ instead of the usual 6+; In addition, all rolls on the critical hit chart gain a +1 modifier.As for battlecruisers taking a critical hit and blowing up:
No.
FP12 is unacceptably low for a true battlecruiser. It SHOULD be of the standard of a Retribution. So what if it's only 1 or 2 dice less? Good!
The smotherman value is off for several reasons:
#1. it significantly over-values R60 over R45. It's a 33% range increase, but a 50% cost increase. That easily accounts for 15pts of difference. It also doesn't account for use - Retribution is going to have a good chance of using that off-side firepower, whilst Invincible's will mostly go to waste. Assuming 50% as much usage of the off-side, that drops Invincible sub-300pts. Now you have the drawbacks on top of that.
Historical battlecruisers sacrificed protection for their speed, not size or firepower. In BFG, protection is given by shields and armour. The shields are massively reduced. The external armour can't be reduced without it not being an IN vessel, so we reduce the internal armour by applying special rules to represent inadequate bulkheads. Both of these easily cover the reduced mass and increased power required for the additional speed. It should be 12 hits because of its size, and 2 shields and 1 special rule will represent teh increased vulnerability.
No.
FP12 is unacceptably low for a true battlecruiser. It SHOULD be of the standard of a Retribution. So what if it's only 1 or 2 dice less? Good!
Dude, it's 1 or 2 dice less when they're at equal ranges. The Invincible is firing at ranges beyond the FP18@45cm.The smotherman value is off for several reasons:
#1. it significantly over-values R60 over R45. It's a 33% range increase, but a 50% cost increase. That easily accounts for 15pts of difference. It also doesn't account for use - Retribution is going to have a good chance of using that off-side firepower, whilst Invincible's will mostly go to waste. Assuming 50% as much usage of the off-side, that drops Invincible sub-300pts. Now you have the drawbacks on top of that.
Smotherman is a good tool to use. Not perfect but it comes close to what the IN ships are currently priced at. And why would the Invincible not use its broadside firepower? Esp if you bring the firepower up to 15?
The problem is it's not only 1 special rule, it's 2 (aside from the 2 shields). Crit hits on a 5+ AND a +1 Modifier to the crit roll. Sorry but I don't like it. Even if the battlecruiser is more vulnerable, it should not be that vulnerable. Hey, if you like playing with a ship that blows up easily, be my guest. I don't. The original Invincible crit rules work fine. My crit ideas work just as good. Yours will just gimp the class. People already had problems before with the Apocalypse's crit issue. What more with your crit rules for the Invincible?Oh come on, it's not a complicated rule, so stop pretending that it is. Crits on 5+ with a +1 modifier only requires that you do the same thing as usual but count slightly different results. Rolling 2D6 per hit to see if you get a crit is an actual deviation from how things are usually gone. It takes 37 words to explain 2D6 Crits.
Word will auto-correct UK to US or vice versa depending on which language setting you have it set to.
You can change the language setting to English(United Kingdom) by clicking where it says English (United States) on the bottom status bar on the left (next to "Page n of n" and "Words: ###") and selecting "Enlgish (United Kingdom)" from the list.
Alternatively, it's accessable from the menu ribbon "Review" tab, in the "Proofing" box, and the icon is "Set Language".
That should make your job easier.
Mostly just A d'A, but feel free to join in.
with everyone freakin out over the invincible
did anyone consider that a CG is supposed to have ~BB firepower on a slightly-larger-than-cruiser hull?Thought about, and dismissed. Battlecruisers are battleship sized. That's why they're often mistakenly used in battleship roles, such as at the Battle of the Denmark Straight or the Battle of Jutland.
I think we should be comparing the invince' to the veng w/ improved thrusters and/or torps (which of course is in Revised Ships but only 1 upgrade allowed). and btw I see no problem counting it as a CG... though i do detest CG's with 25cm move...
sample:
10 hits, 25cm, 3 shields, 3 turrets, 45*, 6+/5+
fp 12 at 60
3 dorsal lances at 60
6 prow torps
for about 300.
Valhallan, changing your language setting is actually more difficult than RC said. US systems only have US Eng installed. You actually have to go to your control panel, then region settings, then change keyboard layout, change keyboards, add then select UK eng. Afterwards you can do the setting in word... and anywhere. It appears as an icon near the clock on my system.
Well of course there's no accounting for US systems being so confident that no-one could possibly want to use a different language setting. I can set my language as Vietnamese more easily than that.
| Turrets | Damage |
| 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 2.75 |
| 3 | 2.5 |
| 4 | 2.25 |
| 5 | 2 |
| 6 | 1.75 |
| Turrets | Damage |
| 1 | 2.75 |
| 2 | 2.5 |
| 3 | 2.25 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 5 | 1.75 |
| 6 | 1.5 |
Because a Retribution can happily sit in the centre of an enemy fleet, trusting in its 4 shields to protect it, and put its full FP36 to good use. Whilst theoretically Invincible could do the same with its FP30, it wouldn't last long. Therefore Invincible is more likely to stand off, a role where good on-side firepower and range is crucial, and FP12 is not enough and the off-side FP15 is entirely wasted.
And so what if Invincible does match Retribution for firepower in certain situations? (which it doesn't.) That's the whole point of a battlecruiser! The firepower level is non-negotiable if this ship is to be included. It MUST be comparable to the mainline battleships.
It originally did rival the Retribution (indeed outgunned it to the sides), but Retribution upped its game. Invincible needs to up its game also.
Oh come on, it's not a complicated rule, so stop pretending that it is. Crits on 5+ with a +1 modifier only requires that you do the same thing as usual but count slightly different results. Rolling 2D6 per hit to see if you get a crit is an actual deviation from how things are usually gone. It takes 37 words to explain 2D6 Crits.
"The invincible class suffers criticals on a D6 roll of 5+ instead of 6+, and all rolls on the Critical Hit Chart have a +1 modifier."
26 words, crystal clear. This is the less complicated rule.
As for which is tougher:
On a 10 hit ship with 2D6 standard crits, you'd expect 1.9 additional hits, assuming half of fire criticals are repaired before they do damage.
On a 12 hit ship with 5+ crits with +1 modifier, you'd expect 3.2 additional hits. So my proposal is still tougher than yours with 2 shields.
You seem to be missing the point of a true battlecruiser.
#1. As big as a battleship. 10 hits are NOT as big as a battleship. 12 hits are.
#2. As powerful as a battleship. FP12/S3L/S6Torps are NOT as strong as a battleship.
#4. Less well protected than a battleship. Having established #1, we're restricted on hits, whilst external armour is determined by IN Doctrine, so we're left with shields, turrets and special rules.
i donno. i piped up cuz i was posting drunk from the bar (ya know me... old saul tigh). i still think its finickier than the jovian and should be out. but hey, i like the ideas of you three (RC, A d'a, plax), so i put in my two cents.
d6-2 without turrets reducing attack runs is going to kill orks. period.
+1 to hit against armor is going to kill orks. period. also MSM eldar. (hitting on 3's c'mon!?)
where is sig when we need him. i wanna see the math on the wrongly played "fighters cancel out a turret on an enemy ship" fighter suppression. and the alternate of this where fighters cancel a turret on the target ship, up to the amount of bombers. again i'd do it... or playtest it... but PDE's call all my mathy attention...
| 1 | 3.66 |
| 2 | 3.33 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 2.66 |
| 5 | 2.33 |
| 6 | 2 |
Somehow I don't think an enemy will just let you send a battleship in the middle of its lines. Unless you're opponent is kind enough to let you do it.Happens every time I play.
It originally did rival the Retribution (indeed outgunned it to the sides), but Retribution upped its game. Invincible needs to up its game also.
No, it does not, not with its current stats. If that's your issue, then let's just keep the 4th dorsal lance then.
My God, I hate transcribing things.... anyone want to do me a solid and help out?
I'm currently on page 12 of the online 2007 version of the rulebook. Basically you can see what format I would like things in. If someone could start on 'the Ordnance phase, or shooting phase' that would be a big help.
I like the idea that bombers must have an escort or face destruction by enemy fighters...This gives fighta bommaz a boost after them getting nerfed by the turret suppression rules.
I realize that my cruiser is just a more heavily armed one, but I feel that there should be some sort of stop gap between the battleships and the cruisers that could bring a decent amount of firepower to bear (Hence the prow guns being F/L/R)...Perhaps there is something that is just bristling with guns and has no heavy guns on it we could come up with?
I think your rendition of the Zappa would work well, maybe not quite that many points though...seems a bit high maybe that's just me...I do like the Heavy guns being L/F/R
I do get what you are saying about flavor for sure, but it's not like the orks shy away from strange weapons (The use a lot of energy based weapons on the table top actually, and are considered to have some of the most potent shields and tractor beams in the galaxy thanks to the old ones programming it into their brains)...
Now with that being said, I don't think they are a broken fleet or need fixing, I would just like to see some variety, and perhaps we can move away from the board and torp mentality.
Type/Hits Speed/Turns Armour Shields Turrets
Battleship/14 15/45' 6+/5+/4+ 3 3
Prow Guns: 2D6+6 45cm
Prow Heavy Guns: 10 15cm
Prow Torpedoes: D6+6
Port/Stb Guns: D6+6 30cm
Port/Stb Heavy Guns: 6 15cm
Port/Stb Torpedoes: D6+4
Dorsal Zzap Guns: D3+2 45cm
Swaps for LBs accordingly. Probably +2 hit upgade.
@Admiral d'Artagnan
I'm looking at the Traitor Fleets 1.1 right now and I see a Despoiler at 20cm, a Desolater at 25cm, and a Relictor at 25cm with 5D6 AAF. I do see a bunch of Grand Cruisers at 20cm, but everything else in the fleet is 25cm or faster. I'm not counting the PlanetKiller as it's a special character ship and breaks every rule in the chaos fleet.
As for the Chaos Powers bbs, one of them is a Despoiler with 25cm movement. And none of them follow Horizon's new Despoiler profile that essentially change the ship.
Devestations aren't too cheap. They got a lance nerf, and they can't dive so you only ever seen 2 lances at a time.
@Admiral - My basic argument is that Plaxor and Horizon's version needs a speed increase for the FS ruleset. I can't get Plaxor to consider changing a rule that someone else is publishing. I obviously enjoy beating my head against the wall, but not that much.
I take two devestations and so far they havent performed any miracles at 190. I never seem to have enough ordinance to handle enemy torpedos and AC. I use a despoiler and two devestations. I havent had ordinance superioity yet.
You know, theyre pretty rubbish against eldar and probably necrons too. And you only ever get 2 lances pointed at you. Maybe that's why they seem to be discounted compared to smotherman.
@Admiral - IN and Orks at this point. Taggerung and I play. He uses tons of torps and AC. Lots of terror ships and ravagers with Gorbag. Last game he had about 20 squadrons and 8 torpedo salvoes. I couldn't even use cap since he clears them away with AC and bombs me with the rest. Im seriously outnumbered in terms of ordinance. My IN friend is constructing a list with an emperor and 2 dictators, so with torps I will be on my the defensive for ordinance as well.
Actually my last two games with Taggerung illustrate my point. To avoid his alpha strike I have to skirt around him as he approaches. Blast markers on my Despoiler kept it from keeping up both times and both times he killed it in two turns. The despoiler just cant keep up.
Sure, I could take a desolater instead, but I build my fleet to represent Death Guard CSM and lance spam against orks and IN will just be mean and likely no fun for anyone.
A battle barges role is to cut its way to a planet and land the astartes inside. Thats why it has to be an attack carrier and why it has to be useful foe breaking a defensive line. Please refer to the Powers of Chaos document to see some examples.
The pre-heresy battle barge was the Despoiler. The Despoiler, before you changed it, was a line breaking attack carrier. So where are you getting that battle barges werent line breaking attack carriers?
@Sigroth There are a lot of forward facing lances in the Chaos fleet. For around 1500 points I can get 22 lances on the advance using the old despoiler stats. 15 of those are 60cm and the rest are 30cm. There's a fair amount of side weaponry too. Pretty good for a line breaking list, especiall if there's no need to turn and you can lock-on untill you pass through.
A battle barges role is to cut its way to a planet and land the astartes inside. Thats why it has to be an attack carrier and why it has to be useful foe breaking a defensive line. Please refer to the Powers of Chaos document to see some examples.
I'm glad you brought the upgrades and commanders up. They always seemed pricey yo me but I took them because I wanted a fluffy list.
Well his ship just lost 45 points from its cost.
MoN is now 25pts (changed way that the boarding worked)
Despoiler 390
Warmaster (+2ld) is 75 points
Boarding on MoN is now: opponent rolls 2d6 and picks the lowest.... pretty worthwhile IMO... but you are right about the dual upgrade thing.
All other marks are 15 points.
Fluff wise, the Despoiler was rediscovered when special dispensation was granted for an explorator team to land on Barbarus, the Death Guard homeworld, and sift through the ruins for lost tech. That happened in M36, but the ship design is pre-heresy. Thats why venerable battle barges and the Vengeful Spirit are all very similar to the Despoiler. That dispensation was a part of the Gaerox Perogative, which was a vast exploration program in an attempt to find STC and lost tech. This is approved cannon. Am I the only one who knows this?
My point was that the Despoiler was a resurection of the pre-heresy battle barge, and other than shifting 2 launch bays to the prow the ships are virtually identical. The Vengeful Spirit and other battle barges of the time are heavy in forward lances, many of them short range, and lots of launch bays, which make them primarily suited for an attack carrier role rather than long range fleet support.
Chart:
BB: Battleship
CB: Cruiser Battle
CA: Cruiser Attack (standard cruisers)
CL: Light cruiser
CG: Cruiser Grand
CH: Cruiser Heavy
whoever made up this terminology was probably British.
Well, boarding actions have people going across to both ships no? Besides, the vessel would no doubt be unleashing a number of toxins and plagues onto the subject vessel.
Actually I'm curious how a dauntless looks by smotherman:
Hits: 30
Shields: 10
Turrets: 5
Speed: 5
IT: 5
Armour: 10
Lances: 27
Wbs: 12
104 pts. Hrmmm....
So the ship should probably be about 5 points more expensive.
So what exactly does the Hydra do?
| Turrets | Damage |
| 1 | 4.58 |
| 2 | 3.11 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 1.5 |
| 5 | 1.166 |
| 6 | 1 |
| Turrets | Damage |
| 1 | 3.667 |
| 2 | 3.33 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 2.667 |
| 5 | 2.33 |
| 6 | 2 |
| Turrets | Damage |
| 1 | 3.555 |
| 2 | 3.11 |
| 3 | 2.66 |
| 4 | 2.22 |
| 5 | 1.77 |
| 6 | 1.33 |
| Turrets | Damage |
| 1 | 3.5 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 2.5 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 5 | 1.5 |
| 6 | 1 |
I don't think you figures for D6-T work out.
Taking as an example vs T2:
There's a 1/4 chance of 4 bombers surviving to do 1.67 attacks each
There's a 1/2 chance of 5 bombers surviving etc
There's a 1/4 chance of 6 bombers surviving etc.
That adds up to a total of 8.35 attacks and therefore 2.78 hits total.
This is significantly less than any of the D3 options - If D3 was an easy solution it would have been the first one we spotted!
With pre-measuring I meant the measuring in the movement phase to get best positions (eg to get in range and all).
This movement pre-measuring could/should go in my opinion as it slows it all down. Going by 'eye' can also make for cooler situations.
Although your system is decent.... and I'll likely do that if I can't think of anything else.... ugh....
So far things proposed:
D3: Too powerful
Single re-rolls hits: Decent, although kinda weird
Pulsar: Decent... but weird for the same reasons
Increasing LBs: Would likely have apocalyptic consequences!
Minimum of one attack: Boring, and still weird
Single +1 to hit: Very weird... and potential limiting.
D2: Perfect, but people don't like rolling D2s :)
Oh then RC's D6-2, but that just makes bombers better against most targets, and you might as well just go with D2's.
D6-2 does not increase the power of AC in general, except against T3+, which strongly deserve the nerf. D6-2 with scrapped turret suppression is the ONLY system proposed so far that maintains current power levels against T2 targets. TTS will allow a wave of 3f&5B bombers to score 17.5 attacks compared to a current average of 11.7 - that's an increase of 50%!Lol made my day. ;D
T3 under the D6-2 will still be 300% more protection than T1 - in other words BBs will remain better protected than their cruiser counterparts, so it will still make sense for carriers to target only the weak or crippled, whilst making attack runs against a BB a viable (if less effective than agaisnt cruisers) option, just like for any other weapons system.
T\Wave 2 4 6 8
1 3.8 8.8 13.8 18.8
2 1.7 5.0 8.4 11.7
3 0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5
4 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9
T\Wave 2 4 6 8
1 2.5 5.8 9.2 12.5
2 1.7 5.0 8.3 11.7
3 0.8 4.2 7.5 10.8
4 0.0 3.3 6.7 10.0
5 0.0 2.5 5.8 9.2T\Wave 2 4 6 8
1 2.7 6.7 10.7 14.7
2 1.3 5.3 9.3 13.3
3 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0
4 0.0 2.7 6.7 10.7
5 0.0 1.3 5.3 9.3My idea:So RCG said red was too strong, then blue remains. Yay.
Bombers : D6 - turret value.
Fighter Bombers : D3 - turret value.
Fighters vs Ordnance: (ditch the World War Naval background to make better rules, ammed Star Wars/Wing Commander!!)
All fighters gain resilience (new Eldar rule to be made...). 4+ to stay in play, per Sigoroth's rule.
Fighters in a bomber wave =
i. If fighters survive turret fire then: turret reduction goes down by 1 per surviving fighter.
or
ii. If fighters survive turret fire then: attack wave gains +1 attack run.
Yep, totally confusing. Full of technicalities.Nein mann.
What you're saying basically seems like; fighters have 1 attack that isn't reduced by turrets.
+1 attack per survivng fighter has a number of problems with it:No, it is bombers getting a free attack run. Abstraction. All about abstraction as a lot of things are in BFG.
It preserves the exponential benefit of more turrets against bombers.
It's clearly the fighters doing the attacks, not the bomber, so why even bother having a bomber in the wave? Just write "Fighters get 1 attack against ships" into their rules.
It provides no incentive to escort assault boats.
An alternative system:Oh dear, a save against bomber hits? Talk about non-intuitive (sp?)! nah, totally not feeling this one.
Bombers get 2 or D3 attacks each, and ships get a 6+ save against hits caused this way - this is replaced by the 4+ brace save when on BFI.
Fighters have a 4+ save, and may take it multiple times per turn. Eldar get a 3+ save, which maintains their +50% superiority as per now. Combat is fought over multiple rounds until one or other side is dead.Save Multiple times per turn = 1 defending carrier with 4lb can totally own a more heavier force or fleet with torps.
This eliminates the need for turret suppression - High turret targets remain viable targets to bombers without fighter support, whilst fighters actually become worthwhile in an escort role.
Simpler than the current rules, superior gameplay to the current rules.
It would be a save against AC only. Torps would be completely unaffected. And yes, it would make defending against AC easier, but Ordnance Superiority would still be able to blast its way through - 2 carriers vs 1 carrier would still win the ordnance battle because of inability to protect all targets and viability of escort.So fighters get a save against hard targets like bombers but not against non-shooting back targets? Ain't that odd....?
A 6+ save can be fluffed away/made intuitive easily - last ditch attempt to hit the strafing bombers and intercept their tiny anti-ship ordnance at point blank range! In addition, it gets rid of all the problems such as no incentive to escort, exponential benefit of turrets and turret fire having next to no effect when targetting a wave with fighters in it.
It easily makes more sense than allowing +1 attack per surviving fighter. 7 fighters and 1 bomber against a T1/Eldar target do more attacks than an unimpeded bomber, lolwot?
Intuitive spelled correctly btw.
Has anyone considered giving fighters a chance to break up attack waves that are not escorted by fighters?Break up waves... hmmm... not baddish at first glance.
Perhaps a leadership test when a wave of assault boats/bombers with no fighters gets attacked. If it is failed the wave scatters into individual squadrons.
Doesn't help the Eldar. One would need to come up with LD values for the ordnance of different races too, but I think that could be done.
And I still strongly disagree with you, on these counts:
#1. I strongly believe the max dorsal hardpoint for a BB is S3L or FP9WBs. That rules out S4 dorsals.
#2. FP12@60cm is nothing like FP18@45cm. Yes, we did buff the Retribution - FP12 was criminally underpowered for a gunship.
#3. Points 1&2, combined with S6 torps make the Invincible very underpowered. In fact even the Vanquisher would outgun it FP24&4L to FP24&3L and firmly down into regular battlecruiser territory. 1 extra lance and a tad of extra range does not a heavy battlecruiser make.
#4. Ships with the size and crew of a battleship should have battleship hits. 12 hits.
#5. Shields disregarded, your version can expect .27 additional hits due to critical hits in its lifetime compared to 0.52 for my version. So my version is actually 1.75hits tougher than yours, and even accounting shields has greater single-turn endurance. It's just more prone to mishaps and less able to withstand battles of attrition, which is exactly how a Battlecruiser should be.
#6. 2 dice to determine critical hits is a ridiculous system when compared to the identical average result of crits on a 5+.
If that's the case then the Gothic BC should be fine at 210 even without the power ram.
If that's the case then the Gothic BC should be fine at 210 even without the power ram.
Weapon Batteries on top? Or are we sticking with Lances?
still think it should at least have the option for 45cm lances....
comparable to the dominion... so +50pnts?
You believe the max dorsal hardpoint is S3. I believe it's possible especially with the reduction of the torp strength. More space in the prow area to add one more dorsal lance.
Yes we did buff the FP12 of the Ret but we reduced the range to 45 cm to get that firepower. If the Ret's firepower was buffed AND the range remained at 60 cm (which I believe SHOULD be), you would have a case. As it is you do not.
Your point 1 assumes the dorsal lance is reduced to 3. If you keep it, it works almost as well. FP12 firing at 60 cm gives the Invincible one more round of firing with all its weapons (FP12 which is 6 dice against a closing target backed up by Str 4 lances) vs a Ret which loses its WBs if the target is beyond 45 cm and has a difference of 3 dice with the WBs when they engage at 45 cm against a closing target (9 vs 6). I am fine with FP12@60 cm for what is essentially a light battleship.
Eldar have battleships at 10. Should Eldar battleships have 12 hits then by your logic? How about the base Nid hive ship? Starts out at 10. Yes people bump the HS up to 14 but hey, no reason why you can't keep the 10 hits. Demiurg. 10 HP battleships. I don't see any reason why an IN ship cannot have something similar esp with the speed addition. I don't think losing 2 shields is enough to offset the mass penalty if the Invincible is still the size of a regular battleship even if you reduce the dorsal lances to 3.
#6. 2 dice to determine critical hits is a ridiculous system when compared to the identical average result of crits on a 5+.
No, your way makes you ship crit easier since you need a 5+ and blow up faster since you get +1 to your crit roll. 2 rolls needing 6s are not easy to achieve much less getting rolls of 10-12. Any hits that get through your version's 2 shield means rolls. My version at least needs to have 1 go through 1 more shield. Yes 1 "6" can come up faster than normal. 2 "6"s are also possible. 5+ and +1 to crit rolls are more dangerous on a ship though than rolling 2 dice for crits.
Hmm, I'm with RCG here. If you want to talk right out of the box, ie, PK style, then sure, we can do just about anything. If we're talking a more modular weapon configuration a la typical IN ships then I think that precedent should be observed wherever possible. It makes for a stronger case anyway. You open yourself to attack if you don't. In this case you've explained where you're getting the extra lance from (prow) but I would still say no to 4 dorsal lances. This is for a few reasons.
Here I again agree with RCG. Range is nice. Firepower is necessary. 18WB@45cm may be "equivalent" to 12WB@60cm in terms of what a hardpoint could provide, but the former is by far the more potent option. It is definitely a buff.
Yes, 12@60cm seems fine for a BL to me too. I admit to not having read the entire discussion up to this point, and only have a vague sense of what profiles we're talking about, but isn't this a fast BB? If so then FP 12 broadsides + 3 dorsal lances + 6 prow torps seems sufficient to me.
Heh, well I do believe Eldar BBs should have 12 hits. They're large enough, they're made of Wraithbone and the Eldar are technologically advanced. I don't see why they shouldn't have 12 hits. In terms of balance I would make them behave a little differently and make their loss have a greater impact but I don't see why they shouldn't have 12 hits. The Stronghold is a very large ship and should really be 12 hits. It's silly that it's only 10. The Custodian is big enough, in my estimation, to qualify for 12 hits (certainly more than twice the size of a Protector!) but presuming that it was left at 10 hits I would see its classification come down to cruiser rather than BB. As for the Hiveships, well without easy access to the refits I think they should just be 12 hits.
So, to be honest, I don't see any current BB in the game worthy of the moniker as deserving to have less than 12 hits. While some races may call a smaller ship a BB, to me the game should treat that ship as a cruiser. The only way I could see a BB being less than 12 hits presently is if some backward race hadn't mastered movement well enough to be able to turn even their CG sized vessels before 15cm. But even then, it's pretty much a special rule of a dumb arse race.
Hmm, wait on d'Art, what's your version of the crits? Isn't it 2 rolls for every hit? If so then this will have the exact same average number of crits as critting on a 5+. Critting on a 5+ will give 12 crits out of 36 hits. Rolling twice will give 10 x 1 crit + 1 x 2 crits = 12 crits out of 36 hits. Maybe I'm misremembering.
Nothing exists as a concept, and a word...so yes it does exist.
if the proposed invincible has 15 WB at 60 and 3 dorsal lances, then it is solidly better than the ret on broadsides - at range, which it's speed makes sure of. then i'd have to say it would have to cost 360. drop maybe 20pnts for less shields, and -10 for rough crits, and your looking at 330ish.
dropping the FP to 12 at 60 makes it so it still outguns CB's, CG's (well, on par with a repulsive, but faster). I see no problem with this. in fact isn't that the broadside of a fixed despoiler? so there should be no real arguement.
You're still not getting it. Your version has both range AND firepower.No, FP18@60cm would be both range and firepower. FP15@60cm sacrifices power for range. The range isn't nearly as useful as the extra firepower, but the Invincible does need the range more. I assume you'd be fine with FP18@45 then?
Your version gets to fire as much a WB broadside as a Retribution at ranges beyond 45 cm and chances are the opponent is closing which means 8 dice for 2 turns unless the opponent decides its better to go abeam at those ranges plus 3 more dice for lances. The Ret is still closing at this time.
And the funny thing is, you're claiming my version is good as a battleship light but not as a battlecruiser. Huh? There's a difference other than the terms? And to remind you with your crit disadvantages, only British battlecruisers suffered from this problem.
No, FP18@60cm would be both range and firepower. FP15@60cm sacrifices power for range. The range isn't nearly as useful as the extra firepower, but the Invincible does need the range more. I assume you'd be fine with FP18@45 then?
Your proposed version would get 4 dice from lances and 6 from WBs in the same situation, which is clearly superior to what you're now complaining about. The Retribution would be firing torps, which are significantly more threatening than FP15 WBs.
It's ludicrous to suggest it's better than a Retribution. A Retribution would demolish it and its extra escort.
Also, at FP12&3 Lances, an Oberon would outgun it. Considering the Invincible is supposed to be a pure gunship, but your proposal would have it outgunned by a hybrid, that's pretty rubbish.
British Battlecruisers have more character. There's no point making the ship if it doesn't have a significant character of its own. Yours is better in battles of attrition, which is characteristic of a battleship, whilst the lighter armament and lack of hits makes it 'light'.
sig, the question was not ' for all existance: nothing' (if that was the case, then your 'i exist' arguement works). but rather for all existance, there exists nothing. so you'd have to claim that everything exists to negate nothing existing at all...
but then again nothing is part of everything, so it must exist, however if there is a nothing, something doesn't exist.
Huh? Again the difference is only 1 to at most 2 dice. What sacrifice? And yes, you want FP15 then cut the range to 45 cm. The Ret is supposed to be the better gunship. You're marginalizing the Ret if you give your Invincible FP15 which if translated to 45 cm would come out to around FP22 or 23.
However, having said that, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of the Invincible putting out that much firepower. I notice that you (RCG) have listed the prow torps as strength 6.Legacy of the original profile. I've left it at 6, because it de-incentivises charging the ship in like a linebreaker. and it helps to keep the price down.
i just wanted to say that the invincible's dorsals are immune to direct fire crits due to the +1 to crit rolls.
how about a compromise. Fp12 at 60 with a targeting matrix for free.
Retribution is supposed to be a powerful linebreaker, and it is. A far more powerful one than Invincible.
Its stronger torps allow it to bludgeon its way in, where it will use its additional FP6 to maximum effect, all the while surviving firepower that over 2 turns would cripple Invincible with barely a scratch.
The whole point of a Battlecruiser (Note to sig - would be calling this a Heavy Battlecruiser) is to project battleship-equivalent firepower on a fast platform - historical battleships weren't less powerful than battleships, and they were often more - Hood was the most powerful warship afloat for more than 2 decades. Nerfing it to FP12&3 Lances drops Invincible out of the bottom tier of battleships, and that's why I'm so fiercely trying to hang on to FP15.
Assuming for a moment S4 lances were allowed, Admiral would be happy with S4@FP12 (slightly more potent than 3L&FP15) which shows that the objection is to the level of firepower in the broadsides, not the total firepower overall.
This brings us onto the assertion that FP15@60cm is as good as FP22@45cm. You're saying WBs@60cm are worth nearly 50% more than WBs@45. This can't be the case:Likelihood. I can say that there's a 60% chance the Chaos cruiser won't clear the band while the Ret has a 75% chance of not clearing the band. See it's all about perspective. The fact therefore according to you is that there is a better chance of the band coming into effect than not.
- Assuming Invincible is abeam ready to recieve a closing capital ship and that the ships are randomly located to begin with, there's a 40% chance a closing chaos cruiser could clear the 45-60cm range band entirely, in which case you may as well have had the extra firepower. If Retribution is closing against enemy abeam and the ships are randomly located to start with, there's a 25% chance of clearing the 60-45cm band entirely, in which case the extra range is moot. So there's at least a 25% chance the extra range won't even come into play at all.
Again, the assumption is your opponent lets you get the Ret in there. Certainly I won't just let you. I don't know about your opponents though.
- Then there's the fact extra range is most likely entirely wasted on the off-side because you're only likely to have targets on both sides when you're in a linebreaking position, in which case pure firepower is what's needed.
Yeah but long range firepower can be backed up by short ranged firepower. Perspective.
- Long-range firepower is also less likely to be backed up by MORE long range firepower, thus diluting its effect due to shields compared to short range fire.
- Finally, most battles are concluded at short range and less than 1/4 of the battle is going to occur in the 45-60cm range band, so even a moderate amount of extra dice to start with are going to be outweighed by 1 or two extra dice at shorter range over the course of a battle. If even 1/8th of the time the shorter ranged ship manages to line up a dual broadside then it will outweigh any advantage of having long range in an instant.
Yes, longer ranges weapons batteries are worth more than short ranged ones. But 50% more? Really? If they were really worth 50% more, the overlord would be considered one of the best BCs rather than the most blatantly undergunned. It takes a targetting matrix to make it equivalent to an Armageddon, and even then it isn't better. 20% difference at most.
Also, the Apocalypse crams 27WBe into those same three hardpoints. Lances are already far more potent than Weapons Batteries at range - denying WBs the ability to have FP6@60cm to a hardpoint just exacerbates this (and conveniently ignores that Emperor and Oberon do just that), and I'm not even asking for 6 per hardpoint here, or asking that the range upgrade be free.
You're flat wrong that WBs@60cm are worth 47% more than WBs@45, and that's all there is to it.
You are saying that WB12@60cm are equivalent to WB18@45. Against an enemy determined to stay at range, that's just 2 extra dice against capital ship abeam at long range (and we'll leniently ignore all the valid factors I mentioned in my previous post). FP18@45, once in range, gets 4 dice against that same target - it only had to fire once to eliminate the 60cm battery's advantage.
The FP12@60cm ship gains most advantage if the enemy is closing, 6 extra dice. But the FP18@45 ship will subsequently get at least +2 dice in every column compared to the FP12@60cm ship, and at extreme close range +5 dice. If the FP12@60cm ship is staying at 30-60cm, then the FP18@45cm ship can get up to +14 dice in comparison by closing to short range, and possibly +27 if it lines up a double broadside, that initial 6 dice advantage takes just 3 turns to go away even under the least favourable conditions to the FP18@45cm ship.
I'm not discounting long range WBs - that first turn advantage is worth something - but if you think they're worth so much more than 45cm batteries you're kidding yourself. ::) I'd say 20% more valuable at most.
The only reason for having FP12 over FP15 is if you think that a Heavy Battlecruiser should be less powerful than even the least firepower-heavy battleships, which it 100% should be as powerful as.
Yeah Admiral D'.... I know Smotherman says that 60cm wbs are worth 1.5x as much as 45cm ones, but they really aren't. FP18@45 in my mind seems more like it would be worth FP14@60. So they should be worth about 33% more, not 50%.
Honestly think about it, would you trade FP18@45 for FP12@60?
Why? All it does is limit the capacity for large games. In practice it's never a limit in games under 2000 pts, and for larger games why is it needed?Since the 0-12 cruiser limit fits perfectly with the 75 warships per sector philosophy and the general BFG background.
IN can take nothing but cruisers until 3750pts and still not be limited. Ad Mech can get to nearly 6000pts and 25 cruisers before reaching the limit (15 of their own cruisers and 10 less expensive reserve vessels)I always had the impression that the limits include reserve ships. So from 12 cruisers 3 can be from another fleetlist. (but thats another topic: IMO the whole reserve-concept isn't very good fleetlists are usually designed with a theme in my. You should not be able to ignore this via reserve rules)
Why shouldn't people be allowed to take all cruisers?Background as well as balance issues. If I would rewirte the rules from the core I'd even include compulsory escorts.
But what if people want to play as a crusade fleet or even a segmentum fleet?Two Fleet lists. Or just ignore the rules.
The original Retribution is at 345 pts...and even when using smotherman it comes at 345 pts...Where in the world are you getting 365 pts??
The Retribution is fine at 355pts for exactly the reasons Sigoroth has presented. And don't put this all on me - it was unanimously agreed by at least five of us when we first discussed the ship. It's getting a 50% increase in broadside firepower and none of you think that's worth 10pts?
It's getting a 50% increase in broadside firepower and none of you think that's worth 10pts?
No.
Furthermore, even if it WAS overcosted by 10pts (and it isn't), 10pts on a 355pt vessel is a less than 3% deviation, hardly a game-breaking flaw.
Not so.
A 60cm ranged vessel is more versatile.
In my AdMech fleet I would still prefer a 12wb 60cm Retribution above a 18wb 45cm Retribution!!!!
?You are saying the 60cm is so versatile that WBs are 50% more valuable at 60cm than 45cm.
Versatile as in: I do not need to close, I can be further away, I can hit you sooner, I can do synergy with other 60cm weapons.
Nothing to do with points.
??
From 18 to 12 you miss 24 weapon batteries in the 45-60cm range department.
You also start from the view lances are priced correct according smotherman. Is that truth.
Your prow armour value of 35 is too high, I think smotherman's 30pts is already too high.
Desolator, per Sig:
4 lances @ 60cm = 18wb. (1 lance = 4,5 wb @ 60cm)
Add 6 wb from top and you have 24wb @ 60cm in a broadside.
Or 42wb in total.
Retribution new style misses this extra range
18wb + 18wb = 36wb
3 dorsal lances @ 60cm x 4,5 = 13,5wb
total = 49,5wb
des: 42wb x (RcG's) 3,6 = 151,20
ret: 49,5wb x (RcG's) 3 = 148,50
differently (lances seperated)
des: 6wb x 3,6 = 21,6
des: 8l x 13 = 104
des: 125,6
ret: 36 x 3 = 108
ret: 3 x 13 = 39
ret: 147
So, calculating all to wb value gives an offset!
Both ships: same torps.
Desolator: +5cm speed.
Retribution: prow armour
from weaponry (lance seperate) +20pts to Ret. +30 for prow
= 300 + 50 = 350
deduct speed ~5
345pts.
the problem with smotherman and other formulas is, that they are based on a wrong idea: there is no kind of formula behind the pricing of units in any GW system. It's just a matter of good or bad guesses: start with a pointvalue and than give or take some points.
Point costs are only based on the impression of game designer And nothing else. And for some reason Andy C. (or whoever was doing the fleet lists) overrated the IN and Orks and underrated Chaos.
I can't really imagine why this was the case. Perhaps during playtesting the IN player was way better than the chaosplayer and won every game, and they decided to blame the list for this.
Or they decided the pointcosts before all rules were done. For example if they played a lot of games before AC were introduced (their rules came in very late in the develpoment...) torpedos would have been an awesome weapon. This is the only explanation I have that anybody would price an lunar 15P higher than a Slaughter: a overrating of torpedos
The only arguments I'm hearing against can be summed up as 'no, you're just wrong'. Come up with something convincing, or don't bother.
Commander, don't make me send you to the warp where I put the Baron!
The only arguments I'm hearing against can be summed up as 'no, you're just wrong'. Come up with something convincing, or don't bother.
Just goes to show you're not reading my posts. I have already given my reasoning. At best, I would only tack on a 5 point increase, no more, if only based on the Dominator example and that one was a change from FP12 to FP6, much worse than FP12 to FP18.
And again, your proof relies on assumptions, much the same way as Smotherman made assumptions.
And seeing as how the whole point of this project is to fix what the book got wrong, there's no point keeping precedents it set that were the wrong ones.
Sigoroth and I have so far offered three different arguments why the price of range upgrade should be reduced:
#1. The extra dice you get from additional range simply don't add up to the extra dice you get from additional firepower.
#2. There appears to be no such premium for range on Lances, which are better at range in every way.
#3. As the additional 45-60cm on the off-side is so unlikely to be used, you are effectively paying double. This means for an a range upgrade to be worth +50%, the actual effectiveness has to be +100%. This is patently not the case.
Your counter-argument has been:
A: The rulebook says it's worth +50%.
Yes, we know the rulebook says that. It's WRONG, and that's why we're changing it.
Hey Horizon,
got what back?
DE, I have no clue. From one point of view changes to them should be subtle. Consenus has never been found on ideas except free mimic engines.
Ive heard from several DE players that they believe the Impaler isn't worth it, both from Jim & on other forums.
Oh and to address the DE BB issue, we actually discussed it quite a bit a while ago. Probably back in December, anyways the thought wasn't that there wouldn't be enough space for a battleship in the webway, it was more along the lines of that if an Archon ever had one, then he would likely end up assassinated by another Kabal. Or his ship would end up blown up or whatnot.
The arguments I heard against the Impaler revolve around it not having a big enough payoff vs torpedos. They can stay at range and launch torps, but to use the Impaler they have to get into range of enemy guns. The torpedos cause damage directly, but the Impaler only does it incidentally. Sure, 7 Impalers simultaneously could mess a ship up, but so could 7 ships worth of torpedos simultaneously.
MMS?
Yea I don't like these rules for Eldar. They are still glass cannons, but now much easier to hit.
Eldar are already a great fleet in the hands of a decent player...making them super armored as well as fast and nimble seems like a bad idea.But the official rules are CRAP. In the hands of a decent, an expert or a noob. Nothing to do with skills. Just plain bad rule writing.
I have read it yes, but I was referring to them making the Eldar 6+ prows, which quite frankly would just make them an in your face army, which isn't how the eldar should be portrayed. Right now if they want to be closing on you and hit you hard (with lock on) then they must sacrifice their mobility, and give you more shots at them.Perhaps. My v2.0 idea was to make them 5+ prow / 4+ rest.
As far as I have seen with the Eldar, they are heavy dependent of the player who is using them. The official rules may be crap, but with Plaxors fleet that we have been using in our group, even with one cruiser they do an absurd amount of damage, and receive a pretty minimal amount damage in return.Which rules?!?
They play on the table top exactly how I would imagine to be in fluff, a hit and run fleet...hitting you hard, crippling a ship or two, and jetting away before you can retaliate with any serious firepower. If you are having such a hard time with them, maybe it's you and not the fleet...In MSM?
I think a pretty good argument can be made for Eldar ships to be more fragile than their class counterparts. First off, Eldar vehicles are made of wraithbone are AV12 max and rely on holofields and speed for defense. Maybe wraithbone isn't as tough as you think, or there is a reason Eldar limit the mass of their wraithbone vehicles. Eldar ships are likely of lesser mass to their counterparts to avoid the extra inertia that heavy armor would require. That way yhey remain nimble and quick. Also, they obviously don't have nearly the same numbers of crew other races use. Also, the wraithbone hull is more than the structure of the vessel, it also serves as the power supply to equipment and communications systems and many times the crew as well. Damaging the structure directly attacks all of the ships systems as well. I think 6+ armor is inappropriate.
I think giving Eldar 6+ armor violates fluff and is risky for game balance. Seems wierd to me.
So, we are acknowledging that ships can be positioned such that they can avoid or greatly reduce the amount of return fire they get? If thats the way it is, then Eldar are fine. I thought that to be true. But I was told that ships that have to close will always recieve return fire from WBs that uses the Closing column and that there was no way around it. If this is the belief, then Eldar need more protection.
Fluff also states that Eldar ships are fragile and not capable of withstanding bombardment and rely on holofields to protect themselves (BFG rulebook). They must just be using wraithbone for specific parts of the ship and other psychoplastics for the vast majority of the ship. Can anybody site fluff that Eldar ships are made of wraithbone?The BFG ruleblook fluff is written to accomedate their own crappy rules.
Ah, I see now. Ships can position themselves to avoid closing fire. So, why can Eldar do it, when they turn 90 at the beginning of a move but chaos escorts can't when they can turn 90 at any point in their move?since Eldar MMS ships:
FAQ2010 torp marker rule is really cool and good.
It is hardly a nerf to torpedoes. And I play kinda torp/missile heavy. :)
One thing though, iirc Vaaish came with good ecample but it should really be 1 d6 per marker. Thus a torp salvo up to str6 is one 2cm/str3 (2? forgot...) marker with a dice on top. A larger salvo is then 2 markers with thus 2 dice.
If anything I think having only one torp salvo be as large as you want would be a bonus to those fleets who could do so. I just like it for simplicity/logical sense more than anything. We just play it around here with 1 marker being however large the salvo should be since I think the biggest you can ever get is like 12 right?
One thing though, iirc Vaaish came with good ecample but it should really be 1 d6 per marker. Thus a torp salvo up to str6 is one 2cm/str3 (2? forgot...) marker with a dice on top. A larger salvo is then 2 markers with thus 2 dice.
The Retribution only has FP 18, at 45cm. That's a 6 FP increase for a 15cm drop. I actually really like this ship, and even though I magnetized my Retribution model, it has already seen it's place as my flagship as the Lord Nelson.
In addition, many of the changes made to the IN fleets were intended to make them work better, while some of the changes made to Chaos reduced their capabilities.
cheaper carriersIN pays 20 points more than you for a worse ship), and the Despoiler, which I know you love, but being able to bring 7 lances to bear on one target and launching 8 AC a turn, with str6 batteries at 60cm on each side on top of all that, is just broken. You can't justify that ship for that price.
You don't play Chaos, you don't know my fleet and youve never played against them in their original form.
It has no superweapons and lacks the ability to spam ordnance as effectively as other fleets. I play it because it demands perfection like no other fleet in the game. You have absolutely zero experience on this topic.
Well.... take it to personal message both of you.
Discussing ships and being in disagreement is fine. But not some personal shizzle.
@Tag
God youre a cocky bastard. I wasn't being personal at all, but now I am.
The first game we played, it was with the original list. I pounded you and Jim into the dust. If it wasn't for all the ships Jon lost it wouldn't have been a tie. Jon didn't know how to play yet.
This was everyones first game here, not just Jons, and yes it became a tie because we focused in on Jon's fleet as you moved around an asteroid field
Our second game I used Devs with 45cm and you used your torp fleet.
You rules lawyered me into letting you AAF your Ravagers through my Assault Boat screen and then torping me to death before I made my H&R rolls because you said the FAQ, which I hadn't seen, said it had to be done in the end phase. You were wrong, your Ravagers should have been dead and my ships unhurt. A very dubious but narrow victory. Plus you were far over our agreed upon points limit.
We were still playing the normal rules here, not your 45cm devs. We hadn't even heard of the Flawed Fleets at this point. Yes I was wrong about your assault boats, however that's because the rulebook said what sounded pretty straight forward, and me and Jon both thought it was the way we played until you found it in the FAQ later on. That was also not Ravagers, those were 2 ram ships that went in and did 2 points of damage. We also did a multi ram that did nothing, which we learned later we were both wrong about, and excuse me?! Over points? Bullshit I have only made a mistake once where I was over points, and that was because I forgot my codex one day.
Our 3rd game. I took the Terminus Est for fun as an experiment against your torpedo fleet. You blew it up. Go figure. You also launched torpedos and fightabommas simultaneously and threw torps one at a time at my ships to.make me turret them, and then hit me with the bombers using 2007 FAQ rules while I used the new FAQ changes to my fleet. Whats worse is that you just declared that you launched torps in the shooting plase but didn't bother to put them down and then worked out their facing one at a time in the ordnance phase to your liking. Of course thats way against the rules. Another dubious but narrow victory.
bullshit, you were not using the 2010 document because 1: you didn't have it with you, and 2: we were using the rules out of the book I had printed which only has the 2007 document. There is nothing about 2010 document that showed up in that game, from the torp markers, to the fact my escorts didn't get a save from your assault boats. As for the torpedo thing...yea I didn't place them, but I sure as shit declared my targets, and never changed them (Not that it even affects anything since you can place all ordnance at the end of the shooting, and then proceed to move them). You had the Terminus Est, why would I bother launching torps at anything else, which is exactly what happened. Except for the 2 cruisers that got hit by torps moving past the Terminus Est.
Our 4th game. You used the Ork Clans list. Claimed you had 6 fleet wide rerolls and +2 to LD on every ship in the fleet due to a single looted widowmaker in your ravager squadron. I slipped around your flank, I killed a Kill Kroozer and crippled a Terror ship and wiped out your ravagers and you torped my BB. You put your Ravagers in B2B to get turret bonuses vs my assault boats but I shot them instead. You argued that their shields didn't go down when I knocked down the shields of an adjacent ship. I knew you were wrong but gave it to you anyway and still finished them off in the following turn instead of targeting another ship. Also, you had way too many ships with upgrades and your fleet list violated the rules for fleet organization. You were in a bad position and you ran away. I won despite your shenanigans.
Ah yes this game. I never claimed I had 6 fleet wide rerolls (I still have the list), I had 6 re-rolls but they were per Squadron, and in that list I had 6 re-rolls which allowed for 6 upgrades, which is all I had. Quoted here from the clanz documentQuoteA vessel or escort skwadron led by a Warlord may be given up to one of the following upgrades per Command re-roll the Warlord has.
Each warlord had 2 re-rolls. So the only thing I fucked up with in that fleet list was the widow maker rules, which and ask Jon about this, was exactly how HE played it against me. That was my own fault however that I never checked up on them myself. This was when we started using the 2010 FAQ, because we used turret suppression for the first time. Whoops...yes I did only have 1 cobra.
As for the shield thing, ya you were wrong, we played that right because I caught on to this rule, and I even showed it to you that game. Here it is again from the 2010FAQ regarding escorts and shields.
DESTROYED ESCORTS: When an escort is destroyed replace it with a blast marker placed as centrally as possible to where the escort was. As a blast marker is smaller than a small flying base, the only way it is possible to take down a ship‟s shield with this blast marker is if their bases actually overlapped.
It was not until after this game here at Luke's garage that we found the flawed lists so don't claim otherwise.
Who knows what you pull against other players, but they don't know how to play and you don't bother to teach them. You almost got Jim to quit until I showed him how to make his fleet work. I taught Jon too.
I don't know if youre any good because you keep making 'mistakes' that benefit you and hurt me. That game with the Nova Cannons may have been the first straight game I've played with you, but I didn't pay enough attention to find out. I was busy trying to show Jim and Justin how to play their fleets while you were trying to grind me into dust.
Wow, what I pull huh? What about the mistakes that you make like claiming that brace works for your shields for the first 3 games we played? We make mistakes while learning any game, something I have never held against you or anyone else but the fact that the orks have changed fleet lists 3 times now for me has led to a few minor mistakes (All with that awful clanz list)
I do fine in my games. I usually eek out a small lead but there is no glory in crushing people who are learning to play. Heck, I'm learning too and always will be.
You make it sound like I am some Veteran destroying the noobs in this game...You were the only one prior to the start of the campaign who had ever played this before. Jon, myself and Jim's all first games were the same game. I don't take glory or pride in destroying people, I much prefer close games as they are more interesting. That's when rolls get exciting and you can yell or curse when your dice don't go how you want, if one side is dominating, then they usually aren't having fun and there is no excitement left in the game.
We may not play any more games together Tag. I'm playing to have a good time, not stroke my ego. I don't care if you pull crap as long as the game was fun. But if youre going to behave like this then Ive got other people to play against.
On the Retribution, we were 5-1 in favour of 355pts when this was discussed. The last post on the matter was Admiral D'A on P9. There's still a clear majority for 355pts.
Several shots? Do you mean several guns or several rounds of firing?
Stuff...
@Admiral
Its easy to say it was bad positioning because it didn't work. Hindsight and all. Truth be told, some of it was. I should have moved my Devestation that was rammed differently. At the time, it didn't look likely to happen that way. The blast marker on one made the Ld check less likely to pass and deducted 5cm from the move. I could have even survived the ramming had my Ld 9 brace test passed. But he rolled high enough to just barely reach me despite the obstacles in his way and the dice were against me from then on.
On the otherhand my overall strategy had worked. The Dictators and Retribution were seperated from the Murder/Hades vs Lunar fight which I won hands down. My Desolator relocated successfully. If the game had continued, I was about to AAF my MMMH to the far side of the board where there was a planet. Taking advantage ov the gravity well I was going to flip them around 180 and come back at them with LO lances blazing. That was the point of the bait. I wanted to fight half of his fleet at first and then flip around and fight the rest.
Let whoever hasn't lost a ship to bad positioning and bad luck cast the first stone.
@Admiral
Of course, you are right. About the stone, I just don't want every person on the board to come by and say 'bad positioning' at me. I know I shouldn't do it again. First game with a new fleet and a new strategy. I am suitably chastised. Lets move on. Im more interested in ideas of how to counter a torpedo shotgun. Got any ideas?
The MMMH against the BB and the lone BB vs 3 Lunars? That doesn't seem right to me. Are you sure?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Nobody has done this or experienced this but my gaming group?
6 ships with torps including 2 carriers (6 torps, 8 squadrons). They get within 30cm and unless you have more than 8 CAP on every ship, as far as I can see, there is no way youre not taking every torpedo in the face. Average 59cm range with blast markers in the way. Lots of damage. Bracing usually not an option at that point, is it? Chaos gets no Firedrakes and can't shunt torps off 6+ armor. What do you vet Chaos players do to mitigate this?
Hellbringer Light Cruiser 150 pts
Type/Hits Speed/Turns Shields/Turrets
Cruiser/6 25/90 1/2
Port Launch Bays: 2
Stbd Launch Bays: 2
Prow Lances: 2 30cm F
Special Rules: Improved Thrusters, The Hellbringer was designed specifically as a planetary assault vessel and therefore scores two assault points for every turn it spends landing troops in a planetary assault mission.
Stuff...
I don't like the Armageddon and Defiant example, Why not try it out using a Lunar and a Strike Cruiser with the added shield. Should be a much better comparison. The Defiant as everyone agrees is basically a bad ship.
Or how about a Retribution vs 3 Dauntless'? Another good matchup to see.
The Armageddon is the best battle cruiser, which is why it was chosen. The Defiant has only 2WB fewer firepower than an Endurance to one side (which is all that matters vs a single retribution, it will never fire both broadsides. In addition, it has enough AC to provide CAP for both vessels, completely eliminating any threat from the Retribution's torps. The Endurance is a reasonable ship, and in this particular situation the Defiant's ability to focus brings it up to par. In addition, I pointed it at 120, not 130.
3 Dauntless vs Retribution:
Hits: 18 hits vs 12 hits.
Minimum hits required to damage: 1 vs 4
Ordnance: 9T vs 0.
9 torps stand a reasonable chance of crippling a Dauntless in one go.
Primary Weapons:
@60cm 3L vs 0
@45cm 3L&18WB vs 0
@60cm 3L&18WB vs 9L.
The Dauntless gains no advantage by using its broadsides instead of its lances, and so makes itself vulnerable to capital ship closing on the gunnery chart. The Dauntless can expect 0.5 hits past shields, or 2.75 on lock on. The Retribution can expect to nearly destroy a Dauntless before they even get in range (2.7 past shields from weapons, 2.8 from torps), and once in range and bearing in mind the dauntless' attacking aspect will do enough hits past shields to destroy a Dauntless in a single turn (7.2).
While the Armageddon is the best battlecruiser, I don't see why it should be the vessel chosen. As I said, a Lunar and a Strike Cruiser would offer a more challenging target with the Lunar and Strike Cruiser coming to 345 points. The problem with picking the Armageddon at 245 means the second ship will suck since you want to test if the Retribution comes out ok at 345 points. This is the point of your exercise right?
While the Armageddon is the best battlecruiser, I don't see why it should be the vessel chosen. As I said, a Lunar and a Strike Cruiser would offer a more challenging target with the Lunar and Strike Cruiser coming to 345 points. The problem with picking the Armageddon at 245 means the second ship will suck since you want to test if the Retribution comes out ok at 345 points. This is the point of your exercise right?
The Armageddon was pointed at 235pts. The Defiant was pointed at 120pts. The total was against a 355pt Retribution.
The argument that the fixed Ret should cost only 345 pts confounds me somewhat. I get the feeling that the only reason it's being presented is because the current Ret is 345 pts and weak, and therefore there is resistance to the idea of any form of cost bump.100% agreement, as people may be able to tell.
However, let's look at the original costs. The Emp was only 345 pts and the Ret was 365 pts. Now, this was obviously unbalanced, but I put it to you (the BFG community) that if the that original Ret was 18WB at 45cm instead of 12WB at 60cm then not only would people have taken the ship but most likely there would never have been any change in the cost of the Emperor. I believe the reason for the points swap was because people complained about the terrible disparity between the Emp and Ret and the HA thought it more a problem with the Emp than the Ret and so figured the swap would fix all problems (of course, they were wrong).
The point here being that if the HA had plumped for the fix to the Rets broadside firepower that we are talking about it would have been at 365 pts, and the Emp still at 345 pts. I imagine that most people would consider this situation slightly unbalanced still, but it is certainly better than the current (official) state of affairs and an acceptable arrangement.
That is an argument from tolerance though, not balance. When looking to balance then we should look at what we have, which is 12WB at 60cm for 345 pts. While this arrangement is suboptimal to the role of the ship I think it would be hard to argue that this version of the ship should cost less than 345 pts. That is, it's balanced for what it gives, though not particularly attractive. So, starting from this point, we swap 15cm range for +50% firepower. This is not equal. The firepower is worth quite a bit more than the range. Add to this the fact that the ship is now optimised to its role and a 10 pt increase really is quite conservative.
@ RC + Sig....
Not getting into this debate again. It was decided once it would stay at 345, and I don't know why you guys are trying to bring up a damn argument for a 10 point cost fucking difference. Do you not have better things to do?
What's so special about Bakka that its untouchable? Why is everything esle on the table except for this one ship that helps mitigate the effect of your favorite tactic? If the torp shotgun is not a good tactic, then why is it such a big deal that a chaos player has access to a ship that mitigates it? From what youre saying, it shouldn't matter if I have a couple of Firedaggers or not.
It's not my favorite tactic, far from it. Effective? Yes for sure, but boring as shit. Why do you think I was lobbying for an Ork gunship platform? Because the ONLY ork tactic was AAF shotgun, and ram/board if possible....fucking yawn...why do you think I started a new fleet?
Youve been playing a brand new Eldar player a lot lately with your Orks. Torpedos would be a waste, heavy guns much better.
Yes that's quite true I have been mostly playing them. However I have also played my Imperial Fleet 7 out of the 8 games we have played. Which if you want to call Ethan and ask him what fleets I have taken, you will realize they have a healthy mix of everything as I am trying to make a neat/fluffy all comers list, go for it, since you seem to think all I do is lie.
Stop trying to run interferance. If you have any legitimate reasons why you think that the Firedagger should be off limits or why the Hellbringer would break the fleet, then lets hear them and debate them on their merits. So far the only arguments you have given against anything that Ive said is that I don't win any games, that I'm just complaining because I don't know how to play my fleet and that youre more qualified than I am because you win all the time. None of that is true and none of them are arguments against the proposed change, just attempts to assassinate my character. Of course I'm going to be hostile when you insult me constantly.
Calm the fuck down, you are getting far too upset over a forum man. Sit back, pop a beer and relax. This is only about a game that's supposed to be fun.
Except for that one post I have done no such assassination attempts (Which I apologized for, and you started anyways), and have backed you getting that Hellbringer since it was proposed, I was only suggesting that specific fleet ships 1: really have no place in the Chaos fleet, and 2: We need to play test the hellbringer before giving you more new ships into the fleet. Trial and error is the best way to make sure things don't get too out of whack. Add in one ship at a time and see how it works out. Going through and making vast (Not saying this is) changes to anything will result in some errors and it will be to hard to figure out what is
Since I have been on this forum, Ive been lobbying for a single change to the Chaos list. It doesn't need longer range lances on the Dev or the old Despoiler profile back. It only needs an attack carrier. It needs one ship profile that can move forward along with the line ships, provide close AC support and lend some firepower to the gunships. Its fluffy for a Chaos fleet to have such a ship, its necessary now to counter the plethora of AC and ordnance that other fleets are now capable of taking, cheif amongst them the IN. And, as it is, the Tartanus fleet list has no carrier below cruiser size and a requirement for an escort squadron or light cruiser for each cruiser taken. The Wardens list has opportunities for ordnance below cruiser level in terms of torpedos, an escort carrier (assault boats!) And a very good option for a light carrier. The Hellbringer satisfies the attack carrier role and fills in the gap in Tartanus. Add an attack carrier, fleet has its character back, issue closed.
I completely support this...never said I had an issue with it, at all. I think it makes perfect sense since Chaos is mostly a pirate fleet. Do I think it will fix your problem? No, nor do I think it will be that great of a ship personally, but I have had really poor performance from every light cruiser I have ever taken.
The sum of its parts were worth what was paid for, they just didn't work well together in concert. The new sum of parts is worth more than the old sum of parts, and work well together. The fact it can go toe to toe with more expensive battleships with reasonable chance of success indicates it should be more expensive than it is currently.
@All
Phthisis for the record isn't a bad player, he is so far the only player in our gaming group to bloody the nose of my ork fleet, and since I played it at the time as a torp shotgun fleet (This was before all the new changes for the orks, and before we started playing flawed lists), it was a hard fleet to deal with. He has made some valid points, especially about the overall cost of IN ordnance becoming a bit cheaper with the Dictator being lowered in cost (Thank god it was though, 220 for that ship was absurd). As for him lobbying for changes to help him win, that technically aren't true. I think everyone always wants something for their own fleet to help their play styles, not necessarily to help them win, but to help them play the fleet they want. Like me with the Space Marine IN cruiser idea. That had nothing to do with game balance, merely a fluffy way to play, and Phthisis likes to play either BFG or 40k in a very fluffy manner.
Anyways...lets get back to the issues at hand.
@Horizon
IN & Chaos were balanced before all the changes made. Chaos got an overall nerf by shortening the lances on the Devestation and changing 4 forward lances to 4 side batteries. IN got buffs. NCs got the ability to reroll misses. The new fleets have added more heavy weaponry on battlecruisers and above, and more access to AC with a pair of very good light carriers and even an escort carrier that can get AC into a fleet even cheaper than a Devestation.
Chaos was always the more AC heavy fleet, which was a counter to the fact that almost every IN ship has torpedos. Now IN has more torpedos, more AC, and plenty of long range gunnery.
@RC
The difference is that the Ret is more resiliant than any Chaos BB. Chaos is supposed to have more firepower at longer range than the IN to make up for its vulnerability. If the Ret is tougher and has more firepower, then what does the Chaos BB have over it?
@All
My argument is that the IN has a lot more AC and cheaper than before. Chaos is weak against ordnance, so in the original fleet they had access to cheaper AC than the IN to make up for the INs penchant for torpedos and high armor. Giving the IN so much cheap AC and keeping their torpedos has shifted the balance in favor of the IN. More long range heavies in the IN list and weakened Chaos carriers contributed to the imbalance a bit too. A light carrier like the Hellbringer fixes this by adding another less exoensive AC option. Its fun, its fluffy. Even those who don't see the imbalance agree that it won't break the fleet list. Add it and there is no more problem.
His main complaint about the Devastation is that since it has longer range lance batteries, it's mostly suited for hanging back and shooting abeam. He is wanting something that can move forward and engage at close range. What about the option to swap out the lance batteries on the Dev's for weapon batteries? Is that something that could work?
@Horizon
A carrier that doesn't have to stand back. Something that can move in with the fleet to provide good close AC support and bully its way into an enemy with the rest of the Chaos fleet. IN has the Dictator which can torp or ram with the rest. The two CL carriers have the manouverability and forward punch to perform this role as well. Orks have the Terror which can bully up with heavy gunz or torpedos. These ships can muscle their way in and hit hard with weapons and ordnance.
If we were going to modify the Devestation, I'd rather have the batteries side and lances prow FLR.
I'm looking for a carrier that can attack aggressively. Just because the Devestation's lances are shorter, it doesn't mean they are suited to be played forward. I even tried just that as an experiment in my last game. It was bloody terrible and when I mentioned it here you told me it was obviously bad positioning and never to do it again back on page 84.
Why was the Devestation so undercosted? You don't think its priced low deliberately to counter torpedos?
GW has already published light carriers for the IN, so we are stuck with them. The problem is they were made cheaper in the revisions without providing Chaos with a comparable option. And then it went even further with the Tempest.
Rather than scrap all that work, the easy way out is to offer Chaos a good way to add AC with ships below cruiser size as well. I see this as an opportunity to introduce new tactics and flavor to the Chaos fleet without torching what was previously done.
I am really really quite happy with the Hellbringer as proposed.
Glad to see someone gets my point on the balance between Chaos and IN! IN had torps, Chaos had AC. IN had resiliance, Chaos had more firepower. IN had ramming, Chaos had boarding. IN has manouverability, Chaos had speed. Chaos largely had longer range at the cruiser level but the IN battlecruisers encroached on that territory and NCs crossed that line and do so with fervor now that they are 22% more accurate. If IN has both AC and torpedo superiority, plus manouverability, resiliance and several ships with heavy long range firepower and NCs... What does Chaos do better than IN again?IN has no AC superiority, even under BFG;R
Anyway, Plaxor you have a 21page 10,000 word e-mail. ;)
@Sig
Agreed that it should be 390 when used with torpedos as an attack carrier. Agreed that the Despoiler should be more expensive. Agreed that the lances are batter than WBs. See, we can agree on some things, Sig!
Disagree on the difference in damage output being worth a 35pt cost increase when all else is equal. There are benefits to the lances, for sure, especially at long range. But there are some things that the Emperor's loadout is much better for. Eldar and closing enemy ships come to mind. Its not so cut and dry as a 56% increase in damage or firepower. And you prefer WBs for the chance of a spectacular success a lot of the time, don't you?
Thats what Ive been hearing. But as 6+ armor is slightly better than 5+ abeam, and torpedos and ramming are a heck of a lot better than any IN cruiser's (or even any Chaos cruiser's) side weaponry and 6+ armor makes that possible, I figure its pretty decent. Armored prows can be leveraged lretty successfully. If anyone wants to take a 35pt deduction and run their IN cruisers with 5+ armor its fine by me. What do you say to a 145pt Lunar?Why on earth did you leave out the fact lances hit on a 4+? Regardless of 6+ prow armour.
Even the IN having parity with Chaos on AC is too much. But yes, in most fleet lists as it stands now IN can easily have AC superiority as well as their usual torps. And they dont sacrifice much to do it.
Hellbringet fixes it and adds attack carrier.
A Devestation lacks two key features the Lunar has: forward armament and armored prow. Chaos can't have an armored prow. Devestations have 6WBs front at 30cm. Carnage has the same thing forward. Do you consider it an offensive or defensive ship?
Yes, both Chaos & IN has long range in ships above cruiser size. Its not the sole territory of Chaos and so not something they leverage well.
The Despoiler has stronger firepower than the Emperor. But 3 lances arent worth 35pts more than 6WBs. Its worth 12 more by Smotherman. Its worth 25 more by RC. Looking at the fleet lists, its definately less than 30pts. For what it does, it should probably be worth 10pt less than it is.
Attacking at an oblique isnt closing. Abeam closing is an oxymoron. If you can fire side weaponry youre abeam. The attack carrier needs to get in close to provide close AC support. If youre firing side weaponry, then you must be moving further away from your target. They may be closing, but the Dev is working to increase the distance. The Dev is a poor attack carrier. Its a defensive ship, much like the Carnage. This isnt really an issue anymore because of the Hellbringer.
Attacking at an oblique isnt closing. Abeam closing is an oxymoron. If you can fire side weaponry youre abeam. The attack carrier needs to get in close to provide close AC support. If youre firing side weaponry, then you must be moving further away from your target. They may be closing, but the Dev is working to increase the distance. The Dev is a poor attack carrier. Its a defensive ship, much like the Carnage. This isnt really an issue anymore because of the Hellbringer.
The Despoiler at 380 with an increase for torpedos is reasonable.
The Dictator is a good attack carrier. It can move with the formation and contribute its torpedos and ram as good as any other IN ship. No sense in trying to go abeam with it. It can get in close and launch at close range.
The Terror Ship is a good attack carrier. Same armament fore as the Kill Kroozer. No reason to run it abeam. It gets in close and launches AC at close range.
That Eldar carrier is good too. Prow mounted pulsar lance and 4 squadrons. Dive in, lance & launch, run away. Just like the rest of the Eldar fleet.
I'd say the Dev is unique as its the only carrier below heavy cruiser that is defensive and long range. Strange, isnt it?
Its a moot point when the revised traitor list comes out.
14AC from 2 Devestations and a Styx.
So, against a Dictator, that's average 14 attacks with bombers by 2 Devestations and a Styx. Not too shabby.
Of course the 2 Dictators average 17 from torpedos and bombers. And are much better protected by 6+ armor on the approach. Also, not too shabby. Especially since the two Dictators cost 220pts less. And the Dictators have a slight advantage in getting their shots off first.
Compared to their counterparts in other fleets, the Devestation is fairly pathetic when used offensively. Its a good defensive carrier, but I honestly wonder why it has such a reputation.
14AC from 2 Devestations and a Styx.
So, against a Dictator, that's average 14 attacks with bombers by 2 Devestations and a Styx. Not too shabby.
Of course the 2 Dictators average 17 from torpedos and bombers. And are much better protected by 6+ armor on the approach. Also, not too shabby. Especially since the two Dictators cost 220pts less. And the Dictators have a slight advantage in getting their shots off first.
Compared to their counterparts in other fleets, the Devestation is fairly pathetic when used offensively. Its a good defensive carrier, but I honestly wonder why it has such a reputation.
Seriously. Teach away. I'd be very happy to learn.
Still your example is 3 on 2. The 3 includes a heavy cruiser as well. Doesnt seem like you believe theyre that great of youre stacking the odds in their favor that much.
I cant yet see a way that the Dictators cant nerf the Devestations' and Styx's attack and kick their teeth in.
@Admiral
Youll get no argument from me that the MMMH combo is just great. Sigiroth might disagree, but not me. I had already agreed with Sigiroth that if you run the Devs behind a formation like that and run them oblique just before the fleet dives through, youll have better luck. But the Devestations survive because of a concentrated effort to kill the enemy carriers. Doesn't make a Devestation an aggressive carrier nor does it even make them a good carrier despite its fearsome reputation.
Sure, a pair of devestations can whittle the Dictators down with assistance from other ships that keep them braced. Thats the 'normative use' Sig referred to.
Does this really have a point anymore? If anything I've become even more convinced that the Devestation needs to be used in a defensive posture, and that Dictators vs. Styx & Devestations example made my argument clear that the IN was becoming too strong in the ordnance phase and encroaching on Chaos' ground. And I think it put a good dent in the undeserved fearsome rep of the Devestation.
This argument was originally about Chaos needing an attack carrier to cope with all the love IN got and the across the board cheapening of IN AC. Chaos is getting the Hellbringer according to Plaxor. 3 of them roughly equal 2 Dictators in points cost and will eat their lunch.
You're not giving the avengers 6+ prows!
But since you bring it up, if the 2 Devestations and a Styx are losing to 2 Devs and cost 220 pts more, is there a points imbalance here?What?
Why not? I think the GCs specific to the race should be given what the race has. IN Vengeances, Avengers and Exorcists should be given access to 6+ Prows and Str 6 Torps or NCs. Chaos Vengeance, Retaliator and Exorcist should be given access to 60 cm Prow Lances or Weapon Batteries or Str 6 Torps. Of course, it goes without saying, they should be priced or repriced accordingly.
They have access to prow torps already. We voted for that, however we voted against 6+ prows as the GCs are shared and a 'characterful' idea for a fleet.
Besides the same could be said that Dauntlesses should have 6+ prows.
You're changing things anyway, right so why not go the whole 9 yards? Other examples would be Ret at FP18@60cm for 365 -375, Desolators with Str 6@60cm lances, Apocalypse with FP9@60cm dorsal WBs at 370 maybe. Oberon's with all 60 cm WBs at 355. Remake the Despoiler into something people can agree with but for sure it should have prow LBs at 4. This isn't going to be official anyway right, so we don't need HA approval? If we wanted Chaos to get swiveling prow 60 cm lances, fine as long as things are priced correctly. If we want to keep the forward only flavor, that would be fine as well.
Everyone can definitely provide input but we should stop tiptoeing around and just make the changes people have largely agreed to anyway.
They have access to prow torps already. We voted for that, however we voted against 6+ prows as the GCs are shared and a 'characterful' idea for a fleet.
Besides the same could be said that Dauntlesses should have 6+ prows.[/quote]
There are things that are too much, and one factor is intriguing character. If someone asks the question of why don't we make 'Imperial cruiser' and force them to buy the weapons for it? It makes their decisions limitless. Things are far more interesting with limits... with character.... with problems.
Like what? We have most things. We voted on most things. The tiptoeing is to avoid everyone being able to take everything that they want, as stuff like that changes the character of the game, and is a huge amount of work balancing and working out. Not to mention the most important factor, it prevents the possibility of doing more releases.
Changes are "Mainly"
Price modifications for IN/Chaos fleets
Orks improved with more upgrades
Eldar MMS incorporated
Few vessels added for races.
BMs at v1.0
Others are minor quibbles.
@Admiral
I can see your point for a chaos cruiser sized carrier with more bays. But that seems like a problem for HA to tackle. Judging by the points cost of the Styx, I doubt it will happen. A slight change to the weapons profile and +2 bays = 70pts? Rediculous. They arent going to sign off on a cruiser carrier with a similar profile for around 220. However if HA does consider this I will argue for it.
Light carriers are GWs albatros, not ours. Eliminating them from BFG:R makes existing models obsolete and therefore is messy.
There are several reasons a CL carrier is the better solution in BFG:R.
First, I've been told that adding a new ship to the existing Black Crusade list is off limits. Is anyone going to consider a massive points drop on the Styx or Devestation? How about a significant increase in firepower? No? Then that's a pointless discussion.
Second, the Tartanus list requires one escort or CL before you can take a cruiser. IN has one escort type and two CL type carriers, which are not only easy choices to get AC into the fleet, but also are very good for their points. If Chaos is going to take a carrier, they have to fill cruiser slots with Devestations. IN can take a ton of AC, and keep their torpedos. If Chaos gets a CL carrier, then it can keep up. This cruiser is specific to tartanus.
Third, a light carrier is so rediculously fluffy! Pirates and renegades need to capture ships to survive and keep their overhead low. The manouverability and large number of attack craft are well suited to acheiving their goals. If thet didn't have one readily available, they'd gut the side batteries and magazines on an Unbeliever and cram in bays to make one.
You and Horizon keep saying there is a problem here using a lighy carrier in a chaos list, but so far havent specifically named it. What is the issue?
Admiral, explain your issue with IN CL carriers more in-depth. I still do not understand your reasoning as why they are problematic. IN does not get AC for cheaper overall (220 pts to 210), and in the Wardens/Tartanus fleet is the only place where Enforcers are available, and are the only carrier option other than Tempests (escort carriers) and Excorcists. Well plus the variant Vanquisher.
yes, but you're forgetting a key advantage here.
Say that the player was intending to hurt the lunar anyways. This would mean that if the lunar were not squadroned only 6's would have an effect on the ship. Which now that it is squadroned your 5's are now worth something and causes potential damage to another ship.
Squadroning has it's play for survivability, and 'closest ship' is the important part of it. But honestly the scenario you're giving is worse than squadroning 3 cruisers together. this would happen;
@Admiral & Plaxor
If we were talking modern day, you'd be right about the AC vs gunnery. But this is the dark future where everything is bigger and technology is about superstition and forgotten lore.
Batteries on ships are macro-cannons, massive volcano cannons and giant lasers. Running each one of these is like operating a partical accelerator or a tokamak. Its like what they put on titans, only bigger. Which forgeworld is providing the ammunition, refit materials and technical expertise to keep them running?
AC are actually the low-tech option. The fluff has army mechanics maintaining their aircraft, not techpriests,and the ammunition they use is the same stuff they issue to the IG & PDF. Theyre cheap, easy to maintain and arm and made on every civilized or better planet in the Imperium. Heck, they could probably build them at a large enough pirate base.
When the batteries break down, you gut the gun-bays, sell off the components and make launch bays.
@Admiral
The Styx has 2 more bays, makes the WBs 60cm, trades in 4 lances for 2 FLR and makes them 60cm. 70pts? Really?
Compare the Dictator to the Mars.. A Nova Cannon, 2 completely new 60cm FLR lances and 12WBs upgraded by 15cm, all for 50pts.
By eliminating light carriers and chaos light cruisers, youre advocating burning the whole tartanus sector project and starting over.
Well...Comparing the Mars to the Dictator the upgrades run about 60 points, and since the Dictator is kind of over cost anyways, that seems about right. I don't really like the Mars but I just found out that Berek Thunderfist's (The Wolf Lord Ragnar Blackmane succeeds) personal cruiser is a Mars class...so looks like I have to make one up now.
Why couldn't he have been an Overlord...now that's a good ship!
By eliminating light carriers and chaos light cruisers, youre advocating burning the whole tartanus sector project and starting over.
@Horizon
Youre right, light cruisers are not old. But you say that any IN fleet can go renegade. What if all the renegade light cruisers were relatively new? Pirates would love them and theyre easier to capture/mutiny on than a full size cruiser. Can we just change some of the fluff, or are we stuck because of that RPG?
Actually, this is simply a win for the Lunar. If the opponent wanted to damage the CG then it is very hard to do so, as RCG pointed out. It basically gets 6+ armour and invulnerability to lances. If the opponent wanted to damage the Lunar however there is still advantage for the Lunar. You note that 5's will get "bonus" hits to CG. Well, you'd need at least 4 "bonus" hits for it to even count, so this is not a bonus at all. In fact, the most it will do usually is just allow for an opportunity to prematurely detonate any ordnance thrown towards the CG. On the other hand, since those 5's count as having already hit then they won't get re-rolled on LO, meaning that there will be less dice coming at the Lunar.
Regarding Eldar,I can live with that. So a slight improvement vs batteries under 15cm and a decrease vs lances under 15cm.
I have seen quite a few complaints about the absence of the supernova et al. I will add them in. The only changes I intend for eldar are the holofield changes to lances (4/5/6 depending on range) and a RS for wbs. I'll see if I can email you an advance copy when I review them.
All stats/costs will be as in 1.9. The only changes will be regarding holofields.
I can live with that. So a slight improvement vs batteries under 15cm and a decrease vs lances under 15cm.
These are changes I considered myself (the lances) and only did not do them because of some concerns of the '4+ iron lance rule".
On Cap ship squadrons:
Come on guys, this is a good idea to allow them. The restrictions are completely arbitrary, and it totally makes fluff sense for a larger capital ship to be in a squadron with its escorting cruisers. The rewritten rules that will appear in the next update (if they haven't already been killed) are good - this problem is avenger specific. The 5+ prow battleships are too slow and/or not enough of a gunship to matter for this trick to matter, the Vengeance and Exorcist are priced high enough to compensate, and the 5+ prow LCs really need the protection when in a squadron. Escorts are already somewhat protected by their aspect, and other fleets don't have the same 5+/6+ prow issue. If necessary we can make it so that the largest ship within a squadron can always be picked out. Don't abandon the changes over one ship's interaction with them.
Big as a 747? The Furies and Starhawks were replacements for Thunderbolts and Marauders, which arent nearly that big. I bet the Fury is about the size of an SR71. Plus we know Thunderbolts and Marauders don't need a techpriest to maintain from fluff.
Some of the batteries are that simple, but not all. Even in the simple ones, the macro cannons. Those rounds are bigger than a school bus! Where the heck are they getting them from? Must cost a pretty penny for all that metal and bang.
They'd probably get good $ for the old batteries. Fighters, ordnance and fuel would be a lot cheaper than the super-tech in the batteries. Plus theyre easier to steal. Haul back a captured freighter to a pirate dock to refit a couple of batteries (hopefully theyre the same make and in good shape!) or transfer cargo and fuel and set the hull adrift? You can capture fighters, bombers, fual and ammunition in transports. You want new plasma batteries you have to get them built and maintained by the tech-priests. Pirates life a hard life. Everything is a cost/benefit analysis and they have few friends.
I have 4 Defiants.
Then you have the option to not use them. Dont force others to conform to your distate of that single type of ship. I am going to convert a pair of my Dauntless's over to be enforcers just because I want to see how they perform as opposed to taking a single dictator a few times. And they look bloody awsome. If you dont like it, dont buy it. Its that simple.
@Admiral
Could you provide the source where Andy Chambers says theyre all big as 747s? In the main rulebook it says theyre relatively small and have a wide range of sizes. Also we know the older versions were not that big: thunderbolts & marauders.
Even if they are unnecessarily large, I still think its cheaper and more feasable for pirates to maintain a few squadrons of bombers than a battery of macro cannons.
Admiral, youre not being fair to me. I'm not asking for torpedos or to make the IN & Chaos fleets generic. In fact, I'm doing the opposite. Im asking for more access to AC to restore the balamce of Chaos AC to IN torpedos (a balance which already favors IN anyway).
I like the inclusion of light cruisers. It makes smaller point games easier and more interesting without having to use the Privateer rules. It just needs to be done with balance, which is something I think GW failed to do when they released them.
And your disagreement with the LCV is the same disagreement I have with the Necron auto brace. I dont like it there for they shouldnt have it.
The IN still pays a premium for their AC regardless of the platform it is deliverd on. And if you are taking the small guys you are concentrating on gunboats as has been pointed out almost a dozen times already. No one, and I do mean No One is going to spam LCV's and hope to win. If they were they would take nothing but Dictator's instead because they are far more survivable and flexible. The LCV is a points trap if you dont come with a very good plan on how to use and protect it from the get go.
It is not an undercut to the flavor of the fleet. And it never will be. It is nothing but another play in a giant playbook. Should Choas get some kind of access to torps? They have it in their BB's their GC Repulsive and their Escorts. If they want it they have 4 avenues from which to approach it. And their hulk as well. So its not a lack of options that you can complain about, they have lots. Including several Character ships. Throw on top of it that they get boarding Torps for free while the IN dont have access to it at all.
But as I said in my first sentance ill say again, just because you dont like something doesnt mean it must change. There is no undercut to the flavor of any of the lists/fleets/races/sectors/whatever by the IN having LCV's. Hell they have had access to escort carrier's for a long time now and im sure you wont argue that those break their flavor. And while I only own 6 of them I love using them mixed in with other escorts to sacrifice first so I can keep cranking out CAP and letting those Big Guns, affordable because I didnt have to purchase full cruisers, do their jobs.
@Plaxor
Its not going to avoid the controversy. Everyone was on board with the Hellbringer except Admiral. His argument wasnt against a chaos light carrier but rather that all light carriers should be stripped from the game. Besides, he's using two bad arguments. The slippery slope argument is unfounded. Adding a Hellbringer does not mean anyone will ask for another ship type or that you will have to allow it, nor does it mean you have to add torpedos to Chaos or make every fleet identical. This is a way to make the Chaos fleet the AC fleet again, remember? This is reinstating the uniqueness of the Chaos fleet.
Also, comparing the Slaughter to a light cruiser is a false comparison. The Slaughter has a cruiser profile and so is much more resistant to damage and less manouverable. They have nothing in common. Might as well say you shouldn't have a Dictator because they have a Mars and the Mars is much better.
If youre not eliminating the IN light cruiser profiles, Admiral isn't happy.
I am against Chaos light cruisers as well. Not only the admiral.
Well the Chaos CL can of worms was opened by an official GW publication. They exist. End of.That's sad since I have the original fluff line on the Pestilaan. And it would've solved the problem. (Meaning: no Chaos CL).
I think we could afford to knock another 15pts off the Styx. I get it at about 245pts.
I just say so. I have no veto. ;)
But it is habbit I used in this thread. Just, ya know, fun. :)
I don't get your assessment. What is the difference in a ship pointing at you firing 2 lances. Or a ship turning broadside and firing 2 lances?
@Admiral
If the Styx is 260 then the Mars is undercosted.
@Horizon & Admiral
Context guys. I'd rather take 12 WBs to the prow than 6 torpedos to any side.
I already explained that facing would give me the option to board. Coming head on gives a ship a lot more options than running abeam. I'm thinking a turn ahead.
Why doesn't anyone understand that you don't have to RO untill the turn AFTER you launch? That means I can be LO the turn I launch ordnance.
The Mars is undercosted because 2 bays is nor worth an armored prow, 6 WBs and a Nova Cannon.?
They probably wont be taking many WBs because of thd geometry. And of they do, it may wipe out incoming torpedos for me.
Boarding with a closing cruiser is tricky vs an abeam cruiser. Its easier vs a closing cruiser. Its impossible by an abeam ship. Boarding is a good tactic as it passes shields and is unbraceable and potentially devestating
Place on CAP, then RO. Then you have protection against long range ordnance while you close. Up close it wont protect you. In all likelihood I might not even LO. Its not much of a boost on a ship with only 2 lances. Keeping mobility for boarding is more important.
The Mars is undercosted because 2 bays is nor worth an armored prow, 6 WBs and a Nova Cannon.
@Horizon & AdmiralFirst sentence: what? I do not understand.
Context guys. I'd rather take 12 WBs to the prow than 6 torpedos to any side.
I already explained that facing would give me the option to board. Coming head on gives a ship a lot more options than running abeam. I'm thinking a turn ahead.
Why doesn't anyone understand that you don't have to RO untill the turn AFTER you launch? That means I can be LO the turn I launch ordnance.
And it would show you that there are now infact official Choas LC's and an LCV as well.As said, I have the original background on the Pestilaan (wip manuscript) and it would explain ... a ... lot....
I re-read the Hellbringer in BFK, and compared its stats to other vessels.
So here is what it should look like:
Hellbringer Light Cruiser 120 pts
Type/Hits Speed/Turns Shields/Armour Turrets
Cruiser/6 30/90 1/5+ 1
Port + Stb launch bays 1
Prow Lances 1 45cm F
Dorsal Wbs 4 30cm l/f/r
Scores 2 AP for every turn it spends landing troops.
The Defiants move from outside the Devs range and hit with their lances. 55cm. The Devs move abeam and only fire 45cm. First shot to the Defiants. 14 lances are going to mess up a Devestation, not to mention 14 torpedos and possibly bombers.Netherlands :)
Im fine with you giving up. Youre not correct anyway. Every scenario we have posed the Devestations come up short.
Do we live nearby? Lets play a game.
And the Defiants bring 14 lances FLR, 6 more than the Devestations can bring to bear and still more ordnance even including the infidels.
We could do this all day. Im sorry that the Devestation gives you nightmares, but thats not a justification to give the IN an advantage in AC as well as torpedos, armor, manouverability and long range weaponry. And the Devestation isn't nearly as good of a ship as you make it out to be. Admiral says a cross fleet comparison isn't fair? Can't compare the Styx to the Mars? Stop comparing the Dev to the Lunar then.
Because I want to play Chaos. I like the challenge.
Nobody has given me tips or strategy for pages and pages. I had't asked for any to begin with anyway. People just started accusing me of playing badly because I don't think Devestations are that great. Nobody even asked how I have been using them, so nobody knows if I have been playing correctly or not! Sigiroth said to close with them and go oblique at the last moment and I said that would work better than what I had been doing, so youre wrong about me not taking anyone's advice.
The ongoing argument has been whether the Devestation is good, or even passable, at getting up close along with the rest of an aggressive Chaos fleet to give close AC support or counter torpedo shotguns. The argument started with people saying the Devestation was the best aggressive carrier in the game because it had the same weapon loadout as a Lunar. I disagreed on the basis of the Devestation's vulnerability. Over time I've proved my point again and again.
The topic is concluded. I don't want to talk anout this anymore.
A head-on fleet is one with lots of Murders and Hades. I know you and Sig don't like it, but lots of people who play Chaos do.Head on up to 45cm. Then the broadsides should be used.
Well there are only two situations where the 'perfect fire' would occur. Against Defenses within 15cm (which is fine, as I intend to make fairly tough defenses)
The other situation is against closing vessels within 15cm during any game which is near the sun (flare region and mercurial zone IIRC)
So pretty rare.... I think the only issue is the column definition here.
Upon reflection I think it can be done. (I looked at the chart and the difference is neglible).
Gives a small boost to Eldar and other races with left shift (or upgrades which prevent right shifts or so).
Exactly.
Though Sig, that might make the targetting matrix on the Mars 15pts again. ;)
I need to see output on the options-increase for:
Retribution (AdMech) with AWR (str18wb!!)
Eldar Dragonships (str12wb with left shift)
-warning
yup.
Yep, that retribution would be murder. Pure concentrated murder.