I think the Terror ship is fine. It's the Kill Krooza which needs beefing up.
just did an analysis comparing my KK stats (with torps) to a tyrant (at 180)
Long range firepower: 118% of tyrant
Short range firepower: 91.6% of tyrant
Torps firepower: 91%
Firepower needed to take down in 1 turn: 99% of tyrant (note this is the average of all sides, gw does math?)
Firepower needed to cause 1 internal hit: 43.7%
Ordinance survivability: 57% (this is the average of how each ship's survivability against both 6 bombers and 6 torps from all angles)
Total average: 88.2. Meaning the cost would be 159, not too far off from the 165 I proposed. however this math doesn't account for heavy guns, and those would have value. As well as the multiple arc effect (enemies will extremely rarely be in more than 2 arcs at a time, so the value of 1 arc is significantly less than the other two) Presumably they are about equal in value. So therefore my design deserves a 5 point decrease. to 150 points, or 17% less than IN ships.
RC, although your profiles are decent, they remove a bit of character from the Orks, with your ship it doesn't make the player want to close. Orks have a disadvantage in that they can't win the swirl around each other fights, and it is doubtful that even your profile would stand a chance at those. What I want to do here is not try to fix the ork weaknesses, simply lessen them, without modifying the profiles too drastically.
heavy guns were rated as the same value. 1.5 points is the value charged for 30cm guns. And yes, the smotherman is very flawed, but it was something to give a basis.
Heavy guns are worth about 1.85 guns. (after comparing the entire chart).
Oh and the % thing was for the torp version of the Kill-KRoozer, which in my listing is a 10 point upgrade.
No, I was just equating a heavy guns value compared to 30 cm guns
Well at 15cm 1 HG is worth 1.25 WB. At 30cm range 1 HG is worth 0 WB. So if we say that 1 15 HG is worth 0.75 30cm WB then we're still rounding up. Heavy gunz are worth less than their weight of 30cm WBs.
Well at 15cm 1 HG is worth 1.25 WB. At 30cm range 1 HG is worth 0 WB. So if we say that 1 15 HG is worth 0.75 30cm WB then we're still rounding up. Heavy gunz are worth less than their weight of 30cm WBs.
You're right, and they are calculated at 72.7. 1 Hg is actually worth about 1.45 guns at 15cm, but at 30 this is zero, so average 72.7. This might be a bit high, but it's close enough. According to your assumption a heavy gun is worth 2/3 of a 30cm gun.
I know you want cheaper kroozers, but Orks already have the cheapest ones. I can buy 5 kroozers for every 4 IN cruisers, and if the IN buys a battleship, then the Orks can get a battleship and 6 kroozers for that much.
The orks ideally shouldn't outnumber their opponents by more than 1/3 their fleet, and reducing costs too much would make quite skewed ships. Better to toughen them up a bit, increase their firepower, and maybe reduce by a few points.
With escorts at their reduced cost of 30 for savages and onslaughts, the In will be outnumbered by 20% in just escorts.
Now there is the larger ship idea that you put forth in your 'upper limits' thread, and I said I'd rather increase the hits on the BBs/BC by 2. How would everyone feel about this? Although it could be detrimental to keeping the costs low for ork vessels.
How do you come up with 1.45? Best case scenario, closing cap ship, no BM. The BM placed by HG causes a shift to the WBs, reducing fire. Replacing HG with WBs would not cause this shift. So what those 4 HG contribute could be equalled by replacing it with 5 WBs. This makes HG worth 1.25 times as much as equivalent WB strength at 15cm. The further right on the table you go (ie, less than ideal circumstances) the worse the comparison.
As for interference this should remain. Both for flavour, and so as to not violate a core mechanic of the game (non-simultaneity of different weapon systems/squadrons/markers). This simply leaves the cases where a BM has already been placed. Let's look at a closing cap ship, 15cm range. 4 HG = 2 dice = 4WB dice = 5WBe (5WB vs closing cap ship at close range with BM = 4d6). So we get roughly the same anyway (there are situations and combinations where this can fluctuate a little). It might perhaps be closer to say that 4HG = 5.5 WB, so 1 HG = 1.375 WB. So if we average this value with the 1.25 we get when there is no previous BM we get 1 HG = 1.3125 WB. Average this with its value at 30cm (ie, halve it) and we get its overall value against 1 30cm WB (0.65625). So saying 1 HG is worth 0.75 WBs at 30cm is already overstating its value. We should never consider it to be even worth its weight in WBs when calculating costs from a formula.
I'm all for the Orks becoming more shooty. I just think this is easier achieved through more ships, since this fixes a lot of their other problems too. I'm not in favour of 1d3 turrets by the way. I think Ork ships should retain their current weaknesses.
I don't know why you feel that Orks shouldn't so heavily outnumber their opponents though. Orks have always had a horde mentality and feel. In 40k they usually double a quality type opponent (Eldar, Necron, SMs, etc) and have around 33-50% on some others. I don't see why they shouldn't remain that way here.
I don't see the models bearing out this increase. However, I think that all official Ork models (cap ships at least) are too small and ... well, odd looking. If I ever did make an Ork fleet it would be kit-bashed. So I don't mind this disparity.
As for cost, well that can be kept quite low if we focus more on heavy gunz rather than longer ranged weaponry. Basically we would then have a cheap fleet with mediocre to above average speed (inefficient but automatic AAF), easy to chip away at but with good hits, and short range guns. So the opponent really wants to stop them from getting in. They'd be much like Reavers from Firefly (in fact, those ships would look much better for the Orks).
How I did it was I took a random number of dice to hit from the centerish of the firepower table. In this case it was three.
I took every possible aspect that a ship could be in at 15cm, so closing, abeam, moving away. Then we can find the firepower needed to get to 3 dice for each possible scenario. This includes the shift for BMs So two columns will be incorporated.
WBs:
Closing cap ship: 3fp, 4fp with bm
Moving away cap ship: 4fp, 5fp with bm
Abeam cap ship: 5fp, 8 with bm
Guns:
Closing: 4fp, 5fp
Moving away: 5fp, 8fp
Abeam: 8fp, 13fp
Now the averages are taken of all scenarios, giving the wbs about 4.83 firepower to get 3 dice average. For the heavy guns: 7.166 dividing them we get a percentage: 67.3%, slightly different than my assumption before, but I did it more complex.
So in this math, a heavy gun is worth 2/3 of a 30cm gun
I agree, the interference should remain. It is for flavor. All assumptions are on the interference remaining. Your math here is about the same as mine, .65 vs .67, so we can assume 2/3?
The D3 turrets leaves the ork weakness in tact, it just reduces the number of hits a kroozer takes from bombers. The numbers before indicated that the orks would take 6.87 hits from a wave of 6 bombers compared to the IN/Chaos value of 2.78, this is almost 2.5 times the number of hits! way too much for a weakness. By making the turrets d3 the number of hits they'll take from the same wave averages at 4.42, only 1.6 times the amount as IN/Chaos cruisers. This preserves the weakness, but keeps it from being absurd. Besides having a weakness so large like that skews the orks to losing drastically against LB heavy fleets, but would force balance to make them too strong against low launch bay fleets. This is for the sake of consistency against opponents, and to make the TS not in such high demand.
True. However they already outnumber Necrons 2:1 on a straight class ratio, and the Eldar with proposed changes they could outnumber their escorts 2:1. Space marines are a bit different as they have CLs.
Yes, the orks are rather small for 10 hits. However their BBS are more than twice the size, and weigh more than an imperial BB in pewter. So it is justifiable.
Lol, come on, you don't like the spacefish look? I think it's funny, and a somewhat clever idea for a spaceship. I however don't want to focus on heavy guns. They need long (well medium?) range weaponry to better compete with the armada races/eldar. So it's my thought to leave them pretty much alone and just do our firepower additions to ranged attacks.
@RC, orks are very good in 'melee' if they can stay within 15cm of an enemy they will effectively have 11.34 guns, outgunning most IN ships. This is how GW saw the orks, that they can only outgun at close range, and to show this the special heavy guns were added.
The point is to not make them better in this scenario as they don't need it, they need to be better from a slightly longer range more. With 6 heavy guns on the side this would go up to 14.3 eq firepower at close range, enough that it's a slap to the face of any IN/Chaos ship, especially considering they cost about 20% less than them.
but they can swap crews so that you have good LD on the important ships. that works just fine imo.
The Ravager is downright fantastic for its points. It has an excellent 3.5 torps average, plus have the firepower of a Sword on top of that! I'd even go as far as to say the Ravager is undercosted.Firepower of a sword? it has 2. It's not undercosted as it is less defensible, and maneuverable, it's a lot bigger of a deal for escorts than one would think.
The Savage and Onslaught are effectively identical to each other, but the Savage is faster (as it needs to be), and has greater firepower in exchange for shorter range.
Neither is even nearly worth the 40pts of the Ravager.
I'd say a price drop to 30pts for the Onslaught (It's slower that a sword, with fewer turrets, less manouevrable and less average firepower, but more damage potential)
35 for the Savage. It needs slightly less help than the Onslaught.
If you're firing with the range shift bonus for being within 15cm then you can't hit anything beyond 15cm.
The Ravager is downright fantastic for its points. It has an excellent 3.5 torps average, plus HALF the firepower of a Sword on top of that! I'd even go as far as to say the Ravager is undercosted.Firepower of a sword? it has 2. It's not undercosted as it is less defensible, and maneuverable, it's a lot bigger of a deal for escorts than one would think.
Sorry, Typo. Meant half.QuoteThe Savage and Onslaught are effectively identical to each other, but the Savage is faster (as it needs to be), and has greater firepower in exchange for shorter range.
Neither is even nearly worth the 40pts of the Ravager.
Good god yes.QuoteI'd say a price drop to 30pts for the Onslaught (It's slower that a sword, with fewer turrets, less manouevrable and less average firepower, but more damage potential)
35 for the Savage. It needs slightly less help than the Onslaught.
The Onslaught is still not good at 30 points by itself. It still has 45' turns, -5cm speed, 1 turret (making it more than twice as susecptible to ordinance) and .5 less firepower. A bit much for 5 points. So with an addition of 1 firepower at 30points it should be fine.
One thing forgotten is that these escorts can't turn like anyone elses can, and they can only fire forward. Another disadvantage is that they usually have to CTNH to keep fireing after the first pass, this decreases their firepower and usually isn't even enough to get enemies in their prow arc.
Whilst I agree lack of 90' is a big deal, surely it's possible to fall in with the enemy fleet rather than power past it, in order to keep the prow weapons to bear?
The Savage I could see at 35 points with Soopa Engines. However it is very, very difficult to use weapons that are 15cm range. Usually when I play with them they only fire once or twice. As well 1heavy gun=~2/3 regular gun, however the ship does get a boost in speed, so this is closer to equal as it is more likely to get in range.
But not that much more likely. This ship should cost just as much as a Onslaught just the way that it is.
Sorry RC? You said Onslaught has more damage potential? The current FAQ 2010 has it as d6 firepower, which is 3.5, .5 less than the sword. So were you thinking of my version which has d6+1?
I did say it had less average firepower, but it does too have more damage potential. Six Onslaughts have a potential firepower 36, compared to a Sword's 24. I'm not saying it happens often, but much like the NC the potential is there.
But turning around is a really big deal for escorts, especially when you have F only weapons. Makes them very unappealing.
Like I said the Ravager is fine how it is, always was a perfect escort. Basically played like a shotgun that you never reloaded. I think in all my games I've maybe successfully reloaded a squadron of Ravagers like 4-5 times. They play perfectly by fluff, putting one of them in a squadron of Onslaughts and using it for extra damage at the last second.
And the fact is that we're trying to make escorts as appealing as possible. It was one of the goals of this project, as escorts are notoriously underpowered. Ravagers are the most taken escort ever in any fleet (so yes, they could be underpriced), and that is out of any.....
The Savage.... you have to play with them to really understand, after their first pass they are worse off than onslaughts, as by the time they turn they won't even be able to fire at half strength usually, as the enemy will be long gone.
Remember that it takes two turns before they can shoot anything at their opponents, which when compared to a cruiser, this is bad, as the cruiser could still fire something. Which is why most tacticas say don't take escorts.
| X | Advantages | disadvantages |
| Savage | 1.4fp at close range | less turns, F only weapons, less than half resistance to ordinance, Ork LD, Worse armor on off sides, Less range/no weapons strength at similar ranges to Sword |
| Number of Dice | Closing | Moving Away | Abeam | Average |
| Guns Vs Cap (1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Guns Vs Escort (1) | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| HGuns Vs Cap (1) | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| HGuns Vs Escort (1) | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Guns Vs Cap (2) | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
| Guns Vs Escort (2) | 3 | 3 | 5 | |
| HGuns vs Cap (2) | 3 | 3 | 5 | |
| HGuns vs Escort (2) | 3 | 5 | 8 | |
| Guns vs Cap (3) | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Guns vs Escort (3) | 4 | 5 | 8 | |
| Hguns vs Cap (3) | 4 | 5 | 8 | |
| Hguns vs Escort (3) | 5 | 8 | 13 | |
| Guns vs Cap (4) | 4 | 5 | 7 | |
| Guns vs Escort (4) | 5 | 7 | 10 | |
| HGuns vs Cap (4) | 5 | 7 | 10 | |
| HGuns vs Escort (4) | 7 | 10 | 18 | |
| Guns vs Cap (5) | 5 | 7 | 9 | |
| Guns vs Escort (5) | 7 | 9 | 13 | |
| Hguns vs Cap (5) | 7 | 9 | 13 | |
| Hguns vs Escort (5) | 9 | 13 | 23 | |
| Guns vs Cap (6) | 7 | 8 | 11 | |
| Guns vs Escort (6) | 8 | 11 | 16 | |
| HGuns vs Cap (6) | 8 | 11 | 16 | |
| HGuns vs Escort (6) | 11 | 16 | 28 | |
| Guns vs Cap (7) | 8 | 10 | 13 | |
| Guns vs Escort (7) | 10 | 13 | 19 | |
| Hguns vs Cap (7) | 10 | 13 | 19 | |
| Hguns vs Escort (7) | 13 | 19 | 33 |
Havn't had this question answered yet. What exactly is the kind of reroll a warlord provides?
| 100m | 300m | 500m | 1km | 3km | 5km | 10km | 30km | 50km | 100km | 200km | 300km | 500km | 900km |
| 25,000,000 | 4,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 750,000 | 200,000 | 90,000 | 10,000 | 1100 | 600 | 200 | 30 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
So does that confirm that current and normal ork rerolls are ship/squadron only?
The lite kroozer is meh, I don't see the purpose for it in the fleet, at all. Its not even strong on the front arc.
I think the warlord concept of controlling multiple squadrons and ships needs to go, too confusing. Either make it one ship/squadron like a chaos lord, or make them all proper fleet rerolls.
And I agree the Waaagh! fleet list needs a lower SR than the more crafty cyclops cluster orks, their modus operandi is completely different.
I say SR1, because if any fleet would have that, itd be Waaagh! orks ;)