Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Phthisis on January 13, 2011, 02:01:49 AM
-
Given the ease with which most escorts are dispatched by attack craft, do escorts have a role to play in BFG? I keep thinking that when given a proper fighter screen escorts can add a strategic element not given by attack craft. I see very few lists posted where there are any escorts, and where they are present they appear in small numbers. What is the current thinking?
-
That I like escorts over ordnance but never leave without both unless it is my Craftworld Eldar fleet since it is fluffy not to have escorts in your list. :)
Throwing bombers at escorts with massed turrets can be a waste.
Assault boats now kill escorts on a 4+.
-
In the end, using ordnance against escorts is not nearly as efficient as it used to be. bombers only strike ONE target, and many escorts have 2 turrets. Assault boats are far less effective, but effective none the less.
The biggest advantage to escorts, if you look really closely, is clear. Huge firepower-to-points ratio, and they are NOT easy to destroy (though each killed does reduce the strength of the squadron)
-
I am currently working on an article for warp rift about this issue, so I will post a few of my ideas up here later.
-
I don't think AC vs Escorts need any more of a revision following the massed turrets and Assault Boats causing a critical hit on a 4+ revisions.
I would much prefer a change to the way bombers work against battleships (Vastly reduced immunity), and a change to fighters to make them worth having as escorts in a wave (including for assault boats).
-
Maybe I'm just uninformed about the new rules. I saw in the rulebook where an escort can BFI against hit & run attacks, but nothing about assault boats only killing escorts on 4+. Where is this rule located? I also havent seen the stuff about escorts with 2 turrets.
Also, how does escorts in b2b work out with blast markers for shield hits? Can one marker take down multiple shields? Is that the downside of b2b?
-
Hi,
check here for the FAQ2010 (has been sent to GW by the rule committee):
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
Also contains other drafts.
You'll find it most interesting.
Escorts with 2 turrets? Ehm... Sword Class, Firestorm, etc etc etc. plain old rulebook.
-
From off the top of my head..
Firestorms
Swords
Idolators
Castellans
Dhows
Gladius
Eldar don't have to worry about ordnance at all really..
Orks are orks, don't be a git.
Nids get spores, which also count as shields..
Necrons don't need huge turrets..
-
Agreed. In my necron rules, necrons all have one less turret.
-
Obviously I'm dealing with people who know their stuff. However after reading the FAQ, I believe my question is still relevant despite the change in premise. Please don't get me wrong. I want to take escorts. I'm not trying to denegrate them or the ruleset. I am just trying to find a role for them to play in my fleet. I play a Chaos Marine fleet to go along with my 40k army in campaign and I get good mileage out of my attack craft. I see that attack craft is vital for my fleet's survival. So, considering how easy it is to drop an escort squadron compared to a cruiser, what would they add to my fleet?
-
It's not actually so easy to drop an escort squadron.
For 180pts you can get a cruiser or 5 Swords plus change. It takes 10hits to destroy a cruiser in one turn, and 10 hits to destroy the escorts in one turn. The Escorts are more resilient vs weapon batteries, so it's actually much harder to wipe out an escort squadron in one turn than it is to destroy a cruiser (assault boats excepted).
The advantage you get from escorts is that they bring a high level of focusable firepower on a very fast and manoeuvrable platform. A squadron of 5 swords have a broadside of firepower 20, much more than a Lunar.
Where the escorts are weaker is that they suffer attrition far more easily. 5 Swords lose 1/5th of their firepower every 2 hits, whilst a cruiser loses 1/2 after 6. They also have less total firepower.
-
5 swords vs one lunar
175pts vs 180pts
20 firepower LFR vs 6 wb + 2 L LR, 6 prow torps
Plus the swords can manouvre to gain the best angle, hopefully.
I'd personally argue that the swords firepower was equal to the lunars, if not better, in certain situations, ie, against Eldar. But they do suffer from attrition...
-
The main issue with Escorts has always been attrition. Until the new FAQ came into play, they died on a 2+ to assault boats which defeated their resilience to weapons fire rather handily especially considering you could send the AB off to harass the escorts and shoot at more favorable targets. IMO that made escorts rather hit or miss and as an IN player light cruisers, especially the dauntless, could fill the role of fast reaction much more effectively than escorts since AB couldn't kill them outright and they are only slightly more expensive than a comparably priced escort squadron yet have slightly more hits and less attrition under fire. I think the changes to killing escorts on a 4+ are good and make escorts much more useful, but I'm still undecided as to if it is enough to pull more escorts into my lists.
-
I'm not convinced that escorts are resiliant compared to cruisers. They do get a right shift against weapons batteries but they get no benefit against any other weapon and are at a significant disadvantage against assault boats. Also they hemmorage VPs. A crippled cruiser only gives up the same VPs as a single escort, but the same amount of hits kills 3 escorts. Seems like you would need to use cruisers to protect their own escorts?
It seems to me that its an escort's manoverability, not its speed or firepower, that is their greatest asset. They can be turned to engage enemy ships engaging from the rear immediately, whereas it would take a cruiser two. That's handy on defense. But on offence they don't have the resiliance to go toe-to-toe against cruisers in formation.
Im wondering if they would work in a different capacity. Perhaps I can take squadrons of 3 and place them in b2b with my capital ships. They can add their firepower when engaged and everyone lends turret support. This can free up some squadrons from fighter CAP so they can go on offense. Does that sound rediculous?
-
Compared to cruisers escorts ARE more resilient in every respect EXCEPT for assault boats. That single weakness to AB is what diminishes them considerably in my mind, though the jury is out with the change to killing on a 4+ how much more attractive they will be. Why is this so? Take the lunar, 2 shields and 8 hits for 180 points. Now take 5 swords, 5 shields and 5 hits for 175 points. Ignoring firepower for the moment to look at how they each hold up, a lunar can take 6 hits before it is crippled (2 shields and 4 hull). The escort squadron can also take 6 hits before it's counted as crippled (3 shields and 3 hull). Now, there are a variety of means to get those hits in, but in both cases it'll take around 12 lances to net the 6 hits needed to cripple either one which, given the average Chaos fleet mounts between 10 and 20 lances, it a fairly considerable firepower investment even when we leave BFI out of it. However, the equation changes when we hit WB because of two things. First, escorts take considerably fewer dice for the same amount of batter strength as capital ships. Second, escorts can easily position themselves abeam with their ability to turn without moving and their 90` turns further reducing number of dice rolled. What this means is that you have to allocate a considerable amount more firepower eliminate or cripple an escort squadron or allocate lances which would be better served against capital ships.
Now, about going toe to toe with a cruiser formation. All they need to do is time things to AAF behind the cruisers and they can then lock on while staying in the rear arc and only presenting an abeam aspect to return fire. How long do you think a lunar can stand up to the FP20 of those 5 swords when it's only getting 2 battery dice and 2 lance dice in return?
Of course this all falls apart once AB hit the table, but the point is Escorts can be extremely difficult to kill. I've had a full squadron of 6 swords cripple an undamaged, braced slaughter in a single pass and then take the firepower of the entire fleet and coming out with three ships intact. Use them smartly and they will annoy the tar out of enemy ships and easily pick of damaged ones. Put them in the line and charge in and you will see them die quickly. Since there's always a strong possibility of facing escorts you need to either have lots of AB (not viable with IN) to put them on the defensive, escorts of your own to intercept anything that tries to get behind you, or light cruisers that can maneuver quick enough to threaten enemy escorts. I personally prefer the last option, but, if you take escorts, squadrons of three or five are an effective way to go.
-
I had three Gladii crippling a Slaughter in one shot. Lucky shot, but it did the job :)
I had three Iconoclasts on lock on crippling an Emperor with 3 shields down.
-
Compared to cruisers escorts ARE more resilient in every respect EXCEPT for assault boats.
No they are not.
People simply forget how shields work. Escorts CAN be more resilent if there are huge amounts of firepower involved (like the mentioned 10 hits around), but under the regular circumstances (so meaning something between 2 and 4 hits a round) they are usually LESS resilient.
Simply use the 5 swords vs. Lunar example
If both take 2 hits a round:
Lunar 0 damaged
swords crippled after 3 rounds, all gone after 5 rounds ->Lunar more resilent
If both take 3 hits a round
Lunar crippled after 4 rounds, gone after 8
swords crippled after 3 rounds, all gone after 5 rounds ->Lunar more resilent
4 hits
Lunar: crippled after 2, gone after 4
swords: crippeld after 2, gone after 3 rounds -> Lunar more resilent
5 hits
Lunar: crippled after 2, gone after 3
swords: crippeld after 2, gone after 3 rounds -> draw
6 hits
Lunar: crippled after 1, gone after 2
swords: crippeld after 1, gone after 2 rounds -> draw
7 hits
Lunar: crippled after 1, gone after 2
swords: crippeld after 1, gone after 2 rounds -> draw
8 hits
Lunar: crippled after 1, gone after 2
swords: crippeld after 1, gone after 2 rounds -> draw
And so on...
For simplicity I ignored the right shift on gunnery table as well as the chance to get crits, as it is more than even out by the vulnerability to assault boats
or allocate lances which would be better served against capital ships.
Nonnense. There is no reason NOT to use Lances against Escorts. The described mechanism right shift for being an escort as well as an addiditional right shift for being abeam makes lances the prefered weapon.
Only exceptions are Escorts with 4+ Armor like cobras. But against everything with 5+ or 6+ there is absolutly no reason to not to use lances against escorts. At all they are the best choice if no assault boats are avaible.
All they need to do is time things to AAF behind the cruisers and they can then lock on while staying in the rear arc and only presenting an abeam aspect to return fire. How long do you think a lunar can stand up to the FP20 of those 5 swords when it's only getting 2 battery dice and 2 lance dice in return?
Pure theoryhammer. Or in this case theorygothic. Pracitcal it should be hard enought to get behind the fleet formation if the enemy knows what he does...
In general: after the FAQ escorts aren't that bad.
Corsair Eldar and Tyranids have exellent ones.
In Orkfleets they are also the better part of the fleet list.
Chaos Escorts aren't THAT bad - the only problem is that their cruisers are insanly cheap, this makes a hard competition.
Even Imps have the Cobra, it's only the Frestorm that terribly sucks.
All in all there is no problem with escorts. There are just some wich are seriously wrong priced.
-
People simply forget how shields work. Escorts CAN be more resilent if there are huge amounts of firepower involved (like the mentioned 10 hits around), but under the regular circumstances (so meaning something between 2 and 4 hits a round) they are usually LESS resilient.
I was referencing escorts ability to reliably dictate the facing presented when they are being shot at and the reduced dice thrown compared to a cruiser at the same facing and firepower. Those combine to make them more resilient against incoming fire. Your calculations don't account for the variance in the amount of incoming fire needed to achieve the hits and just assumes the same hits are taken by both. In a vacuum where everyone take the same hits regardless of available firepower then yes, you can say cruisers are more resilient.
An escort abeam takes FP28 to achieve two hits and will have the same result all the way up to FP32, while a cruiser abeam only requires FP16 for the same thing up to FP18. That's a sizable difference in firepower for the same result. This assumes no Lock On SO and a distance of 30cm.
Pure theoryhammer. Or in this case theorygothic. Pracitcal it should be hard enought to get behind the fleet formation if the enemy knows what he does...
Ah, so easy to chuck out the theoryhammer excuse or that "if your opponent knows what he does". This is based on experience against multiple opponents and using them against multiple opponents not theoryhammer. It's what I've seen happen. 25cm and 90` turns with no need to move first makes it pretty easy to get where you want while the rest of your fleet hammers them and if you have nothing to reach back there the escorts will take your ship down.
-
This is based on experience against multiple opponents and using them against multiple
Than you must play only against unskilled opponents if they can't handle some escorts with a gunline. ;D ::)
For example an ideal IN has three "rows": Crusiers first, Battlecruisers second and Emperors (jey, I prefer larger games) third. the fleet stays in tight Formtation, not more than 30 from the first to the last ship, so that their firing ranges overlap. So if your squadron trys to "slip trought" it'll get the fire of roughly the halv fleet. of course you can go the "long way" around the flanks, but than the ABoats (this is the reason the emperor is made for..) get them.
Only situation when this kind of tactic makes any sense if you manage to to bring the whole fleet at once into range: in this case you have a chance that the escorts are ignored in favor of more dangerous targets. But even than there is a good chance that the opponent kills the escorts, as it is the best way to reduce the enemys firepower. But at least they protected some cruisers by their death
I was referencing escorts ability to reliably dictate the facing presented when they are being shot at and the reduced dice thrown compared to a cruiser at the same facing and firepower
Yes it is true, Escorts have a greater firepower - at least the good ones. But this is not always the cause.
for example a carnage has a S16 Broadsinde on his "strong" and S10 on his "weak" sinde, everything on 45cm or more. 6 Ionoclasts have just a S18@30 cm Broadside - you don't have a real advantage in this case (and a reason why no healthy chaos player uses ionoclast...)
1. The example Lunar vs. sword isn't really representative, as the Lunar is a good part overpriced and not well suited for such 1 on 1 battles. The strenght of a Lunar lies in a fleet concep: opening formations with torpedos an then go through to have enemys in every angle.
2. "Firepower" is at all not only the sheer amount of fire, it is also the ability how long i an use it. Lets stick at the example Lunar (I asume 1 Lance=3 FP) vs. 5 Swords over a duration of 5 turns under fire. I asume that the Lunar can bring only 1 broadsinde (FP12) to bear. The Player alwas shoots first (means: the first shoot is always undamaged)
If hit by 0 or 1 point of damage every round:
Lunar: 60 Escorts: 100 -> clear advantage escorts. (Carnage: 80)
2 hits per round
Lunar 60 Escorts: 60 ->draw (Carnage: 80)
3 hits per round
Lunar: 54 Escorts: 60 ->slight advantage Escorts (Carnage: 72)
4 hits per round
Lunar: 36 Escorts: 36 draw (Carnage: 48)
5 hits
Lunar: 30 Escort: 36: advantage Escort (Carnage: 40)
6 hits per round
Lunar 18 Escorts: 28: advantage Escort (Carnage: 24)
You see: Your whole argument is simpley based on the most negative setup: a Lunar sucks at 1 on 1 broadside battles. Simply by exchanceing the Lunar for a carnage the whle point of "superior Firepower is gine)
3. In general Escorts have only 30cm weapons (Idolators being the example), which means that in most cases the enemy has the first round of shooting - reduces the firepower even more.
I was referencing escorts ability to reliably dictate the facing presented when they are being shot at and the reduced dice thrown compared to a cruiser at the same facing and firepower. Those combine to make them more resilient against incoming fire.
This is surly true, but there is a simple solution: don't use batterys against escorts if you are in such a situation.
There is a reason why you don't use lances against Eldar and also there is a reason why you don't shoot with batterys at escorts which are longside (Except it has only 4+ armor and/or I'm under 15 cm or such things...). Use ABoats. Use Lances. If they stick together for massed turrets use a torpedo salvo or a Nova canon. And only if these options fail use Batteries.
The game is fleet based. If you compare ships only on individual level and 1:1 situations it should be impssosible for an IN to ever win a game!
makes it pretty easy to get where you want while the rest of your fleet hammers them and if you have nothing to reach back there the escorts will take your ship down.
Sorry, but where on earth is the "advantage" in holding something back until the fleet has "hammered" the enemy? It should be usually better to simply invest these points in an additional cruiser, or "a bigger hammer" if you want call it so.
-
I can see how escorts are more resilient against batteries than cruisers. And the new rules for escorts and assault boats do make them more survivable. Im going to include a squadron in my fleet to cover my rear and add some lances. However, I still see a lot of vulnerabilities that cruisers don't have. Lances will still be a bit more effective against escorts. Assult boats aren't as effective but now ork fightabommers will wipe them out with ease. And they are still very vulnerable to eldar ordinance.
On the other hand, attack craft can handle anything in big enough waves now with the turret suppression rules. You can get lucky and cripple a bb with an escort squadron, but you can pretty reliably brick a bb with a large assault boat wave. If it came down to it, wouldnt it be better to buy another carrier over a squadron of escorts?
-
but than the ABoats
And this was what I mentioned in my very first post. Aboats tend to trump escorts though it remains to be seen how helpful the 4+ change will be at making ab less of a hard counter to escorts.
You see: Your whole argument is simpley based on the most negative setup: a Lunar sucks at 1 on 1 broadside battles. Simply by exchanceing the Lunar for a carnage the whle point of "superior Firepower is gine)
Incorrect, this was about as far from my argument as you could possibly get. Re-read my post, I'm talking about how much firepower (as in battery strength on the gunnery table) is necessary to ensure hits being far greater against escorts than against cruisers. My argument has NOTHING to do with the damage output of either the escorts or the cruiser.
If it came down to it, wouldnt it be better to buy another carrier over a squadron of escorts?
Unfortunately, that would probably be the case. Especially if you are playing Chaos. As IN you could also look into light cruisers to fill the same role.
-
In Chaos the escorts are basically filler when you can not purchase capital ships. There are situations where you will want the manueverability and speed of the escorts but I don't miss that very often.
Our other escorts are just too expensive to be viable as they simply don't have the fire power to be worth the points. Chaos does not need the speed and manueverability like IN does.
Bottomline if the maximum I can take is a Slaughter then the escorts can go back in the cupboard.
-
Chaos can need Infidels as they have a cheap torp asset. Is an unique asset to any Chaos fleet.
@Eldanesh:
In Orkfleets they are also the better part of the fleet list.
Wrong. The Ork fleet problem is the garbage that is escorts. The winning Ork fleets tend to be Terror heavy.
-
3 Infidels I can agree but that's just fill out points. If you had 200 points and you needed anti torp, would you take a Devastation or 5 Infidels? In most situations the versatility of the Devastation would out class the mobility and torpedoes of the Infidels.
-
Hey,
I'd take the Infidels. ;)
My renegade fleet:
Desolator
Styx
2x Carnage
1x Slaughter
6x Infidel
3x Iconoclast
-
My problem with escorts is that they get worn down gradually, rather than in big leaps.
By this I mean - 2 hits on an escort squadron (incl shields) of 5 reduces its effectiveness by 20%. The next round, 2 hits takes away 25% of their firepower.
2 hits per round on a cruiser = nothing. You need at least 3 hits per round to do anything against cruisers, but 3 hits per round against escorts rapidly dwindles their strength.
-
This post isn't about what the most game-winning plan for escorts is, it's about what the role of escorts should be.
I think the key question here is intended fleet composition. I've noticed that newbies tend to have fleet lists that look like pyramids: lots of escorts, much fewer cruisers and one battleship. But that misses the age of sail inspiration that's behind BFG, IMO. In those fleets, you have mostly ships of the line, with a few frigates for special duties and (maybe) a flagship to put the admiral on.
At least for Imperials, SM or Chaos, I am resistant to changes which make escorts into line-of-battle units. To me, they belong in niche plays: covering the flanks, exploiting opportunities, screening the fleet.