Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Zhukov on February 23, 2011, 02:02:47 AM
-
So how do you model the alternate Murder cruiser now that we have the Inferno?
-Zhukov
-
Most people do murders by cutting off a little of the underside plastic at the prow and putting a turret there.
Or you could do something similar to how people note the difference between carnages and murders. By cutting off the antennae.
-
cut off the front mast and mount a frakkin lance there.
btw i just bought a chaos fleet and i was wondering why a slaughter is modeled by double lance decks even though its way more wb heavy. wtf
-
Hmm. That sucks honestly. I always imagined the alternate Murder model as EXACTLY what the Inferno build is. Since it has 2 lances per side, only having one lance turret on the prow or dorsal mounting blows.
btw i just bought a chaos fleet and i was wondering why a slaughter is modeled by double lance decks even though its way more wb heavy. wtf
Not sure what you mean.... The Slaughter uses the WB/Lance 'combo' bits for it's weapons slots. Can you upload a pic of what you're looking at?
-Zhukov
-
i'm looking at the side profile of the slaughterer in the ships of the gothic sector pdf. it's got 2 lance decks.
-
Well, yeah then. It's right. It has two lances on each side so you obviously need bits to have two lance turrets on each side. The combo bit (which is also on the Conqueror) is different than what I consider is the "lance deck" which I equate to the Acheron. Would you agree?
-Zhukov
-
i'm looking at the side profile of the slaughterer in the ships of the gothic sector pdf. it's got 2 lance decks.
You are completely correct, it is shown with 2 lance decks. There have been a few anomalies in the way Chaos ships have been pictured compared with their stats. The Planet Killers stats for example, don't really line up with the model. But this is a really unique ship overall and since it shares virtually no common components with other ships it can be hand waived away. However, the Desolator, Despoiler, Acheron, Devastation and Slaughter all cause some problems.
The Despoiler is most obvious in its crapness and is oft complained about. A little strange then that no less than 3 further ships were based upon it, with varying degrees of success in fixing its crapness (seriously, the fuckin profile should have been changed and further Despoiler based ships should have used that profile. Hell, they should have been based on a fixed profile even if the Despoiler was never officially changed ... retarded).
The other incongruities however are a little less clear cut. The Desolator and Acheron both represent lances by plugging turrets directly into the hull whereas the Devastation uses the lance deck provided on the sprue. The Slaughter uses 2 of these lance decks to represent 8WB and 2 lances. So one of these pictures is incorrect. The reasoning used by some is that the little guns on the lance decks represent WBs (4@30cm in fact) and the big turret represents 1 lance (at 30cm) so that 2 of these decks combined gives a Slaughters armament. Therefore it is correctly pictured. However, I don't know why this rationalisation was ever brought in since it still means that there is an incorrectly pictured ship; the Dev. Presumably the Dev should then have turrets plugged into the hull to represent lances, like the Acheron and Desolator.
My argument is that the Dev is pictured correctly and the Slaughter should replace one lance deck with one WB deck. The lances of the Acheron and Desolator being plugged straight into the hull merely represent weak long ranged lances. In the flawed ships thread the Dev comes down to 45cm range and so fits in line with this idea.
So, what are the benefits of presuming the Slaughter is the ship pictured incorrectly? I'll list them:
- Better looking models. WB+lance deck Slaughter looks much better than 2 x lance deck Slaughter. Also, the Dev looks really stupid with lances plugged in to the hull, as would the "Inferno" or Murder variant.
- Logical consistency of the models. It seems unlikely that the Chaos cruisers were shipped with a launch bay, a WB deck and a "combi-deck" whereas the IN have LB, WB and lance deck.
- Greater representative versatility. Allows the WB deck piece to represent 8WB@30cm on top of the 6@45cm & 4@60cm it currently represents. Also allows the lance deck to represent 2L at 30cm as well as at 45cm (fixed Dev).
- Greater model flexibility. Gives us the option to create an all lance Chaos cruiser that does not look like an Acheron. This is good, given the Acheron is fairly unique (in profile at least). Similarly it allows mixed weapon BBs. Can you imagine a Chaos BB with, say, 1 LB, 1 WB and 1 lance each side if the lances had to be plugged into the hull to represent lances? FUGLY.
On the other hand, a "combi-deck" gives little option. It always represents 4WB+1L@30cm. Soooo, it just allows a BB to have 12WB+3L@30cm. Yay. If you treat it as a lance deck then the same BB could have 6L at 30-45cm range. If you gave it all WB decks it could have 12@60cm, 18@45cm or 24@30cm! If you mixed it up you could have 8WB@30cm, 2L@45cm and 2AC, for example. Or any combination. You could play with WB range/strength, etc. In short, it is more versatile and looks better.
Up until now it has been player choice which to do. If you're really short on WB pieces then you could do the "combi-deck" thing for your Slaughters. If you hated that idea you could do them properly. Now, with the Conqueror, Nate has managed to enshrine the crap "combi-deck" as official. What's more, he managed to do it while introducing 5 new ships, all of which are shit in one way or another. Bin that entire document. It's a fuckin travesty.
-
Wow Sig! To put it simply, I completely disagree with you on several points :D
Presumably the Dev should then have turrets plugged into the hull to represent lances, like the Acheron and Desolator.
That is exactly it. Everything makes sense when you fix the dang Dev picture.
On several of the points you mention later, I would bring these counterpoints:
- The Acheron and Desolater don't necessarily have "weak lances". It may be the other aspects of the profile. The Acheron get's three turrets and the Desolator get's 25cm speed. These, for me, is the reason why the lance armament on each of these are "weaker" compared to the models.
- I love the Slaughter as illustrated.
- Why would it be 'illogical' to have the Chaos get a "combo-deck"? The Chaos get four options of broadsides (Launch Bay, Weapons Battery, Combo-Deck, and Lances directly into the hull) whereas the Imperial only have three for the simple reason they can't apply anything to the hull. Chaos are supposed to have bigger gun fleets anyway so why not have the combo-deck?
- "Greater Representative Ability". Your forgot the 5 WB @ 45cm for the WB bit when it's used on the Murder or Hades. These WB strengths you list wouldn't change if you have a "combo-deck" in existence.
- The Chaos don't need a Gothic like cruiser. It can easily be done by just removing the dorsal turrets of the Acheron. But honestly, a Chaos BB with 2 "combo-decks" and the third slot having either a Launch Bay or 2 Lance turret's plugged into the hull would be fine with me.
- Combo-Decks give PLENTY of options. It doesn't HAVE to be restricted to 30cm range. We have just used it as such so far (the Conqueror and Slaughter would be overpowering with additional range as written). You can increase the range of the weapons and have alternate strength's depending on the class of ship (BB, GC, HC, etc).
- Powers of Chaos is exactly what Chaos needed (the BB's were optional, though really nice stat lines). I have a problem with Bakka seemingly being created due to the existence of the PoC document. It seems we may go down the line of WH40K, where every few years you upgrade a fleet with ships and special rules just to make it competable. I imagine the Necrons, Corsair and Craftworld Eldar, and Tyranids will get the next update.
-Zhukov
-
Wow Sig! To put it simply, I completely disagree with you on several points :D
Presumably the Dev should then have turrets plugged into the hull to represent lances, like the Acheron and Desolator.
That is exactly it. Everything makes sense when you fix the dang Dev picture.
No, it doesn't. Everything makes sense when you fix that "dang" Slaughter picture. The Acheron/Desolator disparity is not fixed by changing the Dev. The absurdity of the modellers giving us a "combi-deck" is not fixed. The ugliness of the models is not fixed.
On several of the points you mention later, I would bring these counterpoints:
- The Acheron and Desolater don't necessarily have "weak lances". It may be the other aspects of the profile. The Acheron get's three turrets and the Desolator get's 25cm speed. These, for me, is the reason why the lance armament on each of these are "weaker" compared to the models.
Of course they have weak lances. Of course they have reasons to be weak, but they are weak. The Desolator and the Acheron both have weak long ranged lances. In the case of the Desolator you could say that it's due to the speed. In the case of the Acheron you could say that it's a trade-off to get the range (though the dorsal lance range should be upgraded to make that case make sense, as well as the Dev fixed to come down to 45cm). However, the common theme here is that each of these ships have their lances plugged straight into the hull. If you do that with all lances then you erase this theme. This is fine. However, if you make every other lance armed vessel use the lance deck instead of plugging into the hull then this theme comes to the fore in explaining why some ships have one type of lance deck and others have another. So this theme allows the item in question to function as a lance deck. Therefore no incongruity to the Dev using it as a lance deck. Similarly no incongruity if the Slaughter used it as a lance deck and swapped one set out for WB decks. Along with some profile changes (ie, Despoiler stats to match model, Dev lance range to come down) then the entire Chaos fleet would be congruous. Ahhhh. Feels good. With combi-fuckin-decks incongruity abounds.
- I love the Slaughter as illustrated.
Well that's a bit retarded of you but it does mean that if an all lance cruiser comes out you'll like the look of those.
- Why would it be 'illogical' to have the Chaos get a "combo-deck"? The Chaos get four options of broadsides (Launch Bay, Weapons Battery, Combo-Deck, and Lances directly into the hull) whereas the Imperial only have three for the simple reason they can't apply anything to the hull. Chaos are supposed to have bigger gun fleets anyway so why not have the combo-deck?
What can you do with a combi-deck that you can't with separate decks combined? What is the point of them? Why give them to us at all? Why not just have the Slaughter with a WB deck and some lances plugged directly into the hull? The IN were given 3 hardpoints: LB, WB and lance. Chaos were given 3 hardpoints: LB, WB and ...? Why not make a half WB half Lance deck for the IN?
If the picture of the Slaughter was 1 WB deck and 1 lance deck there'd never have been confusion about combi-decks or any of this shit. In fact, it was assumed to be wrong for a long time and then some bright spark (read retard) came up with the idea of a combi-deck so that the picture didn't have to be wrong. This is so retarded because it would then mean the Dev would be pictured wrong, defeating the purpose of coming up with a combi-deck rationale in the first place. So either way there is a picture wrong, but for some reason people invented a combi-deck to resolve the issue. Occam's razor you morons!
- "Greater Representative Ability". Your forgot the 5 WB @ 45cm for the WB bit when it's used on the Murder or Hades. These WB strengths you list wouldn't change if you have a "combo-deck" in existence.
Actually 4WB@45cm, since this would be added to a normal 6WB@45cm. But with the combi-deck there is no 8WB@30cm.
- The Chaos don't need a Gothic like cruiser. It can easily be done by just removing the dorsal turrets of the Acheron. But honestly, a Chaos BB with 2 "combo-decks" and the third slot having either a Launch Bay or 2 Lance turret's plugged into the hull would be fine with me.
Er, if Chaos don't need a Gothic type cruiser why were they given the Executor? Also, how can it "easily be done" by removing the dorsal lances of an Acheron? Are you saying that you just plug the turrets into the hull and there you have your lance cruiser? Why then would this lance cruiser have 4 lances and the Acheron, identical but for extra weaponry on the spine, have only 2?
Why would you put 2 combi-decks and, say a launch bay onto a BB to represent WBs, lances and AC when you could just put 1 of each bay on? What if you had, say, 2 launch bays and lances? You'd plug some turrets into the hull for the lances and use the LBs for the other slots? You know how ugly that would be? It'd be as ugly as the Dev with a launch bay and turrets plugged into the hull, ie, FUCKING ugly.
By FAR the simplest thing to do to fix ALL problems would be to just cut and paste a WB deck over one of the Slaughters lance decks. Done. All solved. Now, I know that the HA don't want to do this because there are a lot of people who have made their Slaughters as pictured, despite it being silly and not looking as good as a proper Slaughter. So fine, leave it player option. But why penalise the people who constructed them properly by making the stupid combi-deck official? There'll be just as many people who'd have to alter their Slaughters and Devastations. If they were willing to make this sort of call then they should've simply done the cut & paste to fix the Slaughter's picture when the rulebook went online.
- Combo-Decks give PLENTY of options. It doesn't HAVE to be restricted to 30cm range. We have just used it as such so far (the Conqueror and Slaughter would be overpowering with additional range as written). You can increase the range of the weapons and have alternate strength's depending on the class of ship (BB, GC, HC, etc).
The combi-deck adds nothing to the game. Fuck it off. If YOU want to play ugly models, then fine. Don't try to enforce the fuckin thing though.
- Powers of Chaos is exactly what Chaos needed (the BB's were optional, though really nice stat lines). I have a problem with Bakka seemingly being created due to the existence of the PoC document. It seems we may go down the line of WH40K, where every few years you upgrade a fleet with ships and special rules just to make it competable. I imagine the Necrons, Corsair and Craftworld Eldar, and Tyranids will get the next update.
This is exactly what Chaos DOESN'T need. Another bunch of confused model/stat ships. There isn't a single ship in that piece of shit document that should see the light of day. The closest is the Slaanesh BB, but then Nate had to absolutely fuck it by giving it 3 launch bays per side from ONE hardpoint. So it does twice as good as the Styx. Hell, if he's going to give us that sort of ratio the screw the guns I'll take all launch bays please and have an 18 AC carrier! Fuckin retarded.
Seriously, the PoC is a complete PoS.
-
I officially propose BFG:R fixes the slaughter image.
-
Coming in late and not reading it all, but by combi-deck do you mean the lil guns with the lance on top?
-
Yes, he does.
-
Would you like me to fix all the images?
-
Which other ones are wrong?
-
See sig's post.
-
I still only see the Slaughter as needing an image change, though I can't remember what we've done with the powers of Chaos list if anything.
-
Well anyway, take my last posts with a grain of salt. I just really don't like combi-decks. Though the PoC is a PoS. There's no getting around that.
-
Purely aesthetic?
-
Well anyway, take my last posts with a grain of salt. I just really don't like combi-decks. Though the PoC is a PoS. There's no getting around that.
Damn dude why didn't you just say that and save everyone a lot of time instead of mudslinging me for thinking the Slaughter, as pictured, looks good? Should I still attempt to break that post down and continue the debate?
In regards to the PoC document, you're pissed because I bet you built the Slaughter the way you wanted to and now they have the Inferno, right? Because the ships in that document are truly are not needed (but didn't you argue FOR the Hectate?). HOWEVER, I do believe it's about time the four gods of Chaos each have individual fleets with different special abilities and costs for daemonships.
Purely aesthetic?
Yes this is a purely aesthetic argument.
-Zhukov
-
Magnets frakkin rule ;)
-
Damn dude why didn't you just say that and save everyone a lot of time instead of mudslinging me for thinking the Slaughter, as pictured, looks good?
Prolly cause I've been looking to vent about the hypocrisy of the HA. First they allow "either" so that people don't have to redo their ships and then they enshrine the combi-deck, meaning people would have to redo their ships. The whole mentality of inventing a combi-deck to fix a graphical problem also annoys me as it creates more problems than it fixes.
Should I still attempt to break that post down and continue the debate?
If you really want to.
In regards to the PoC document, you're pissed because I bet you built the Slaughter the way you wanted to and now they have the Inferno, right? Because the ships in that document are truly are not needed (but didn't you argue FOR the Hectate?). HOWEVER, I do believe it's about time the four gods of Chaos each have individual fleets with different special abilities and costs for daemonships.
I'm annoyed at the document because they went with the name Inferno, instead of any of the much better and more apropos choices. I'm annoyed at the document because they ditched the good Hecate fluff. I'm annoyed with the document because the Hecate should really simply have been a heavy Dev. I'm annoyed with the document because they insist on allowing the Chaos powers barges to produce 3 AC per hardpoint. I'm annoyed because their battlebarges stats yet again don't match the model.
The Scion of Prospero. It has 1 launch bay each side which produces 3 AC. This alone is enough to get the ship binned as far as I'm concerned. Add onto that the fact that it has 4 dorsal lances. This is more than any other BB and roughly 3 times as powerful as the Apocalypse's dorsal armament. Then, to make matters worse, it has 9WB broadside using a WB hardpoint and a lance hardpoint! Even if you subscribe to the combi-deck theory it should still have some sort of lance armament in the broadside to match the picture! Bin this piece of crap.
The Wage of Sin very nearly provides some redemption for the document, probably by virtue of the fact it's based off a Desolator rather than a Despoiler. But no, they even managed to screw that by giving it 3AC from one launch bay. If they wanted to make it more powerful they could've increased the dorsal weaponry to 9.
The Terminus Est has been around for a long time and it is probably from this ship that they got the 3AC per launch bay idea from in the first place. Well this ship was always a bad fix to the Despoiler, giving 3/3/3 when it should have been 2/2/4. However, it used to be palatable because of its weak broadside WBs. One could merely assume the picture was wrong and model it with 2 launch bays per side and 1 WB piece per side, giving it Styx broadsides in AC. Having 6WB@30cm from 1 WB hardpoint is not at all unreasonable. This inefficient broadside arrangement isn't so bad given the amount of weaponry in the prow, so from an overall balance point of view it wasn't too bad. However, as it sets bad precedents (3AC from 1 hardpoint, 3AC prows + secondary weaponry) and even when "fixed" to 2 launch bays + 1 WB piece per side it is still objectionable (a battleship only getting 6 AC out of 2 hardpoints per side, short ranged WBs, overloaded prow) then yet again it's a bad design.
The Vengeful Spirit is pretty much like the TE, only a little worse. The model has that gaping maw of a launch bay but this one has been nerfed down to strength 2, rather than upped to strength 4. It is still using 1 launch bay per side to represent 3 AC and 2 WBs per side to represent firepower 6 (the same fix for TE would work here, with the same problems). Yet again it keeps the prow lances, just like the Despoiler, even though there's no justification for it on the model. It suffers pretty much all the flaws of the Despoiler even with a piss weak attempt at a fix.
The Conqueror. Uses combi-decks. Nuff said. But I"ll say more anyway. It also has firepower 8 45cm range dorsal WBs. Firepower 9 at 60cm is not overpowered. In fact it's still weak compared to the standard alternative (3L@60cm). So why 8@45? Anyway, why use guns for a Khornate ship? It should have been based on a Despoiler hull and been given all launch bays, so it had 6/6/4 launch capability (16 AC in total). Then just restrict it to a-boats only. No bombers, no fighters. Dorsal weapon batteries and 25cm speed. There's your Chariot of Khorne.
Hecate = naff ship, Inferno = naff name & ho hum ship.
Conclusion: Document does more harm than good, makes it less likely the Despoiler profile will ever be fixed, presents logical absurdities and incongruous pictures (3AC per bay on these, 1.5 per bay on Styx, SoP, TE, VS pictures don't match stats) as well as some uncomfortable arrangements (2 or 3 AC on prow as well as lances, sometimes LFR sometimes fixed forward, or torpedoes). It also contradicts previous rulings of "players choice" by making the combi-deck official.
All of this is without even looking at the Powers special rules or balance. It's just a rubbish document. I'm truly surprised that it didn't include some NC toting light cruisers in there too. Remarkable restraint shown by the HA there.
-
Me and Zelnik are engaged in a game involving Hecates right now. Will let you know how it turns out :)
Last game was with Infernos, but anything past a day old is foggy to me, I'll leave him to comment on it.
Why do you think the combideck was 'invented'? Didnt it come with the kits?
I'm going to make a confession. Until reading this thread, it never occured to me to plug a lance straight into the hull slots.
I also just assumed the chaos kits just came with 3 different looking lances, but now it occurs to me that one or two might be intended as batteries...
-
And agreed the names are inconsistent. The Hecate needs to be called Inferno or Tartarus, or Abyss, some hellish name as all heavy cruisers are.
Inferno needs to be a result of conflict, like all the other cruisers. Hell, Conflict itself would work better than Inferno.
That said, I like the Inferno. I just realized it, but its the 'Lunar' I've been looking for in a chaos fleet.
-
Actually, Chaos Heavy Cruisers are named for greek deities, Hades, Styx, Acheron and Hecate are all greek deities/titans.
-
What, the rivers are deities? They are all hell related. An Apollo heavy cruiser would just sound so wrong. :)
-
Hades is the god of the Underworld,
Hecate is the goddess of magic, witchcraft, the night, moon, ghosts and necromancy
Acheron had been a son of Helios and either Gaia or Demeter.
Styx was also the name of the daughter of Oceanus and Tethys.
True, they do all have links with the underworld.
-
So here is what I'm thinking for images/models:
Relictor: 3xCombo Deck
Hecate: 1xlances, 1xLB
Cerberus: (inferno) 1xCD, 1xWB
Murder (alt): 1Lances, 1xWB
Devestation: 1xlances, 1xwb
I think the only one that really changes here is the Devestation, but it had to be either the Devestation or the Slaughter, and it makes more sense to have the combi-decks here, as it separates it further from the Murder/Cerberus(inferno) which are both cruisers.
-
I'm with Sig in calling for an end to combi-decks. It's either WB, Lance or LB.
-
yep. funny lances poking up from diples in chaos ships is just wrong. mount them all on decks, call them lances (not combi decks)
-
But you understand the problem? Then there are three vessels with Lance/WB. At least with the combi-deck then you can keep track of your slaughters...
-
You'd have thought the HA's should have kept track of that sort of thing when designing new ships!
Is there a physical difference between the standard murder and the carnage? (prow lances vs prow wbs) I'm having a mental blank. If there is, one could use that to tell the difference between a variant murder and a cerberus/slaughter.
The Slaughter/Cerberus could be told apart by one having (WB - L) and one having (L-WB).
If it's not possible, then oh well. We're most likely going to have the same problem with the Torp Dominator/Tyrant, Dominator/NC Tyrant and Mercury/Overlord.
-
Is there a physical difference between the standard murder and the carnage?
Yes, but it is not in the prow (though I would bet someone has done their own alterations). The real difference in the models is cutting the extensions (some would say antennae) of the WB bit away.
Why do you think the combideck was 'invented'? Didnt it come with the kits?
Yes it does comes with the Chaos cruiser package. The OBVIOUS answer as to why they designed it is that it gives extra combinations for ships. And, in my opinion, it looks cool ;)
The Scion of Prospero. It has 1 launch bay each side which produces 3 AC. Add onto that the fact that it has 4 dorsal lances. This is more than any other BB and roughly 3 times as powerful as the Apocalypse's dorsal armament. Then, to make matters worse, it has 9WB broadside using a WB hardpoint and a lance hardpoint! Even if you subscribe to the combi-deck theory it should still have some sort of lance armament in the broadside to match the picture!
I completely agree that one Launch Bay bit should not equal 3 points of Launch Bays. That's truly silly and especially so when talking about the Despoiler model and how it has the gaping maw to throw Launch Bay points into. The 4 Dorsal lances is odd to say the least. However, you CAN make the argument that it's a "unique ship" that doesn't have Prow weapons that take from a power source (since torps would obviously use less power than lances). But it's NOT four times more powerful than an Apoc's Dorsal. Apoc has 3 lances at 60cm and the SoP has 4 at 45cm. BUT IT MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE A LANCE WITH THAT COMBO-DECK!!!!!! HOW STUPID CAN THEY BE TO SCREW THAT UP?!?!?!?!
The Wage of Sin very nearly provides some redemption for the document, probably by virtue of the fact it's based off a Desolator rather than a Despoiler. But no, they even managed to screw that by giving it 3AC from one launch bay. If they wanted to make it more powerful they could've increased the dorsal weaponry to 9.
I agree, it should only be 2 Launch Bay's per side with 9 WB's on the Dorsal since they reduced the range of the broadside lances.
The Terminus Est has been around for a long time and it is probably from this ship that they got the 3AC per launch bay idea from in the first place. Well this ship was always a bad fix to the Despoiler, giving 3/3/3 when it should have been 2/2/4. However, it used to be palatable because of its weak broadside WBs. One could merely assume the picture was wrong and model it with 2 launch bays per side and 1 WB piece per side, giving it Styx broadsides in AC. Having 6WB@30cm from 1 WB hardpoint is not at all unreasonable. This inefficient broadside arrangement isn't so bad given the amount of weaponry in the prow, so from an overall balance point of view it wasn't too bad. However, as it sets bad precedents (3AC from 1 hardpoint, 3AC prows + secondary weaponry) and even when "fixed" to 2 launch bays + 1 WB piece per side it is still objectionable (a battleship only getting 6 AC out of 2 hardpoints per side, short ranged WBs, overloaded prow) then yet again it's a bad design.
No arguments from me on this one.
The Vengeful Spirit is pretty much like the TE, only a little worse. The model has that gaping maw of a launch bay but this one has been nerfed down to strength 2, rather than upped to strength 4. It is still using 1 launch bay per side to represent 3 AC and 2 WBs per side to represent firepower 6 (the same fix for TE would work here, with the same problems). Yet again it keeps the prow lances, just like the Despoiler, even though there's no justification for it on the model. It suffers pretty much all the flaws of the Despoiler even with a piss weak attempt at a fix.
I agree with most of what you say. Though did you notice the weapon options a player can choose? It doesn't help a whole lot, but it's a start. Also, have you seen the model done of a Despoiler shooting a beam of green light through the wing of a Tau Custodian? It is an amazing work done by someone. I'll dig it up for ya.
The Conqueror. Uses combi-decks. Nuff said. But I"ll say more anyway. It also has firepower 8 45cm range dorsal WBs. Firepower 9 at 60cm is not overpowered. In fact it's still weak compared to the standard alternative (3L@60cm). So why 8@45? Anyway, why use guns for a Khornate ship? It should have been based on a Despoiler hull and been given all launch bays, so it had 6/6/4 launch capability (16 AC in total). Then just restrict it to a-boats only. No bombers, no fighters. Dorsal weapon batteries and 25cm speed. There's your Chariot of Khorne.
I like the short range guns more than making ANOTHER carrier (though you're idea is quite intriuging...). However, if you give it 9 WB's on the Dorsal mount, you give it a 21 WB broadside, which doesn't work. They have it right doing a total of 20. Personally, this is my favorite of the vessels.
-Zhukov
P.S. I'll post the response to you're bigger post tomorrow I think.
-
But you understand the problem? Then there are three vessels with Lance/WB. At least with the combi-deck then you can keep track of your slaughters...
There's no way to tell a NC Tyrant apart from a Dominator, that hasn't been a problem. Similarly the Carnage and Murder are identical. Overlord/Tyrant are only separated by dorsal turrets, as are Hades/Murder.
Anyway, you can differentiate your Slaughters from your "Infernos" (crap name) by reversing the position of the lance and WB decks. You can differentiate your variant Murders in the same way you already differentiate your Murders from your Carnages.
P.S. - I differentiate my Murders from my Carnages by not having any Murders. It's also how I differentiate my Tyrants from my Dominators. I think I'll keep this method in regards to Murder variants and Infernos.
-
The 4 Dorsal lances is odd to say the least. However, you CAN make the argument that it's a "unique ship" that doesn't have Prow weapons that take from a power source (since torps would obviously use less power than lances). But it's NOT four times more powerful than an Apoc's Dorsal. Apoc has 3 lances at 60cm and the SoP has 4 at 45cm.
I said 3 times more powerful, not 4. The official Apocalypse has 6 weapon batteries on the dorsal hardpoint. At greater than 30cm range those 6 WBs will give at best 3 dice, most typically against 6+ armour (0.5 hits) though sometimes against 5+ armour (1 hit). The 4 lances gives 2 hits. This makes it between 2 to 4 times better than the Apocalypse's dorsal (or Desolator's, or Victory's, or those of the WoS and even better than those of the Emperor or Oberon). So roughly 3 times better is a fair estimation.
BUT IT MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE A LANCE WITH THAT COMBO-DECK!!!!!! HOW STUPID CAN THEY BE TO SCREW THAT UP?!?!?!?!
Troll! ::)
-
If it's not possible, then oh well. We're most likely going to have the same problem with the Torp Dominator/Tyrant, Dominator/NC Tyrant and Mercury/Overlord.
Without the Gothic list then the Dominator/Tyrant issue doesn't really exist.... The issue now is Hydra/Dominator.... which I have a solution for my fleet (using moulded duplicates of the 'Vengeance' wbs) although yes... it will always be a problem.
Technically it wouldn't be a problem if the Dominator had to take a NC, as the Hydra can't!
We're probably going to ignore the Mercury's existence, so no issue there. Different problem though; Ignus/Overlord. Although I suppose that I could get rid of the Overlord from Tartanus. My modeling solution here was to convert out moulded duplicates of the Dauntless wbs, so that it is 'double-gunned'.
I do think that it is fine to think that combo-decks exist. It wouldn't hurt to keep them alive. I think that GW originally made the Slaughter have 2 lances for pakage reasons, so that you could make a Murder/Carnage/Hades and a Slaughter/Devestation/Acheron/Styx out of one box. Instead of being stuck into having trouble buying the two 'basic' cruisers for chaos, the Carnage and Murder.
-
I said 3 times more powerful, not 4. The official Apocalypse has 6 weapon batteries on the dorsal hardpoint. At greater than 30cm range those 6 WBs will give at best 3 dice, most typically against 6+ armour (0.5 hits) though sometimes against 5+ armour (1 hit). The 4 lances gives 2 hits. This makes it between 2 to 4 times better than the Apocalypse's dorsal (or Desolator's, or Victory's, or those of the WoS and even better than those of the Emperor or Oberon). So roughly 3 times better is a fair estimation.
Wow where did I look that had an Apoc with three dosal lances ???
My bad on that one, three times better is a fair comparison.
-Zhukov