Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Seahawk on April 26, 2012, 04:00:34 PM
-
After discussion in the other threads, I am curious as to what the community thinks of the current strength of all the fleets (because I certainly do not know). Including all of the 2010 add-ons, how do you think they rank up? 1 for strongest, last number for weakest (I dunno how many races there are, either). You can also include different fleet builds as single entries, for instance:
...
4. IN - Nova cannon
5. Orks
6. Hulk/Rok Orks
7. IN - AC fleet
...
I have a better idea of other games and their armies and where they stack up, but no idea for BFG. Insights from those that are knowledgeable are desired!
[edit]
Condensed general consensus (1 = meanest/strongest, end = nicest/weakest):
1. Tau - Explorer heavy
2. Chaos - Broadsides heavy
3. Corsair Eldar - Escorts heavy
4. Chaos - Launch bays heavy
5. Imperial Navy - Nova cannon
6. Necrons
7. Space Marines
8. Dark Eldar
9. FW Tau
10. Orks - FB heavy
11. Imperial Navy - Vaaish
12. Tyranids
13. Ad-mech
And for reference:
Adepticon Winners
2022 - Adeptus Mechanicus (Ernesto Salas)
2021 - Covid!
2020 - Covid!
2019 - Tyranids (David Waxtel)
2018 - Space Marines (me!)
2017 - Tyranids (David Waxtel)
2016 - Eldar (me!)
2015 - ?
2014 - Chaos (me!)
2013 - Space Marines (me!)
2012 - Space Marines (me!)
2011 - ? (Joe Freeland)
2010 - Dark Eldar (Mark Aksel)
2009 - FW Tau (Robert Sautbine)
2008 - FW Tau (Robert Sautbine)
2007 - Orks (Shane McRoberts)
-
IIRc the traditional top fleets were these:
Chaos- doubles broadside fleet
Corsair Eldar -escort fleet
-
It hurts to see Tyranids so low but I tend to agree. I do think the "all is lost" is a big setback for them. They have a lot going for them and I have been doing well with them but all is lost deters me from doing the stuff they are designed to do. Also, what about Dark Eldar? Probably low?
-
No idea. They won the Adepticon a couple years ago...*shrug*
I was mainly guessing with my list there, hence the question marks. I want/need more input! I don't know what's strong/weak!
-
The thing to look at is that for the most part fleets are balanced I think your post should be more along the lines of what fleets are easiest to abuse, cheese, etc...
Tau explorer
IMP nova and to a lesser extent admech
Chaos launch
Msm hellebore (nasty little ships)
Corsair escort swarms in general
Any others? Most of the fleet builds I can think of are usually average against a solid build but the above can be difficult.
-
It hurts to see Tyranids so low but I tend to agree. I do think the "all is lost" is a big setback for them. They have a lot going for them and I have been doing well with them but all is lost deters me from doing the stuff they are designed to do. Also, what about Dark Eldar? Probably low?
Nah. "All is lost" gets a lot of attention, but it's really not that big of a handicap. It can only happen if you board, and a good tyranid player won't typically be boarding with his ships unless he wants to. While the IB chart does cause the ships to board on their own, Tyranid ships don't just wander within 15cm of an enemy. Your opponent is typically actively preventing that from happening, so if your ships are in that position it's likely because you really wanted them to be in that position. (People talk about luring ships off with escorts and such, but it's not realistic. The IB table is, aside from the final result, a powerful tool that allows you to use special orders for free as long as your ships are properly positioned.)
So once you've put them into a position where "All is lost" might come into play, you're as likely to find it advantageous as detrimental - I've seen opponents who were willing to ensure the destruction of a whole cruiser for the chance to damage four escorts. Whether they board or not Tyranids have good close range weapons, but what's interesting is that, as much as possible, they are armed to make boarding a reliable offense. They waive or counter many of the penalties they'd normally face and get to roll twice as many dice. Their weapons (the ones you're interested in, anyway :))) are designed to inflict maximum damage at the point of impact, massive claws in particular having a huge damage potential. The larger Tyranid vessels are absolutely deadly if they get to board, but even small squadrons of escorts can overtake a cruiser with surprising ease. And since you can't brace boarding damage, one bad roll can have irreversible consequences. Anyway, the point is, people get jittery when facing Tyranids in boarding, and they are always willing to consider self-destructing.
In my experience people facing Tyranids self-destruct as soon as they consider there to be even a reasonable chance they could lose the boarding action. After all, why do down almost without a fight when you can take the whole enemy pack with you? But that works to your benefit because the enemy can't brace boarding action damage, but you can brace lance shots, and your escorts are really cheap and your capital ships are tough. Escorts are likely to die even to small warpdrive implosions, but they're likely to survive in reasonable numbers against the other half of results they'll face. Even if a number of them die they're not that expensive, and if even one of them survives you'll get a chance to disengage and take the bulk of the VPs with you. A braced cruiser with six hits and two shields (obviously a ship armed with claws and meant to board would be bigger and tougher, but the FAQ took care of that. ::)) is likely to survive anything other than a warpdrive implosion from a battleship or grand cruiser. Then, since it has (obviously) earned back its points (and will have about +30 to it's ld to disengage :D) it will promptly do so.
Plus, I often see people who play Tyranids so confident in self-destructing as a defense that they'll pull back with the rest of their fleet if you manage to jump on a ship. Aside from how easy it is to simply shoot it at that point, it almost assures that your victory should you choose to board will be swift and total, and people always seem to forget that self-destructing is not automatic. Nothing is more priceless than the look on someone's face when a ship fails its Ld test, gets promptly obliterated, and then their whole flank collapses.
I know my performance at the end of the last game of adepticon seems counter to what I was just talking about (I lost about half of my fleet to a self-destructing Despoiler on the last turn) but it's actually a perfect example, as I didn't have to board with any of those ships. It wasn't mandated by IB; even had I not passed all of my synaptic control rolls, I didn't have a single ship within 15cm and in the front arc, and not by chance. It also wasn't necessary to destroy the Despoiler; the tentacles and claws did enough damage to destroy it in the subsequent two ending phases far more reliably than the the boarding action would have. I just boarded because I wasn't playing super-seriously, and it was fun and cool!
If you're really trying to be successful with Tyranids just don't become preoccupied with what they're "supposed" to be doing and focus on what they're good at doing. On the other hand, if you're more concerned with theme and fluff, what's a few ships lost to explosions? 8)
I think what really prohibits Tyranids from doing well in tourneys is simply their unwieldy playing style. They are a close-range fleet that relies very heavily on setting up a good position and then inflicting maximum damage. They need at least two or three turns to get in position, and then go for the kill. Unfortunately their construction makes this very difficult. Especially now that the FAQ messed with their options (the elimination of access to refits eliminates the lowest model-count builds as viable lists) they are large model-count fleets. They either need huge numbers of escorts or immense amounts of attack craft, and spore impact rules alone make large amounts of escorts take a long time just to move. Tyranids just don't have the time in a tourney to get ideally positioned, unless the rounds are three hours long.
In fact, I would look at the changes to Tyranid rules in the FAQ as evidence that they at one point ranked toward the top of the strongest fleet list. The rules committee didn't decide to nerf them without even considering the consequences just for fun (one hopes) so there must have been backlash coming from somewhere. And the all Mega-Hive list was pretty powerful... and boring. :P
-
Andrew, you said Hellebore is nasty? Even with the lower cost in FAQ2010 which makes it okay I still prefer Nightshade + Hemlock.
Corsair Eldar:
Void Stalker, prince, re-roll(s)
+ Many and only Nightshades
Eldar wall of Torpedoes.... urgh
After FAQ2010 fleets pulled more together. Space Marines got the much needed boost. Ork escorts got better, etc.
-
All is lost can never be considered advantageous because it is always in the hands of the enemy. If the Tyranid player boards an enemy ship, for whatever reason, something that Tyranids are meant to do fluff wise and have benefits to it in BFG, the control of whether all is lost happens is in the enemies control.
The best that can happen is you freak someone out with relatively small amount of escorts in a boarding action and trick them into using all is lost and only losing some of your escorts that boarded. Players who are boarded by Tyranid ships will calculate the boarding statistics ahead of time and determine the chances of losing. If the opponent is going to lose the boarding action big time and the ship will be crippled or destroyed, usually because there are lots of escorts boarding him, the decision to use all is lost is that much better and you can do that much more damage on the way out. I don't see how all is lost is NOT a deterrent for a Tyranid player to many boarding actions if not all of them. Have enough ships boarding to do enough damage to the enemy? Their all is lost does that much more damage to you. Not enough ships to damage the enemy vessel or destroy it? You have that much higher chance to lose the boarding action.
Yes, you can brace the lance shots coming at you, but I don't see how this is a benefit as opposed to other fleets who don't have to worry about all is lost. Great , you can brace and lose less ships as opposed to a different faction who doesn't have to brace because apparently people would never consider detonating their own ship when defeated by Khorne Berserkers.
My problem is that Tyranids are supposed to be good at boarding and the all is lost rule deters that quite a bit. Killing that Despoiler was awesome in that last game but you are correct, it is the perfect example of what I am trying to say. Good to meet you by the way! Hopefully, we can duke it out next year.
-
. Also, what about Dark Eldar? Probably low?
Dark Eldar won Adepticon 2011.
(check out Maaksel: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/329780.page )
-
Andrew, you said Hellebore is nasty? Even with the lower cost in FAQ2010 which makes it okay I still prefer nightshade+hemlock.
Sorry I ment to say mms not msm, with the addition of fighter launch bays (and mines for +5pts!) these are awesome! They have better armor and turrets than the destroyers and pack the same armament as both ships all in one package for 25 points less. The official version is less desirable tho your correct, having the same toughness really brings these down IMO due to their greatly increased individual cost.
-
So, bringing back to the over power/broken/weak/nerfed list, what should I add? Where does it stack up?
-
By the way Horizon, the judge of the tournament (Lord Goober) was talking favorably of Eldar MMS. I would love for him to implement that next year.
-
Yes, you can brace the lance shots coming at you, but I don't see how this is a benefit as opposed to other fleets who don't have to worry about all is lost. Great , you can brace and lose less ships as opposed to a different faction who doesn't have to brace because apparently people would never consider detonating their own ship when defeated by Khorne Berserkers.
My problem is that Tyranids are supposed to be good at boarding and the all is lost rule deters that quite a bit. Killing that Despoiler was awesome in that last game but you are correct, it is the perfect example of what I am trying to say. Good to meet you by the way! Hopefully, we can duke it out next year.
The Tyranids are good at boarding, that's why they have all is lost! If they didn't have that constraint to worry about, not only would they would be far too good at boarding, but their fleet lists would be boring no-brainers to design and play.
You can relate Tyranids to Khorne Berserkers, but I really don't think they're comparable. For starters, even the cheapest Khornate Chaos ship is a lot more expensive than the priciest Tyranid claw cruiser. Sure the Chaos ship will have more guns than the Tyranid one, but it can't use them the turn it boards, and if it's going AAF and CTNH to get in position to board it isn't going to have many opportunities to use them at full effect before that. But despite its lower cost, when the time comes to actually board, the Tyranid ship is better. It can use its claws before boarding with good odds (a five damage point average) to damage a cruiser before the boarding action even starts, and it is almost guaranteed at least a plus two modifier to the action, for blast markers and the enemy bracing against the claws attacks. Even compared to the best boarders of other races tyranid ships are great - they're more effective and more numerous. Other races don't have to worry about their opponents self-destructing because the opponents of other races don't have to constantly worry about all of their ships being overwhelmed in boarding actions.
As far as it not making sense that a crew would self-destruct their ship against Tyranids but not some other equally horrific foe, that's sort of true. But part of the reason Tyranids have that rule and others do not is for flavor. While there might be other ships in other enemy fleets that a crew would rather self-destruct than face, there might be horrible daemons on that approaching cruiser, and there might not. How is the crew to know for sure until the time comes? The Tyranids, though, are uniformly horrific. In any and all encounters with any Tyranids, even the lowliest escort (even attack craft!) is a terror in boarding, with the ship itself trying to squeeze inside the hull and eat you. The crew doesn't just have to face a scary boarding party, it's something bizarrely alien, and it will be happening all across the fleet all battle long. They don't make the decision to self-destruct after they've been defeated, they make it before the boarding even starts, preferring to die a quick death than even risk being attacked.
A normal squadron of escorts can board with some ships and fire with others to weaken the enemy in preparation for a boarding action, but, being escorts, boarding will still be a risky proposition. A normal capital ship can hold its own in a boarding action, but can't inflict any damage before the action starts to better its odds. Tyranids are different though, they can do pre-boarding damage with the whole escort squadron and, with double boarding value, still out-board the enemy. One Tyranid capital ship can do what it normally would take two ships to do, inflict damage then board in the same turn. and they can do all of this with cheaper ships! All is lost balances out Tyranids' very powerful boarding abilites and gives them great flair at the same time, I like it!
-
The Tyranids are good at boarding, that's why they have all is lost! If they didn't have that constraint to worry about, not only would they would be far too good at boarding, but their fleet lists would be boring no-brainers to design and play.
You could say the same thing about every fleet than. Chaos, fast and great ranged guns. Boring no-brainer to play. I am trying to make the point that all is lost can make Tyranids not good at boarding. They may have some awesome advantages and bonuses but you can lose a bunch of stuff in the process.
You can relate Tyranids to Khorne Berserkers, but I really don't think they're comparable. For starters, even the cheapest Khornate Chaos ship is a lot more expensive than the priciest Tyranid claw cruiser.
This is sort of a non-argument because yes, the claw cruiser is way less points, but would get owned if it tried to board a Chaos cruiser, and that would only happen in the small chance it made it through all that shooting.
Sure the Chaos ship will have more guns than the Tyranid one, but it can't use them the turn it boards, and if it's going AAF and CTNH to get in position to board it isn't going to have many opportunities to use them at full effect before that. But despite its lower cost, when the time comes to actually board, the Tyranid ship is better.
It can use its claws before boarding with good odds (a five damage point average) to damage a cruiser before the boarding action even starts
How?!
...and it is almost guaranteed at least a plus two modifier to the action, for blast markers and the enemy bracing against the claws attacks. Even compared to the best boarders of other races tyranid ships are great - they're more effective and more numerous.
I don't agree, actually.
Other races don't have to worry about their opponents self-destructing because the opponents of other races don't have to constantly worry about all of their ships being overwhelmed in boarding actions.
I don't know that we are going to agree on this.
As far as it not making sense that a crew would self-destruct their ship against Tyranids but not some other equally horrific foe, that's sort of true. But part of the reason Tyranids have that rule and others do not is for flavor. While there might be other ships in other enemy fleets that a crew would rather self-destruct than face, there might be horrible daemons on that approaching cruiser, and there might not. How is the crew to know for sure until the time comes? The Tyranids, though, are uniformly horrific. In any and all encounters with any Tyranids, even the lowliest escort (even attack craft!) is a terror in boarding, with the ship itself trying to squeeze inside the hull and eat you. The crew doesn't just have to face a scary boarding party, it's something bizarrely alien, and it will be happening all across the fleet all battle long.
Couldn't disagree more. Necrons, Berserkers, Dark Eldar, Orks, all mega brutal to get captured by.
They don't make the decision to self-destruct after they've been defeated, they make it before the boarding even starts, preferring to die a quick death than even risk being attacked.
Totally disagree. Space Marines getting boarded by Tyranids would just self-destruct before the Tyranids even started to board? I don't think this is true of any race. There is a whole game based around close quarters combat and every race fights against Tyranids.
A normal squadron of escorts can board with some ships and fire with others to weaken the enemy in preparation for a boarding action, but, being escorts, boarding will still be a risky proposition. A normal capital ship can hold its own in a boarding action, but can't inflict any damage before the action starts to better its odds. Tyranids are different though, they can do pre-boarding damage with the whole escort squadron and, with double boarding value, still out-board the enemy. One Tyranid capital ship can do what it normally would take two ships to do, inflict damage then board in the same turn. and they can do all of this with cheaper ships! All is lost balances out Tyranids' very powerful boarding abilites and gives them great flair at the same time, I like it!
Other races can do pre-boarding damage through shooting. Strike cruiser, gets within 30cm, blasts the hell out of something, then next turn boards. Tyranid ships who have close combat weapons don't get that first turn shooting. I like the flair, to some degree, but I would like to see some changes made. Agree to disagree!
-
I'm with Dan. Tyranids should be really good at boarding, but the boarding rules are complete rubbish so even with all their potential advantages (which are easily aquired by other races as well) they can still whiff it hard. And then AIL is just a kick in the nuts to boot. It makes boarding not worth it at all.
Not only does AIL nail the boarding vessel really hard, it can also hurt nearby Nid ships not even involved with the boarding action. And as the Nid vessel boarded during its own turn, it brings the spore clouds down (both turrets and shields!) Of any nid ship within range and leaves it a sitting duck during the enemy turn.
Fluff aside, it's a bad mechanic. But boarding is a bad mechanic too. Of course the fleet that specializes in boarding is going to be the worst in this version of BFG.
As for rank, this is how I put them:
1. Necrons
2. Corsair Eldar
3. Imperial Navy
4. Orks (because of FB spam only)
5. Chaos
6. Dark Eldar
7. Tau
8. Space Marines
9. Tyranids
-
I'm surprised there's so little love for assault boats. Chaos DE and Space Marines can clean up with with fleets built around shutting the enemys fleets down. A very cheesy Chaos fleet (1500) can drop 32 assault boats in a turn and have 12 60cm wb 14 60cm lances and 30 30cm wb on one broadside. Dark Eldar have torpedoes that cause automatic crits, assault boats that do not fail (+1 to hit and runs) and are only hit by turrets on a 6+, and every single ship including escorts can take an impaler which is just awesome (6 escort AAF in base contact impaler wave!!!) Sorry got excited there. Finally the Space Marine fleet which is built around crits every capitol ship has resilient assault boats that don't fail (+1 to hit and runs) and their primary weapons not only hit on 4+ against everything even attack craft but any hits score a crit on 4+ too! Once the enemy is softened up they are easily the best boarders outside nids (taking ail into account probably a bit better)
-
Sure the Chaos ship will have more guns than the Tyranid one, but it can't use them the turn it boards, and if it's going AAF and CTNH to get in position to board it isn't going to have many opportunities to use them at full effect before that. But despite its lower cost, when the time comes to actually board, the Tyranid ship is better.
It can use its claws before boarding with good odds (a five damage point average) to damage a cruiser before the boarding action even starts
How?!
Four claw attacks in the movement phase means, on average, two points of damage and latching on, so another four attacks in the end phase, where two points of damage inflicts a third point of damage. Then resolve the boarding action. It's braceable damage, unlike the boarding itself, but those are still good numbers to bet on.
I like the flair, to some degree, but I would like to see some changes made. Agree to disagree!
Of course! ;D After all, if it was decided to get rid of All is Lost, I would hardly be complaining, that's for sure. I'm just a rules conservative, things like what happened with the new rules for torpedoes and Tyranid refits make me leery of changing things...
I'm with Dan. Tyranids should be really good at boarding, but the boarding rules are complete rubbish
...
But boarding is a bad mechanic too. Of course the fleet that specializes in boarding is going to be the worst in this version of BFG.
Haha! That I can certainly agree with too!
I'm surprised there's so little love for assault boats.
I never got that either. Considering the potential to do damage when using a +1 to H&R fleet, ABs are often better against large capital ships than bombers. Why I don't see people using them where they can has mystified me to no end.
-
I favor assault boats over bombers, to be sure. But I think there are two things that keep ABs from being wildly popular. First, they don't bring home the bacon. Winning the game generally hinges on destroying ships and getting VPs. ABs aren't good economy for killing ships. Second, and probably more important, H&R attacks are really unpredictable. You can, and I have several time, hit a ship with 8 ABs and not shut down the weapons that will be facing you in the enemy's turn, or just get one hit on them and see it repaired in your End Phase.
We addressed this in our house rules by turning the +1 to H&R rule to being able to reroll the result if it doesn't do you any good. That way you're more likely to be able to stack crits on the facing you need the most or do more damage, but it removes the 'Flaming Tomb' problem.
-
Mixing assault boats & bombers is the best. But not all races have assault boats available.
Vs 6+ armour assault boats are definatelly the better idea.
Phthisis, your list: Well DE won Adepticon in 2011, Space Marines in 2012 and Armada Tau in 2009 & 2010 (iirc). Your numbers 6,7,8 heh.
Marines needed the 2010 boost.
DE can do very well in scenarios.
Tau have Explorers. Nuff said.
On Chaos:
it isn't launch bays. The Chaos strenght is that is a great allround fleet. Relative fast ships, Excellent ranged weaponry. Good amount of launch bays. Chaos has always been the perfect starter fleet due all of this. It is a forgiving fleet.
-
My assessment was based off of each fleets rules, strengths and weaknesses. I don't think that what fleets win tournaments is the best way to evaluate which fleet is the best. There are a lot of other factors involved.
-
It can use its claws before boarding with good odds (a five damage point average) to damage a cruiser before the boarding action even starts, and it is almost guaranteed at least a plus two modifier to the action, for blast markers and the enemy bracing against the claws attacks. Even compared to the best boarders of other races tyranid ships are great - they're more effective and more numerous. Other races don't have to worry about their opponents self-destructing because the opponents of other races don't have to constantly worry about all of their ships being overwhelmed in boarding actions.
Twin claws do not give 5 damage on average, even when ignoring BFI. Actual average damage is 3.85, before bracing and crits. After bracing and crits but before boarding is resolved (fire crits do not affect boarding that turn) the average damage is 2.08 hull hits.
Here is a rundown of the maths if you need it:
The chance of 0 damage = 0.5^4 = 1/16 = 6.25 % ................... (all 4 attacks miss)
The chance of 1 damage = 0.5^4 x 4 = 25% ........................... (1 attack hits, 3 miss)
The chance of 2 damage = 0.5^4 x 6 x 0.5^4 = 2.34% ............ (2 attacks hit, 2 miss, subsequent 4 attacks miss)
The chance of 3 damage = (0.5^4 x 6 x 0.5^4 x 4) + (0.5^4 x 4 x 0.5^4) = 10.94% ........... (2 attacks hit & 1 further hit + chance 3 attacks hit, 0 further hits)
The chance of 4 damage = (0.5^4)^2 + (0.5^4 x 4)^2 = 6.64% ............. (chance 4 hit/4 miss + chance 3 hit/1 hit)
The chance of 5 damage = (0.5^4 x 0.5^4 x 4) + (0.5^4 x 6)^2 = 15.63% .................... (4/1 + 2/2(+1))
The chance of 6 damage = 2(0.5^4 x 4 x 0.5^4 x 6) = 18.75% ................... (3/2(+1) + 2/3(+1))
The chance of 7 damage = (0.5^4 x 4)^2 + 2(0.5^4 x 0.5^4 x 6) = 10.94% ................. (3/3(+1) + 4/2(+1) + 2/4(+1))
The chance of 8 damage = 2(0.5^4 x 0.5^4 x 4) = 3.13% ....................... (4/3(+1) + 3/4(+1))
The chance of 9 damage = (0.5^4)^2 = 0.39% ........................... (4/4(+1))
Total damage = P(0) x 0 + P(1) x 1 + P(2) x 2 ..... + P(N)n = 3.85
So let's say you bring your cheap 90 pt Nid cruiser up against a 220 pt Khornate SM Slaughter (presumably the Slaughter spent the last turn on LO blowing away the Nid cruiser's sister ship). Let's assume both are undamaged and that the Chaos cruiser is on orders. Let's assume the Nid ship can get into base contact without using special orders. The Nid cruiser moves into base contact, drops a spore (+1 to boarding), attacks with massive claws, Chaos ship braces (+1 to boarding), claws score 2 hits past brace. Now resolve boarding action. Nids get 1D6+2 (BM in contact, on orders) with an option to re-roll the dice (average total 6.25), Chaos get 1D6+3 (+2 for CSM, +1 for higher BV; average total of 6.5). That's pretty close to a tie, slight advantage for the Chaos player.
Mind you, that firepower from the Slaughter would have, on average, destroyed a healthy unbraced Nid cruiser. Though if we consider that it braced we can expect it to come away merely crippled. In which case, could it add to the boarding action? Well being crippled its Massive Claws wouldn't work, so no extra damage but it could add another 6 BV to the 12 of the other cruiser, bringing the total up to 18, which is more than the Chaos vessels' 14 (6x2+2) this gives a +2 swing to the Nid player. However, since you'd be attacking with a braced and crippled vessel you'd give a +3 bonus to the Chaos player. It also doubles the chance of taking a critical. The only reason to throw it in there is to protect the first cruiser in case of losing (by assigning hits to the damaged ship) but since it increases the chance of losing, there's no point. Also, if the 2 cruisers were a squadron then bracing one would mean that the other would be braced too, putting it on orders and thus giving the Chaos player another +1 to the dice roll, further increasing the chance you'll lose the boarding action. So that 1 tooled up Slaughter against 2 claw/board Nid cruisers comes out ahead. It can destroy one and pull off a draw against the other in the boarding action, suffering only a total of 2 pts of damage. Or it can cripple one and pull of a slight win against the other in the boarding action, again suffering only 2 points of damage. For the Nids to be the winners they need to be able to do more damage in the one boarding phase or be left alone to continue clawing the ship over multiple turns (not terribly likely).
The Chaos ships advantages of hits, speed and sheer firepower see it being the better option as far as I'm concerned. That's even when wasting 55pts just to negate the Nid advantage in boarding. Under normal circumstances I'd forgo those upgrades and just sail in close for point blank range broadsides (well, roughly 10~12cm out). That way I'd be able to avoid base contact whether you used CTNH or BR. Fire will be a little less effective, but return damage will be nill. As soon as you're crippled you're harmless.
-
Horizon, I put up the list of Adepticon winners in my first post, as reference. It's not quite what you think it is ;)
And Phthisis is right, tournaments aren't always a good indicator of "what is best" because of a variety of reasons. Hell, he (and this is what I'm really looking for here) provided the list of fleets he thinks has the most power to the least power. DE, Tau, and SM are middle to low on the pack, but they've all won tournaments. This is probalby more a case of people simply having not played against them often and getting surprised. Both of my non-ringer opponents were surprised at my SM guns and thunderhawks and what they do.
Finally, I don't care about the technicalities of the Tyranid fleet. If you boys could crunch down your discussion to the bare basics as to how strong/weak you think it is, that'd suffice ;).
As for assault boats...I absolutely love them. Of course, SM have the best assault boats in the game, being always pass, resilent, and fighters to boot.
Time to rejigger the original list to work in new opinions!
-
Hi, I am 100% sure it is sg tau. I know from deadshane the Ork winner. sg tau with explorers hero and orca is a top of the bill fleet.
fw tau is okay. medium.
-
Well, the guy I played in '08 was Rob Sautbine (the winner) and he had FW Tau those years, not Armada Tau. The second year I got royally hosed on the scenario against him! I'll update the list, regardless. You still think it outshines Necrons even? I've heard mean things about them Necrons.
This was his fleet. Now, unless he was playing it as Armada Tau with FW models (UGH, annoying), then yea. Still, he has one more ship in there (Marlin, whatever it is) than you mention; if he's been saying it's Armada then it's over points and no wonder he won those years, but the roster I got from him lists them as FW Tau.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/veritas117/Adepticon%202008/100_3245.jpg)
And his '07 fleet (exactly the same, I guess):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/veritas117/100_0540.jpg)
Here is him taking on Armada Tau in '09:
http://www.adepticon.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=7685
I really insist that he must have been using FW Tau ;)
Now if only I could figure out what Joe Freeland used last year we'd have a complete list...
-
Agreed, SG Tau is the best fleet to get right properly beardy. 3 Explorers, 3 Heroes, 8 Orcas.
-
Hi Seahawk,
then he used FW models as SG stand in. 100% sure.
Here is the deadshane thread:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?196900-Imperial-Navy-How-to-win-in-this-atmosphere
Winning fleet 2 years running now...Tau w/3 BB's...24 fighter/bomber.
2x Mk23 Explorer, 1x Mk24 Explorer, 2x Hero, 9x Orca, 3x Defender. Korel + Aunel = 1485pts
It was the only option we derived to get the thing Deadshane described.
Furthermore No set of FW rules allowes 3 Battleships in 1500pts.
Weird though. With FW he cheated big time them if he used 3 Custodians.
Heh, get that player in here to clarify :)
-
Yea, no kidding. I'll see if I can find his old list, but I'm not gonna make any promises ;). Maybe the guy got the number of launchable AC wrong?
If he used the FW list (Fanatic 24 (http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/24kvqf.pdf)), his list would be 1435 and thus:
1 Custodian
2 Explorers (counts as)
2 Emissaries
1 Defender (counts as)
9 Orcas (counts as)
Tau Kor'O (Ld9)
Aun'O (2 rr)
If he used the FW list from FW (http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/75tkov.pdf), his list would be flat out illegal because of only having Custodians available and being limited to 2.
If he used the GW list, his list would be 1475 and thus:
3 Explorers
2 Heroes
1 Defender
9 Orcas
Tau Kor'O (Ld9)
Aun'O (2 rr)
The problem is that there are simply way too many Tau lists out there. There's another from IA3 apparently that superseded the old FW rules, and add to that this set from the old SG forum that came out after that: Link (http://www.beerbadger.force9.co.uk/Shinnentai/GW/TauCPFarticle.pdf).
ARG!
-
Hi Seahawk,
the list in fanatic 24 was released by the HA a day before Imperial Armour 10 was released. This set has been ordered by FW to be removed from the internet. The HA/SG did so. (weird it is back online...)
the list in fanatic 75 is indeed the FW list which was from IA10 + a fleet list. Considered official by most this one.
The last link is a fanmade work guided by Xisor & Shinnentai. Nothing official whatsover.
Same as this is fanmade Tau list as well (project distant darkness:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/ddarkness.html
(top link, others are scenario/story expansions. This list is an addition to the regular Tau list, not an expansion)
And now we have this Tau list from Compendium 2010:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw_dULEfC3rbODAyY2YwMTgtMzAxNC00NWM5LWFhZWYtMGM4N2QzY2NiOWRi/edit
Which I consider the regular official Tau list for FW models that is.
---
Having 3 Custodians with 2 as Explorers is daftness.... ;)
-
I guess you'll just have to update your idea of his fleet. The only one it could have been is the GW one:
3 Explorers
2 Heroes
1 Defender
9 Orcas
Tau Kor'O (Ld9)
Aun'O (2 rr)
Despite not using the right models. Le sigh...
-
Yeah. I'm 99% sure he was using the FW ships as stand ins for the GW ones.
-
Hmm, given the fleet picture I am tempted to say that the single Castellan model was not a single Defender but a Messenger. Would fit the bill.
He would even be 50pts under 1500pts.
Quite unfunny to use the tiny Emissary model (barely 4 hits) as a stand in for the Hero (bulky 8 hits!).
lolz
-
I think that if I were to take an ECF contingent to a tournament I think I'd change it up a little, just to make it a little less boring. I'd take:
Kor'el
2 Explorer
2 Hero
1 Merchant (Dal'yth)
5 Orca
1 Stronghold
Total - 1490 pts
Unfortunately the hit upgrade on the Merchant costs 15 pts so I'd be stuck with a 4 hit Merchant. Still, it's better than 2 Defenders. ::)
Not quite as strong as the 3/3/8 fleet, but it gives an interesting centrepiece to the fleet at least.
-
So, bringing back to the over power/broken/weak/nerfed list, what should I add? Where does it stack up?
Necrons should not be number 2. They're more a middle of the road fleet. Particularly when using VPs.
-
Interesting. All I keep hearing about them is how OP they are...I guess that's not really the case?
-
Interesting. All I keep hearing about them is how OP they are...I guess that's not really the case?
Far too unreliable to be considered OP. I remember one game where I was well and truly winning when I faced 3 brace decisions in the one turn. One Scythe was on 7 hits and was facing just under 3 hits (average) incoming. I chose not to brace, took 3 hits and failed all saves (3, 3, 4). Another was on 5 hits, taking 1 possible hit, I braced, rolled a 1. I think the other was on 6 hits, taking possibly 3 hits, brace, no hits caused. So all 3 brace choices were the right choices to take but all 3 ended up wrong. If I'd have braced with the 7 hit vessel I'd have taken no damage and not been crippled. If I'd not braced with the 6 hit Scythe I'd have had more firepower next turn. If I'd not braced with the 5 hit Scythe I'd also have had more firepower next turn (since crippling was inevitable). As it happened I lost too much firepower and eventually the pot shots of my opponent wore me down.
So, right choices, bad results. This happens a fair bit with Necrons. It's a crap shoot. You may as well just roll a dice at the start of the battle to see who wins.
-
So basically there is something wrong with the Necron rules.
And I also do not think Necrons are overpowered.
-
From my experience, Eldar, (Tyranids depending on rules) and Necrons are OP when playing against general fleet lists (not optimized for max guns/lances/anti escort) and emphasizing their strong points. Even against optimized fleet lists some variants still have a say. Consider mass hemlocks, mass scythes or mass tyranid escorts.
-
I suppose the Tyranids could be if they're not limited to a certain amount of upgrades per ship. I almost faced a monster of a Hive Ship in a 1000 pt game once before I asked not to have that happen.
In my Adepticon thread, I never got an answer (that I could tell) to this question:
Would one say that I was using the 2010 SM fleet list to it's fullest capacity? Most people said my fleet was brutal to face, and the other players scoffed when they heard Table 1 was SM and Eldar; at which point someone said "Hey, they are legitimate fleets!" I'm not sure whether the generally held view is that SM are still suck or if they are top of the line now, or even Eldar/Necron level or something.
I was hoping to get some insight here. Why would people scoff? Why do others feel the need to defend their legitimacy? Are they broken strong or silly weak, or somewhere in the middle? Why is the list brutal?
-
I was hoping to get some insight here. Why would people scoff? Why do others feel the need to defend their legitimacy? Are they broken strong or silly weak, or somewhere in the middle? Why is the list brutal?
There could be any number of reasons why someone would scoff upon hearing of that match up. As I have said before, Eldar are doubly broken. They are both too strong and too weak at the same time. In the hands of an experienced admiral on a full size table and using a reasonable system of terrain generation they are practically unbeatable. In inexperienced hands, on an undersized table and with sparse terrain they're practically useless. On top of this the scenario also plays a greater than usual role. It could end up being extremely favourable for the Eldar (blockade run, for example) or extremely unfavourable for the Eldar such as being the attacker in a planetary assault (having to run straight into the enemy guns with little to no cover isn't ideal).
So many people see the Eldar as being very gimmicky and broken. Likewise the SMs have traditionally been viewed as weak. They also perform quite differently depending upon scenario. They typically do well in planetary assaults and exterminatus scenarios and perform poorly in fleet engagements. On top of this they are typically the Eldar's bitches. The Eldar are one of the few fleets that can outmanoeuvre and outpace them and for whom their bombardment cannon provide no extra bonus and against whom their boarding rules are wasted (essentially meaning they're paying for useless abilities). So not a good match up, both fleets considered gimmicky and not a good setting, at least for the Eldar (who typically under perform in tournaments).
The degree of awareness of the changes to the SM may vary as may the degree of agreement with those changes. All of which could cause someone to scoff. For example, someone may still be of the belief that SMs are very weak and so they might scoff. Someone else might be aware of the changes but disagree with them and so they might scoff.
If I remember rightly your fleet was "brutal" because you maximised your number of BC armed SCs. To my mind these ships are overpowered. I myself think that the normal SC should only have 1 TH in the prow, not 2, and that this TH could be swapped for a str 2 BC@30cmF. This would give a total of 5 BC, not 8. [Give the 2nd shield as standard, no change in points costs, and add a carrier variant SC that replaces the broadside guns with a TH bay each side for +15 pts.]
-
Ahh, that makes a fair amount of sense. Thanks for the explanations!
As for my fleet, yea I did max the BC. I could have made it even meaner and included another 3-4 Strike Cruisers instead of the barge though, so...;). While I understand the idea that it's very strong, it's also very short ranged. It's a shotgun, protected by a riot shield. I feel there are a few weaknesses and ways around it to defeat it; luckily, that day none of my opponents made use of such tactics.