Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Talos on September 16, 2012, 03:30:26 AM
-
So,
What's the deal with mixed escort squadrons? As an imperial player, I don't really seem to see the purpose of mixing squadrons. The fact that escorts are in essence already a specialized vessel makes making them more take all comers somewhat wasteful when it's probably better to just grab a separate squadron. Example:
-Swords: Squadroning them with Cobra/viper's or falchions requires reload ordnance and firestorms limit their firing arcs and adds cost without significant firepower.
The only mixed squadron I can see being potentially interesting would be cobra's/falchions, but I don't think any list supports that. What about other races? I know Eldar employ large escort squadrons, often of mixed composition, but anybody else? When and what is worth squadroning, and how do you play squadrons that limit their own utility?
Sincerely,
Talos the perplexed :o
-
Hi,
Generally I don't mix squadrons. As you said, all escorts have a specific purpose, so I use them that way.
Okay here and there you can add a lance escort to a weapon battery escort, now I run one mixed squadron: 2 Swords + 1 Firestorm...why? Because that what was in the second hand deal... heh
-
As far as your cobra/falchion comment, technically all lists 'support' that - you can simply use the reserves rules to grab a cobra, or vice versa.
-
@Mycen I mean't more like in larger squadrons (4+) ships, although you have a point. What would be a good squadron composition for a 4 strong squadron? Would three falchions and a viper make a good set? It would have 9 battery (respectable, although not more than 1 or 2 hits in reality) and either 4 markers defensively or a strength 6 offensively (decent too). Although the viper does move faster...
Although that ties in very well into another one of my points/questions. Do people run large squadrons? Everytime I read a list on the forums (other than eldar) people only seem to have 3-4 escort squadrons. Coincidence or science? Are bigger squadrons too big of at target, or just not worth the points? Why are they not run?
-
There are exceptions in my own lists (eg when I do not have enough points left) but it is always better to run uneven squadrons due victory points and the crippled status of escort squadrons.
I also prefer small squadrons as this will give the opponent more targets to shoot at. :) As thus it is more difficult to shut down all of my fleet.
-
There are exceptions in my own lists (eg when I do not have enough points left) but it is always better to run uneven squadrons due victory points and the crippled status of escort squadrons.
I also prefer small squadrons as this will give the opponent more targets to shoot at. :) As thus it is more difficult to shut down all of my fleet.
+1
With Space Marines I've played with 7 squadrons, 4 Gladius, 2 Hunters, 1 Novas...it isn't my standard fleet, but I never leave home with less than 4 squadrons for big battles.
The option of 2 Falchion & 1 Firestorm sounds good, maybe I'd test it soon.
;)
-
Hmmmm....interesting points from all of you.
@Cneo...why seven squadrons? Are all those ship in pairs? Or triples? What's their composition and purpose?
Can any of you name mixed squadron from other races that are effective and why?
Also *$%?/! quote tool! Not sure how that thing works, but it's out to get me! >:( How does one quote a single paragraph instead of the whole thing?
-
I never really got why some people insist on odd number squads, either 3 or 4 in a squad require 2 to be crippled and the cost increase is offset by the power increase. Two groups of three can last a bit longer while a squad of six might do a bit more damage, i swap it out depending on what im using the ships for: torpedoe escorts its almost always 3 battery and lance escorts typically 4-6.
Mixed squads? A battery or two in a lance squadron isnt bad but it doesnt really work the other way around. Dont mix ordinance with non ordinance unless you have some sort of odd restriction (not sure what that might be, fluff based maybe or scenario driven). Some ships do mix better than others tho nova and gladus both have the same arcs and are close enough in speed, hemlock and aconite, savages and onslaughts etc.
-
Hi Andrew,
if I destroy 2 Firestorms in a 4 strong squadron I gain 25% vps of 160pts = 40pts
if I destroy 2 Firestorms in a 3 strong squadron I gain 25% vps of 120pts = 30pts
Ofcourse the smaller squadron should disengage at that point while the bigger one could be lucky another turn (eg only losing 1 instead of 2).
-
Also *$%?/! quote tool! Not sure how that thing works, but it's out to get me! >:( How does one quote a single paragraph instead of the whole thing?
Like this?
Well, I quote your post, then remove the text part I don't need.
If I need more parts I add in [/quote) at the end and open a new part with [quote)
replace ) with a ] of course.
-
What about chaos or nid escorts? Can they mix? Also, although their escorts seem pretty good I have never heard anything about necron escorts. Worthwhile or garbage? And do they mix or stay pure?
-
Hi Andrew,
if I destroy 2 Firestorms in a 4 strong squadron I gain 25% vps of 160pts = 40pts
if I destroy 2 Firestorms in a 3 strong squadron I gain 25% vps of 120pts = 30pts
Ofcourse the smaller squadron should disengage at that point while the bigger one could be lucky another turn (eg only losing 1 instead of 2).
Right... You get 25% if crippled, got that. What about when you destroy 3 ships? The 4 strong version would give up 30vp the 3 strong version would give up 120vp.
Apply the two examples above to two squadrons of three firestorms (squadrons 1 and 2) vs one squadron of six (squadron 3). First turn you fire and destroy two, squadron 1 is crippled or squadron 3 would be down 2. Beginning of my turn squadron 1 disengages. Second turn you fire and destroy three, squadron 2 is destroyed outright or squadron 6 would be down to one remaining. My turn squadron 6 disengages.
Victory points= squadron 1: 20vp, squadron 2: 120vp, squadron 3: 50vp. 140 vs 50 for the same number destroyed. The two smaller squads would have an advantage in the case that they would take more damage than is required to destroy the entire large group. For instance if the 2 squadrons of 3 took 18 hits compared to the squadron of 6 one whike group of 3 would be untouched while the group of 6 would likely be destroyed (18-6 for shields -6 for brace saves *assuming only half are made* -6 for unbraced saves). If even one of the six survives to disengage the squadron of six gains the advantage in victory points back.
-
You get 100% value for each ship destroyed. This include escorts.
You get 25% value for disengaged escort squadron or crippled capital ship
You get 10% value for disengaged capital ship not crippled
P66 BBB
-
Hmmmm....interesting points from all of you.
@Cneo...why seven squadrons? Are all those ship in pairs? Or triples? What's their composition and purpose?
I usually group it in triples, sometimes Gladius in quartet.
The Hunters are like Bow Cavalry...they come, launch salves of torpedoes to capital ships and flee to reload.
The Gladii are enemy escorts killers. A 12-16 battery salve is enough to destroy or do heavy damage to enemy squadrons and sometimes crippled capitals or light cruisers.
The Novas have two roles. Hunt enemy escorts like Gladius or finish off crippled enemy capitals. But they're so expensive and I use it few times.
If I have to mix something, I chose Gladius & Novas, they work well together.
My usually escorts squadrons composition for battles between 1000-2000 pts. is:
2x 3-4 Hunter
2x 3-4 Gladius + sometimes 1 Nova (for -1500)
1x 2-3 Nova (for +1500)
;)
-
You get 100% value for each ship destroyed. This include escorts.
You get 25% value for disengaged escort squadron or crippled capital ship
You get 10% value for disengaged capital ship not crippled
P66 BBB
Each destroyed escort earns its value in victory points PROVIDED THE ENTIRE ESCORT SQUADRON IS DESTROYED.
If everyone plays them as vp+ 25% if more than half are destroyed its no wonder no body cares for them.
-
You get 100% value for each ship destroyed. This include escorts.
You get 25% value for disengaged escort squadron or crippled capital ship
You get 10% value for disengaged capital ship not crippled
P66 BBB
Escorts do not give 100% VPs upon destruction. They give up VPs based only on their squadron status. When fully destroyed they give up 100% squadron value as VPs. When at least half the escorts are destroyed, they give 25% VPs of the entire squadron. When disengaging they give up 10% of the value of the squadron. Note that you only apply the highest applicable modifier.
This is why odd number escort squadrons are preferred. To get 25% VPs of a 3 strong escort squadron you have to destroy 67% of the squadron. This is the worst kill to VP ratio in the game. In a 5 strong squadron you'd need to kill 60% to see any return, which is also not bad.
As to which to go for, strength 3 or strength 5, well, from experience I can say that strength 3 is generally best. There are 4 reasons for this. Firstly, it's actually fairly hard to destroy 3 escorts in one turn with direct fire. It's harder than crippling a healthy braced cruiser. So usually you'll have 1 escort left over which can disengage next turn and deny VPs to your opponent.
Secondly, it's no big sacrifice to brace 3 escorts. Bracing larger escort squadrons means a great deal of firepower lost. Since you're less likely to brace larger squadrons you're more likely to lose escorts to incidental fire.
Third, smaller escort squadrons suffer less from overkill. On those rare occasions where the opponent brings overwhelming fire to bear on an escort squadron the most you can lose from a 3 strong escort squadron is ... you guessed it, 3 escorts. With a 4 or 5 strong squadron you'll likely lose the lot. A full strength escort squadron may survive, but it isn't something you should bet on, given that there's likely to be upwards of 200 VPs in that squadron. Usually in that case the opponent will bend heaven and earth to finish off the last escort with everything remaining.
And finally, a strength 3 escort squadron packs just enough punch to leave the opponent undecided as to what his reaction should be. Should I worry enough about them to alter my lines? Should I really brace against them or wait for him to commit more firepower? Should I send out all my AC to deal with them or hold them back for CAP duty? They're a threat, but not a high threat. This is where escorts should sit.
Also, as an addendum, I tend to prefer capital ships over escorts myself. They're altogether more reliable and resilient over the long run (less attenuation due to attrition). If I can afford a 5-6 strong escort squadron then I can afford to just take another capital ship instead. Hence I tend to prefer 3 strong escort squadrons from a simple economics point of view, in addition to the reasons stipulated.
-
Since it is not in the rules we don't award any VPs for parts of escort squadron destroyed, 50% or otherwise.
-
You get 100% value for each ship destroyed. This include escorts.
You get 25% value for disengaged escort squadron or crippled capital ship
You get 10% value for disengaged capital ship not crippled
P66 BBB
Escorts do not give 100% VPs upon destruction. They give up VPs based only on their squadron status. When fully destroyed they give up 100% squadron value as VPs. When at least half the escorts are destroyed, they give 25% VPs of the entire squadron. When disengaging they give up 10% of the value of the squadron. Note that you only apply the highest applicable modifier.
This is why odd number escort squadrons are preferred. To get 25% VPs of a 3 strong escort squadron you have to destroy 67% of the squadron. This is the worst kill to VP ratio in the game. In a 5 strong squadron you'd need to kill 60% to see any return, which is also not bad.
As to which to go for, strength 3 or strength 5, well, from experience I can say that strength 3 is generally best. There are 4 reasons for this. Firstly, it's actually fairly hard to destroy 3 escorts in one turn with direct fire. It's harder than crippling a healthy braced cruiser. So usually you'll have 1 escort left over which can disengage next turn and deny VPs to your opponent.
Secondly, it's no big sacrifice to brace 3 escorts. Bracing larger escort squadrons means a great deal of firepower lost. Since you're less likely to brace larger squadrons you're more likely to lose escorts to incidental fire.
Third, smaller escort squadrons suffer less from overkill. On those rare occasions where the opponent brings overwhelming fire to bear on an escort squadron the most you can lose from a 3 strong escort squadron is ... you guessed it, 3 escorts. With a 4 or 5 strong squadron you'll likely lose the lot. A full strength escort squadron may survive, but it isn't something you should bet on, given that there's likely to be upwards of 200 VPs in that squadron. Usually in that case the opponent will bend heaven and earth to finish off the last escort with everything remaining.
And finally, a strength 3 escort squadron packs just enough punch to leave the opponent undecided as to what his reaction should be. Should I worry enough about them to alter my lines? Should I really brace against them or wait for him to commit more firepower? Should I send out all my AC to deal with them or hold them back for CAP duty? They're a threat, but not a high threat. This is where escorts should sit.
Also, as an addendum, I tend to prefer capital ships over escorts myself. They're altogether more reliable and resilient over the long run (less attenuation due to attrition). If I can afford a 5-6 strong escort squadron then I can afford to just take another capital ship instead. Hence I tend to prefer 3 strong escort squadrons from a simple economics point of view, in addition to the reasons stipulated.
Ah i see your meaning with the odd number escorts on paper now. I agree with your take on the uses and reasons behind taking 3 strong squadrons, very well said. The reason i try and go for larger squadrons of battery or lance escorts is due mainly to how i try and use them, hanging back and engaging crippled capitols or supporting the cruisers. The hope here is that the escorts will not draw significant fire due to the capitols and will have more than enough firepower to knock off a crippled ship (at least able to easily drop five hits). The large number also makes it more difficult for a ship to disengage. If i am using the escorts to support or in a small game iam more likely to go for 3-4 tho, for instance 3 swords and a gothic.
Since it is not in the rules we don't award any VPs for parts of escort squadron destroyed, 50% or otherwise.
Intersting, shame its been faq'ed because this would make them a bit more desirable. Of course i would have to be supremely confident in the fact that that ship would not be destroyed to make me not want to disengage it anyway.
-
Since it is not in the rules we don't award any VPs for parts of escort squadron destroyed, 50% or otherwise.
You do not use the 2010 FAQ?
Edit: Wait, it is in the normal rules. The same page you quoted, page 66 of the BBB. "Each destroyed escort earns its value in victory points provided the entire escort squadron is destroyed".
Crippled + disengaged escort squadrons or cap ships = 25% VPs. Non-crippled + disengaged escort squadrons or cap ships = 10% VPs.
-
I enjoy squadrons of 6 Gladius frigates...but then I only really like SM escorts.
-
Are you not the same Seahawk who won adepticon recently? With a list featuring BC spam and no escorts? :P But I jest; gladius are not much different from swords, yes? Merely a bit faster and with SM rules if I recall. When do you run these large escort squadrons? How do they compare to SC at their role?
The general consensus seems to be 3 escort squadrons. How much of an IN fleet should be escorts? As in at 1500 points, how many points are commonly dedicated to them? My guess would be between 150-200, but what do you all think?
-
I like one to two squadrons for one off games (usually right around your estimate there, sometimes as much as 250). In a campaign list I like to take lotz of escorts usually around 500pts worth, mostly for smaller games.
-
Cool, what kind of escorts do you run? What are the favorite imperial escorts? 8)
-
In my Imperial Fleet I run 6 Cobra destroyers (2*3) and a squadron with 2 Sword and 1 Firestorms (if the 2nd hand deal had 3 Swords it would've been 3 Swords).
I like the small torpedo markers. I think this is mainly caused due the fact I had my Tau fleet before my Imperial Navy.
In my 1500pts Tau fleet I run two Castellan squadrons of 3 and one Warden squadron of 3. Love both, Wardens are great when the lines close.
In my admech fleet I have 3 Gladii and 3 Hunters (heh).
In my main chaos renegade fleet 6 Infidels and 3 Iconoclasts (aka Emperor BB killers).
(see a pattern with torpedo escorts?)
Corsair is a lot of escorts, I have not used my Aurora or Solaris yet but otherwise I run one or two capital ships (Void Stalker and/or Void Dragon (Flame)) in my Corsair fleet. Rest escorts. Nightshades are the ones I prefer most but Hemlocks and Aconites are awesome as well.
Craftworld is the only fleet I sometimes field without escorts, this due background story (eg Shadowhunters are last line of defence of Craftworld and/or scout ahead. Never part of battlefleets).
My Rogue Trader list is always in the build, variety of things is what I aim at.
My Dark Eldar list (unpainted) is per fleet list: 9 escorts, 3 cruisers.
My inbuild Vanguard list for Nids is escort only, lolz
My Marine list is smaaaaalll (1 vbb, 1 strike cruiser, 2 escorts)... needs more.
-
What about Vipers? I know they are of limited availability due to lists but is the extra torpedo worth it? How about as reserve?
-
I run my escorts pretty similar to horizon except i try and fill my non torpedo squadrons as points allow. The main exceptions are Orks. I always try to run a full group of ravagers if i take them and with the ork klans pdf fleet ive been tinkering with i have been bumping them up to 9 (havent determined if it is worth it to take the full ten or wait to see if i can get the free one :P).
Vipers are ok, you can run them in a group of 2 which is nice if you have a few points you cant figure out but i usually take cobras with the +1 to leadership when enemy is on special orders, i cant remember the last time i took weapons batteries, 2000 maybe :P.
-
Heh, yeah, widowmaker upgrade is what I use as well.
-
Since it is not in the rules we don't award any VPs for parts of escort squadron destroyed, 50% or otherwise.
You do not use the 2010 FAQ?
Edit: Wait, it is in the normal rules. The same page you quoted, page 66 of the BBB. "Each destroyed escort earns its value in victory points provided the entire escort squadron is destroyed".
Crippled + disengaged escort squadrons or cap ships = 25% VPs. Non-crippled + disengaged escort squadrons or cap ships = 10% VPs.
you are correct
we play VP for when the squadron is destroyed
but i cannot recall the last time anyone disengaged an escort squadron for that rule to apply
-
Is there a particular reason your group does not disengage escorts? They seem to be really feeble when below half in a 3 ship squadron :D. Do you guys just have insane accuracy, or is there some deep tactical reason a relative n00b such as myself does not know for keeping a crippled escort squadron in game?
-
Hey,
in a campaign I will disengage without thinking in such situations.
However in one off games I sometimes go on. I do point out to my opponent that it would be a disengage moment but for the fun of the game I continue with a single escort doing a heroic effort in the game. :)
-
you are correct
we play VP for when the squadron is destroyed
but i cannot recall the last time anyone disengaged an escort squadron for that rule to apply
So the only thing you don't do is pay the 25% VP for when a squadron is crippled?
-
Pretty much
I guess we don't disengage because we are competitive in play? (actual play rather than vp)
Or that we would rather continue to play if we can.
-
@ Fracas so you guys don't play for victory points in one off games? Just win or lose? That's kind of refreshing, to be honest...
So do you guys run larger escorts group then? If you don't worry about vp, being able to mass firepower for a bigger squadron is probably worth it.
-
We just play. Frequently doubles, sometimes with odd combinations.
But regarding escorts we tend to like the idea of them so they are frequently present but size remains largely on points available as well as fleet taken.
My take is that if both players didn't enjoy the game then both lost
-
Are cobras any good? I have 6 Falcions, 6/9swords, 6 firestorms at the moment and I am thinking of ordering some cobras. An idea was to just have a squad of three hanging around/behind my Apocalypse or my Retribution Battleship to prevent enemy escorts/light cruisers getting behind them.
Any thoughts?
-
Are cobras any good? I have 6 Falcions, 6/9swords, 6 firestorms at the moment and I am thinking of ordering some cobras. An idea was to just have a squad of three hanging around/behind my Apocalypse or my Retribution Battleship to prevent enemy escorts/light cruisers getting behind them.
Any thoughts?
Well I love them but OTOH I am an ordinance whore so not surprising. They're slightly less effective after the 2010 FAQ and the fact that torp salvos are the same size regardless of size. You really can shotgun scatter salvos out and force your opponents into turning or manuvering around them. More effective against Chaos than Eldar IMO though again, BFG:R holofield enhancements make them viable again.
-
Cobra's are good.
And since they launched small markers per ship anyway the FAQ2010 didn't effect them a lot regarding torpedo marker size. Only when massing them. But I would only mass torpedo with Cobra's if they are in 30cm range anyway.
-
Are cobras any good? I have 6 Falcions, 6/9swords, 6 firestorms at the moment and I am thinking of ordering some cobras. An idea was to just have a squad of three hanging around/behind my Apocalypse or my Retribution Battleship to prevent enemy escorts/light cruisers getting behind them.
Any thoughts?
Cobras are the premiere IN escort and they and their variants (Widowmakers, Vipers) are a good choice. They excel at: strafing runs, where they can release their torpedoes in a single large salvo down the line of the enemy, hitting several ships; escort hunting, where their torpedoes (either combined or individually) can be used to good effect destroying enemy escorts; or in a pinch, as CAP busters, by firing their small torp salvoes at interposing enemy fighters so that larger torpedo salvoes from other ships can get through unmolested. Their direct fire isn't any good on its own, but can add another dice here or there, which could help reach a crippled/destroyed threshold. Otherwise they can be used to take potshots at enemy ordnance.
Swords are also great workhorses of the IN, having decent firepower, reasonable armour, good turrets, flexible fire arcs and a good price. So while they have no glaring weaknesses, their role is pretty limited. Their job is simple; get to the enemy's soft spots and unleash hell at close range on LO.
Falchions (one of my personal favourites) are slightly less viable than either the ubiquitous Sword or Cobras. They are, essentially, a Sword that sacrifices some direct fire capability to broaden their role somewhat. The niche that they fulfil best is as CAP busters. They sacrifice very little in this role. A Cobra assigned to CAP busting duty devotes pretty much their entire usable firepower to the role. A Falchion in the same role however will have 3 times the remaining firepower of a Cobra. Nothing to sneeze at. A Falchion can also gain some slight offensive capabilities from its torpedo. A single torpedo could still pose a threat to a 1 turret target but they're better used in conjunction with bombers, to either force the enemy to fire on the torpedo to allow the bombers a free pass or to just take advantage of the fact that enemy turrets have already fired on bombers. At which point salvo size becomes irrelevant and the single torpedo of a Falchion is worth just as much as a torpedo from any other salvo.
There are some downsides to the Falchion though. To begin with it only has 1 turret, which is quite detrimental (this has been "fixed" in BFG:R). Apart from this, the bulk of its firepower is WBs, like a Sword, and so, like a Sword, it should be used in a hunter-killer kind of role, whereby it attempts to flank the enemy to get into the rear arc, preferably while on LO at close range and abeam of the target. This manoeuvring requirement does sometimes conflict with the role of CAP busting. This is less the case when the opponent actually leaves his fighters in CAP (ie, base contact), for which it doesn't matter from what angle the torpedoes come in, so long as they can get a firing solution on the ship. However, when the fighters are placed forward between his lines and your torp boats the positioning of your Falchions may be insufficient to the task. Hence it is sometimes hard to reconcile the disparate role requirements of the Falchion. Similarly you are sometimes faced with the choice of LO or RO. As a hunter-killer you want to be locking-on, but you could also find yourself in a situation where your torpedoes could have been used offensively (a free shot at a target that's likely to shoot at bombers, for example). While I always recommend locking-on in such a situation, the loss of the torpedoes in this situation does make the Falchion an inferior choice to a Sword.
In short, if you are aware of all the roles and circumstances pertaining to the Falchion, have a need for a CAP busting force, know how to use escorts in general and intend to not spend many points on them, the Falchion is a good choice. Otherwise you should take either Cobras or Swords.
The Firestorm is a piece of poo. Avoid.
I would normally leave it there, but since the BFG:R version is actually usable I should say a bit more on it. The firestorm sacrifices fire arc versatility in favour of greater firepower. It also has slightly greater versatility than the Sword, in that it can do OK against escorts and armour 6+. Due to this latter factor it has less need to manoeuvre to the rear of a target. However, 40% of its firepower is still WBs and it is still just an escort, so being at the rear of the enemy is both the best and safest option. However, the frontal fire arc of the lance is quite debilitating. Moreso than that of the Falchion's torpedo. The Falchion's torpedo is a small portion of its total firepower and since it doesn't combine well with its direct fire weaponry (ignores shields, suffers attrition to turrets, can prematurely detonate to BMs) it is actually best to fire them against different targets. This is not the case with the Firestorm. The lance is a major component of its firepower and should be combined with its WBs against a single target. However, not only will this make it harder to achieve a LO solution due to the extra manoeuvring requirements, it also means that the Firestorm is pointing at its target when it fires. If its target survives (or has a ship in close formation with it) then they will be able to return fire into a closing escort, rather than an abeam escort. This could turn out to be disastrous for the Firestorm.
It should also be noted that, under ideal circumstances, there is sod all difference in firepower between the Sword and the Firestorm. For example, let's say you've gotten into the rear arc of a capital ship within 15cm on LO. A squadron of 3 Swords would average 4.44 damage, whereas a squadron of 3 Firestorms would average 4.47 damage. Given that it's easier to achieve LO under those circumstances with the Sword and it presents a more defensible aspect to return fire it's best to just use the Sword. Firestorms only really outperform Swords against SMs (they're alright against Necrons too). Conversely Swords are even better than in the comparison shown when used against Orks, Tau Kor'vattra, Nids, Chaos and vanilla Eldar (CE, CWE & DE).
-
On Firestorms i use these almost exclusivly for killing cripples. 5 or 6 chasing a crippled cruiser is usually more than enough to take it out and since your chasing the enemy the front arc is much less of an issue. In a pinch they can take on individual cruisers, even from abeam. I also tend to roll a boat load of fours so im rather partial to lances :D.
I got a chance to run my 10 man Ravager blob w/ deathskulls upgrade (looted torps) last night and O_o it was stupid. Planetary Assault with my Orks attacking and i got first turn and got to setup the other players Emperor right outside my deployment zone :D. Crappy shooting from almost my entire fleet did 4 hits after brace saves and then the Ravagers launched a total of 53 torpedoes O_o most of which were wiped out by turrets and brace saves but i still managed a solid 4 hits from them alone and smashed the bridge keeping them from disengaging next turn. They also brought an orbital dock to one hit left from full and raked two Dominators prow on (they had gone line abeam infront of my kroozers) and scored 3 hits against one and 2 against the other (both were already crippled). Those were the only three salvos i got out of them but they did some stupid damage and let my fighta bombaz wreak havoc. The +1 leadership for squadron size really came in handy too as they rolled a ld 6. Lost one Ravager to a random nova cannon scatter and my kill kroozer was crippled to his entire fleet destroyed, he failed every attempt to disengage and just had really bad ld tests all around (7 failed attempts for his Mars and two Dominators to come off standby :/). Anyway point being the "lotz" squads were crazy good, maybe a bit too good with looted options.
-
On Firestorms i use these almost exclusivly for killing cripples. 5 or 6 chasing a crippled cruiser is usually more than enough to take it out and since your chasing the enemy the front arc is much less of an issue. In a pinch they can take on individual cruisers, even from abeam. I also tend to roll a boat load of fours so im rather partial to lances :D.
I got a chance to run my 10 man Ravager blob w/ deathskulls upgrade (looted torps) last night and O_o it was stupid. Planetary Assault with my Orks attacking and i got first turn and got to setup the other players Emperor right outside my deployment zone :D. Crappy shooting from almost my entire fleet did 4 hits after brace saves and then the Ravagers launched a total of 53 torpedoes O_o most of which were wiped out by turrets and brace saves but i still managed a solid 4 hits from them alone and smashed the bridge keeping them from disengaging next turn. They also brought an orbital dock to one hit left from full and raked two Dominators prow on (they had gone line abeam infront of my kroozers) and scored 3 hits against one and 2 against the other (both were already crippled). Those were the only three salvos i got out of them but they did some stupid damage and let my fighta bombaz wreak havoc. The +1 leadership for squadron size really came in handy too as they rolled a ld 6. Lost one Ravager to a random nova cannon scatter and my kill kroozer was crippled to his entire fleet destroyed, he failed every attempt to disengage and just had really bad ld tests all around (7 failed attempts for his Mars and two Dominators to come off standby :/). Anyway point being the "lotz" squads were crazy good, maybe a bit too good with looted options.
So you got to start in position to fire with fully reloaded torp boats against an undefended target. This is pretty much as good as it gets, particularly as the difficult part for Orks is getting in position, being reloaded when they are and getting past the enemy AC screen. With none of these problems to deal with, I don't think it's too much to expect that they would perform well. Swap around the luck on those leadership tests and you would be cursing them for useless.
-
Oh the Emperor was crap ill be the first to say it :D. By the time they got to the planet tho the mars and dock were pumping fighters pretty steady, the one that surprised me was the two dominators, rolling against armor 6 and they were both braced the Ravagers were still able to knock of 5 hits... That just seems impressive to me :/. The dock was less so as it was stationary, the first four waves went to cap and the three turrets really mopped up but still caused 5 hits there after bracing too. I dont think i would have said they were useless if i got bad leadership tests, they actually failed to reload as often as they did reload this game, which sucked given the 150cm of nothingness i had to go through facing 3 novas in orbit :P. Im just a little put off by the cheap rerolls, easy leadership boost, and ability to reload all with one order. Oh well after i run them a few more times i may change my mind but these did so much more than my Ravagers did playing on the gothic list (with upgrades they were pretty pricy tho 430, but this was atill less than the Emperor which was at 490).
-
Yeah, big skwadrons with the Ld bonus are also suddenly hard targets to take down!
-
Howdy folks! So Talos mentioned xenos escorts in his OP. I'd like to add to that question, as really I'll be benefitting from it.
So for Eldar, I play MMS and BFG:R, no MMS Shennanigans. I've noticed that most list have both mixed squadrons, and large ones at that. Why? this thread has mostly agreed that 3 is the correct number, and pure. What makes it so that eldar uses the exact opposite composition? Is it because the escorts fulfill more of the "line ship" role, damage wise? Shoudl I still be seperating Nightshades and Hellebores, due to RO? given that escorts are my damage output, should I be using CL and cruisers as support for the excorts?
For Tau, Castellans and Defenders. They seem like 50 point cobras. yet every list I see includes Castellans. Less so for defenders. I get that orca's and warden are paid for in part, and so take them, and the warden I've used haev done their jobs pretty well, but the larger escorts just don't seem to be worth 50 pts to place 2 torps. fro 100, just buy an emmisary, and get a much more effective warship. Can anyone enlighten me? I don't feel like str 2 batteries at 45cm make up the difference. Oh and the messenger feels like free VP. a lone escort, even surrounded by capitals, with just get instantly destroyed. free 50 pts. I'd prioritize that, especially with it's tracking system.
thanks ahead of time, ladies and gentlemen.
-
I play MMS and BFG:R, no MMS Shennanigans.
:o Second verse, Same as the First! You mean MSM?
-
no MMS Shennanigans.
What?
I've noticed that most list have both mixed squadrons, and large ones at that. Why?
Which lists have mixed ones and large ones?
this thread has mostly agreed that 3 is the correct number, and pure.
3 is a number I prefer but I can see the merit of 5 a lot.
What makes it so that eldar uses the exact opposite composition? Is it because the escorts fulfill more of the "line ship" role, damage wise?
How do you mean?
First of all they are xenos, being different makes sense then. In my Corsair list I do not run mixed squadrons at all:
3 Nightshades
3 Nightshades
3 Hemlocks
3 Hemlocks
3 Aconites
In a 1500pts list.
Add Void Stalker, Aurora + Command.
If I run my Hero list (one option):
Hero
Void Dragon
Aurora
Solaris
3 Nightshades
3 Nightshades
3 Hemlocks
2 Hemlocks + 3 Aconites
See, I add the 2 Hemlocks to the 3 Aconites to get an uneven number.
With Corsair you have more escort shuffling anyway since the core is escorts.
Shoudl I still be seperating Nightshades and Hellebores, due to RO? given that escorts are my damage output, should I be using CL and cruisers as support for the excorts?
Ideally, yes, the Nightshades should always be single so they can concentrate on ReLoad.
Hellebores have less need to do so, at times they will have more benefit from a LockOn. They can forfeit their ReLoad, especially if other ordnance is near.
For Tau, Castellans and Defenders. They seem like 50 point cobras. yet every list I see includes Castellans. Less so for defenders. I get that orca's and warden are paid for in part, and so take them, and the warden I've used haev done their jobs pretty well, but the larger escorts just don't seem to be worth 50 pts to place 2 torps. fro 100, just buy an emmisary, and get a much more effective warship.
Wella, the Castellan always had design difficulties. The FW variant from IA3 was a Defender copy with a better turn rate.
Currently the 50pts are high edged, but the escort has a good strike range due its missiles. A beefed up Infidel for most part.
You see this escort a lot as most people run pure FW fleets. And that the old Emissary designs have always been poo; it was never a choice, so that is why a lot of Castellans have found a place in fleets these days.
The new Emissary is better but still not ideal (25cm speed... which the Castellan also should have...).
3 hits on an Emissary is a crippled Emissary.
3 hits on a str3 Castellan squadron is 1 down, 1 shield down => uncrippled.
With turret massing Castellans are also more safe againt enemy ordnance.
If you run them under Custodian wings they'll gain benefits on their Railguns.
-
So a FW forge world list uses protectors with the wardens for finishing/flanking on the line and custodian with castellans in the rear for long range fire support? That seems rather good, actually... :P How does one use the really heavy escorts like castellans and such? I would never know where to employ such an expensive escort...
-
Are you not the same Seahawk who won adepticon recently? With a list featuring BC spam and no escorts? :P But I jest; gladius are not much different from swords, yes? Merely a bit faster and with SM rules if I recall. When do you run these large escort squadrons? How do they compare to SC at their role?
One and the same! To be fair, those three games were the first games I ever went without escorts...suffice to say I enjoy the results, but my fleet was pretty limited.
All previous Adepticons and games I use 6 Gladius and 3 Swords, in squadrons of 6 and 3, respectively. Why? Firepower. I love the guns. Firepower is boss against Eldar, and in sufficient quantities it gives others a nasty rash. 24 is a good quantity. I almost never disengage, simply because they are strong and durable (as escorts go, anyway) and pour on the hurt, even when down to just two. When reduced to just 1 (never happened) I'll likely disengage or fly it away to save the points, but until then they will do what I want them to and blast away.
My playstyle isn't prancy-dancy point denial, that's lame; I get up close and shotgun/bludgeon my way to victory, and so far it's worked nicely. That's mainly why the Space Marine fleet appeals to me, other than of course I have a massive Ultramarines army too. 8)
-
So a FW forge world list uses protectors with the wardens for finishing/flanking on the line and custodian with castellans in the rear for long range fire support? That seems rather good, actually... :P How does one use the really heavy escorts like castellans and such? I would never know where to employ such an expensive escort...
Exactly as you stated, in the rear providing long range fire support. Same goes for the Idolator although its still pretty over priced. The only other really expensive escort off the top of my head that isnt necron or eldar is the SM Nova which runs well persenting their broadside and flanking, the Admech is better imo tho due to the lower cost.
-
Hey guys, sorry for the delay, been having problems with my PC.
So, first. Yes, I meant MSM shennanigans.
Second, lists with mixed squadorns. I THINK Afterimagedan has a batrep versus IN with mixed squadrons, but I'm not 100% on that.
Yeah, they are xenos, but (especially for squadron size) basic escort facts are the same. They are still specialised (aside from the hellebore) they are sitll 1 shield 1 hit ships. so while they certainly are different, the aspects I'm asking about are still pretty similar.
Hmm, That's interesting. Do you think they are as, or more effective in that composition than if they were mixed? I.E. Aconite paired with hemlocks, that kind of thing.
Just out of curiosity, why 2 hemlock and three aconite instead of 3 hemlock 2 aconite. isn't that more damaging?
I understand cruiser shuffling, but what is the purpose of escort shufling? aside from keeping the better escorts safe in large mixed squadrons, they all have exactly the same resilience, and die to a single hit, so you'll never have wounded ones to shuffle.
Alright, seperating nightshades makes sense. Any thoughts on the role of CL amd Cruisers?
Talos' sumation of Tau tactics are pretty much my thoughts exactly on the rest, and sounds cool, like something I may want to try soon.
thanks folks!
-
If afterimagdan mixes it doesn't mean everyone mixes. ;)
Escort shuffling; to fill out the max amount of availble points. That's why I want 3 Aconites + 2 Hemlocks.
-
Afterimagedan isn't the only one I've seen, just the most easily referenced, the rest coming from combing google for batreps.
Ah, that makes sense. However, with your example, is it really worth maximizing those ten points?
-
For me, I'd rather have same escorts and be down 5-10 points than to mix and be at par. It's just easier for play, plus it's a handicap and I give away fewer points :P
-
For me, I'd rather have same escorts and be down 5-10 points than to mix and be at par. It's just easier for play, plus it's a handicap and I give away fewer points :P
I agree its usually not worth it if your just throwing in one ship over another because of 5 points. The exception for me would be in say a convoy scenario where your limited in the size of the squad, but even then your best to stick to the same (unless you really want some firestorms for example, you can take 3 in a squad or 2 and 2 swords, the additional escort would probably be worth it in this case but thats alot of ifs).
-
Now wonder:
for FAQ2010 and BFG:R we discussed about lowering/raising costs for ships.
It was a victory to see some ships be lowered with measely 10-15pts.
Now, again, are those 10-15pts important or not. ;)
-
Its pretty dependant on the player as to what they think is "worth" something. Most players wouldnt fill a 5pt gap by replacing a Sword with a Firestorm because it wouldnt work as well, it would still manage to do some good but it weakens the rest of the squadrons ability as far as facing, special orders etc. Now when your talking about taking a ship like the Overlord and lowering its cost to make it playable ya the 10 were "worth" it but when you think about it all that really did was make people sit up and notice those ships. The real winners were people who used ships like the Styx which was pretty good at 290, great at 275, and is stellar now at 260. These players got an entire escort over the games life so far, thats hugh. The only other thing I can think of off the bat that comes close is the Retribution/Emperor swap which wasnt even really a swap just an error correction.
-
No, the Retribution & Emperor were as intended not a mistake in the sense of them wanting things otherwise. They underestimated the Emperor and people's love for AC spam.
The Armageddon point drop is also pretty important.
-
No, the Retribution & Emperor were as intended not a mistake in the sense of them wanting things otherwise. They underestimated the Emperor and people's love for AC spam.
The Armageddon point drop is also pretty important.
The only reason they had to FAQ it was because the Fleet List had the point costs reversed, if you look at the ships entrys the Ret has always been 345 and the Emperor 365 even in the old v1.0 books.
pg 107, 108, and 115 BBB
The Armageddon price drop was needed, but its still insignificant compared to the 30pt drop on the Styx. As I said the Styx got the largest drop Im aware of (even if it was a bit at a time).
-
The only reason they had to FAQ it was because the Fleet List had the point costs reversed, if you look at the ships entrys the Ret has always been 345 and the Emperor 365 even in the old v1.0 books.
pg 107, 108, and 115 BBB
Those are online pdfs, not the original profiles as printed when BFG was first published. The original cost of the Retribution was 365 pts and the Emperor was 345 pts. These prices were swapped later in a FAQ and the online version of the rules reflected this change.
The Armageddon price drop was needed, but its still insignificant compared to the 30pt drop on the Styx. As I said the Styx got the largest drop Im aware of (even if it was a bit at a time).
The Styx was probably the most overpriced ship in the game. A direct comparison of 2 Styx (580 pts) vs 3 Devastations (570 pts) highlighted just how craptastic the Styx was. A slight advantage in direct fire to the Styx when over 30cm range, but huge advantages in survivability, firepower under 30cm and offside firepower for the Devs. While being cheaper and a base-line cruiser. The Styx is actually worth about 250 pts, but it's playable at 260. Just like the Mars is playable at 270 but is only really worth 260.
-
To pursue this line, if the Jovian had a Nova Cannon and was dropped to 255pts, would it be playable? Again, small point difference (and more firepower than a firestorm frigate :D) might make it almost playable, at least as heavy AC support vessel. And why is the oberon so expensive if it can't keep up with equal point value of anything? A point drop, at least down to its original level would actually encourage its use.
-
I always fielded the Styx so I find 260 awesome. :)
The actual fix would be to have the Devestation see prow and broadside swapped.
eg 30cm prow lances, 60cm weapon batteries port/starboard.
-
Intersting on the Devi, not sure if i agree tho. 30cm prow only lances would be quite craptastic, much worse than the 30cm guns. At least with the ships that have the prow lances they also have 60cm range so they can get hits in while closing and are designed with closer broadsides in mind.
On the Jovian I dont think lowering its price and adding guns are a good idea. It should have a nova yes but it should be priced comparable to the Mars in that case, 270-280.
As for the rule book my paper version reads the same as the online, i got my box set in late 00 so maybe they had corrected the prices by then? I know we had been playing the Ret at 345 even before i decided to get my own fleet but im not sure when the first faq would have come out, although i imagine not long after the initial release given how gw and rules are ::).
-
My rulebook has Retribution at 365 in all places and Emperor at 345pts in all places. It is a 1999 edition.
The swap was FAQ'ed and applied in the current 1.5 rulebook. Then a FAQ was needed because it was changed only in 1 place in the rulebook. :P
-
Based on upgrades and existing ships, an integrated NC is worth roughly 10 pts more than 6 strength torpedos, and optional is +20. The dictator either pays +20 pts a side for AC or +10-15pts and a premium of 10-20pts. Battlecruiser status seems to be at roughly 35-40pts, and range increases either cost firepower of roughly 10-15pts per component (both sides combined for broadsides). So if you took a dicator and swapped out is torpedoes for a nova cannon, its price should remain fairly similar (NC cost offset by loss of synergy and thus premium). If you then ripped out its batteries for half strength launch bays, this would cost another +10 a side I would imagine. Upgrading it to battlecruiser status adds another hypothetical 35pts, for a total so far of 275. It also has a pretty useful special ability, which is probably priced at 5-10pts. But at 285pts, it seems far too weak, even as a support vessel. So I guess 10pts less, at 275 is probably right then? If such a ship were to exist? Feel free to correct/rip apart/sodomize my math and/or pricing, but bear in mind these are pretty hypothetical; I have little experience reverse point engineering vessels. If there is a specific list for doing so, a link would be appreciated. ;D
-
http://yenlowang.free.fr/BFG/smotherman_formula_v205.pdf
Its not perfect but will get you in the ballpark and playtest from there.
275 sounds good to me, 15 pt premium over the base Jovian is a bit steep for a non torpedo ship but thats meh.
-
Smotherman seems weird...the lunar is like 200pts!
-
Ya, not perfect but none of the ships were built using a system. They were all given their weapons and priced based off performance. Like I said use this to get you in the ball park then playtest! theres no magic formula to determine the value of a ship you just have to keep playing it against other ships and determine how well it does.
-
Best is to derive from other vessels, use Smotherman as a little help, playtest and if you are not sure add 5pts-10pts. Opponents will sooner accept a ship that reads underpowered then overpowered.
-
Do any of you have any custom ships you would be willing to share? Particularly escorts?
-
No, no new escorts from me only changes to existing ones (distant darkness/eldar mms).
-
Carrier Frigates but I cant seem to locate the file... Other than that tho no most fleets have a good selection of escorts they just need some tweaking.
-
There is a carrier frigate in BFG:R...is that the one you are referring to? How do you even use carrier frigates? Without the large squadrons of true carriers, this seems to limit them to defensive roles.
-
Use bigger squadrons.
-
I meant bigger waves, rather...as far as I know, you cannot link multiple ships do create bigger waves, a la torpedo.
-
I meant bigger waves, rather...as far as I know, you cannot link multiple ships do create bigger waves, a la torpedo.
Yes you can, they just need to be in squadron and base to base contact.
-
Just to confirm; multiple vessels in a squadron, in base to base contact can combine ANY ordnance, not just torpedoes? So you could have 2 dictators "link up" to create a 12 a strength torpedo wave AND a strength 8 bomber wave...that's welcome information.
-
Yes, if in squadron and in base-to-base contact that is possible.
-
How often do people actually do that? Is it a viable tactic most of the time, or so situational as to be only a footnote?
-
I always run CVE's in base contact. Cruisers tho its not such a big deal as their launch capacity is typically sufficient unless your launching with the intention of hitting a high turret value target. I usually split my BB launch into two separate waves also tho.
-
Don't suppose a homebrew escort with torpedoes and AC is viable then? Even at 40-50pts?
-
People will sent the Inquisition for you.
-
That is...actually quite hilarious, horizon. Kudos for hilarity ;D. So i presume no then? That seems quite reasonable, I was just curious. Do you have any good custom escort builds to share, or ideas for one?
-
Ok I found some notes :P.
Sparrowhawk Destroyer...................................45pts
Type/Hits...Speed....Turns....Shields....Armor....Turrets
Escort/1.....30cm.....90*......1............4+........2
Armament...........Strength.............Range.........Arc
Weapons Battery......1...................30cm........L/F/R
Launch Bay.......1 Squadron.........30cm/20cm.....-
Golden Eagle Frigate.......................................55pts
Type/Hits...Speed....Turns....Shields....Armor....Turrets
Escort/1.....25cm.....90*......1............5+........3
Armament...........Strength.............Range.........Arc
Weapons Battery......2...................30cm........L/F/R
Launch Bay.......1 Squadron.........30cm/20cm.....-
The Sparrowhawk and Golden Eagle escorts are the last of a dying breed of ship designed during the great crusade as an attempt to counter the massive quantities of land based attack craft commonly found defending lost worlds. As the crusade neard its end there was much less call for such ships and as such many were scrapped or put into fleet reserves for use as training vessels. A few of these were converted to carry Starhawk bombers and Fury interceptors and were used to bolster planatary defense forces and as a somewhat effective merchant transport. By the late 41st millennium however even many of these have long been retired in favor of the more durable cruiser based designs coming out of the major forges and fleet bases. Currently no major sector fleets make use of these vessels altho minor sectors may still make use of their unique capabilities and de-militarized versions can still be seen escorting rouge trader fleets and in the planetary defense fleets of hundreds of worlds.
Can be modeled by shaping the edges of chaos launch bays to the prow of Iconoclasts (Sparrowhawk) or Infidels (Golden Eagle) Golden Eagles can also be represented by Escort Carriers (all must be painted in appropriate colors!)
Scutum Frigate..............................................50pts
Type/Hits...Speed....Turns....Shields....Armor....Turrets
Escort/1.....25cm.....90*......2............5+........2
Armament...........Strength.............Range.........Arc
Weapons Battery......3...................45cm........L/F/R
The Scutum class frigate predates the advent of the modern battleship and were designed as a means of introducing void shielding to early Imperial Ironclads by closely escorting them with frigates that would intercept incoming fire. As the newer battleships were developed with their own shield generators the demand for these ships dwindled and with the technology to reproduce their powerful laser batteries becoming more scarce eventually all production was ceased in favor of the newer Sword class with its much simpler design. The majority of these turned traitor and it is believed that this much of this ships technology was replicated for use in the Idolator class raider. Very few are still in Imperial service, those that still are however make very valuable additions to any sector commands escort flotillas.
The Scutum class frigate can be modeled using Idolator raiders with their prow lance replaced with something to represent the additional shield generators.
Scorcher destroyer.........................................30pts
Type/Hits...Speed....Turns....Shields....Armor....Turrets
Escort/1.....25cm.....90*......1............4+........1
Armament...........Strength.............Range.........Arc
Weapons battery......1...................30cm........L/F/R
Lance.....................1...................30cm...........F
The Scorcher was rather uncommon even when they were new. Many attempts had been made to graft a lance onto the smaller destroyer frames in the hopes of creating a ship capable of both high speeds and a powerful punch. The Scorcher was the most successful of these attempts using the Iconoclast hull and power plant Adptus engineers were able to reroute the required energy to power the lance however many of these examples suffered problems with overheating and several were destroyed by the engines detonating. This gave the ship a rather bad name and they were mostly scrapped, the few that survived were placed in fleet reserves or low priority areas and forgotten. The crafty engineers assigned to these ships quickly learned that in order for the ship to sustain the energy required to power the lance and not overload the power plants they would need to come up with a solution. It was determined that by shunting a portion of the ships energy from the engines to the lance they could prevent any overheating, but at the cost of a slower speed somewhat defeating their original purpose but making the ship much more reliable.
Can be modeled by attaching a lance turret to an Iconoclast destroyer.
All of these were intended for use with a back water type fleet, RT fleet, PDF, or as reserves for IN/Choas fleets. Point values have not been play tested and are simply what felt right for the ship.
-
Really cool designs, are those yours? The scutum and sparrowhawk in particular interest me, going to have to fly them by my group and see what they think.
-
Ya i came up with these ideas during a descussion about another far flung battlefleet and what would be required to make an all escort force playable. The idea being that more durable escorts and true escort carriers would fill most of the gaps. The Scorcher was an attempt to insert a lance escort as there would be no Firestorms. The fleet list included Havocs (no swords) and Iconoclasts, Copperheads (rt recomissioned escorts), and what you see here for escorts.
-
Good for you, these are very interesting...although if you look at BFG:R, there is a carrier escort at 45pts identical to the golden eagle frigate, suggesting that it and the sparrowhawk could probably use a price reduction. As for the scutum, really like the idea of mixing it in with other squadrons, keeping it a the front to soak fire like a boss.
-
The Scutum class frigate
You know that reallllllly looks like another word when you first glance at it. Just sayin... :o
-
Lol indeed, its a type of shield. For the points your correct, the prices i used are untested and aimed at appeasing those that would protest the vessel, i have no idea if the bfgr version was tested.
-
Well hopefully I can guinea pig for you, but my only reliable opponents are FW tau and corsairs, so I will let you know how they fare.
-
Sparrowhawk -> Golden Eagle
+10 pts for:
4+ to 5+ armour
+1 turret
+1 wb
-5cm speed.
//
6 Sparrowhawks
6 Cobra's (widowmakers)
12 torpedos
6 attack craft
for: 270 + 180pts = 450pts
fast moving -> 30cm
max syngery strike range -> 50cm (bombers + torps)
max anti cap strike -> 60cm (fighters + torps)
Two Dictators:
12 torps/8 ac
440pts
more resilience, slower, less strike range
The escort attack is fragile but if it manages a neglected flank a deathly attack force.
Personally I would place a cap on the vessel.
//
Scutum
Sword class
+1 shield
+15cm range
-1 wb strength
+15pts
Although the point increase per item is feasible the 2 shields is pretty heavy since the escort multiplier exists.
eg If I hit a squadron of standard Swords 5 times:
shield - hit
shield - hit
shield
If I hit Scutum 5 times:
shield-shield-hit
shield-shield
Add in BFI and the longlivety increases a lot. Especially as shields come back a turn later.
-
So is the tempest from BFG:R under costed by your standards? It is effectively a sword that trades 2 battery for a launch bay at +10pts. The golden eagle is 10pts more than it despite an identical profile. That's getting awfully close to hellebore price without nearly the versatility or staying power or actual power (mms version). I think the sparrowhawk (off the top of head) should be 40pts, basically a 10pt jump over a cobra. As for the scutum, there is a place for a resilient escort, and if used in chaos fleet range is not an issue, but 45cm would make it the only IN escort to be able to do so.
@horizon/AndrewChristlieb Since the scutum is suppose to be a defensive tank for ironclad battleships, what if it had only 30cm range? Or even 15cm and 4 firepower at 45pts?
-
40pts places it as one of the best ac/points ratio (explorer and escort frigate are both better). Its not unfeasable tho to see a 5pt drop on the sparrowhawk and a 10pt drop on the g eagle.
The scutum would do fine at 30cm. The list it was written for used heresy era ships so it fit well there but in a more mainstream application the range drop should be justified. The 50pt price is pretty cheap already for an escort with two shields (q ship is 60pts, loses range, speed, and manuverability so its quite a bargan over this, and the xenos vessel swaps 1 wb @45 for a 30cm lance at the same price.)
-
I would probably run scutum at 30cm myself, as for sparrowhawk I don't really see it having a strong ratio to be too problematic, because most IN players play very little ordnance, and three together is hardly game breaking. With the eagle at 45 you have 2 strong options for escort AC, depending on your fleet lists. My armageddon list, for instance has only defensive escorts, so I would run 2 eagles and 3 falchions in my defensive escort squadron. With 3 torpedo markers and 2 AC it would be quite good at taking down AC, and although 13 battery is not incredible it should be able to account for some more AC if need be.
-
Ya a 30cm Scutum would be perfectly suited to supporting other escorts, losing one wb but gaining a shield you would almost be able to take a squad head on with a cruiser. A squadron with 2 of these and 3 Swords 205 pts is 6 wb and 5 points shy of a full squadron of Swords but you would have to drop 8 unsaved hits to cripple them compared to 6 for the 6 Sword squadron or even a standard cruiser. The cruiser would still have the advantage in smaller amounts of damage (3 hits a turn for example) but the escorts would still have the advantage in target aspect (escorts always make a harder target) and lock on options.
I dont know about IN not fielding much ordinance unless its nova spam and even then I expect to see 2 Mars. 40 points on such a fragile target shouldnt be too bad tho, its still basically a Cobra less torps +1lb and +1 turret for +10 points. Speaking of Cobras 3x Widowmakers 2x Sparrowhawks 2 launch and 6 torps with a +1 ld bonus for enemy contacts for 170 doesnt sound too bad at all, launching support until the fleets meet then taking advantage of the synergy and their speed to get in the enemies rear and cause some havoc.
I wouldnt disreguard 13 wb either, even not locked on you have a good chance of scoring one or two hits.
-
My apologies, i'm starting to sound like a real asshole ;D I mean't to say, most IN fleets don't field a lot of escorts, as in most people run one or two squadrons of three from what I have seen/been told.
-
IN have good escorts and most field them in the 6-9 numbers in a 1500pts game which comes out at roughly 1-2 per capital ship.
Chaos is another story.
-
Escorts could still use some help to make them more popular tho. Allowing them a speed save would be nice and having groups of 4+ count towards CB, CG, BB limits would help among others.
-
Big squadrons counting towards limit counts is pretty interesting, actually...speed save could be pretty strange to implement though as several fleets have capitals that move faster than other fleets escorts. Even escorts vary quite a bit; a sword moves 25cm, average 37cm if AAF. Necron dirge moves at 50cm, average 80cm AAF with 4 turns. Would they get the same save? :P ;D
-
Combination of speed and size, capitols wouldnt receive a bonus save. In my mind it would be something like upto 25cm of actual movement gives you an automatic 6+ save 26-50cm a 5+ and 51+ a 4+, ships with a base save like necrons or kracken would receive whichever save is better but not both.
As for the counts as a capitol thing and assuming FAQ 2010 it would strongly affect the races that dont already take a lot of escorts while the races that do take them would see a small benifit. IN and Admech wouldnt see alot of benifit due to their light cruisers. Chaos would be able to take their bigger ships at a slighty lower point cost (actually bare minimum is 360 points for 12 iconoclasts to field a BB compared to 330 for 3 Dauntless in IN). Eldar CWE and DE would be unaffected. Orks would be able to take bb at significantly smaller point levels but its also pretty fluffly (12 brutes 300 pts). Nids, Tau, SM, RT, and Necrons all have specific requirements other than normal and would be unaffected
-
So the save would be based on actual movement per turn and would only apply to escorts? What about escorts that move twice, such as MMS eldar?
As for the capital count, sounds pretty good.
-
Good question. I would say to add both movements togather, it only really applies to WB tho as everything else gets a 2+ save already.
-
Good point but what about MMS eldar? Their holofield works a little differently.
-
Ah I see, it could work the same for them then but it might be a bit op tho since they force a reroll already (which is just another way of saying that they get a save).
-
/
I am not for it.
/
As it stands I do think all escorts are viable. The hit&run tweak balanced a lot.
-
Thats another one I never agreed with too tho. Hit and run attacks should only destroy an escort on a roll of 6 imo with a 1 still failing and a 2-5 disabling their weapons systems. Give them all the ability to automatically repair one crit a turn due to their (typically) more experienced crew.
Another pet peeve why itsnt there a mechanic to represent the fluff that escorts typically have a more experienced crew? A roll on the Crew Skills table or something would be pretty cool.
-
In the designer note's Andy writes that the random leadership reflects just that.
-
? He says nothing of the sort. He talks about random leadership if thats what your refering to, but although he mentions that escorts would typically have better crew than say a battleship due to their greater experience there is no mechanic for it. Im not saying that they should get different leadership than capitols or even something like the ork clans list where they get a +1 modifier for "lotz", but a random crew skill would go along way to representing an experienced crew (or commanders) without taking away from the general randomness of the leadership structure.
-
Thats another one I never agreed with too tho. Hit and run attacks should only destroy an escort on a roll of 6 imo with a 1 still failing and a 2-5 disabling their weapons systems. Give them all the ability to automatically repair one crit a turn due to their (typically) more experienced crew.
I disagree. Firstly, a-boats are currently pretty shit. They don't need the nerf. Secondly, it just makes sense that a hundred heavily armed men being let loose on your boat could do significant damage. Either to capture (unlikely), destroy (possible) or disable the ship for several hours (more likely). An even chance seems about right.
-
That is true and given that you can brace against H&R now theyre even worse :/.
-
All valid points, but a hundred armed men shouldn't really have the ability to wreak total chaos on a typical escort crew of 25,000 men. Even if we use the most conservative ratio ever listed, which is 10% of the crew being non-disposable criminal scum and whatnot, you are still left facing, after officers being sidelined, 2200 very pissed off men that have been awaiting your arival on the other side of that bulkhead for thirty minutes. Of course realistically only a couple of hundred would muster in time for the fight, but still...its only multiple a-boats that are really dangerous...
-
I disagree with the disagreement.
Hit&Run vs high armoured targets is always a good idea.
And Assault boats which can kill escorts on a 2+ is crap as well. (With Marines it is auto-kill, even worse).
Thus the FAQ2010 change to them is good. It was one point why people never took assault boats.
BFI doesn't change this noodle aspect.
/
Andrews version would be good with me as well.
-
Hit&Run vs high armoured targets is always a good idea.
No it's not. You need multiple a-boats just to overcome turrets, chance of missing and repairs, and even then you're not guaranteed to take out a system that makes a difference, and when you compare this to the actual damage done by bombers, a-boats are just shit.
And Assault boats which can kill escorts on a 2+ is crap as well. (With Marines it is auto-kill, even worse).
Thus the FAQ2010 change to them is good.
Well, we're already talking about H&R attacks destroying escorts on a 4+, not 2+.
It was one point why people never took assault boats.
Sorry what? One reason why people never took assault boats was that they killed escorts on a 2+? That was why people actually took a-boats.
Andrews version would be good with me as well.
May as well take a-boats out of the game then.
-
So... It sounds like you think a-boats are broken. How would you fix them to make them a viable alternative to bombers?
-
Sorry,
I meant: lots of people never took escorts as they where so easily destroyed by assault boats.
But the 4+ is fine to you?
1 bomber won't have a high chance of damaging a 6+ vessel, 1 assault boat has more opportunity to harass such a vessel. So, you need to swarm with bombers and assault boats to do real things, so no difference between the two.
Swarming a Strike Cruiser with assault boats is a good tactic.
And I never knew you felt so bad on assault boats.
-
Sorry,
I meant: lots of people never took escorts as they where so easily destroyed by assault boats.
Ah, yes.
But the 4+ is fine to you?
Yarp. Marginalises a-boats even more but makes escorts less marginal so meh.
1 bomber won't have a high chance of damaging a 6+ vessel, 1 assault boat has more opportunity to harass such a vessel. So, you need to swarm with bombers and assault boats to do real things, so no difference between the two.
Swarming a Strike Cruiser with assault boats is a good tactic.
Well, 3b1f against a Strike Cruiser is an average of 0.93 damage, 0.47 if braced. 4 A-boats will do 0 damage and 2 crits, 1 if braced. And there's a 2 in 3 chance that that 1 crit will be repaired before your opponents next turn anyway, making the a-boats completely useless. I'd rather have a 50/50 shot at 1 point of damage than a 33% shot of one non-damaging crit that could be completely unhelpful even if it doesn't get repaired.
Let's consider the chances of a single bomber vs a single a-boat doing something against an undamaged and un-braced Strike Cruiser. First, they both have to get past turrets, 25% chance of that for either one. Then they have to hit. The bomber has a 33% chance of no attacks, 17% chance each for 1, 2, 3 or 4 attacks. Each attack has a 17% chance of causing damage. So the P(at least 1 hit) = P(1A1H) + P(2A1+H) + P(3A1+H) + P(4A1+H) = 5% chance of at least 1 point of damage. An a-boat has a 67% chance of causing a crit, which then has a 33% chance of going un-repaired giving a total of a 5% chance to cause an un-repaired crit.
So sending a single bomber against a Strike Cruiser gives a 1 in 20 chance of causing at least 1 point of damage. This could actually be 2, 3 or even 4 points of damage and could cause one or more crits which could also cause more damage. There is even the possibility, slim as it is, of destroying the Strike Cruiser. On the other hand, sending in a single a-boat gives a 1 in 20 chance of causing an crit that will persist till the end of your opponent's next turn at least. This crit may or may not be useful. A prow crit (1 in 4 chance) would be useful. If your opponent will be able to manoeuvre to fire both broadsides next turn then any crit would be useful, otherwise it depends upon whether you'll be on the left or right of him. If you'll be on the right of him then a starboard crit (1 in 2 chance) would be good, if on the left of him a port crit (1 in 4 chance) would be good. If your opponent can manoeuvre to be able to fire either broadside (but not both) then neither port nor starboard (3 in 4) would be at all effectual.
Give me the bomber any day.
And I never knew you felt so bad on assault boats.
Oh really? I have always thought that they were pretty useless. Their only function was to destroy escorts or disable a very high turret target when used en masse and only when you've got no other targets for your AC. Consider: given the quantity and quality of SM AC and their natural defences against enemy ordnance they should really dominate in ordnance phases, assuming a-boats are anywhere near as good as bombers. They don't. So a-boats are crap.
-
So... It sounds like you think a-boats are broken. How would you fix them to make them a viable alternative to bombers?
I wouldn't. They're not viable alternatives except in the most specific of situations and that's how they should remain. If they were as good an option as bombers then SMs would kill in the ordnance phase, and that's just not right.
However, I certainly wouldn't nerf them any further. A bomber has a 10% chance of destroying a 2 turret, 5+ armour unbraced escort. An a-boat in the same situation has a 12.5% chance. When in a wave of 2, the a-boats have a 43.8% chance (23.4% braced) of destroying the escort, whereas 1b1f has a 45% chance (26.4% vs braced).
Roughly the same chances, but that's against a 2 turret, 5+ target. Against 1 turret and/or 4+ armour the bomber gets better, so there's no reason to nerf a-boats at all.
-
I do agree with sigoroth about power level; assault boats should not be as destructive as bombers, ever. However, I diverge in opinion with regards to their overall utility. Assault boats should be a viable alternative, just not in damage output. Assault boats should be good in a variety of roles, just not as many. Consider the following two possibilities:
1) Fighter Supression: With turrets suppresed, it is easy to imagine that an assault boat could board closer to its intended target, maximizing its utility and allowing it to attack more vulnerable points. Assault boats could benefit from supression, either by adding +1 to the result (allowing results past six) per fighter OR allowing a reroll of the critical result (making them more reliable).
2) Fighter resilience: IN have vanilla ordnance, and a shark assault boat has over two and a half times the armor of a fury interceptor, along with the same engine strength and almost three and a half times the directional firepower of a bomber. Other races have (presumably) even better assault boats. What if assault boats count as resilient ordnance? You could give them a weaker save (5+ or even 6+) to allow them a chance of surviving fighter interception.
In either of these cases, although bombers are capable of much greater havoc and are more lethal, a-boats are more reliable and more effective at extreme range, sort of like batteries vs. lances. I am not saying these are rules that necessarily should be implemented, just that these are oversights that the current rules don't cover, explaining the general lackluster nature of a-boats. As for SM domination, losing an attack rating point to gain thunderhawk annihilators is quite worth to the ordnance heavy SM fleet.
-
I dont think i have ever used attack ratings... Assault boats gaining something for fighter suppression seems like a good idea.
-
I personally think the attack rating is a piece of crap myself, and i'm glad you think so too. Thunderhawk annihilators are arguably the best attack craft in the game, and the only drawback is a silly little restriction. Which of the two fighter suppression mechanics do you think is best? I may volunteer the idea for BFG:R2.
-
Ya SM bombers are stupid. Why is it that they are fighter bombers but still get a full D6 attacks? I think the +1 to the result of the hit and run would be reasonable but only if all of the turrets are supressed or if it was something like with bombers where you only get a +1 to one assault boat for each fighter + turret. So 1f3a against a 2t target and assuming that the assault boats all survive then you would have 1 with a +1 and 2 as normal. Taking the same scenario with 2f2a then both boats would get the +1.
-
Ya SM bombers are stupid. Why is it that they are fighter bombers but still get a full D6 attacks? I think the +1 to the result of the hit and run would be reasonable but only if all of the turrets are supressed or if it was something like with bombers where you only get a +1 to one assault boat for each fighter + turret. So 1f3a against a 2t target and assuming that the assault boats all survive then you would have 1 with a +1 and 2 as normal. Taking the same scenario with 2f2a then both boats would get the +1.
I don't think that there should be any bonus to a-boats for turret suppression since there's no penalty for a-boats if there's turrets. For example, if a 1 turret ship gives up +1 to the H&R roll when it is "suppressed", what does a 0 turret target give? In essence, the more turrets the defender has the greater the potential bonus to the H&R attack, which is just absurd.
I also think SM bombers are absurd. Too powerful and uncharacteristic.
-
There is also 0 reason to even include fighters right now with assault boats, of course thats ok too.
-
2) Fighter resilience: IN have vanilla ordnance, and a shark assault boat has over two and a half times the armor of a fury interceptor, along with the same engine strength and almost three and a half times the directional firepower of a bomber. Other races have (presumably) even better assault boats. What if assault boats count as resilient ordnance? You could give them a weaker save (5+ or even 6+) to allow them a chance of surviving fighter interception.
I'm confused about where you're pulling all of this information from. Sharks are more armored than furies, sure. But where do you get that they have the same engine strength? From their speed stat? And where do you get the statement that they have "three and a half times the directional firepower of a bomber"? What do you even mean by that? As I recall, they're much more lightly armed than bombers, possessing only light weapons such as lascannons for defense against fighters.
I don't really see the point of a 6+ resilience save, it seems more like a hassle than something that will actually help them survive. But having them be resilient on the level of Eldar fighters (many times over more maneuverable than anything Imperial), Tau Mantas (many times larger and tougher than Imperial attack craft), or Thunderhawks (a kind of blending of the former two's advantages) is, to me, just inappropriate.
-
I completely agree with you on the fact that the things you mention should have better saves; they have it for goo reason. I also agree that it's probably more of a hassle then it's worth to keep track of 6+resilience saves. That's why it was a toss up idea and ranked number 2. As for the engine strength, its well documented in both novels and RT that although it is nowhere near as maneuverable, the shark assault boat has the same thrust and speed as the fury interceptor, specifically so that it can close faster and keep up with a fury escort. As for the firepower, I may have stuck my foot in my mouth; reviewed stats and realized I was looking at the wrong one, and it is in fact a starhawk bomber that has three times the firepower of a shark assault boat. My apologies on the misinformation.