Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on November 13, 2012, 04:05:09 PM
-
What are everyone's thoughts on this? Should we modify, drop, keep? Do keep in mind, the Space Marine chapters have been voted down.
-
Drop. imo.
-
I am partial to including it because it is in the 2010 stuff but I think it should be made into a Fighter-Bomber and not function as both a fighter and a full-fledged bomber.
Dominion fleet: Captains and Reserves.
Crusade fleets: Fortress Monastery and Annihilators.
Did I miss any of the bonuses to the two different SM fleet lists?
-
Keep it
-
Why?
-
It gives the marine fleet variety and saves it from being very one dimensional
maybe remove turret suppression
-
That is a standard fighter rule. Making exceptions is weird.
After thinking I could allow a standard fighter bomber ruling.
-
Fighter Bomber it. Add caestus assault rams ;)
J/K but while I like the idea there's more of a groundswell to be a FB so let's call it good. Anyone that cares enough will house rule it anwyays.
-
So, want me to throw up a vote for changing the rules to standard, yet "resilient" fighter-bomber rules?
-
So were just talking about making them d3 instead of d6? That seems very reasonable.
-
So were just talking about making them d3 instead of d6? That seems very reasonable.
Voting is up.
-
My issue with this is I fear it makes the bomber a choice no on uses
When faced with choosing between fighter bomber with d3 attacks minus turrets +1
or fighter assault boat with Critical hits which have have two results(due tho the marine bonus) which cause damage (fire and engines) and every hit gets a result rather than the than having to roll to beat armour normally a 5
Why would you pick the bomber?
At the moment i have think about which is the more appropriate choice
-
Would TA have a special rule similar to Ork FB's ie: always get one attack minimum?
-
Would TA have a special rule similar to Ork FB's ie: always get one attack minimum?
They would be exactly like Ork Fighta-Bommas in that way. The only difference I see is the slower speed but resilient save.
-
Nope orks don't fighter assault boats so don't a another choice they would always pick instead
-
Nope orks don't fighter assault boats so don't a another choice they would always pick instead
I am saying that the Thunderhawk Annihilator would be a Fighta-Bomba with a resilient save and move 20cm.
-
My issue with this is I fear it makes the bomber a choice no on uses
When faced with choosing between fighter bomber with d3 attacks minus turrets +1
or fighter assault boat with Critical hits which have have two results(due tho the marine bonus) which cause damage (fire and engines) and every hit gets a result rather than the than having to roll to beat armour normally a 5
Why would you pick the bomber?
At the moment i have think about which is the more appropriate choice
No, way. The D6T-Annihilator + turret suppression build in is wwwwwaaaaayyyyyyy better then the regular T-Hawk.
-
I'm fine without any additions at all. Thunderhawks and that's it. One dimensionality is kinda how the SM do things: Smash and win!
-
I'm fine without any additions at all. Thunderhawks and that's it. One dimensionality is kinda how the SM do things: Smash and win!
Dropping something that is in the 2010 FAQ is a bad idea, in my opinion. Let's rework it so that it's usable and not overpowered.
-
@horizon I think eyeslikethunder is stating that the d3 thunderhawk bomber is weaker than a regular thunderhawk. No one in their right mind thinks of the annihilator as under powered.
I do agree that we should not drop faq 2010 material. Apart from the fact that it is good stuff, we would also alienate a large part of the community, which is certainly not what we want.
-
I do agree that we should not drop faq 2010 material. Apart from the fact that it is good stuff, we would also alienate a large part of the community, which is certainly not what we want.
Yes, this exactly. I think BFG:R should be additional options and small edits, but not drop anything that is currently an option entirely.
Alright, well the vote is currently a tie. Any other thoughts of how to make the THA work and be balanced? I am going to try out some math and consider a D3+1 option as well as the D6 and D3 options.
-4 THAs with the FB rule hitting a Desolator. 2 THAs die. 2 attacks against the Desolator, 55% change to get 1 hit, 16.6% to get a full critical.
-4 THs hit a Desolator. 2 THs die. 2 H&Rs against the Desolator, 30.5% change to get 1 hit, 2 H&Rs with no option to roll a 1 and could possibly do more damage with a Fire critical.
-4 THAs with the D3+1 rule hit a Desolator. 2 THAs die. Still, 55% change to get 1 hit, 16.6% to get a full critical.
-4 original THAs hit a Desolator. 2 THAs die, still 2 hits, possibly chance to get more, 55% change to get 1 hit, 16.6% to get a full critical.
-4 THAs with the FB rule hit a Carnage. 1 THA dies. 6 attacks against it, average 2 hits against it. 30.55% change at critical.
-4 THs hit a Carnage. 1 TH dies. 3 H&Rs, about 42% chance to get a hit on it, excluding the chance at a fire crit.
-4THAs with the D3+1 rule his a Carnage. 1 THA dies. 12 attacks, 4 hits average against it, good chance at critical.
-4 original THAs hit a Carnage. 1 dies. 13.5 attacks against it in average. 4.4995 hits on average. good chance of critical.
-2 THAs with the FB rule hit a Sword. 1 dies, one gets 1 attack against it, killing it at 33.3%.
-2 THs hit a Sword. 1 dies, 1 kills it at 66.6%.
-2 THAs with the D3+1 rule hit a Sword. 1 dies, one gets 1 attacks against it, killing it at 55.5%.
-2 original THAs hit a Sword. 1 dies, 1 gets an average of 2.5 attacks against it, 83.3325% to kill it.
Alright, D6 is too powerful, D3 is too crappy. D3+1 makes the most sense. Just as powerful as the original against battleships (slightly more powerful than an AB against it), a little less powerful against cruisers (but much more than ABs), and now less powerful than assault boats against escorts, how it should be.
-
I imagine thats why ork fighta bombas are d3+1 attacks.
-
How do THA Compare with With default bombers? Are there any other full d6 fighter bombers?
Right options going forward
Could wE make them a paid upgrade 15-20 pts? It does seem wrong that one sm fleet gets them included free but th other doesnt .Thats the default BFG method you can have more/better ordnance options but you have pay
Or 10pts per bay because of the option to sacrifice wb for launch bays
After all with only 2 bays per cruiser by default getting large squads of THA involves squading cruisers something other fleets don't have to do as they normally have 4-8 bays per ship
-
I imagine thats why ork fighta bombas are d3+1 attacks.
They are D3 attacks, +1 after turret suppression. This test was D3+1 then +1 after turret suppression.
-
How do THA Compare with With default bombers? Are there any other full d6 fighter bombers?
Right options going forward
Could wE make them a paid upgrade 15-20 pts? It does seem wrong that one sm fleet gets them included free but th other doesnt .Thats the default BFG method you can have more/better ordnance options but you have pay
Or 10pts per bay because of the option to sacrifice wb for launch bays
After all with only 2 bays per cruiser by default getting large squads of THA involves squading cruisers something other fleets don't have to do as they normally have 4-8 bays per ship
Why do all this when we could just balance them?
-
Making them more expensive would help balance them
Plus balances them across the two fleets
-
Having had a look at the stats you did maybe d3+1 with turret suppression is a good compromise
I made the same mistake as Andrew and was about tell you had done your maths wrong.....
-
Having had a look at the stats you did maybe d3+1 with turret suppression is a good compromise
I made the same mistake as Andrew and was about tell you had done your maths wrong.....
Well, I could have been more clear about it. ::)
-
Standard is d6, orks d3 +1 after turrets, eldar d6 with reroll, space marines (currently) d6 +1 after turrets resilient, tau resilient.
I believe thats all the flavors. I also think its pretty obvious that when the faq was written the THA was intended to be a standard bomber attack (d6, because thats what it says :P) and things really only became muddled when the ork rules listed ALL "fighter bombers" as gaining the +1 to attacks.
To be honest they shouldnt have the fighter ability and should be available to all spacemarine ships.
-
I suggested that it should just be d6 earlier in thread
People seemed opposed to making an exception
But I think that afterimage has proved his suggestion statistically
Its a match for the TH so it's not overpowered but can be used as an effective alternative
-
So making them just a bomber would make them a Tau Manta, basically. It doesn't sit right for me that a THA does not have a fighter capability. Also, there is no fighter option to give them turret suppression besides the regular thunderhawk. That's weird also. You have to TH attack bigger ships to do reasonable damage with THAs. Tau Mantas at least have fighters to escort them around. THAs will not. I still think Fighter Bomber with D3+1 then turret suppression is a better idea.
-
D3+1 for me is the best solution. As it needs to retain its fighter capability.
-
D3+1 for me is the best solution. As it needs to retain its fighter capability.
and the +1 is turret suppression or before turret suppression?
-
Eh, no, sorry.
To avoid confusion once and for all:
Thunderhawk annihilator function exactly the same as Ork fighter bombers. And have the bonus of being resilient.
-
So...
Thunderhawk -> Fighter + Resilient + full Assault Boat with a +1.
Annihilator -> Fighter + Resilient + half Bomber with built in turret suppression.
?? That's not even.
What looks like the best option to me is just the same as Ork FBs, resilient save, D6 against battleships. The idea is, Bombers should do more hits against everything except escorts. ABs kill escorts at 66.6% and should remain better at doing that than THAs. Bombers should do more hits against cruisers and battleships where ABs do more critical damage, hindering them. Check the math below...
-4 THs hit a Desolator. 2 THs die. 2 H&Rs against the Desolator, 30.5% change to get 1 hit, 2 H&Rs with no option to roll a 1 and could possibly do more damage with a Fire critical.
-4 original THAs hit a Desolator. 2 THAs die, still 2 hits, possibly chance to get more, 55% change to get 1 hit, 16.6% to get a full critical.
-4 THAs with the FB rule hit a Carnage. 1 THA dies. 6 attacks against it, average 2 hits against it. 30.55% chance at critical.
-4 THs hit a Carnage. 1 TH dies. 3 H&Rs, about 42% chance to get a hit on it, excluding the chance at a fire crit.
-2 THAs with the FB rule hit a Sword. 1 dies, one gets 1 attack against it, killing it at 33.3%.
-2 THs hit a Sword. 1 dies, 1 kills it at 66.6%.
This is the best way to even them out. THAs are FBs + resilient and are exceptionally good at combating enemy battleships and therefore do D6 hits against them. This makes THAs appealing against battleships for raw damage, great at fighting cruisers, and not so great against escorts. THs would be good at hindering battleships, good at hindering cruisers, and excellent (best in the game) against escorts.
-
Hmm, didn't even realize they were an option already.
D4 bomber! Better than D3 but not as powerful as D6. :D
-
D4 bomber! Better than D3 but not as powerful as D6. :D
[ducks in cover, awaiting the onslaught]
-
D4 bomber! Better than D3 but not as powerful as D6. :D
[ducks in cover, awaiting the onslaught]
LOL
Couldn't do the stats could you!!
-
D4 bomber! Better than D3 but not as powerful as D6. :D
[ducks in cover, awaiting the onslaught]
LOL
Couldn't do the stats could you!!
No it's not that. Whenever anything but a D6 or D3 is mentioned, sparks fly.
-
This is the best way to even them out. THAs are FBs + resilient and are exceptionally good at combating enemy battleships and therefore do D6 hits against them. This makes THAs appealing against battleships for raw damage, great at fighting cruisers, and not so great against escorts. THs would be good at hindering battleships, good at hindering cruisers, and excellent (best in the game) against escorts.
Any takers?
-
D4 bomber! Better than D3 but not as powerful as D6. :D
[ducks in cover, awaiting the onslaught]
LOL
Couldn't do the stats could you!!
No it's not that. Whenever anything but a D6 or D3 is mentioned, sparks fly.
Hehe True
but you misunderstood me i was asking if you could do the stats like you did for the other options So we could see how it compared
Thats a nice option I can flex to that to D3 normally D6 against battleships
-
Nova cannon should do D20 damage... Just sayin ;)
-
I think we should offer marines players a choice they would pick sometimes but not always thats good list design offering them option they would never use is just bad list design.
If you give a fire warrior a bolter in addition to what he all ready has he never use it because he has str5 30" weapon already where a guardsman would jump at the choice and never use his lasgun. Its about internal balance within a list
AfterImagedan has shown us statistically where the balance lies and provided some good suggestions
Seahawk d4 suggestion is also probably close to the mark too
Let us pick one in this middle ground
Why the intransigence?
-
@AndrewChristlieb In Cadian Blood (Imperial Guard novel), a Dominator cripples the Terminus Est in one shot. Nova Cannons in fluff are so much better than their BFG/RT equivalents its almost hilarious.
Personally I like Dan's suggestion of d3+1. Simple but elegant, and with suppression bonus it is pretty much better than a d6 against anything with 5 turrets or less. I don't really like upsizing versus battleships; not every fleet needs to excel in every aspect. SM ordnance does not need to be able to destroy battleships to be effective, becuase SM have other tools for destroying them. They have absolutely devastating battery strength in 30cm or less and currently, other than dedicated khornite vessels or nids the best boarding values in the game, alongside absolutely destructive H & R that are second only to DE. If the SM need a battleship destroyed, they don't need to do it with ordnance is my point.
-
SM ordnance does not need to be able to destroy battleships to be effective, becuase SM have other tools for destroying them. They have absolutely devastating battery strength in 30cm or less and currently, other than dedicated khornite vessels or nids the best boarding values in the game, alongside absolutely destructive H & R that are second only to DE. If the SM need a battleship destroyed, they don't need to do it with ordnance is my point.
It's not that they need more things to do that job, it is just that we want the THA to compare to the TH. The same argument can be made about all sorts of stuff in the game. Technically, we could just delete ordnance from the game and still be able to destroy ships but we want the game to be more fun and have options.
Added D4 option:
-4 THs hit a Desolator. 2 THs die. 2 H&Rs against the Desolator, 30.5% change to get 1 hit, 2 H&Rs with no option to roll a 1 and could possibly do more damage with a Fire critical.
-4 original THAs hit a Desolator. 2 THAs die, still 2 hits, possibly chance to get more, 55% change to get 1 hit, 16.6% to get a full critical.
-4 D4 THAs hits the Desolator. 2 die. 2 hits but no change for more. 55% change to get 1 hit, 16.6% to get a full critical.
-4 THAs with the FB rule hit a Carnage. 1 THA dies. 6 attacks against it, average 2 hits against it. 30.55% chance at critical.
-4 THs hit a Carnage. 1 TH dies. 3 H&Rs, about 42% chance to get a hit on it, excluding the chance at a fire crit.
-4 D4 THAs hit a Carnage. 1 Dies. 4.5 attacks against it, 75% change for a crit.
-2 THAs with the FB rule hit a Sword. 1 dies, one gets 1 attack against it, killing it at 33.3%.
-2 THs hit a Sword. 1 dies, 1 kills it at 66.6%.
-2 THAs at D4 hit a Sword. 1 dies. Average 2.5 attacks. 83% chance to kill it. (here's the problem with D4)
There's the problem with D4 and D3+1: they are better at killing escorts than ABs, and that's no good. D3 and D6 against battleships makes the most sense still.
-
How does it make sense for a THA to do d6 against BBs and d3 against everything else? I don't think that SMs should have bombers at all, but if they have to have them then just make them d3 attacks.
-
I agree, different attack dice per enemy class is kinda daft. And wrong.
-
Siding with Sig and horizon on this one, as in although it could work, it would be mechanically unique when SM don't even really need bombers in the first place. They are still better fighter-bombers than an ork fighter-bomber, and they should be happy with that. :)
-
Siding with Sig and horizon on this one, as in although it could work, it would be mechanically unique when SM don't even really need bombers in the first place.
Again, need is not in the question. Chaos does not NEED marks not any list besides one.
They are still better fighter-bombers than an ork fighter-bomber, and they should be happy with that. :)
Alright well we need to change something. Do we need to take the same vote for D3 again?
-
How about a middle ground option this time?
-
How about a middle ground option this time?
That's what I was going for. An extremely good option would be to delete the THA. An extremely bad one would be to go for d6 attacks. D3 attacks is middle ground.
-
I would consider removing them a better option than making them an option thats worse in all ways than the default option SM have in the TH. Its better list making
Thats the sort of thing everyone critises GW for. Filling Lists with options no one uses They should be happy with that
BFG-R should be better than that
Sounds like you did not get to vote for the option you wanted neither did I so lets put all the options up and see what people want to vote for
-
Then lets remove it. ;D
-
@eyeslikethunder If you are talking to me, I personally think the SM do not need access to the TA. I merely mean't to underline that a resilient fighter bomber is a good piece of ordnance, even if it only gets d3 attacks. I just think that the d3 is the middle ground that we should trod for overall peace. ;)
Seahawk ended up winning adepticon using a SM army, which most people consider fairly weak. I imagine the addition of bombers, even if they are weaker than traditional ones, would not have weakened his army significantly. As a matter of fact, it probably would have done quite the opposite.
P.S. Very true about Gee Dubs and useless options (Wait, an all Chaos Spawn army? Tell me more...how often do you hear that fervent desire? Never is most likely.)
-
Now the votes tied, what happens? Second round? Or does someone get a decider?
-
I think we should start a second round of voting for D3 and see how it goes.
-
Seahawk ended up winning adepticon using a SM army, which most people consider fairly weak. I imagine the addition of bombers, even if they are weaker than traditional ones, would not have weakened his army significantly. As a matter of fact, it probably would have done quite the opposite.
Oh god yes. My third opponent was Eldar, so I was all like "derpaderp, here go my assault boats!" I never realized I could launch Thunderhawk Annihilator (hey, it was my third game in like two years :P) simply because I was so used to only having the normal Thunderhawks.
D6 resilient fighter/bombers would have made the game far more in my favor, had I actually done it. Doi...I'll have to remember it for next year...they might make a triumphant return, bwahahaha...;)
-
Ah I wanted seahawks opinion as fellow marine player
how about d3 attacks how often do you think you would have used them? and against which fleets/ships?
How much better would they make the fleet?
-
I probably wouldn't bother using them then. I'd rather cause 4+ assured critical hits than possibly, likely 0 damage and nothing at all, especially on battleships. The limited attack craft I can launch means it needs to be as effective as possible, so D3 would be only effective, and barely at that, vs cruisers and escorts.
-
How about a middle ground option this time?
That's what I was going for. An extremely good option would be to delete the THA. An extremely bad one would be to go for d6 attacks. D3 attacks is middle ground.
I agree with this.
Should I put up another vote for D3?
-
Given that this one is a tie, it may be needed. ;)