Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on March 09, 2013, 05:56:15 PM
-
Option 1 (afterimagedan option):
365
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances 6 45cm
Dorsal WBs 9 60cm
Nova cannon (-10pts to switch to 9 torps)
Option 2 (original):
345
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances 4 60cm
Dorsal WBs 6 60cm
Nova cannon (-10pts to switch to 9 torps)
Option 3 (merge):
355
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances 4 60cm
Dorsal WBs 9 60cm
Nova cannon (-10pts to switch to 9 torps)
+10pts to change lances to 6@45cm
-10pts to drop nova for 9 torpedoes
-
I would like to post my argument in favor on the Merge option. You can get either Victory out of it. The only reason you would be voting against it is so that those who want to 45cm 6 lance Victory don't get that option. The Merge option allows everyone the Victory they want. Please vote Merge.
-
I would like to post my argument in favor on the Merge option. You can get either Victory out of it. The only reason you would be voting against it is so that those who want to 45cm 6 lance Victory don't get that option. The Merge option allows everyone the Victory they want. Please vote Merge.
^lol^
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35945864.jpg)
-
Hahaha that's amazing 8) <--- that is how cool I am. ::) AndrewChristlieb is this cool ---> 8)
-
Well, it's that's how we're playing it. Summon my spokes model!
(http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n572/the_grand_artificer/Ovic_zpsb1929947.jpg)
-
Nice!
Seriously tho I think Vaaish is right about this we need to address the core of the problem. Is there anything wrong with the Victory in its original form?
Now My stance is as it always has been: The ship is undercosted, it should ring in at 355pts as is and while were at it we might as well bring its Dorsal weapons up to snuff. I would be just fine leaving it as-is and bumping its cost too. I also like the version proposed by Dan as it fits better with the fluff and just really makes good sense so... I guess I like both :) = Merger.
-
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35945864.jpg)
[/quote]
-
Seriously tho I think Vaaish is right about this we need to address the core of the problem. Is there anything wrong with the Victory in its original form?
Now My stance is as it always has been: The ship is undercosted, it should ring in at 355pts as is and while were at it we might as well bring its Dorsal weapons up to snuff. I would be just fine leaving it as-is and bumping its cost too.
I'd wager there is nothing stats wise wrong with the original Victory and I could get behind a cost increase. When the HA added it in the thing was a bit underpriced. I'd also like to know the justification for the dorsal boost, not just here but across the board. It seems to me that the differing dorsal strengths are a result of different trade offs in the designs and I don't recall feeling that any particular battleship was lacking without it.
-
Personally, I think it is nice to have a more universal weapon amount per module ship. Imperial battleships' dorsals have either 3 lances of 9 WBs, generally. I think it would be nice to have the Victory that way, but I can budge on that. We could use the exact original stats at the 355 cost with the two options for 45cm lances and torpedoes. I think it is a legitimate reason to change a ship because the lances on ships in the IN are 1 lance on the model to 1 lance in the game. It's silly that it has obviously 6 lances on the side like the Apoc but it doesn't actually get 6 lance shots.
-
Personally, I think it is nice to have a more universal weapon amount per module ship. Imperial battleships' dorsals have either 3 lances of 9 WBs, generally.
Standardization can be good, but it comes at the cost of flavor. By standardizing the BB you run the risk of things becoming bland. It's also not true on the strengths either. From the BBB and Armada the Retribution has 3 dorsal lances, Apoc has 6 Dorsal WB, Empy and Oberon each have S5 Dorsal WB. If you include the prow WB on the Empy and Oberon it still clocks in at s10 not s9.
I think it is a legitimate reason to change a ship because the lances on ships in the IN are 1 lance on the model to 1 lance in the game. It's silly that it has obviously 6 lances on the side like the Apoc but it doesn't actually get 6 lance shots.
remember the models are just eye candy, they have no function in the game. While we can make a general correlation to the turrets and lance strength, the same can't be said so easily for the WB. Is there any reason other than visual appeal of the model to make a change like this. Should we base our reasons for changing something solely on the what a model looks like over how it performs?
-
Personally, I think it is nice to have a more universal weapon amount per module ship. Imperial battleships' dorsals have either 3 lances of 9 WBs, generally.
Standardization can be good, but it comes at the cost of flavor. By standardizing the BB you run the risk of things becoming bland. It's also not true on the strengths either. From the BBB and Armada the Retribution has 3 dorsal lances, Apoc has 6 Dorsal WB, Empy and Oberon each have S5 Dorsal WB. If you include the prow WB on the Empy and Oberon it still clocks in at s10 not s9.
Fair point.
I think it is a legitimate reason to change a ship because the lances on ships in the IN are 1 lance on the model to 1 lance in the game. It's silly that it has obviously 6 lances on the side like the Apoc but it doesn't actually get 6 lance shots.
remember the models are just eye candy, they have no function in the game. While we can make a general correlation to the turrets and lance strength, the same can't be said so easily for the WB. Is there any reason other than visual appeal of the model to make a change like this. Should we base our reasons for changing something solely on the what a model looks like over how it performs?
Yes, I think it can be a reason to change how the model functions in the game. I do think many hold that to higher importance than you do, obviously. I will budge with you, since you think there is a general correlation on the lances. I think we should keep the original profile exactly, and allow for the option to change the lances to how they look appropriately on the model. Everyone wins.
-
Another option is to update the art to show 4 turrets space out per side. Could either work as four clustered in the middle or two at the ends and two in the middle. The missing turrets can turn into greebles or just antenna similar to what I did on the back my Retribution.
http://www.twolandscreative.com/wip/bfg/Retribution.jpg
-
Desolator¡¡¡¡ If someone wants to model their ship with 4 lances thats fine but any pictures should show only what can be replicated with ease from the bits provided with the model.
-
It would be easy to replicate with the parts :)
-
Im just saying the Desolator has 4 lances and 6 bits so whats the issue? If were going to change any pictures it should be the Acheron to having the lance "cover" bit and only two turrets per side :P.
-
Desolator:
use your imagination:
long range lance broadsides is a a difficult process. While the Desolator does have SIX turrets it can only fire four per time due power restraints....
-
Desolator:
use your imagination:
long range lance broadsides is a a difficult process. While the Desolator does have SIX turrets it can only fire four per time due power restraints....
The problem with that is it's not really true to fluff (either old or new, but most particularly new) as lance fire and speed have been decreasing rather than increasing since M32, hence the Apoc's issues with power relays and 15cm speed.
-
I think the idea is more along the lines of relatively weak batteries being focused into such a tight beam that they can project their power over a longer distance.