Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on March 28, 2013, 03:50:28 AM
-
Alright, well it looks like the Enforcer will pass. Here are some of the quotes from the Enforcer discussions:
Actually I just had a rather simple idea: limit it to Furies. The Enforcer isn't in the fleet to be a striker, it's there as support FOR strikers. It's even reasonably fluffy as it, in and of itself, is near zero threat to ships, but does provide 'big guns' cover from AC and allow them to close.
Having a fighter only Enforcer is a good idea. Could be priced @ 100pts.
Enforcer with access to only Furies? Ok I'll bite on that.
So remove the Endeavor/Endurance and add the lance and torp Dauntless and Enforcer limited to fighters only.
Give them either the same +1 base turret (and still can take the additional purchased +1) that the Endeavors got or allow them to take the current FDT.
From my best estimate at the combination of these ideas:
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bay per side with only fighters.
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 100pts (just like Horizon mentioned. I agree).
Any takers?
-
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bays per side with only fighters.
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 100pts.
no restrictions
here's the alternative
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bays per side with bombers and fighters
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 120pts.
restricted to 0-1 on any fleet
0-2 on special scenario fleet (gareox prerogative)
-
Eh, I really don't want to go down the 4 launch bay light cruiser route again.
-
You said 4 launch bays in your first post Dan, I think you intended it to be 1 launch bay per side?
Given the ships apparent intent and the somewhat fractured state of the list as a whole at the moment I would say the fighter only option would be best. With proper pricing it could carry bombers but I think we would be looking at the ~130 range at least and of course all of this is dependent upon the restrictions (if any) the list will have on carriers. Personally I think the current restrictions are adequate and this should retain the 0-3 restriction from the Annual.
-
corrected 1 launch bay per side oops and double oops...
-
You said 4 launch bays in your first post Dan, I think you intended it to be 1 launch bay per side?
You are right, I meant 1 LB per side. I will edit that after I post this.
Given the ships apparent intent and the somewhat fractured state of the list as a whole at the moment I would say the fighter only option would be best. With proper pricing it could carry bombers but I think we would be looking at the ~130 range at least and of course all of this is dependent upon the restrictions (if any) the list will have on carriers. Personally I think the current restrictions are adequate and this should retain the 0-3 restriction from the Annual.
Either way the restrictions go, I would like to take away the 0-3 from the annual because I don't think it scales that well. I know there are people around here who like to play very large games and I think that would be an unnecessary restriction for them. Sure, if it's a ship that there is only one of like the Jovian, then make it 0-1. I just think we should have good restrictions to the Bakka fleet for carriers in general and we should be fine.
Edit: I fixed my mistake in the first post. Also, Tyberius, I was wondering about the swap for torpedoes as well, but I decided against it personally because I don't want to enforcer to be exactly the same as the Dauntless and I think being able to drop the lances for torps gives it too much redundancy.
-
I think 0-3 is too much for a regular game.... 0-2 is something I can be more comfortable with...
The enforcer is a ship not intended for large fleet engagements but for distant colonies/outposts watch......if you play very large games then use another ship fot the third one (defiant)
-
Alright, fair point. So we could do this...
From my best estimate at the combination of these ideas:
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bay per side with only fighters.
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 100pts (just like Horizon mentioned. I agree).
-0-3 Enforcers per fleet.
-
Edit: I fixed my mistake in the first post. Also, Tyberius, I was wondering about the swap for torpedoes as well, but I decided against it personally because I don't want to enforcer to be exactly the same as the Dauntless and I think being able to drop the lances for torps gives it too much redundancy.
I never mention the possibility to swap lances for torps...
-
Ah, I misread your post that says "May not" and didn't notice the "not." Sorry sir, I have a migraine. ::) Anyways, I think your first profile is the one I would prefer.
-
either with or without bombers I stick to the 0-2 limit.......Enforcers are scarse and nearly impossible to gather more than 1 cause they are spreaded among the farthest corners of the empire.
-
I'll meet you in the middle at 0-3
-
With the new BFG:R ordnance rules, fighters are way better and useful than they were, so I don't feel bad about not having bombers..
digesting all proposals: I said 0-1, you said 0-3 the middle is 0-2 as far I can tell....
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bay per side with only fighters.
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 100pts (just like Horizon mentioned. I agree).
-0-2 Enforcers per fleet.
-
And I agreed to take out the bombers, theres 2 points I'm ceding, and none for you ;)
-
We aren't using those rules. The current bfgr is using 2010 rules currently, not the plaxor rules.
-
My bad, I just read that it was already at 0-2, not 0-3. Sorry about that! Also, "less successful in fleet actions" does not mean "less used in fleet actions." Any other references you have to shown they are hard to get a hold of?
-
And Tyberius, you didn't cede points to me. I want the enforcer to have bombers too but I'm willing to compromise. 8)
-
My bad, I just read that it was already at 0-2, not 0-3. Sorry about that! Also, "less successful in fleet actions" does not mean "less used in fleet actions." Any other references you have to shown they are hard to get a hold of?
I deduced that from the role description of this ship in question... I figured a ship like this designed to work in distant places where the hand of empire is not able to come in force, would be difficult to distract from its current mission, to meet with other ships, leaving the systems he is guarding, vulnerable and unprotected.
-
We aren't using those rules. The current bfgr is using 2010 rules currently, not the plaxor rules.
Could you please Link me the exact pdf BFG:R is using as core rules???
-
We are not using the BFGR rules in these discussions at this point. We have been using the current GW rules plus 2010 compendium and FAQ. If we revisit the plaxor BFGR rules again, it wont be until later.
-
regarding the limits, why not have it 0-1 per 750 or 1000 points rather than 0-3 per fleet as this will avoid hampering those who play larger games and still restrict them at lower point levels?
-
Alright, fair point. So we could do this...
From my best estimate at the combination of these ideas:
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bay per side with only fighters.
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 100pts (just like Horizon mentioned. I agree).
-0-3 Enforcers per fleet.
I like the Enforcer as writte from afterimagedan.
Between 0-2 and 0-3, I would go with 0-3.
radu lykan´s idea with limitation via the game size has something too.