Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on May 30, 2013, 03:54:38 AM
-
So I figured that the list for the Additional Ship's Compendium 2.0 was pretty much complete/developed for the Imperial Factions. See the full list below:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5479.0 (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5479.0)
This topic is specifically for the development of the IN ships on that list for use in BFG:R. Please give feed back (or provide new/alternative profiles yourself!)
If there is a change from the original stats, I will put the original in paranthesis next to them.
I'm going to kick it off with the Battleships:
Invincible Class BB- 300 (290) 290
Hits: 8
Speed: 25 cm
Turns: 45*
Sheilds: 3 (2) 2
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 3 (4) 4
Weapons
Port Weap Battery- R: 60cm S: 12 Arc: L
Stbd Weap Battery- R: 60cm S: 12 Arc: R
Dorsal Lance Battery- R: 60cm S: 4 3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 9 (6) Arc: -
Special Rules: AAF 5d6 (not on the original). Roll twice when checking for critical hits. When a critical hit is inflicted, roll an additional d6. On a 5+, an additional fire critical hit is inflicted. Roll 4D6 for Plasma Drive Overlord Catasrophic Damage results (not on the original). Even though the Invincible has less than 3 shields and 10 hits, it MUST be mounted on a large (60mm) flying base, as it still has the presence of a Battleship, just none of the staying power.
Nemesis Class BB- 375 (400) (Make it much closer to the Emperor)
Hits: 12
Speed: 15cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 4
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 5
Weapons:
Port LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 6
Stbd LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 6
Dorsal Lances: R: 60cm S: 3
Special Rules: Prow sensors +1LD, Cannot use Come to New Heading SO. May take ABs for +5 pts.
(My only other thoughts are droping the lances and switching to S5 Prow and Dorsal WB to mirror the Emperor BB.)
Reprisal Class BB- 370 (375) (Ret is 355)
Hits: 12
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 4
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 5 4
Weapons
Port WB- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 12 (8 ) Arc: L (Changed to reflect changes made to BFGR Retribution)
Stbd WB- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 12 (8 ) Arc: R
Port LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 2 Arc:-
Port LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 2 Arc:-
Dorsal lances- R: 60cm S: 3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 9 Arc: F
Special Rules: Cannot use come to new heading. +5 pts for Assault Boats. (My only other thoughts are to maybe pump the WB back up to 60cm, lower the S, and make it 15cm speed)
Terra Class BB- 355 (410) (made to be much closer to the Retribution adn Vanquisher)
Hits: 12
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 4
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 5 4
Weapons
Port WB- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 12 (8 ) Arc: L (Changed to reflect changes made to BFGR Retribution)
Stbd WB- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 12 (8 ) Arc: R
Port Lances- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 2 Arc: L (Changed to reflect changes made to BFGR Vanquisher)
Stbd Lances- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 2 Arc: R
Dorsal lances- R: 60cm S: 3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 9 Arc: F
Special Rules: Cannot use come to new heading. (Looses the left column shift bonus) (Only other thoughts are that maybe some of the ranges, either WB, Lances, or both should be bumped back up to 60cm and the ship get a point increase).
-
Insomnia's winning, so you get my commentary on your proposed changes.
Invincible Class BB- 300 (290)
Hits: 8
Speed: 25 cm
Turns: 45*
Sheilds: 3 (2)
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 3 (4)
Weapons
Port Weap Battery- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 18 (12) Arc: L (THIS IS BASED OFF THE CHANGES MADE TO THE RETRIBUTION)
Stbd Weap Battery- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 18 (12) Arc: R
Dorsal Lance Battery- R: 60cm S: 4 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc: -
Special Rules: AAF 5d6 (not on the original). Roll twice when checking for critical hits. Roll 4D6 for Plasma Drive Overlord Catasrophic Damage results (not on the original).
First off, keep it at 2 shields & 4 turrets. I can understand your desire to balance her a bit more, but you're falling into the same trap that the lore says the Bakka fleet lords fell into ;)
She's not a ship of the line and was never meant to be. A third shield significantly improves her survivability, and the whole point is she's fast & maneuverable, but incredibly fragile. With 4 turrets and 2 shields, there's little/no incentive to send bombers after her, especially when a lock-on order and a pair of Carnages can go straight to the Twinkie's cream filling.
As for tweaking the gun ranges, I'm less insistent they remain how they were, but 60cm guns keep her firmly in the "dance around the enemy's flanks" role she's meant for, while 45cm guns force her to close to where she's an easier target and an easier kill. It might be better for the ship to leave her as she was.
I'm passing on commenting on the Nemesis; never played with or against her or Battlefleet Corribra, so I'll leave that up to people better qualified than I.
Reprisal Class BB- 370 (375) (Ret is 355)
Hits: 12
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 4
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 5
Weapons
Port WB- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 12 (8 ) Arc: L (Changed to reflect changes made to BFGR Retribution)
Stbd WB- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 12 (8 ) Arc: R
Port LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 2 Arc:-
Port LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 2 Arc:-
Dorsal lances- R: 60cm S: 3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 9 Arc: F
Special Rules: Cannot use come to new heading. +5 pts for Assault Boats. (My only other thoughts are to maybe pump the WB back up to 60cm, lower the S, and make it 15cm speed)
She's built as a Retribution, sans 1/3 of her weapons batteries, swapped for launch bays. I'd either keep her as a modified Retribution (drop the battery range and up the strength as you did), or turn her into a modified Oberon. Of the two, the modified Retribution feels more interesting (and I like having a few 20cm move BBs around... though that -might- make her too tempting vs. the Oberon, what do other people think?).
Terra Class BB- 355 (410) (made to be much closer to the Retribution adn Vanquisher)
Hits: 12
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 4
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 5
Weapons
Port WB- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 12 (8 ) Arc: L (Changed to reflect changes made to BFGR Retribution)
Stbd WB- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 12 (8 ) Arc: R
Port Lances- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 2 Arc: L (Changed to reflect changes made to BFGR Vanquisher)
Stbd Lances- R: 45cm (60cm) S: 2 Arc: R
Dorsal lances- R: 60cm S: 3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 9 Arc: F
Special Rules: Cannot use come to new heading. (Looses the left column shift bonus) (Only other thoughts are that maybe some of the ranges, either WB, Lances, or both should be bumped back up to 60cm and the ship get a point increase).
I feel like you're breaking away from the Imperial Terra's lore too much by chopping her down to Retribution-esque stats. She's much closer to the Omnissiah's Victory/Ark Mechanicus in design (and based on her lore, probably closer in her technology too), and for that, Str 10, 60cm, left column shift (if you're going off The Book of Nemesis you got her battery strength wrong), with up to 5 lances to make that broadside extra nasty is actually pretty tempting even with her points cost. Strip that all out and you do her background lore a disservice and make her just a bland Retribution rebuild, IMO, and that's not nearly as fun or interesting. Her points might need a little tweaking, but that's all I'd want to play around with maybe, and use the Omnissiah's Victory as the reference point.
Of course, take all of this as the opinions they are, and I'm just one contributor ;)
-
Amiger brings up good points.
-
Replying on my phone so I will make the changes to the profiles later.
I see your point with the invincible. Agree on the shields and turrets Except she is still a BB and one could argue the 8 hits and double critical his make it fragile. Plus as a BB it should have 3 shields or more than 10 hits to be on a large base. As proposed it would be on a small base. But I'll do the change unless more people oppose.
As for the WB, it is fragile so 60cm would probably be better, though I am thinking more along the lines of S 12 than S 10.
Are the proposed AAF and catastrophic damage changesc acceptable. Felt it better matched the fluff.
Nemesis is almost unchanged. I think leaving the lances is best.
I'm going to keep the reprisal as a modified Retribution. Probably tale another look at the fluff and make sure it days as much (battle refit).
Will talk on the terra later.
-
Hi Gothmog,
small note: is it you who will make the decision on how a vessel will end up in the document? (eg like you are doing with the Reprisal).
For Revised all changes etc has been voted for; majority decides.
Just asking. :)
-
It'll be a vote. I was just talking aboutv leaving the proposed profile for the reprisal as I have listed above like armiger talked about. If you disagree or have feed back please contribute so a consensus can be reached.
May make small changes to fluff with out voting but any major change s would be proposed and voted on. I personally think the terra needs a major fluff over haul.
-
The Invincible BBs and Blasphemer BBs are tough to balance. Both ships seriously "break the rules" relative to other battleships, which is a lot of why they aren't, and I think shouldn't, be in official lists. As it was originally written, the Invincible was a Retribution with +5cm movement, could come to a new heading, +1 dorsal lance (probably to keep it priced up closer to 300pts I'm guessing? Never quite understood why it was given that), and had -4 hit points and -2 shields, and doubled up on critical rolls.
I know the base size rules weren't quite hashed out at the time she was published (compared to where they were after the 2008 FAQ and since then), but for a 70 point discount you got a Retribution that ran the risk of popping like a soap bubble, and I really suspect the reduced shield envelope was deliberate on the part of the designer. This is me musing out loud, but the difference in survivability between 2 & 3 shields on a GC hull (i.e. a Repulsive) is pretty significant, I feel in games it's just as noticeable as the difference between 1 & 2 shields on a SM Strike Cruiser. Soaking that extra point of damage per turn does a lot for a ship. I'm personally fine breaking suggested basing rules by putting her on a big base regardless of whether she fits the exact requirements; she breaks the rules anyway.
That said, I'm still vacillating on the gun range/strength. Since the Invincible is a supercharged Retribution, going to Retribution guns does make a bit of sense. Plus, she's going to spend a lot of time on BFI (unless her player really likes gambling), and there's a decent difference in effectiveness between Str 9 and Str 6.
Fragile's important to me on the Fast BBs mostly because it really changes the way you play the ship, and punishes you for treating her like a line BB. I feel that up-shielding her would take away from that, as would increasing her hull points. These things are really difficult to use effectively, and that's kinda the point. They're good special scenario ships, horrible line ships, and increasingly rare in the lore (as they keep blowing up and aren't getting replaced) to boot.
As for the Imperial Terra... Honestly, it's an Ark Mechanicus. She's a neat historical part of the fan-side development of BFG and the Book of Nemesis isn't going anywhere, but I feel like she's sort if irrelevant in light of the AdMech list anyway. I guess what I'm really suggesting is (and I'll try doing this too), compare her in Nemesis against the BFG:R Ark Mechanicus and see if her points cost is justifiable. If so, leave her be. If not, adjust points to fit the creators' intent rather than changing someone else's lovingly crafted lore.
Each of these ship classes (including the Nemesis) are in their lore so rare and so few were produced that they are in essence "special characters." None of these ships really need to be tournament-ready, balanced, and appropriately costed. If they were, they'd be in the "official" lists. That said, I do support tweaking them in minor ways here to bring them into BFG:R fleet list parity so that people could use them worry-free in their own home-grown fleet lists for scenarios or themed campaigns against BFG:R fleets.
-
Reset the turrets and shields to the original. Will add a rule saying it must be on a large base. The only question remaining is WB? Go with the change or bump them back up to 60cm?
As for the Terra, the point is to make it NOT an Ark Mechanicus. As well, I developed the 1st Terra class on the original forums (in 2003) LONG before the book of Nemesis (2007). Originally it was suppossed to be a BB sized Lunar Cruiser (thus why I chose the name "Terra"). The first one's fluff was based off the Battle of Jutland. So if anyone changed lovingly crafted lore, it was the Nemesis guys, however I would likely use the fluff mostly as is now, but remove the aspects of it being a "super battleship". This is for 2 reasons, 1- making it different than the Ark (and in doing so making it more similar to the Retribution. Fits in the IN better and avoids in game redundancy), the other being that the logic of it using "rare resources" doesn't make sense. The Imperium has, for all practical purposes, UNLIMITED RESOURCES.
Basically make it a lost predecessor to the Lunar Class and have them search for the STC technology.
-
It'll be a vote. I was just talking aboutv leaving the proposed profile for the reprisal as I have listed above like armiger talked about. If you disagree or have feed back please contribute so a consensus can be reached.
'kay. Keep it on. :)
Invincible, keep it on a large base. With 8 hits imo.
As for the Blasphemer, one of the designs that never sparked me from the BON.
Reprisal, upping batteries to 12 is fine. But it makes it a pretty strong vessel. hmmm. Thinking again on this little bit.
The Terra would need the same treatment. But I rather keep all this @ 60cm.
The issue... keep upping things and things might start going up up... aka power creep.
With so many Imperial battleships around it is hard to position all of them in what they can or cannot do.
-
It'll be a vote. I was just talking aboutv leaving the proposed profile for the reprisal as I have listed above like armiger talked about. If you disagree or have feed back please contribute so a consensus can be reached.
'kay. Keep it on. :)
Invincible, keep it on a large base. With 8 hits imo.
As for the Blasphemer, one of the designs that never sparked me from the BON.
Reprisal, upping batteries to 12 is fine. But it makes it a pretty strong vessel. hmmm. Thinking again on this little bit.
The Terra would need the same treatment. But I rather keep all this @ 60cm.
The issue... keep upping things and things might start going up up... aka power creep.
With so many Imperial battleships around it is hard to position all of them in what they can or cannot do.
I upped the S on the Reprisal, but lowered the Range. Basically, the Retribution has S6 per hardpoint at 45cm, so I thought I'd do the same with both the Reprisal and Terra, but they only have 2 harpoints. The Terra was lowered from 60 to 45 so that it would better mach the Ret, be different than the Ark Mechanicus, and be cheaper than the Ark, making it a possibly more practical choice.
-
Invincible
The points made above are good. I find myself leaning in favour of the 60cm batteries though. It does help keep it at arms length, given it's glass jaw
Kind of find the 2 rolls for critical hits to be overkill though. would any of the following be better?
1. Roll 2 dice for critical hits, can't cause more than one to be inflicted however.
2. Suffers critical hits on 5+.
3. Re-roll critical hits.
These could even be applied to the Blasphemer.
Does it really need the forth lance?
NemesisAKA Super Jovian
Have used this back in the day. As with all all AC ships it has the critical flaws of a failed Ld check or innoportune BFI rendering it impotent. Hell, when I last used it, you could still run out of ordnance, which is exactly what happened!
But that's the risk with these beggers.
I would be in favour of keeping the lances, and bumping them up to str4, just to help offset it's weaknesses a little more. That would jack up the cost though.
Reprisal
Agree with your above changes, but it does kind of encroach on the Oberon's role, with better speed and frontal armour to boot. Even with speed 15. Still, these ships would require opponents permission to use, and you can just take an Oberon as lists allow, so I don't see it being that much of a problem.
Terra
Deffo on loosing the range shift, or at least making Turbo Weapons an option. Not to sure why it should get 5 turrets though. I say give it the standard 4, it's not a carrier after all (Another optional?).
It's your creation, though. Do what you will! :)
That's my 2-pence worth anyway ;D
-
Invincible
The points made above are good. I find myself leaning in favour of the 60cm batteries though. It does help keep it at arms length, given it's glass jaw
Kind of find the 2 rolls for critical hits to be overkill though. would any of the following be better?
1. Roll 2 dice for critical hits, can't cause more than one to be inflicted however.
2. Suffers critical hits on 5+.
3. Re-roll critical hits.
These could even be applied to the Blasphemer.
Does it really need the forth lance?
The damage is along the lines of the original, and I think it should stay as two. Otherwise, with its high speed and ability to use Come to new heading, it would be alot easier to use as a ship of the line without it.
As for the WB, bumping it back to 60cm seems to be a general consensus. So what should the S be if it goes back to 60? 10 or 12?
NemesisAKA Super Jovian
Have used this back in the day. As with all all AC ships it has the critical flaws of a failed Ld check or innoportune BFI rendering it impotent. Hell, when I last used it, you could still run out of ordnance, which is exactly what happened!
But that's the risk with these beggers.
I would be in favour of keeping the lances, and bumping them up to str4, just to help offset it's weaknesses a little more. That would jack up the cost though.
Should there be some rule about veteran hangar bay crews, making it so you could reroll RO checks?
Reprisal
Agree with your above changes, but it does kind of encroach on the Oberon's role, with better speed and frontal armour to boot. Even with speed 15. Still, these ships would require opponents permission to use, and you can just take an Oberon as lists allow, so I don't see it being that much of a problem.
It is also shorter ranged. I'll also bring the turrets back down to 4, since it is really supposed to be a Retribution refit. Oberon can also bring more WB to bear on a single bearing, so I think it is fair.
Terra
Deffo on loosing the range shift, or at least making Turbo Weapons an option. Not to sure why it should get 5 turrets though. I say give it the standard 4, it's not a carrier after all (Another optional?).
It's your creation, though. Do what you will! :)
That's my 2-pence worth anyway ;D
Turbo Weapons seems more out of starwars than warhammer. I agree on removing the 5th turret. I think it was just copypasta carryover.
-
As for the WB, bumping it back to 60cm seems to be a general consensus. So what should the S be if it goes back to 60? 10 or 12?
Would scale to 12 at 60cm
Should there be some rule about veteran hangar bay crews, making it so you could reroll RO checks?
Not really. Thems the breaks when going all AC!
It is also shorter ranged. I'll also bring the turrets back down to 4, since it is really supposed to be a Retribution refit. Oberon can also bring more WB to bear on a single bearing, so I think it is fair.
True. I actually forgot BFGR made the Oberon all 60cm. Was hoping to edit before any replies!
-
I'm pretty sure the Imperial Terra was just supposed to be a stupidly expensive wishlist overkill ship. Retribution -2 weapons battery strength, +2 lances, +1 turret, +left column shift, she's basically supposed to be what the Ark Mechanicus became. I'm more and more willing to say "just leave it in Book of Nemesis" and if you want a Terra-class battleship with a mix of lances and guns that isn't simply an Ark Mech, build it from scratch and/or bring up your prior ship design for it, Gothmog. In line with your simple fix, str 12 45cm broadside batteries, str 2 45cm broadside lances, str 2 60cm dorsal lances, and str 9 prow torpedoes gets an Imperial player a "budget" Ark Mechanicus that would still cost nearly as much as one, just lacking refits and not being quite as god-modded. Paired with a Retribution she'd be a nightmare though, and that's probably the one time I'd actually squadron battleships <shudder>. The carnage that could unleash in a 1500+ points game... well, you'd get your points investment back...
I'm totally fine with lopping a dorsal lance off the Invincible. Would make it pretty solidly 290, maybe marginally cheaper. I'd either keep the critical damage 2 dice per hit, or set it so it's 2 dice per hit, count 1, if you wanted to make it marginally less fragile (two 33% chances to get 1 crit are still pretty solid). As another possible option, critical strikes as standard, but critical strikes automatically inflict an additional Fire! critical. Part of me thinks this might be a decent fix, the rest of me thinks this would probably destroy the ships even faster. Whatever we do for the Invincible should be echoed on the Blasphemer though. Keeping Fast Battleships consistent is a must.
Actually, I think the Reprisal should probably also get cut down to str 12 45cm batteries (treat as Retribution, remove str 6, replace with hangars). Would make it distinctly a retrofitted Retribution, compared to the Oberon which is more of a retrofitted Emperor. In that light, keeping the turrets down would make sense too, but bumping it up 1 wouldn't be exactly horrible either... I feel like there's decent justification to go either way.
It would make sense for the Reprisal and Terra (or alternatively, change the name) to be retrofitted Retributions. "Hey, this ship design works, let's tweak it a little..." is definitely an Imperial/Adeptus Mechanicus approach to innovation.
Edit:
I find myself coming back to the discussion about the Gothic and the Tyrant vs. two Lunars from a few weeks back, and from prior to that. Part of the reason the Tyrant wasn't simply a Dominator with torpedoes was to prevent it from being a perfect non-squadroned pairing with a Gothic, and to keep the Dominator and Gothic an imperfect squadroned pairing (of course, two Lunars squadroned would be the balanced squadron ideal, but there's the downside of shared special orders). In the same way, the Apocalypse and the Retribution were probably also deliberately designed to pair imperfectly. You could squadron them, but it's not optimal. Similarly, the Victory and the Vanquisher aren't perfect pairings for a Retribution either. We do run the risk of creating dangerously good pairings here if we simply modify the Retribution stat line and just swap out one weapons system. Just food for thought.
-
Changes made to the Invincible. 60cm S12 batteries. I did however bump the Torpedoes up to S9 rather than S6. Just more fitting of a battleship. Okay move? Will cut it down a lance though to keep it consistent with the other BBs. So last questions, S9 Torp okay and should it be 300 or 290 pts?
As for the crits, I say the 2 choose 1 is too durable and the auto-fire is too fragile. HOWEVER 2 choose 1 (highest) combined with 5+ crit is okay. This would be a 1/3rd chance of crits and be very consistent, whereas roll twice is less likely BUT potentially more damaging with 2 crits. So what should it be? A consistent rate of crits OR a lower rate with a more random outcome?
As for the Reprisal, I think we are all on the same page, make it a refitted Ret. This is perfect as it should be in the Battlefleet Corribra fleet list.
And as for the Terra, it seems that the two paths are make it an Ark Mechanicus or cut it down to make a Retribution refit. Since there is already an Ark in the game players can use now(and it came out AFTER the book of Nemesis) and you would likely already have to take the Terra as reserves as well since it is ASC ship, then I think the cutdown retribution refit works best. And as Armiger said, it is a great compliment to a Retribution and the two could make a scary pair. As for them being "perfect" pairings, I'd say that they don't add significant amounts of added flexibility between them to be "perfect". As well, as unofficial ships, you would need opponent permission to use them anyways, so the fact that they would likely be used for fun or for the fact they are powerful anyways, so not too worried there.
-
Okay, so now to move onto a few more designs. I am going to skip the Dreadnought and High Conveyor for now and move onto Grand Cruisers:
Goliath Class GC- 250 (IMPERIAL NAVY/CHAOS)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 3
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 3 Arc:-
Stbd LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 3 Arc:-
Port Lances- R: 60cm S:2 Arc: L
Stbd Lances- R: 60cm S: 2 Arc: R
Special Rules: May take ABs for +5 pts.
Design Notes: Vengeance Variant
Annihilator Class GC- 290 (IMPERIAL NAVY/CHAOS)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 3
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 5 Arc:-
Stbd LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 5 Arc:-
Special Rules: May take ABs for +5 pts.
Design Notes: Vengeance Variant
Furious Class GC- 245 (265) (IMPERIAL NAVY)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 14 (12) Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 14 (12) Arc: R
Dorsal Lances- R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Design Notes: Lowered points. It is very close to the repulsive, basically 6+ Front armour, less one lance, and 45 cm lances instead of 30. Is this different enough? More importantly, are the points good. It is more expensive than the Repulsive, and the Repulsive would be the same cost if it upgraded its 3 lances to 45 cm, but would still be without the 6+ prow. This is the real life precusour to the Vengeance. Fluff wise it is post Repulsive, so I removed the ability for it to be Chaos as well.
Governor Class GC- 250
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 3
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port Lances- R: 45cm S: 4 Arc: L
Stbd Lances- R: 45cm S: 4 Arc: R
Dorsal WB- R: 60cm S: 6 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Special Rules: For +10 pts, you may upgrade the Lances to S:6, R:30cm.
Design Notes: The only thing I think worth changing is making this IN only. Fluff wise it is one of the oldest imperial ships and the precusor to the desolator. Maybe it was a blessed design and that is why it has stayed relatively loyal, whereas when the design was messed with, that is what lead to the Desolator falling to chaos alot. I don't know, does anything else need to be changed rules wise?
Shadow of Vengeance Blackship GC- 290 (300) 300 (IMPERIAL NAVY OR INQUISITION)
Hits: 10
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 6+
Turrets: 2 3
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 10 (8 ) Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 10 (8 ) Arc: R
Dorsal Bombardment Cannon- R: 30cm S: 6 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Prow Launch Bays- Thunderhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 2 Arc-
Special Rules: May be included in Imperial Fleets as if it were an Inquisitorial Cruiser. Must buy an Inquisitor Lord and select Ordo Xenos. In this case, the Inquisitor Lord MUST be on the Shadow of Vengeance. Shadow of Vengeance is equipped with Mimic Engines. Refer to Dark Eldar for Mimic Engine rules. For +30pts, you may upgrade the targetting matrix: All WB and Bombardment Cannons get a Left Col Shift.
Design Notes: Added on the newly developed Ordos and upped WB S to 10. Made it cost 15 points more, as I felt the original was overpriced, but the ordo rules are 25 pts and I did up the WB by S2. Changed since it should be INQ only. Made it so you have to take an Ordo Xenos Lord AND he must be on the Shadow. Left the WB upped to S10, made it 10 pts cheaper.
That is it for the GC for IN (and pretty much Chaos as well). Feedback/suggestions/alternative designs?
-
I strongly suggest putting the Shadow of Vengeance in just the Inquisition fleet. It's an Inquisition character ship and to be able to take it without an Inquisitor seems silly.
-
I strongly suggest putting the Shadow of Vengeance in just the Inquisition fleet. It's an Inquisition character ship and to be able to take it without an Inquisitor seems silly.
Agreed and fixed. See the updated design notes above.
Anyone have anything else for the GCs? There are a bunch here. Really looking for most feedback on the Governor. I feel the Furious is really close to the Repulsive and is pretty good, really just there if people have an alternative model. The Annihilator and Goliath already had seperate developement threads, so I think they are set.
-
From what I can see the Governor, Annihilator, and Goliath seem fine! All have enough strengths without stepping on the toes of existing classes.
Agreed on the SOV being Inquisition only, and most of it's modified profile. 3rd turret?
Kind of undecided about the Furious though. You mention it being similar to the Repulsive, problem is it's a little too similar.
I always imagined it being are more defensively Balanced then the Rep. How about making the WB's fpw10 and adding a 3rd sheild. 240 pts?
And the following special rule for the Furious also...
F**k Ugly
Due to it's horrendous appearance, The opposing player may declare that the owning player place a paper bag over the Furious model to avoid any mental and emotional trauma ;D
Seriously, THAT won a competition!? :o :)
-
I thought about a 3rd turret. I think the Mimic Engines are suppossed to be a big defensive buff, although that won't work late in the game. Would you up the points to add a 3rd turret?
As for the furious, I didn't want to remove it from the compendium, in case anyone already has one. I think making it IN only though is a great move, especially since it is Post-Repulsive fluff wise.
The Repulsive only has 2 shields and can buy a third for +15 points. To me it makes sense that maybe when designing the Furious, they added the armoured prow to save on the resources and power demands of adding a 3rd shield.
How about instead, drop the WB down to 30cm and up the FPW- makes it feel much more Imperial. In this case, I think a 3rd sheild would be in order as well. Makes it a brawler, more so than the repulsive. But this seems to be stepping on the Vengeance type hulls now.
Maybe make it have an S9 torpedo salvo. Now that is Imperial, and it is close to BBs in size (especially the F**k ugly prow ;D)
Maybe it being similar to the Repulsive isn't bad, as it could be used without being subject to strange happenings or reserve rules. And while that may be "bad" for fleet balance/compostion, since it is unofficial, that doesn't really matter.
-
s9 torps!? Not sure we need to go that far ;) But the 30cm batteries does fit with IN well though. Like you say, these are all unofficial ships, so balance isn't that much of a priority compared to BFGR and such.
I get the impression the Furious is an attempt to re-create the Repulsive with lower grade tech. I think that the proposed changes fit that.
You do make a point with adding the armoured prow to save on power consumption, so 2 shields may be the way to go. Hell, GC's were canned in favour of Battlecriusers because they weren't as effective or efficient, so tweeking can only really go so far.
As for the SOV's 3rd turret, +10 if is added. That's the usual rate when available.
-
The fluff talks about making the Furious basically a repulsive with a BB prow, so S9 torps would be appropriate I think. Though I understand the hesitance to put it in. I would lower the range of the WB to 30cm though. So yay or nay? It would be the only GC with this, and would set it apart and make it unique enough to want to take IMO.
It also talked about enhanced command capabilities and upping the Firepower of Imperial Squadrons without having to commit a BB. So for the WB, what should the S be at 30cm if we go that route? Or is a mix and match option better (some 30cm range, some 45cm range)? And shoudl the command capability route be explored at all?
-
I'd say keep it at 6 torpedoes, I'm not comfortable setting a precedent for going over a strength 6 torpedo salvo on a cruiser hull, even if it is a grand cruiser. But that's me.
-
I agree with that, 6 torps it should be.
-
Okay, S6 it is :( I think S9 would have been fun and as an unofficial ship, I wasn't too worried about a precedent, but the crowd has spoken.
So what about this instead (and once this is hammered out, we can move onto Battlecruisers and Cruisers)
Furious Class GC- 230 (IMPERIAL NAVY)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: R
Port WB- R: 30cm S: 8 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 30cm S: 8 Arc: R
Dorsal Lances- R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Special Rules: For +15 points, you may buy a 3rd shield.
-
It looks ok, kind of a beefed up Avenger.
-
It looks ok, kind of a beefed up Avenger.
I don't really want a beefed up Avenger :-\ I kinda see it though... Is it too close?
The BFG:R avenger though is S20 a side though. The Repulsive is S14 a side. This is S16 at the same price as the repulsive, with 1/2 of its battery at half the range of the repulsive but a 6+ front armour save (and different lances as already discussed above).
-
Furious Class GC- 230 (IMPERIAL NAVY)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: R
Port WB- R: 30cm S: 8 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 30cm S: 8 Arc: R
Dorsal Lances- R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Special Rules: For +15 points, you may buy a 3rd shield.
Make the 45cm batteries fpw 6 and you've got a vote!
-
Furious Class GC- 230 (IMPERIAL NAVY)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: R
Port WB- R: 30cm S: 8 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 30cm S: 8 Arc: R
Dorsal Lances- R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Special Rules: For +15 points, you may buy a 3rd shield.
Make the 45cm batteries fpw 6 and you've got a vote!
Then it has the same FP as a repulsive, but at less range, 1 less lance (granted they are 45 cm vs 30 BUT that seems to cancel out a the difference). It does have 6+ front armour though... eh. Same cost as repulsive...
Should it just get 3 lances at 30cm like the repulsive?
-
In retrospect, retract my last post. Didn't think it through properly, and was aiming to reduce long range firepower, in line with other IN vessels. Go with the above profile.
This is what happens when insomnia wins out! muggy brain...
-
Roger. So Grand Cruisers are finished for now and will go to vote as is (unless people come back with more to add on).
I'll get some BC and CA profiles up later today.
-
Chalice Class Fast Battlecruiser-
195 ???
Hits: 6 8
Speed: 30cm 25cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 60cm S: 8 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 60cm S: 8 Arc: R
Dorsal Lances- R: 60cm S: 2 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Special Rules: +1D6 AAF. Roll twice when checking for critical hits. When checking for critical hits, it receives a critical hit on a 5+. When a critical hit is received, roll an additional d6. On a 5+, the Chalice suffers a fire Critical Damage result in addition to the results of the critical hit. Roll 4D6 for Plasma Drive Overlord Catasrophic Damage results.
Design Notes- Based on the Rouge Trade RPG expansion Battlefleet Koronus. Suppossed to be a Battlecruiser with a glass jaw, much like the Invincible class BB. The only debate I have is the speed. 30cm is REALLY fast, but I feel it needs to be faster than the Mecury BC. Is is basically a really fast overlord. Should it be knocked back down to 25cm?
Daemon Slayer Class Cruiser- 190 180 (170)
Hits: 8
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 10 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 10 Arc: R
Prow Psychic Cannon- R: 30cm S:1 Arc: F
Special Rules: Psychic Cannon- Works as a lance that hits on a 5+, causing one point of damage in addition to the following
Daemonships: Banished Back to the Warp
Hiveships w/ synaptic control: Cannot excert synaptic control.
All other tyranid vessels: must rely on instinctive behaviour
Marked Chaos Ships, Eldar Ships and Dark Eldar ships- behave as if cripples next turn
Tau ships (not including Kroot, Niccassar or Demiurg)- No additional effects.
All other ships: must pass LD check or behaves as if it is crippled the following turn.
ALL SHIPS: May not perform exterminatus and may not fire Nova Cannons/Armageddon Guns/Warp Cannons the turn following a hit by a psychic cannon.
Design notes: I like the ship as is but modified the psychic cannon to be more fluffy. I changed the cost to be the same as a BFG:R Tyrant with upgraded batteries.
-
I would consider lowering the Chalice's weapon battery range down. You have to spend points on the range which makes the speed less important. I would consider 30cm range or something like that. That would make the fact quality more important to use. No ideas on the Daemon Slayer.
-
I wouldn't go 30cm. It would just die (only 6 hits and fragile) and the fact it is fast would be useless, as it has to get close and stay close, whereas longer range means it would use its speed to maintain itselt at longer range.
-
So what's the point of this vessel? I mean, why not just take an overlord? Speed matters much more for a Slaughter, for example, and the slaughter doesn't have the 6+ prow yet is considered a great ship. Yes this ship only has 6 hits, but that 6+ prow will make up some of the lost ground.
-
The Daemon Slayer looks OK to me, don't know if 190's the right price though. Do you really think the psychic cannon should be the same cost as 6 torps? Would go with 180 myself. Just seems right.
My only real misgiving is that this vessel was first introduced in the original Bakka list IIRC, so the Bakka BFGR committee may have already worked on this...any Bakka Committee members wish to clarify on this?
Don't play RT so, can't say much on the Chalice. Does it's RT profile fit the above? I can see what you did though, effectively making it a cruiser version of the Invincible. As for range, Dan's comment holds up. A drop to 45cm may be a compromise. Fpw 10 if so?
If 30cm, would that scale to fpw 12-14? You'd have a ship that could zip in and cause a shed load of damage, but be venerable to counter-attacks, going out in a blaze of glory! Does that fit this vessels fluff in any way?
In effect, getting a light-weight Imperial Slaughter...don't know how some would feel about that! But, this is BFG's "Apocrypha" after all!
-
Hey,
regarding the Chalice, looking at Battlefleet Koronus I would say the speed should be 25cm. It has the same speed as an Endeavour (which has 20cm in BFG), but 1 more then the Overlord. Some tipping and 25cm seems good, 30cm is over the top.
It has less armour then the Overlord & Endeavour, but same integrity as Overlord and more then Endeavour.
The special rule is that is has more power if a plasma drive is installed, the backfire it that when taking a critical hit it has a 25% chance of getting an additional fire critical.
That last part could be translated into BFG:
When the Chalice takes a critical hit roll a D6: on a 5+ it takes an additional Fire Critical.
Armour wise/Nr of hits I would keep it at 6+/5+ and 8 hits. The Glass Jaw translates into the critical hits (hmmm, perhaps the vessel takes critical hits on a 5+? This way 1 hit can easily give a critical + the chance of a fire).
Weapon wise:
The Chalice is depicted with all weapon batteries. That gives the following options:
i. It is an Overlord variant
ii. It is a battlecruiser variant of the Tyrant
iii. It is a battlecruiser variant of the Dominator
Option iii can be dropped as the Dominator is rare outside of Kar Duniash, the Chalice is Calixis build.
Basically I think Gothmog's weapon profile will do the job.
The +1d6 at AAF is good as well.
-
I really need to get my hands on a copy of Battlefleet Koronus.
I like Horizon's approach to giving the Chalice a "glass jaw;" wondering if people think that would be a good rules change for the Invincible/Blasphemer too (critical damage on a 5+, and an automatic fire critical)? That would make them more vulnerable to critical strikes, but with that kind of vulnerability, I'd be slightly more amenable to playing around with the number of hits/shields to balance them a bit more perhaps to fit the basing requirements without having to add yet another special rule. Just a thought.
-
When the Chalice takes a critical hit roll a D6: on a 5+ it takes an additional Fire Critical.
Like it! Apply to Invincible/Blasphemer also, like Armiger suggested?
Weapon wise:
The Chalice is depicted with all weapon batteries.
Even on the top? Just wondering, as WB's on the dorsal mount would differentiate the Chalice from the Overlord a little more. Fpw6 60cm?
-
No it has lances on the dorsal and Overlord weapons on the port/starboard.
-
Hey,
regarding the Chalice, looking at Battlefleet Koronus I would say the speed should be 25cm. It has the same speed as an Endeavour (which has 20cm in BFG), but 1 more then the Overlord. Some tipping and 25cm seems good, 30cm is over the top.
It has less armour then the Overlord & Endeavour, but same integrity as Overlord and more then Endeavour.
The special rule is that is has more power if a plasma drive is installed, the backfire it that when taking a critical hit it has a 25% chance of getting an additional fire critical.
That last part could be translated into BFG:
When the Chalice takes a critical hit roll a D6: on a 5+ it takes an additional Fire Critical.
Armour wise/Nr of hits I would keep it at 6+/5+ and 8 hits. The Glass Jaw translates into the critical hits (hmmm, perhaps the vessel takes critical hits on a 5+? This way 1 hit can easily give a critical + the chance of a fire).
Weapon wise:
The Chalice is depicted with all weapon batteries. That gives the following options:
i. It is an Overlord variant
ii. It is a battlecruiser variant of the Tyrant
iii. It is a battlecruiser variant of the Dominator
Option iii can be dropped as the Dominator is rare outside of Kar Duniash, the Chalice is Calixis build.
Basically I think Gothmog's weapon profile will do the job.
The +1d6 at AAF is good as well.
I was going off the fluff and not the rules from the Koronus book, so thanks for delving into that! ;D
I think crits on a 5+ is needed if it gets bumped back to 8 hits, because remember, the Invincible is 8 hits as well and is a BB!
I like the revised "glass" jaw syndrome, as fire is devastating, but the 1/3rd chance is definately more fair than an auto-fire as was discussed during invincible developement.
As for the weaponry, I think it should be lances, but Judge for yourself (though WB would make it "different")
(http://i.imgur.com/dRL0FM4.png)
-
So I adjusted the points cost of the Daemonslayer and made the changes to the Chalice. What should its point cost be?
The only other thing is now it seems REALLy close to the overlord. Basically just faster but easier to kill. But BFG:R has some super similar ships (The Tyrant and Dominator are too close IMO, I like the feel of the original Tyrant better than the BFG:R one, but that's just me).
We could go with something more like a Tyrant with upgraded batteries to match one of Horizon's suggestions- S10 @ 45cm.
I will go retroactively change the Invicible BB critical damage rules as well if everyone is cool with that. I don't think the Invincible or Blasphemer should have crits inflicted on a 5+ though, like I just wrote into the chalice. THis is because the Invincible and Blasphemer suffer from other weakness too (shields equal to a cruiser rather than BB, 8 hits which is less than even a GC). BUT I did add the 5+ additional fire part.
-
Chalice-class battlecruiser
Dimensions: 5.1 km long,0.8 km abeam at fins approx.
Mass: 29 megatonnes approx.
Crew: 98,200 crew, approx.
Accel: 3.4 gravities max sustainable acceleration.
The Chalice class was a bold but not entirely successful attempt to further develop the concept of the battlecruiser. It is unique to Battlefleet Calixis, as it was designed within the Sector. The theory seemed sound: a fast heavy cruiser, with light armor and powerful weapons that could outrun and outmaneuver anything it could not immediately destroy. During the bleak middle years of the Angevin Crusade, much was made by Imperial propagandists of the new, locally manufactured “super-cruisers†planned to roll up the numerous xenos and heretic empires arrayed against the Emperor’s forces. Even though they only came into service as the crusade ended, hopes for these vessels were immense. Early Chalice-class captains were lauded as glamorous, swashbuckling adventurers in endless vox reels and data plays. Sadly, the vessels failed to live up to expectations. Two of the original Chalice class battlecruisers were destroyed during an engagement with unknown xenos forces in the Hazeroth Abyss in 123.M40, and others lost to accident or fleet engagements over the next millennia. Due to an active Inquisitorial campaign to conceal these military setbacks, these ships remain admired amongst the ignorant general Imperial public, who believe these ships are the iron core of Battlefleet Calixis. However, these sleek and beautiful warships, while fast and well armed, have a glass jaw, and a disconcerting tendency to rupture plasma conduits under sustained assault.
Speed: 6 Maneuverability: +10
Detection: +10 Hull Integrity: 70
Armor: 19 Turret Rating: 2
Space: 75 SP: 63
Weapon Capacity: Prow 1, Port 2, Starboard 2, Dorsal 1 Battlecruiser: This ship can use “cruisers only†Components Additional Plasma Conduits: All Chalice-class battlecruisers have many heavy plasma conduits, a risky trade-off for increased power. Any plasma drive installed on a Chalice increases power generated by 4. However, every time a Chalice takes a Critical Hit, there is a 25% chance it suffers an additional Fire! Critical Hit as well.
The BFK stats, Overlord for comparison:
Overlord-class battlecruiser
Dimensions: 5.3km long,0.85 km abeam at fins approx.
Mass: 31 megatonnes approx.
Crew: 100,000 crew, approx.
Accel: 2.4 gravities max sustainable acceleration.
A successful early illustration of how workable the battlecruiser concept can be, the Overlord is as fine an example of a pure warship as can be found. Most Rogue Traders find the ship is poorly suited to anything other than combat, as its enormous weapons systems place a colossal strain upon the plasma drive. Some Rogue Traders strip out the extensive macrobatteries, freeing up space for other Components, but others regard this as a foolish and blinkered waste of some of the most elegantly designed and lethally effective weapons systems in the galaxy. Manufactured in the vast orbital shipyards of Cypra Mundi (as well as at other shipyards in lesser numbers), the Overlord is a difficult vessel to construct, but faithful and fierce in its service to mankind. It does not waste space on massive attack craft hangers or the temperamental nova cannon. Instead, most designs use powerful long-range macrobatteries and lance turrets, backed by prow torpedo tubes. This simple, proven, and effective weaponry plays to the strengths of Imperial Navy tactics and Imperial technology. The design is an ancient but successful one, and new examples of the class are still commissioned every decade or so.
Speed: 5 Manoeuvrability: +10
Detection: +10 Hull Integrity: 70
Armour: 20 Turret Rating: 2
Space: 78 SP: 64
Weapon Capacity: Prow 1, Port 2, Starboard 2, Dorsal 1 Battlecruiser: This ship can use “cruisers only†Components
-
SO based on this I see two best options
Chalice as a fast & fragile overlord- keep weapons as is.
Chalice as a fast & fragile Tyrant BC- make weapons S10, R:45cm
Opinions? And still need a consensus for points. I am thinking 200 (the fragility rule really checks it down from other BCs)
-
Considering the Mercury from Bakka is going to look a whole bunch like the Overlord (SHHHH *spoiler alert*), I think the Tyrant option is better. Mercury will have a nova and 60cm WBs, this should have torps and 45cm batteries. It would have a better niche that way.
-
Considering the Mercury from Bakka is going to look a whole bunch like the Overlord (SHHHH *spoiler alert*), I think the Tyrant option is better. Mercury will have a nova and 60cm WBs, this should have torps and 45cm batteries. It would have a better niche that way.
Isn't the Mercury already in BFG:R IN fleets? Is it getting changed specifically for Bakka?
So proposed finalization of Chalice:
Chalice Class Fast Battlecruiser- 200 215
Hits: 8
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 10 12 Arc: L
Stbd B- R: 45cm S: 10 12 Arc: R
Dorsal Lances- R: 60cm S: 2 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Special Rules: +1D6 AAF. When checking for critical hits against the Chalice class, critical hits are inflicted on a 5+. When a critical hit is received, roll an additional d6, on a 5+, the Chalice suffers a fire Critical Damage result in addition to the results of the critical hit. Roll +1D6 for Plasma Drive Overlord Catasrophic Damage results.
If everyone is good with that, I will move onto the Diemos CA and Imperial Dreadnought Super BB tommorrow. Escorts will be after those two. I am holding out on the high conveyor, hoping to hear back from FW on releasing, or allowing in the public domain the Maelstrom Zone fleet lists.
-
It takes criticals easier and has a chance of double crits... Thats not nice. Why not go for a more traditional rule like crits on a 4+ (and no extra fire)? Or if you really want something different but fitting make the engine criticals (6 and 8 ) cause +d3 instead of +1 damage. Drop the plasma drive overload line, with 8 hits it rolls 4 for PDO already. 45cm batteries sounds good, being a battlecruiser I would push for 12wbs tho. If they can boost a Lunars entire broadside to 45cm in a battlecruiser surely they can do a Dominators???
As is this is a Tyrant+ boosted batteries+ bc lances+ 5cm and 1d6aaf. I would put that at ~230 (its faster than an Armageddon but has significantly less punch at range) 235 with 12wbs. The critical effect is hard to pin down a price on but 30ish points seems steep, maybe price it at ~215?
-
In the BFG:R IN fleet, the 2010 Bakka stuff is there with the small amount of BFG:R Bakka changes incorporated. There is a Bakka committee working on stuff and is pretty much done.
Anyways, I think the profile and cost is about right. It has less firepower than the Armageddon, much more fragile in the two critical special rules, and the one increase it has is the +5 speed.
One Andrew's stats: I could go for that. 10wbs might make it a bit weaker than a BC should be. 12wb at 45cm would put it at full BC firepower. I would put it at 215 if we have it at that profile.
Also, how limited will this be? Will the ASC even talk about how available it is or what restrictions it has on taking it?
-
@Afterimagedan
That's a good question and I'm probably stepping on Gothmog's toes, but my suggestion would be that we get a list together and see what we have in terms of escorts, cruisers, etc. and then decide. My gut reaction would be "everything in ASC counts as a reserve for purposes of fleet comp unless the ship's rules say otherwise, or it is included in a fleet list, in which case that fleet list's restrictions apply." That pretty much defaults everything to a 3:1 ratio (3 normal ships in that fleet of a class for every one ASC vessel), but acknowledges that people write up variant fleet lists for their own campaigns, and we might expand the available fleet lists at some point too (I for one have my sights set on hopefully having a Segmentum Ultima drafted up eventually, something to flesh out the old Warp Rift article a bit).
Of course, the immediate problem I could see there would be ASC escorts, in which case there probably should be an exception (but whether to put that on the "Welcome to the ASC, here's how we've sought to balance introducing these ships into fleet lists" section or in individual entries... not sure).
-
Well the reserve rules as is are pretty meh, they strongly favor cruisers, CH, CB, and CG but compleatly screw over battleships and escorts. Thats not even getting into how theyre really only applicable to imperial fleets as just about all of the other races have some way built in to take all their ships.
No what we need to do is work on some rules for BFG-R to fix the reserve rules so the limits make better sense and the allies system is better laid out. Hell the last part GW has already done for us in the 40k rulebook ::).
Some ships should still have special restrictions of their own. Those are called "characters" and should have specifice requirements to field them (like the Planet Killer).
-
Why do the reserve rules screw escorts?
On 40k and allies: I read a lot of complaints on that part in the new 40k. Gamewise and fluffwise.
-
I'll change it to +1d6 Plasma Overload. I feel that is fluffy and is niether an advantage/disadvantage.
I am warry to make the crit system too different from the Invincible/Blasphemer. The only reason it is also easier to crit (over the Inv/Blas) is because it is 8 hits, as are the Fast Battleships. It is suppossed to be a "glass jaw". As for the points, I felt since the Inv is pretty much 60 points cheaper than Retribution, this being 20-30 points cheaper than other BC was spot on. Bumping it up to 12 though makes sense I guess, but for 215? An overlord is only 220. How about 210.
AS for the rules regarding ship limitations, I would prefer that be discussed in detail in the main ASC 2.0 post and this post just be IN ship development
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5479.0
BUT I will briefly address what I had intended to do about ship limitations.
I planned on leading off the ASC 2.0 with a foreword explaining that these ships are "unofficial" ship's, developed by the community for compatibility specifically with BFG:R. ASC 2.0 contains ships based off multiple sources, both official and unofficial themselves. As such, using these ships requires your opponents permission. It is recommended that these ship's be incorporated into fleets using reserve rules. How ever since certain classes may be impractical to include using reserves (such as BBs in smaller games) combined with the fact they are unofficial and already require opponents permission to use, players can feel free to use however many as they want in a fleet, though a rough 1 unofficial ship for every 3 official ships is still a good guideline to follow. However, players are encouraged to completely ignore any restrictions for special scenarios, campaigns or just plain fun (Unique character ships are still 0-1 though!) ASC 2.0 will also include some fun and fluffy but unofficial fleet lists. These lists WILL have built in restrictions and it is recommended that these be adhered to and other unofficial ships only be included using the reserve rules. Any special/rehashed scenarios included in ASC 2.0 should be followed as listed, but players are encouraged to modify and change up scenarios to meet their own desires and needs.
Bottom line: Everything is unofficial and meant for fun! There are some good guides lines that are recommended to follow for fair play, but if you and your opponent are up for it, anything is possible! ENJOY!
As for using the 40k allies, I think players can decide on their own whether to do things like that or not for campaigns/scenarios, and it would prevent specific things in BFG like using Chaos ships as SM venerable BBs.
I am double posting this in the link above for the main ASC 2.0 thread, so if you want to follow up on ship restrictions, you can easily move discussion over there.
-
Sodue to the lack of further comments (in either thread) it seems like people are okay with both the Chalice now (top of this page) and how I planned to handle ship limitations in ASC 2.0.
As well, on a sidenote, I hope to put together a working pdf next week.
SO moving on to the next classes
Deimos Class Torpedo Cruiser- 230 (220) 225
Hits: 8
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port Meteor TDS- Speed: 30cm 45cm S: 4 Arc- L/F
Stbd Meteor TDS-Speed: 30cm 45cm S: 4 Arc- R/F
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Special Rules: The Meteor Torpedo Deployment System (TDS) launches a modified version of the standard torpedo. These torpedoes are smaller and fired from turret mounted box launchers, and as such are more limited. Meteor TDS torpedoes are short burn torpedoes and dissapear after the ordnance phase in which they were fired, nor can they leave the arc they were fired in. Meteors are also smaller in size and are only hit by Turrets on a 5+, rather than 4+. They cannot be combined in a salvo with normal torpedoes or Meteors from another Deimos, however the Port and Stbd luanchers on a single Deimos can combine their salvoes when fired in the FWD arc.
Auto loaders: You do not have to RO for the Meteor TDS. It is still required for the Prow Torpedoes.
MODELLING SUGGESTION- Use lance battery hard points and plasticard to make a launcher similar to a NATO Sea Sparrow Launcher http://www.murdoconline.net/2007/sea_sparrow-thumb.jpg (http://www.murdoconline.net/2007/sea_sparrow-thumb.jpg)
Design Note- The original Deim os was in Warp Rift 9 and had a very complicated Meteor TDS. I think this streamlines it a little bit and overall makes more sense. Wasn't sure of the points cost, but 220 didn't seem enough in my gut with the revised rules, especially the autoloaders.
Abyss Class Imperial Dreadnought
(http://i.imgur.com/bpk9elx.jpg)
Abyss Class Dreadnought- 1000points
Hits: 18
Speed: 15cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 6
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 7 6
Weapons:
Prow Lances- R: 30cm S: 4 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 6 Arc- F
Prow WB- R: 30cm S: 2 Arc: L/F/R
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 18 Arc: L
Port WB- R: 60cm S: 10 Arc: L
Port Lances- R: 45 S: 4 Arc: L
Port Lances- R: 60 S: 2 Arc: L
Port Launch Bays- Fighters 30cm, Bombers 20cm, ABs 30cm, S: 3 Arc: -
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 18 Arc: R
Stbd WB- R: 60cm S: 10 Arc: R
Stbd Lances- R: 45 S: 4 Arc: R
Stbd Lances- R: 60 S: 2 Arc: R
Stbd Launch Bays- Fighters 30cm, Bombers 20cm, ABs 30cm, S: 3 Arc: -
Dorsal WB- R: 45cm S:4 Arc: L/F/R
Dorsal Lances- R:45cm S: 2 Arc L/F/R
Dorsal Bombardment Cannons- R:30cm S:6 Arc:L/R
Special Rules: May not use come to new heading. +1d6 to any form of Catastrophic Explison (plasma or warpdrive). -1d6 AAF.
Design Notes: I went off the picture. Kinda had the ship "Furious Abyss" in mind. Will likely use a very similar profile for the Character ship when we get to Chaos.
Virtus Imperator Class Dreadnought (Developed by Tyberious)
(http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9163/virtusimperatorcopy.jpg)
Virtus Imperator Class Dreadnought - 850
Hits: 16
Speed: 15cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 5 (4)
Armour: 5+/6+ Front
Turrets: 6 (5)
Weapons:
Prow Torpedoes: Speed: 30cm S:12 Arc: F
Prow WB: R:60cm S:5 Arc: L/F/R
Dorsal Lances: R: 60cm S: 4 Arc: L/F/R
Port WB: R:45cm S:24 Arc:L
Port Lances: R:60cm S:6 Arc:L
Port LB: Furies:30cm Starhawks: 20cm S:2 squadrons Arc:-
Stbd : R:45cm S:24 Arc:R
Stbd Lances: R:60cm S:6 Arc:R
Stbd LB: Furies:30cm Starhawks: 20cm S:2 squadrons Arc:-
Special Rule: Cannot use come to new heading. +1d6 to any form of Catastrophic Explison (plasma or warpdrive). -1d6 AAF.
Design Notes: lost the Nova Cannon, tried to go off BFG:R IN BBs and match stats to the picture.
-
Why do the reserve rules screw escorts?
On 40k and allies: I read a lot of complaints on that part in the new 40k. Gamewise and fluffwise.
Well to the first part, most lists don't feature enough escorts to warrant any reserves. I like escorts but even in my lists I don't often field 12 escorts and if you want a squadron larger than 3 ships your going to need ridiculous numbers of escorts. If I want to bring a squadron of say 5 Cobras into an Armageddon list I would have to get 15 other escorts and pay at least 525 points before I could bring them in, that's silly.
As for the second part blah! Theres nothing wrong with the 6th ed allies system and the people complaining about it being against the fluff are either misinformed or lacking in imagination (probably both). Now BFG probably doesn't need to get as in depth as the 40k setup but I don't see any problem with allowing your X to ally with Y if you have a good back story and its not flat out against the fluff. Ive not heard anyone complain against the game play tho, thats the one thing Ive heard good things about :P. Of course its designed to be able to take advantage of so your going to get the normal "cheese" complaints but Ive learned to ignore stupidity (I see plenty of it where I live ::)).
I think reserves/allies would be better suited on a points based system. Something along the lines of you may take up to six escorts for every 500 points, one cruiser for every 750 points, or one battleship for every 1500 points in your fleet. You may not have more reserve or allied vessels than you have ships of that type from your main fleet. Well something like that anyway.
Deimos, price sounds a bit high, especially with the limited range and low strength on the broadsides.
-
Maybe change reserves for escorts to 1 escort squadron for every 2 or 3 list squadrons. That way if you take say 2 squadrons of 3 swords, you could take a squadron of 6 cobras etc. etc.
As for the Deimos, I kinda felt that at first, but remember Torpedoes bypass shields AND these ones only get shot down 1/3rd of the time. And I felt the fact it doesn't have to LD check to RO was kinda a big deal.
What if the Speed of the Meteors was increased to 40 or 45cm and stayed the same. Basically they are smaller and faster, but short lived and it would give the ship a little reach
-
The fact that the Deimos doesn't have to RO to fire them is fine but it is sort of cancelled out by the fact that you cannot lock them on either. It has no weapons to LO so it will just always RO anyways. I would make them 45cm torps. I think that's an awesome ship.
-
The fact that the Deimos doesn't have to RO to fire them is fine but it is sort of cancelled out by the fact that you cannot lock them on either. It has no weapons to LO so it will just always RO anyways. I would make them 45cm torps. I think that's an awesome ship.
It could also BFI without worrying about having to pass a later check to RO.
45cm Meteors and 230 points or less?
Anyone have any inputs on the dreadnoughts, especially point costs? They really are more just for absurdity and fun, but I want to make sure they are priced right and the weapons seem appropriate.
-
6 & 7 turrets is a no for me. Because that means it cannot be attacked by bombers in anyway.
-
6 & 7 turrets is a no for me. Because that means it cannot be attacked by bombers in anyway.
Good point. Though the Chaos Space Hulk has 6 turrets and 40 hits!
So if they are 5 turrets max, they match a normal carrier BB. Do you think they need something else to offset being 5 turrets max?
May +1ld each? Or an additional shield? Maybe better defense against boarding attacks (since they have such massive crews)
-
I'd leave out the Abyss-class Dreadnoughts for now. We really don't have anywhere near a good enough depiction of their armaments in the novels (...yet; I'd trust A D-B to do his research and consultations and do a decent job of it), so I'd rather hold off on that. At least until we're a little further in and see if ANY of the three survive the Heresy (Furious Abyss is definitely sunk, Trisagion and Blessed Lady... dunno yet). Plus, super-mega-death cannons are hard to balance (and oddly enough, A D-B in "Betrayer" avoided any mention whatsoever of the ridiculous Yamato gun from "Battle for the Abyss" anyhow...). I'll spill the beans and say I was planning on building one eventually... (a Word Bearers friend was remarking on how he'd like to have a battle barge-type ship in BFG for his 40K/Epic army) but I was planning on just using the Chaos Space Hulk rules to represent it since that made for a reasonable shortcut for designing an absurdly massive warship that's received the standard Black Library hyperbole treatment.
-
I'd leave out the Abyss-class Dreadnoughts for now. We really don't have anywhere near a good enough depiction of their armaments in the novels (...yet; I'd trust A D-B to do his research and consultations and do a decent job of it), so I'd rather hold off on that. At least until we're a little further in and see if ANY of the three survive the Heresy (Furious Abyss is definitely sunk, Trisagion and Blessed Lady... dunno yet). Plus, super-mega-death cannons are hard to balance (and oddly enough, A D-B in "Betrayer" avoided any mention whatsoever of the ridiculous Yamato gun from "Battle for the Abyss" anyhow...). I'll spill the beans and say I was planning on building one eventually... (a Word Bearers friend was remarking on how he'd like to have a battle barge-type ship in BFG for his 40K/Epic army) but I was planning on just using the Chaos Space Hulk rules to represent it since that made for a reasonable shortcut for designing an absurdly massive warship that's received the standard Black Library hyperbole treatment.
I kinda see your point, but at the same time I'd still be interested in building one even if they are all destroyed. And since the HH is really focused on characters and story lines of individuals, I doubt we will ever see the actual armament. Just a fun hobby project. But the backburner is an okay place I guess.
The Phalanx survided though... hmmm...
Anyways, I am going to bed now. Discuss amongst yourselves.
-
6 turrets are fine, with the suppression rules you can still get some attacks. These things are pretty expensive too so I wouldnt think anything less than a BB sized wave should be able to reliably cause any damage.
-
I'd also leave the Dreadnoughts for now. Still, what a pair of monsters! Did you make the Abyss, Gothmog?
The Deimos looks pretty solid, if expensive, but given the points made by others above it is worth it. Would be even better at 220 or less. :P ;D
Max 6 turrets! Anything else is just evil...
As for the second part blah! Theres nothing wrong with the 6th ed allies system and the people complaining about it being against the fluff are either misinformed or lacking in imagination (probably both). Now BFG probably doesn't need to get as in depth as the 40k setup but I don't see any problem with allowing your X to ally with Y if you have a good back story and its not flat out against the fluff. Ive not heard anyone complain against the game play tho, thats the one thing Ive heard good things about :P.
^^^Here, here!^^^
I think reserves/allies would be better suited on a points based system. Something along the lines of you may take up to six escorts for every 500 points, one cruiser for every 750 points, or one battleship for every 1500 points in your fleet. You may not have more reserve or allied vessels than you have ships of that type from your main fleet. Well something like that anyway.
That's a pretty decent alternative! Tested to any degree?
-
Okay, so I am leaving the Dreads sitting for not. Still as a final discussion point, leaving costs 1000 and 850 respectively. Sure they have less hits than hulks, but they move and have more firepower and a great diversity of weapons. And no, I did not build the Abyss class. The ship is pictured in Warp Rift 9 and I remember seeing it on the old boards/Gothicomp. The rules however are my design. There was nothing on it, so I figured I'd go off what was pictured and it was a sensible choice to represent something akin to the Furious Abyss.
I put the Deimos at 225. Glad everyon liked it. The concept from Warp Rift was cool, just overly complicated IMO.
-
Majestic Class BB- 370
Hits: 12
Speed: 15cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 4
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 5
Weapons:
Port Lances- R: 60cm S: 2 Arc: L
Stbd Lances- R: 60cm S: 2 Arc: R
Port LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 4 Arc:-
Port LB- Furies: 30cm Starhawks: 20cm Assault Boats: 30cm S: 4 Arc:-
Dorsal lances- R: 60cm S: 3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow WB- R: 60cm S: 5 Arc: L/F/R
Special Rules: +1ld. Cannot use come to new heading. +5 pts for Assault Boats.
Claymore Class Corvette- 25
Hits: 1
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 1
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:3 Arc- L/F/R
Turbulent Class Heavy Frigate- 50
Hits: 2
Speed: 25cm 20cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:4 Arc- L/F/R
Port WB- R:30cm S:3 Arc- L
Stbd WB- R:30cm S:3 Arc- R
Special Rules- +1d6 to AAF
Firedagger Class Frigate- 35
Hits: 1
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:2 Arc- L/F/R
Fleet Defense Turret- R:15cm S:1 Arc- All Round
Special Rules- Fleet Defence Turrets add +1 Turret to a friendly ship w/in 15cm. They may only be used once per ordnance phase. They may be used on the Firedagger itself.
-
Majestic: the wbs bring that low at 60cm is a major turnoff. Try the dorsal at 9wb range 60 like the apoc and prow 2 lances.
Claymore: compare it to the Iconoclast. I think this could be made into a counterpart to it. Also, I think calling it something other than corvette would be good. I would consult andrewchristlieb's write-up for the corvette stuff. :)
Turbulent: in would like to see some editing of the weapons to change it from a beefed up sword. Maybe make it have the SM nova weaponry with both being F/L/R?
Firedagger: here we go again..... The fleet defense turrets is a highly hot button issue around here. Personally, I have no problem with it.
-
Majestic: the wbs bring that low at 60cm is a major turnoff. Try the dorsal at 9wb range 60 like the apoc and prow 2 lances.
Claymore: compare it to the Iconoclast. I think this could be made into a counterpart to it. Also, I think calling it something other than corvette would be good. I would consult andrewchristlieb's write-up for the corvette stuff. :)
Turbulent: in would like to see some editing of the weapons to change it from a beefed up sword. Maybe make it have the SM nova weaponry with both being F/L/R?
Firedagger: here we go again..... The fleet defense turrets is a highly hot button issue around here. Personally, I have no problem with it.
I was warry about Dorsal WB and making the Majestic too diverse. Your design is sound in principle though. What does everyone else think?
Claymore is a Corvette directly out of the Battlefleet Koronus book- changing the name not so much an option as a result. It looks smaller than a falcion and has a small armament. If his idea of a corvette is a ship that bridges the gap between ordnance and escorts, there is something like that coming based off grimdark bits patrol torpedo boat squadron.
http://www.shapeways.com/model/680962/bfg-patrol-torpedo-boat-squadron-x3.html?li=productBox-search
As compared to the Iconoclast, I think it is right on, as the Iconoclast is 30cm but is 4+, whereas this is 25cm but 5+. I'll loose a turret too to make it even.
The Turbulent is also directly out of BF Koronus. It unfortunately has no lance on it in that.
As for the firedagger and fleet defence turret, I don't think it matters if people hate the idea of them or not. This is a compendium of UNOFFICIAL ships, and as such are used
1- ONLY with opponents permission
2- are intended for Fun and/or Fluffy use in friendly games and/or unique scenarios
I would see the point in arguing over them if they were being worked into an official list, but since this is an unofficial fan work for uncompetitive friendly use, I think they are fine and it should be allowed for players to use it if they want to.
-
How does the Firedagger stack up with the changes to the FDT? I would think something more along the lines of 3wbs @30cm l/f/r and 'blah fluffy bit blah' when shooting at ordinance the Firedagger always hits on a 4+.
-
There were changes to FDT? Where at? I would prefer it match whatever the current agreed upon (or at least prefered) design is. I was just going right off the Book of Nemesis.
-
FDT was tweaked in the Admech rules, iirc its now +2 turrets max of 6 and all ships within 15cm may re-roll their misses with turrets.
-
Majestic
How 'bout fpw9 WB's on the top, and remove the frontal WB's? 350/360 if so? Or we keep Radu Lykan's "Emperor with lances" idea for 365?
Claymore
Knock off a turret and it looks good to me.
Turbulent
Not to sure on this. Basicly a suped up Sword. I can't really knock the idea, just think it could be a bit more different . I don't have BFK, so can't really comment further
Firedagger
the FDT is a bit good to have on escorts IMO. How about we kept the RR turrets within 15cm (i.e. no +2 turrets for the Firedagger), and hit Ordnance on 4+ like Andrew says. Fpw3?
-
I've been slowly going through my copy of BFK. For the Turbulent, maybe chop 5cm off its normal movement speed and increase its firepower by +1 (maybe +2, but the output of 2 iconoclasts sounds like too much)? I'll have to look at the book again but she seemed bigger and slower than a sword, but her reactor could better power her weapons systems.
That would leave her capable of a big burst of speed on demand, but she would play well as a battleship/transport escort or an ultra-light cruiser.
I know she's meant to be more of a heavy scout/picket, but that's sort of hard to actually model on a 4' x 6' table, fighting across the narrower side.
EDIT: Re: more firepower; that's why the Havoc's batteries are chopped into 2 & 3, to weaken it on AAF orders, isn't it?
-
Majestic
How 'bout fpw9 WB's on the top, and remove the frontal WB's? 350/360 if so? Or we keep Radu Lykan's "Emperor with lances" idea for 365?
Claymore
Knock off a turret and it looks good to me.
Turbulent
Not to sure on this. Basicly a suped up Sword. I can't really knock the idea, just think it could be a bit more different . I don't have BFK, so can't really comment further
Firedagger
the FDT is a bit good to have on escorts IMO. How about we kept the RR turrets within 15cm (i.e. no +2 turrets for the Firedagger), and hit Ordnance on 4+ like Andrew says. Fpw3?
Well I was trying to keep it as an Emperor with lances. Thus the WB S5 at the front. The Emperor does have WB dorsals as well, but I figured the "with lances" part would include the Turrets on top. You look at a picture of the Emperor and the prow WB are just not set up to be lances.
I'll drop a turret off the Claymore. It will match the Iconoclast then.
I'd like to figure out something too for the Turbulent. Maybe the only escort with 45cm? Obviously lower the S back down a bit.
What about a trimmed down FDT, +1 instead of +2?
-
Turbulent Class Heavy Frigate- 50
Hits: 2
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2 It only has one in BFK.
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:4 Arc- L/F/R Now for something completely different. What about giving it 4 port and starboard weapons batteries instead of 4 L/F/R like the Drow?
Special Rules- +1d6 AAF Its faster than a cruiser but slower than a Sword, how about 20cm speed with the +5d6 aaf?
-
Turbulent Class Heavy Frigate- 50
Hits: 2
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2 It only has one in BFK.
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:4 Arc- L/F/R Now for something completely different. What about giving it 4 port and starboard weapons batteries instead of 4 L/F/R like the Drow?
Special Rules- +1d6 AAF Its faster than a cruiser but slower than a Sword, how about 20cm speed with the +5d6 aaf?
Not dropping a turret. BFK doesn't translate directly into BFG and it won't have less turrets than a sword.
I like the speed idea.
A light cruiser is 6 @ 30cm on each side. 4 on an escort seems too heavy.
I say maybe either 3 a side OR 4 L/F/R @ 45cm
-
You make a good point about things not translating well. I think the P/S idea is fantastic. That would basically add the dynamic of trying to maximize using both port and stbd weapons in one position. I think that's a sweet game dynamic.
-
All the ships ive seen the turrets do transfer between the two but i agree one is a bit low. 3 port and starboard would probably be ok. The Drow is very similar in price and stats and it has 3 per side.
-
I just realised a problem changing the Firedagger to the Admech rules for FDT. Since the Admech ones are meant as a refit for a single capital ship they make sense. But the Firedagger would have no reason to be taken in a squadron with those rules. All you would need is one to get the reroll benefit.
I personally prefer the +1 turret to a vessel within 15 cm once per ordnance phase. We could restrict it further by saying a squadron must all apply it to the same vessel unless they pass an LD check.
-
I'm not sure firedaggers would be deployed in concentrated formations.
It makes sense that one or two would be added to a squadron consiting otherwise of swords or firestorms.
Being an escort, they're still required to be in squadrons of at least 2, so it's not like then can be spammed as single ships.
-
regarding the fleet defence turret, i always thought if all escorts had this rule included rather than just making it a class in its own right then escorts would suddenly appear in a lot more lists and would truly be able to fulfil their role as escorts. too overpowered?
for the heavy frigate i would be fine with fp4 either side at 30cm. it has no prow weapons and so unless it gets into an optimal position it is basically a 2 hit sword
-
Escorts can already gain the turret massing benefit much more easily than capital ships. I don't think giving them the bonus for that and removing the downside (more vulnerable formation) would be a good move.
-
So for the Firedagger, I think leaving it as +1 turret to a vessel witin 15cm (including the FD itself) once per ordnance phase works best. To mitigate it, if the Firedagger is using FDT for a vessel other than itself, the sqaudron must direct all its turrets for the same ship OR pass a leadership check to "cover" multiple ships.
For the Turbulent, I think S3 like the Drow is best. It is really close, albiet 5 points more BUT the Turbulent I think justifies this since it is for IN and not Tau.
Praetor Class Frigate- 40
Hits: 1
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:2 Arc- L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S: 2 Arc- F
Python Class Scout Sloop- 25pts (IN and Rogue Trader)
Hits: 1
Speed: 30cm
Turns: 180*
Shields: 1
Armour: 4+
Turrets: 1
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:2 Arc- L/F/R
Special Rules: Inclusion of a Scout Sloop in an IN/RT fleet allows the player to reroll all of their dice when determining Attack Rating. This is due to the unique scouting abilities of the sloop. There is no bonus for including multiple ships in a squadron and you must accept the results of the reroll. However, the Sloop must be set up within your opponents deployment zone if you elect to do this (if the mission does not have defined deployment zones, it must deploy within 45cm of an enemy ship). Furthermore, you may not squadron Pythons with vessels of another class and if an entire squadron is destroyed, it is 100 victory points bonus (only if the option to reroll was exercised). This bonus is constant, whether it is 1 Sloop or 6.
Design Notes: Based off Battlefleet Koronus Viper Scout Sloop. Changed the name since there is a Viper destroyer already. Figuered a vessel that would affect campaigns more would be nice. The thought is that it does its scouting and gets the attack rating reroll. I thought about +1 Attack rating instead, but the reroll is a time honoured BFG mechanic :). Since it is so cheap though, there had to be a downside. Thus the deployment restriction and VP bonus. And now players must make a calculated risk descision. Inclusion of just one reaps the same reward as 6, but has a high risk being destroyed and giving up 100 VP. Inclusion of more than one mitigates this risk, but obviously costs more.
Adeptus Arbites Punisher Class Strike Cruiser- 180 (System Defense for IN, AdMech, and RT)
Hits: 6
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+/6+ Fronts
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:4 Arc- L
Stbd Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:4 Arc- R
Dorsal Bombardment Cannons- R: 30cm S:3 Arc-L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Speed: 30cm S:3 Arc-F
Special Rules- Imperial Law: Deployment of a Punisher Strike Cruiser means more than just reinforcements. It means the Imperium has turned its gaze upon a system and it intends to impose law and order upon the citizens. This carries over into any fleet presence in system, as no one is beyond judgement of the law. All friendly vessels within 15cm of a Punisher Strike Cruiser are +1 ld.
-
Oh, and I just had this idea for a fleet list option
0-5 Fleet Commissars- 25pts each.
A Fleet Commissar grants the vessel/squadron he is embarked upon 1 reroll at +1ld. However, if this reroll fails as well, the vessel/squadron is -1ld for the remainder of the game (as the Commissar has executed the Captain!)
-
Oh, and I just had this idea for a fleet list option
0-5 Fleet Commissars- 25pts each.
A Fleet Commissar grants the vessel/squadron he is embarked upon 1 reroll at +1ld. However, if this reroll fails as well, the vessel/squadron is -1ld for the remainder of the game (as the Commissar has executed the Captain!)
Hahaha that's awesome!
-
Python Class Scout Sloop- 25pts (IN and Rogue Trader)
Hits: 1
Speed: 30cm
Turns: 180*
Shields: 1
Armour: 4+
Turrets: 1
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:2 Arc- L/F/R
Special Rules: Inclusion of a Scout Sloop in an IN/RT fleet allows the player to reroll all of their dice when determining Attack Rating. This is due to the unique scouting abilities of the sloop. There is no bonus for including multiple ships in a squadron and you must accept the results of the reroll. However, the Sloop must be set up within your opponents deployment zone if you elect to do this (if the mission does not have defined deployment zones, it must deploy within 45cm of an enemy ship). Furthermore, you may not squadron Pythons with vessels of another class and if an entire squadron is destroyed, it is 100 victory points bonus (only if the option to reroll was exercised). This bonus is constant, whether it is 1 Sloop or 6.
Design Notes: Based off Battlefleet Koronus Viper Scout Sloop. Changed the name since there is a Viper destroyer already. Figuered a vessel that would affect campaigns more would be nice. The thought is that it does its scouting and gets the attack rating reroll. I thought about +1 Attack rating instead, but the reroll is a time honoured BFG mechanic :). Since it is so cheap though, there had to be a downside. Thus the deployment restriction and VP bonus. And now players must make a calculated risk descision. Inclusion of just one reaps the same reward as 6, but has a high risk being destroyed and giving up 100 VP. Inclusion of more than one mitigates this risk, but obviously costs more.
Great base stats, I would give it the +5d6 AAF too tho, its faster than 30cm but not much. I'd give it the widowmakers upgrade base too. Last Id drop the vp shenanigans as some people and scenarios don't use them.
Python Class Scout Sloop- 30pts (IN and Rogue Trader)
Hits: 1
Speed: 30cm
Turns: 180*
Shields: 1
Armour: 4+
Turrets: 1
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:2 Arc- L/F/R
+5d6 AAF
+2 leadership when enemy is on special orders.
If using Attack Ratings the Python allows you to reroll your die result if you choose (you must choose wither you will use this option before rolling!) If this option is chosen the Python is not deployed as standard. The Python must be deployed after all other ships, within 45cm of an enemy ship if possible. If there are no enemy ships present the Python may be deployed anywhere on the table so long as it is not within 60cm of a friendly ship. If you do not choose to use this option the Python is deployed as standard.
Oh, and I just had this idea for a fleet list option
0-5 Fleet Commissars- 25pts each.
A Fleet Commissar grants the vessel/squadron he is embarked upon 1 reroll at +1ld. However, if this reroll fails as well, the vessel/squadron is -1ld for the remainder of the game (as the Commissar has executed the Captain!)
Very fitting for IN :P.
-
Hi,
http://specialist-arms.com/bfg/warprift/
or
http://twolandscreative.com/warprift/index.php/archive?start=10
Warp Rift 21.
Rules on Commissars. With a cool story to go with it.
-
Horizon, mind if the Lord Commissar is added too? Though I will still keep mine in. I like the risk/reward of it and it seems really fluffy IMO, especially with the Gothic war books and Relentless. I wouldn't expect the commissar to stray too far from the bridge either in the heat of battle, as that is where a moment of cowardice on the part of the crew poses the greatest threat to the safety of the ship.
As for the Python, I like your suggestions Andrew, however there is a great reward with no risk at low cost. Even deploying so close isn't so bad, because if you take jsut one, you get the great benefit and only throw away a 20 pt escort. I feel the Python either needs to be upped in cost or have some inherent risk greater than just the loss of itself.
-
Sure, add it. Warp Rift is open source ;), just add the name of the article writer in the document. People appreciate that.
-
I plan on it and citing everyone who contributes to asc. I'll PM everyone asking for their real names if they want, or just use their usernames if they don't want their real name.
-
For the Python, what about:
Python Class Scout Sloop- 30pts (IN and Rogue Trader)
Hits: 1
Speed: 30cm
Turns: 180*
Shields: 1
Armour: 4+
Turrets: 1
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R:30cm S:2 Arc- L/F/R
+5d6 AAF
+2 leadership when enemy is on special orders.
If using Attack Ratings the Python allows you to reroll your die result if you choose (you must choose wither you will use this option before rolling!) If this option is chosen the Python is not deployed as standard. The Python (or Python Squadron) must be deployed after all other ships, within 45cm of an enemy ship if possible. If there are no enemy ships present the Python (or Python Squadron) may be deployed anywhere on the table so long as it is not within 60cm of a friendly ship, and cannot be combined in a squadron with a vessel of another class. If you do not choose to use this option the Python is deployed as standard. (THE DOWNSIDE) Your opponent may puchase system defences and/or escorts in value less than or equal to the cost of the Pythons in your fleet ABOVE the point value of the fleets.
-
As well, I am going to put together just a simple text only PDF for now and put it up for review. A few days after I get it up, I will hold a vote for ASC 2.0 IN.
Now to start coming up with Space Marines.
-
ASC 2.0 folder on Dropbox
The file Addition Ships Compendium 2- Imperial Navy is a text only pdf of the rules we came up with here
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dqk34679tgv9719/XxTc6yU3mm/ASC%202.0
Look it over and continue the discussion as neccessary
Hot topics/slightly unresolved issues were:
Firedagger FDT
Chalice BC fragility (and by extension Invincible BB for comparison)
Feedback on Dreadnoughts lacking (I put them in Italics for "Unfinished")
Python Sloop Special Rules (no finalized feed back)
Adeptus Arbites Punished (no feedback at all)
Majestic BB weapons loadout
Hot topics that seemed resolved:
Deimos Meteor Torps
Furious GC stats
Reprisal BB stats
Terra BB stats (reduction from SUPER Battleship, less Ark Mechanicus like)
-
Not sure what to say about the dreadnaughts. I'm not convinced the game can handle ships that size, but I guess that's why they're in the ASC.
The Terra looks good. In line with the new Retribution and leaves a place for the Ark Mechanicus.
The Majestic has too many lances, I think. Going by the rule of thumb of 3 WBs=1 lance (and thus ignoring the range penalty of WBs), the majestic can bring 20WB equivalents to bear on a target at 60cm vs the Emperor's 16. I'd suggest either dropping the broadside lances to 45cm or the dorsal lances to strength 2 (which'd make it 17 vs 16). That or throw another 10-15 points on the price to account for it just being better than the emperor.
The firedagger needs a clarification on whether the fleet defence turret only works during the ordnance phase or, if not, whether the limit of uses also applies outside the ordnance phase (eg if a ship moves into torpedoes in the movement phase).
The punisher seems very expensive. It's a strike cruiser with worse armour and a ld bubble. It seems the ld bubble is valued at 35 points + whatever 6+ side and rear cost? I'd suggest a slight reduction in cost. +1 ld is good, but most ships that would truly benefit would tie the punisher's movement down too much. Also, does this +1 stack with the emperor's prow comms?
My suggestion would be 145, gains +1 to its rolled ld and all squadron members, but no one else.
No Hawking? Le sad :(
-
More elaborate reply later, but the Hawking is coming later, just for RT/Ad Mech use, rather than IN.
-
Not sure what to say about the dreadnaughts. I'm not convinced the game can handle ships that size, but I guess that's why they're in the ASC.
The Terra looks good. In line with the new Retribution and leaves a place for the Ark Mechanicus.
The Majestic has too many lances, I think. Going by the rule of thumb of 3 WBs=1 lance (and thus ignoring the range penalty of WBs), the majestic can bring 20WB equivalents to bear on a target at 60cm vs the Emperor's 16. I'd suggest either dropping the broadside lances to 45cm or the dorsal lances to strength 2 (which'd make it 17 vs 16). That or throw another 10-15 points on the price to account for it just being better than the emperor.
The firedagger needs a clarification on whether the fleet defence turret only works during the ordnance phase or, if not, whether the limit of uses also applies outside the ordnance phase (eg if a ship moves into torpedoes in the movement phase).
The punisher seems very expensive. It's a strike cruiser with worse armour and a ld bubble. It seems the ld bubble is valued at 35 points + whatever 6+ side and rear cost? I'd suggest a slight reduction in cost. +1 ld is good, but most ships that would truly benefit would tie the punisher's movement down too much. Also, does this +1 stack with the emperor's prow comms?
My suggestion would be 145, gains +1 to its rolled ld and all squadron members, but no one else.
No Hawking? Le sad :(
That is exactly why the ships are in the ASC. To be utterly absurd and for people with crazy models and rediculous fleet sizes. Think of it like a super heavy in a game of Apocalypse for 40k. It isn't intended for normal play, but can be really fun for giant games.
For the majestic, I'd rather go up in points, considering design consistency. The Ret has S3 dorsal lances, and the Apoc has 3 harpoints each with S2 60cm lances.
Good point on the firedagger. Anyone else any input?
You are right on the cost of the Punisher. I forgot the basic SC had SM crew built into its cost. I'd say just a massive drop in cost and keep everything else the same. I'd rather not tie the ld bonus to a squadron, as I think it is a cooler mechanic to have this zoom around and apply a +1 lb bonus to vessels where it is needed most.
I'd say a flat 145 for the ship.
-
Fair enough on all points.
The easiest solution for the FDT would be to simply clearly restrict it to the ordnance phase. That way, you won't have to account for ships moving at different times, which could lead to the following:
Firedagger grants turret to a dauntless 10cm behind it.
Firedagger moves 25cm ahead. Distance now 35cm.
Dauntless moves 25cm forward but contacts torpedoes 10cm into its move.
Does it get the FDT bonus? It was in range when the firedagger declared it. I was going to be in range at the end of the movement phase, but it isn't when the torpedoes come in. And if it doesn't get them, and is destroyed, does the firedagger waste the turret doing nothing that turn?
A rule could be written to account for all that, but it will be more complex, need a few more design decisions and then would only be triggered on rare occasions. Not sure it's worth overcomplicating the rule for.
-
Made some changes
new link to temporary working document
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61590635/ASC%202.0/Additional%20Ships%20Compendium%202-%20Imperial%20Navy.pdf
Changes made
-Abyss class now Colossus. Want to save Abyss class for Chaos.
-Firedagger FDT are Ordnance phase only
-Python class is required 1 per 500 points to use its attack rating reroll. No other "downside"
-Arbites cruiser is 160 points and +1 in boarding actions
Look it over, if I get at least a thumbs up or two, I will go ahead and finally put IN to vote
-
Looks good to me.
No adjustment to the Majestic, though?
-
Upped the Majestic 10 points. Posting the vote topic now
-
just wondering if i could submit a ship design of my own for consideration? built it for gothicomp 2012 i think :-[ and it will hopefully get painted in time for 2013
Centurion Class
Hits: 8
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5/6+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
port/starboard Weapons Batteries- R:45cm S:4 Arc- L/R
port/starboard lances- R:45cm S3 Arc L/R
Prow Torpedoes- speed 30cm S6 Arc F
Due to the strain the enhanced lances and super fired plasma weapons batteries put the ships power grid under any special orders or damage results that halve the ships weapons round down rather than up.
Due to the rare ness of the Centurion class only one vessel of this type may be included in your fleet.
Centurion.
The 100th cruiser to be constructed upon the forge world of Fornax, the Centurion, was originally intended to be a Tyrant class cruiser but the head of the priesthood on Fornax decreed such a momentous occasion required something more grandiose to mark the century of ships Fornax had produced in honour of the Omnisiah and the Machine God.
A new class would be created, something to show the enemies of mankind their ships inferiority compared to those of the Imperium. The original Tyrant hull’s power grid and targeting systems were significantly upgraded using parts from a recently decommissioned grand cruiser enabling the installation of long ranged lance turrets as well as the famed super fired plasma weapon batteries that the tyrant is usually equipped with.
With the ruler of Fornax behind the new class’ creation the many objections often raised by techno magi reluctant to create something new were simply ignored and the Centurion was able to take its place in Battle Fleet Eschataris on schedule. Since that day the Centurion has gone on to earn many battle honours, the Centurion’s broadside is the rival of any other cruiser class in the Imperium, both in power and range, blurring the lines between the cruiser and battle cruiser classes.
The Centurion has become famous for its exploits and though it was intended as a unique creation, a one off showing of the might of man, its blue prints have found their way into the hands of forge worlds in other sectors and even other segmentum and so the numbers of Centurion class cruisers is steadily increasing.
when i originally posted 220 points was suggested?
pics
http://s3.zetaboards.com/The_Ammobunker/topic/7060720/10/#post8290185
-
Are those really meant to be S3 lance bays on the Centurion? That doesn't seem to fit with either cruiser or BC standards.
If this cruiser is meant to mate the Tyrant's long range batteries and the Armageddons Lances but without the turrets, shouldn't the lance bays be S2?
-
if you look at the pic it has 3 lances, i converted it to make a change from the standard imperial navy set ups, am considering trying a ship with just 1 lance and teh rest weapons batteries.
-
The Desolator has six in the picture, so if you see 3 that can mean strenght 2 (sequential fire).
-
Then I'd suggest making it 3 WBs each side as well (ie half of a 6 block)
-
Do you have a picture. I am having trouble envisioning it
-
Erm the link above shows pic, on iPad so don't want to fool around with photo bucket and posting here. On the linked page it's post 200
Cheers
-
Well... just copy the image adress: :)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/RADU_LYKAN/bfg/centurionleft_zps564a6be8.jpg)