The Specialist Arms Forum

Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: flybywire-E2C on September 14, 2010, 03:27:00 AM

Title: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 14, 2010, 03:27:00 AM
Here's the caveats:

1. Preference will be on cruiser or battleship designs that actually made it into BFG magazine, Fanatic, etc., but anything  is on the table.

2. NOTHING larger than a battleship! No 14HP+ monstrosities!

3. No special weapon mechanic! "This cruiser is equipped with a Wave Matter Motion Destroyer: If it hits a targget less than 30cm away, roll 2D6. On a roll of 12, the target is destroyed! On a roll of 2, the Wave Matter Motion Destroyer causes the firing ship to take 2D6 Fire criticals!" Yeah, nothing like that.

Well, that's it. Tell me what you think!


- Nate
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on September 14, 2010, 03:37:38 AM
I would really like the imperial blackship be made official.  I love the rules, its extremely fluffy, and it gives the space marines a desperately needed battlecruiser class vessel.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on September 14, 2010, 03:52:06 AM
Looking back over the various imperial vessels in those magazines, I think I'd have to agree with the black ship. The rest just seem too game changing or un-navy like.

To be honest, rather than having a new ship become legal, I'd rather a new fleet list that adds the oberon and grand cruisers or some list that just has more ships accessible. Maybe and IN only armageddon style list with the 1:1 ratio?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on September 14, 2010, 04:03:53 AM
The Governor Class (rules from admiral d'artagnan, model by Warmaster Nice).
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Harrypotter on September 14, 2010, 06:32:31 AM
I'd like to see the other plastic kit options made legal, I.e. lance carrier, all lb carriers etc, they don't even have to be worth taking (kinda like the tyrant lol) but at least they'd be there then.

It'd also be fluffy as the imperials work as fleets not a gathering if separate ships.

if I had to pick one it'd be a carrier with maybe some dorsal lances or maybe a nc, what was the smotherman class cartier thing, I forget?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on September 14, 2010, 09:02:24 AM
Nah, all launch bay variant will never be accepted in an Imperial fleet.


But, next to the Governor, I think the Shadow of Vengeance from the Book of Nemesis is truly great.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Harrypotter on September 14, 2010, 09:25:59 AM
Which is odd really as I'd expect an all launch bay variant to be one of those things that looks cool on paper but would be so expensive/compromised in reality you'd rarely take it as it'd make more sense to take an emperor instead. The dominion from the bon looks good as well.

What was the governor?

A bc version of the gothic would rock as well.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on September 14, 2010, 12:45:40 PM
the governor is a good choice.

And your hopes and dreams for the lance BC have already been answered, it's called the Armageddon.
If they made a six lance cruiser, why take the Apoc?

The all-carrier cruiser doesn't fit the fluff of the imperial navy (they are moving away from carrier based combat)

Good choice with the governor GC, by the way.  If the blackship were not there, it would be my first choice.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 14, 2010, 12:53:07 PM
Could anyone post the stats of the suggested vessals, as i dont remember them all.
I always found the Fast Battleship an interesting idea even though i dont remember if the stats were balanced.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Don Gusto on September 14, 2010, 01:26:35 PM
The Nemesis class fleet carrier (12 launch bays and 3 dorsal lances on an Emperor hull).
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on September 14, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Darn,

I put a veto on all this carrier wishes for the Imperial Navy.

The IN is not a carrier fleet and should not be one.


Not that I have a veto....
;)



http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/
Fanatic Online 96
Book of Nemesis

Governor Class
Warp Rift 26, page 7
The Governor was also in an older fanatic online issue.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: trynerror on September 14, 2010, 03:08:05 PM
First pick: Magazin stats of the Oberon (maybe with corrected points according to the increase of the Emperor to 365. heck I´d pay 365 if I could play the long range Oberon as leagal as the Emperor).

the other is a tie between Blackship and Govenor, one adds a lot more fluff to the IN and the other is a GC with front weapons and can support IN fleet tactics (the armada GCs don´t fit there)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Harrypotter on September 14, 2010, 03:44:44 PM
Oh, that's a governor, I'd got that in my head as a macharus.

Yeah I like that one.
 ;D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: fracas on September 14, 2010, 05:49:09 PM
1. Improve the overlord batteries to get the targeting matrix option to avoid rightward shift. If anything the overlord should have this option rather than the Mars.

2. Give option for Armageddon battlecruiser to take a nova cannon ( since it started life as a Lunar)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Seahawk on September 14, 2010, 08:34:13 PM
I also really liked the Black ship.







...








...









...and the Seditio Opprimere. Couldn't help it; Ultramarines player that I am! Gimme! :P :P ;D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 15, 2010, 03:52:16 AM
I would really like the imperial blackship be made official.  I love the rules, its extremely fluffy, and it gives the space marines a desperately needed battlecruiser class vessel.

The Blackship is MAD COOL, even if it isn't fluff-true: Fluff describes a blackship as a hopped-up super-transport with warship weapons, imagine a Retribution BB hull, shields and turrets but Overlord weapon profile. The HA's however love this model so much, we're thinking something like a Inquisition barge of some sort, maybe for use by the Ordo Xenos.

Next problem: A kit is never coming out for this thing. How do we make something legal if the only way to have one is to scratch-build it? Don't get me wrong- I hapilly killed off a battlebarge, strike cruiser and plastic hull to make one, but I can't imagine making this legal and forcing people to go that route. Any suggestions for a cheaper and far easier way to make some variant of this mad-cool model? Making it with teh contents of a single kit would be ideal, even if it's a Mechanicus, Repulsive or Vengeance model kit. Ideas?

- Nate
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 15, 2010, 04:02:20 AM
Oh, that's a governor, I'd got that in my head as a macharus.

Yeah I like that one.
 ;D


I can't find the profile of the Govenor BC at either one of these references. Can someone just list them please? Thanks.

- Nate
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on September 15, 2010, 04:59:10 AM
Nate: I don't necessarily see this as a problem if it requires some conversion work. You aren't forcing people to take the ship and it's definitely not the first time options have been available to an army from GW without having a model for them. Hey, we might even see if we can convince Zac to work up one to fit along side the zeus stuff. Basing it off the vengeance would work, but seems a bit mundane for such a vessel... perhaps base if off the rogue trader cruiser? There seems to be a good bit of options available for that combined with a strike cruiser or some such.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on September 15, 2010, 05:03:25 AM
Hi Nate,
Warp Rift 26.
Page 7.
Has the Governor profile and stats (look under the picture).

(Yes it is called Macharius in the article but it is the Governor.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on September 15, 2010, 03:08:04 PM
Calling it the Mecharius was my fault... I thought it sounded better for a unique ship :P
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Harrypotter on September 15, 2010, 04:02:19 PM
And while we're wish listing, can somebody fix the  voss cl stats, I.e. 6+ prow etc, esp now there is an excellent resin kit available
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on September 16, 2010, 02:08:17 PM
Agreed on the Voss CL's.

the Yahoo group is debating this:
Iowa Class Battlehip:
Battleship/14 HP
Spd: 15 cm
Turn: 45 (cannot use CTNH)
Shields: 3 (4?)
Turrets: 4
Armor: 6+

Weapons:
Nova Turret 1:
3* Nova Cannons
Arc: L/F/R

Nova Turret 2:
3* Nova Cannons
Arc: L/F/R

Nova Turret 3:
3* Nova Cannons
Arc: L/S/R

All shots from a Nova Turret have to be in the same arc. So Turret 1 could
engage in the Left arc, Turret 2 can engage in the Forward arc, while Turret
3 engages in the aft arc, But all three shots from Turret 1 would have to go
in the left arc.

Inspired by the real life Iowa Battleships.


Discussion is further then this... but just to pass on the hot news from Yahoo. ;)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 16, 2010, 06:13:40 PM
I guess most ppl here will agree that this ship is totaly out of discussion. Even if it had "only" 3 novacannons in its front arc only who would want to play against such a ship?

Maybe a chaos player with a battleship that has 2 armageddon cannons? Or a Eldar player with advanced holoshields that save on 1+ (only vs nova cannons, to make it not too strong) and a 90cm pulsar lance with strengh 6?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on September 16, 2010, 07:51:50 PM
what an utterly vomitous idea.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on September 16, 2010, 08:03:46 PM
I want an escort with dorsal nova cannon & holofields. <grin>
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Harrypotter on September 16, 2010, 10:08:25 PM
You mean you want the bfg variant of the defiant  ;D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 18, 2010, 01:34:57 AM
Agreed on the Voss CL's.

the Yahoo group is debating this:
Iowa Class Battlehip:
Battleship/14 HP
Spd: 15 cm
Turn: 45 (cannot use CTNH)
Shields: 3 (4?)
Turrets: 4
Armor: 6+

Weapons:
Nova Turret 1:
3* Nova Cannons
Arc: L/F/R

Nova Turret 2:
3* Nova Cannons
Arc: L/F/R

Nova Turret 3:
3* Nova Cannons
Arc: L/S/R

All shots from a Nova Turret have to be in the same arc. So Turret 1 could
engage in the Left arc, Turret 2 can engage in the Forward arc, while Turret
3 engages in the aft arc, But all three shots from Turret 1 would have to go
in the left arc.

Inspired by the real life Iowa Battleships.


Discussion is further then this... but just to pass on the hot news from Yahoo. ;)

This was my response on the BFG-List:

--- On Tue, 9/14/10, Nate Montes wrote:
> Well, to really be honest, Iowa BB
> turrets would be more like bombardment
> cannon than nova cannon. Incredible hitting power but
> rather crappy range
> when compared to modern weaponry. And, and and, I am NOT
> going to get sucked
> down this line of reasoning!   J
>
> -          Nate


Additionally, fluff describes a Nova Cannon as an immense weapon centerline-mounted because of teh staggering recoil it produces (paraphrasing p.22 of the rulebook). A tripple-turreted version of this weapon system on a single ship is insane, not to mention an incredible waste of resources. A fleet gets much more "bang for buck" from three NC-armed Lunars than they would from a single 3xNC battleship.

- Nate
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Seahawk on September 21, 2010, 04:10:38 AM
It would, however, get sent into amusing barrel rolls when firing broadside.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 13, 2010, 03:28:49 AM

Yes!

*Voss Prow Light Cruisers (Endeavour, Endurance, Defiant) should get a 6+ prow at no extra cost. These vessels are never used as they are. They die (I experienced and tried...).

<snip>

* Despoiler statistic change (PROW LAUNCH BAYS :) ).

<snip>

But, most 'broken' the voss prows.


Here are my thoughts on this. The Despoiler prow launch bays is something I commented on several years ago and promptly forgot about when I realized simply changing where some of the bays are located subtly alters the ship as far as its sensitivity to criticals (more chances of a crit breaking bays is offset by more bays still effective for a given crit). However now that it has come up again, I don’t have an objection allowing this as an option (moving one bay apiece from each broadside for a total of prow=2, port/stbd=3) for say +20 points.

As far as the Voss prows go, I REALLY like this, but here’s the resistance on this; it was one of the things we got a flat NO on from the designers. My proposal was based on design philosophy. The Voss cruisers were designed from the outset to be “cruisers but smaller,” as opposed to the Dauntless, which from the outset was always intended to be an “escort but bigger.” That’s why the Dauntless is marginally faster and has a heavy prow armament and marginal broadsides, whereas the Voss cruisers are the opposite.
I’ll repeat the recommendation I made at the time. As opposed to changing the base profile (which is anathema), it can be a refit in the notes for this model. Also, instead of it being something that can be paid for, I recommend it be free but cause a reduction in turning form 90deg to 45deg. This should NOT be a “pay to have the best of both.” I think it should be an either/or kind of choice by the owning player. This way the player decides if it turns more slowly for having a meaty prow, or sacrifices toughness for maneuverability.

Once again, I have NOT brought this to the HA’s yet so this is in NO WAY a push-down to the fans. On the other hand, Ray is back home safe and sound so expect to see more activity (and possible changes) from the HA’s.  I’ll post this on both the Imperial and Chaos ship threads to see what we get.

-   Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 13, 2010, 04:29:07 AM
So voss cruisers with 45* and a prow deflector? hmmm, I could see live for that. Pondering...

But the designers should be slapped for giving a no on prow armour for them. A clear example of overestimating the capacity of the vessels. I mean, the Defiant is (along the Hellebore) the most useless vessel ever.

Despoiler from how model is build:
prow launch bay str4
port/starboard launch bays str 2
port/starboard weapon batteries str 10 @ 60cm
dorsal lance str 3 @ 60cm lfr

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 13, 2010, 04:54:14 AM
So voss cruisers with 45* and a prow deflector? hmmm, I could see live for that. Pondering...

But the designers should be slapped for giving a no on prow armour for them. A clear example of overestimating the capacity of the vessels. I mean, the Defiant is (along the Hellebore) the most useless vessel ever.

Despoiler from how model is build:
prow launch bay str4
port/starboard launch bays str 2
port/starboard weapon batteries str 10 @ 60cm
dorsal lance str 3 @ 60cm lfr



Hi Horizon! I'm moving the Despoiler conversation over to the Chaos ships thread.

The HA's (all three of us now!) are discussing it, but here's my thoughts. The Voss ships are broadside-heavy like true IN cruisers, and they definitely shouldn't be in the front of the line, unlike the Dauntless, that has its primary firepower in the front. Both ships aren't that different othertwise, and the Dauntless doesn't seem to suffer for not having prow 6+ so I just don't see why this is such an issue.

I use these Voss models all the time- more of my light cruisers are Voss than Dauntless, and I simply haven't seen the kind of bad luck you're seeing.

Don't get me wrong, Horizon, I really like the idea because its themeful, and the hard trade as opposed to allowing it something to buy is a selling point in my mind. It's just that I just don't see these things as inherently broken the way you do.

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 13, 2010, 05:08:25 AM
It's the speed and turning. If you're going to saddle IN with Speed 20 cm and 45' turning LCs as well as being more expensive than the Dauntless, the HA had better give the Voss LCs 6+ prow armor.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 13, 2010, 05:42:25 AM
The HA's (all three of us now!) are discussing it, but here's my thoughts. The Voss ships are broadside-heavy like true IN cruisers, and they definitely shouldn't be in the front of the line, unlike the Dauntless, that has its primary firepower in the front. Both ships aren't that different othertwise, and the Dauntless doesn't seem to suffer for not having prow 6+ so I just don't see why this is such an issue.

I use these Voss models all the time- more of my light cruisers are Voss than Dauntless, and I simply haven't seen the kind of bad luck you're seeing.

Don't get me wrong, Horizon, I really like the idea because its themeful, and the hard trade as opposed to allowing it something to buy is a selling point in my mind. It's just that I just don't see these things as inherently broken the way you do.

- Nate

Well, firstly, all the Voss CLs are overpriced. The Dauntless is not. Secondly, as you've noted, the Voss CLs really are just miniature line cruisers. The vast majority of their firepower is broadside oriented, like a line cruiser, their prow weaponry is torps, like a line cruiser and they only move 20cm, like a line cruiser. The Voss models look like they have a 6+ prow. Their high price says that a 6+ prow wouldn't be unreasonable at no additional cost. Their layout suggests that their role should be in a line breaker capacity, for which a 6+ prow would be appropriate.

The Dauntless, on the other hand, is cheaper, faster, and focuses more of its firepower (while having the same total firepower), making it a true CL. The focus of firepower can't be understated either. If a Dauntless has a target in its forward arc only it gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in its for arc and a side arc it still gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in all three arcs then it has the same firepower. Only if it has a target in one or more broadside arcs and no prow target does the Dauntless have less firepower than a Voss. What this says is that for a Voss to be a better choice than a Dauntless you should be using it in a line-breaker role, for which it needs 6+ armour.

The only other possibility really is to run it like a slow Dauntless around the flanks, only presenting its side to the opponent (rather than the prow like a Dauntless) in which case you get less firepower. So, in this case you're trading firepower and speed and cost for an increase in survivability. While I wouldn't make this trade, given how essential speed is to outflanking an enemy and/or chasing escorts it  is fine if some people want to make this trade. However adding a 6+ prow to the above does nothing to adjust this scenario.  Remember, the Dauntless still has superior firepower if there's a target to the fore and one side.

So, imagine that you're using the Voss as a Dauntless but going abeam, in essence trading speed, firepower and cost to get an increase in survivability. Adding 6+ prow armour doesn't alter that unless you happen to have a ship in your fore arc as well. With 5+ armour and an enemy in your prow and side arcs the Voss would be identical in survivability to the Dauntless. It is only if you can avoid a foe to your fore that your survivability increases. Therefore the 6+ prow would only serve to maintain the trade-off of firepower, speed and cost for survivability when using the Voss as a flanker. Not a cost that I'd pay, except as an excuse to take some cool models, but one that someone might pay.

What the 6+ prow does mostly, apart from maintaining the above mentioned trade-off, is allow the Voss to be used like a miniature line cruiser, which is what it looks like, and what its stats otherwise lend itself to. What's wrong with that?

On the 90°/45° issue, I think it should remain 90°, again at no change in cost. Reasoning: well, it has half the firepower and shields of a line cruiser, with two thirds the hits for two thirds the cost. Surely, in terms of balance, the offset for the loss of firepower/shields is the 90° turn rate. Secondly, even if you're going to do nothing other than make a cruiser smaller it should get some speed/turn bonus for the loss of mass.

As for the designers saying "NO" ... well, who gives a crap? Do they play the game? Do they talk to the community? If they want to make decisions like this then I say they should get on here and explain their reasoning, and open themselves up to the barrage of common sense they'd get in return. Maybe some of it will stick.

Oh, someone mentioned earlier that you could get a resin kit of the Voss. Where from? How much? ETC!?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on October 13, 2010, 05:56:47 AM
Sig, to add to what you already said, I find the endeavours to be alright as a reaction force behind the main cruiser line or squadroned with a line cruiser for protection. If you maneuver right, most enemy fire won't be able to target the light cruisers and you get a sizable boost to the firepower in teh squadron.

However, I don't think they need to cost more than a dauntless. There is a much greater cost to rewards benefit from using the dauntless than the voss cruisers.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 13, 2010, 08:35:02 AM
Dayum, speak da truth Sig! ;)

I would still choose Dauntless over Voss patterns if they got 6+ prow free of charge.  That should say something.
At least with 6+ it gives them a unique role, something different.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: fracas on October 13, 2010, 10:42:38 AM
6+ voss prow means cheaper access to battleships
As they function more like cheap cruisers with 6+ prow
Not a fan of the idea
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 13, 2010, 10:43:53 AM
3 Dauntless are still cheaper.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 13, 2010, 12:44:51 PM
6+ voss prow means cheaper access to battleships
As they function more like cheap cruisers with 6+ prow
Not a fan of the idea

The 3 Dauntless + Emperor is a well known 750 pt fleet. Saying that giving the Voss patterns 6+ prows makes this easier because you wouldn't need to take full line ships is disingenuous. As it stands the 3 Dauntless + Emperor fleet has no need of a line cruiser. In fact, the Dauntless act like mini Chaos ships in this fleet. That is, they act like sharks, attacking the enemy opportunistically while letting the Emperor act as the corner stone of the fleet. There is no need for line cruisers in this fleet.

Anyway, as far as my recommendations for the IN are concerned, I'd like to recommend that the Oberon goes back to its original profile. No idea what they were thinking about dropping the ranges down ... makes it useless. I don't care if that means propping its cost up to 355, to keep it in line with the Emperor. This ship needs the range boost. I'd also like to recommend bringing the Armageddon back down to its original cost of 235 pts. Hell, you guys finally print a ship some ships that're balanced and then immediately go and ruin them. What's with that?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 13, 2010, 06:53:40 PM
Armageddon, I think it is a good vessel. In the right fleet. 240 would also do the trick.

With the new FAQ2010 squadron rules (eg seperate disengage) an Armageddon-Lunar-Lunar squadron become capable.

The Oberon, you know, I was always on the verge of adding range but then I realized that the Oberon already has a lot of firepower of the IN Battleships in a broadside:
(roughly:)
Emperor 16 wb
Retribution 12 wb + 3 l = 12 + 9 = 21
Apocalypse 6wb + 6l = 6 + 18 = 24 (no hit from critical !!)
Oberon 16wb + 2l = 16 + 6 = 22

At range the Apocalypse wins. 45cm and downwards the Oberon gets better due batteries getting better once closer.

So I think if the Oberon gets a range increase it should cost the same as an Emperor Class. At least.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 13, 2010, 10:30:12 PM
No, as AC are better than lances.

The 10 point difference when the Emperor was at 345 and Oberon at 335 (using original rules of 60 cm WBs) was fine. So since the Emperor costs 365 points, the 60 cm WB Oberon should cost 355 points.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 14, 2010, 12:15:40 AM
No, as AC are better than lances.

The 10 point difference when the Emperor was at 345 and Oberon at 335 (using original rules of 60 cm WBs) was fine. So since the Emperor costs 365 points, the 60 cm WB Oberon should cost 355 points.

I dunno admiral, the main selling point on the Oberon for me, which is my favorite imperial battleship, is its low cost and balanced weaponry.  Longer range would be nice, but not to me if it came with a cost increase.  It pays in lack of specialization.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 14, 2010, 12:28:22 AM
It's an Emperor with lances installed. If anything, it should have 45 cm lances, not 45 cm WBs.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on October 14, 2010, 03:03:38 AM
Quote
Insert Quote
It's an Emperor with lances installed. If anything, it should have 45 cm lances, not 45 cm WBs.

That's a swap that I wouldn't mind if it didn't come with a cost increase.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 14, 2010, 03:46:36 AM
6+ voss prow means cheaper access to battleships
As they function more like cheap cruisers with 6+ prow
Not a fan of the idea

The 3 Dauntless + Emperor is a well known 750 pt fleet. Saying that giving the Voss patterns 6+ prows makes this easier because you wouldn't need to take full line ships is disingenuous. As it stands the 3 Dauntless + Emperor fleet has no need of a line cruiser. In fact, the Dauntless act like mini Chaos ships in this fleet. That is, they act like sharks, attacking the enemy opportunistically while letting the Emperor act as the corner stone of the fleet. There is no need for line cruisers in this fleet.

Anyway, as far as my recommendations for the IN are concerned, I'd like to recommend that the Oberon goes back to its original profile. No idea what they were thinking about dropping the ranges down ... makes it useless. I don't care if that means propping its cost up to 355, to keep it in line with the Emperor. This ship needs the range boost. I'd also like to recommend bringing the Armageddon back down to its original cost of 235 pts. Hell, you guys finally print a ship some ships that're balanced and then immediately go and ruin them. What's with that?

Hi Sigoroth! Not all of the changes to were done with the HA's input! That being said, I am really interested in hearing why you think the Armageddon should be brought down to 235. From much of the feedback I have seen, it is MUCH better than an Overlord for the same price, even without the 60cm WB's. I'm not saying we're not going to entertain it, I just want to hear your thoughts.

Separately, I agree the Oberon should not have been dumbed down, though the logic is sound- the ship is supposed to be OLD. I can bring this up with the HA's. Ray's back so he may already be reading this as well.

I especially want to address the Voss cruisers, but I will address that separately as a reply to another one of your posts.

- Nate


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 14, 2010, 04:39:50 AM
The HA's (all three of us now!) are discussing it, but here's my thoughts. The Voss ships are broadside-heavy like true IN cruisers, and they definitely shouldn't be in the front of the line, unlike the Dauntless, that has its primary firepower in the front. Both ships aren't that different othertwise, and the Dauntless doesn't seem to suffer for not having prow 6+ so I just don't see why this is such an issue.

I use these Voss models all the time- more of my light cruisers are Voss than Dauntless, and I simply haven't seen the kind of bad luck you're seeing.

Don't get me wrong, Horizon, I really like the idea because its themeful, and the hard trade as opposed to allowing it something to buy is a selling point in my mind. It's just that I just don't see these things as inherently broken the way you do.

- Nate

Well, firstly, all the Voss CLs are overpriced. The Dauntless is not. Secondly, as you've noted, the Voss CLs really are just miniature line cruisers. The vast majority of their firepower is broadside oriented, like a line cruiser, their prow weaponry is torps, like a line cruiser and they only move 20cm, like a line cruiser. The Voss models look like they have a 6+ prow. Their high price says that a 6+ prow wouldn't be unreasonable at no additional cost. Their layout suggests that their role should be in a line breaker capacity, for which a 6+ prow would be appropriate.



Once again you have a lot of good points here, which is why I broke open your post to reply to you line by line. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to break open a post line by line on this website AND keep your cool teal color?!? In any case, the point you make above is exactly why all the HA’s have agreed the Voss cruisers should have a 6+ prow option. Now to address their being overpriced, by intent they are not, though your argument holds some merit for obvious reasons: the Dauntless’ superior speed, and even more telling if less visible, their “free” +1D6 when AAF, a trait shared by only two other ships in the whole game (both Chaos). However, a good counterpoint to this is the Voss  weapons fit is slightly superior if you consider all fire arcs, they come with an extra turret, and they come with better boarding value.

Quote


The Dauntless, on the other hand, is cheaper, faster, and focuses more of its firepower (while having the same total firepower), making it a true CL. The focus of firepower can't be understated either. If a Dauntless has a target in its forward arc only it gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in its for arc and a side arc it still gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in all three arcs then it has the same firepower. Only if it has a target in one or more broadside arcs and no prow target does the Dauntless have less firepower than a Voss. What this says is that for a Voss to be a better choice than a Dauntless you should be using it in a line-breaker role, for which it needs 6+ armour.



In this I agree with you completely. I’ll say it again: by intent, the Dauntless is an “escort but bigger” while the Voss CL’s are “cruisers but smaller.” It was an argument I put forward the moment I held the Voss models in my hand for the first time. I don’t know if the same total firepower argument is entirely accurate, but it is admittedly very close, and your comment, “the concentration of firepower cannot be underestimated” is spot on.

I was going to upload a picture but I can’t empty my upload folder so I will post a pic in the resources site at http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Quote


The only other possibility really is to run it like a slow Dauntless around the flanks, only presenting its side to the opponent (rather than the prow like a Dauntless) in which case you get less firepower. So, in this case you're trading firepower and speed and cost for an increase in survivability. While I wouldn't make this trade, given how essential speed is to outflanking an enemy and/or chasing escorts it  is fine if some people want to make this trade. However adding a 6+ prow to the above does nothing to adjust this scenario.  Remember, the Dauntless still has superior firepower if there's a target to the fore and one side.



Here I got a bit lost. Are you referring to the Dauntless or Voss? The Dauntless should no not never have a 6+ prow. The Voss cruisers on the other hand really REALLY should have 6+ prows, specifically because of the line-breaking role you speak of, where a few Voss CL’s are flanking or inside a cruiser line in line-abreast formation taking it on the prows while they set up to cross the T. The Dauntless was not designed for this role and should fare poorly if used as such.

Quote


So, imagine that you're using the Voss as a Dauntless but going abeam, in essence trading speed, firepower and cost to get an increase in survivability. Adding 6+ prow armour doesn't alter that unless you happen to have a ship in your fore arc as well. With 5+ armour and an enemy in your prow and side arcs the Voss would be identical in survivability to the Dauntless. It is only if you can avoid a foe to your fore that your survivability increases. Therefore the 6+ prow would only serve to maintain the trade-off of firepower, speed and cost for survivability when using the Voss as a flanker. Not a cost that I'd pay, except as an excuse to take some cool models, but one that someone might pay.

What the 6+ prow does mostly, apart from maintaining the above mentioned trade-off, is allow the Voss to be used like a miniature line cruiser, which is what it looks like, and what its stats otherwise lend itself to. What's wrong with that?



Nothing. I think were agreeing. (?)

Quote


On the 90°/45° issue, I think it should remain 90°, again at no change in cost. Reasoning: well, it has half the firepower and shields of a line cruiser, with two thirds the hits for two thirds the cost. Surely, in terms of balance, the offset for the loss of firepower/shields is the 90° turn rate. Secondly, even if you're going to do nothing other than make a cruiser smaller it should get some speed/turn bonus for the loss of mass.



To be honest, here’s where you and I differ. In keeping with its “cruiser but smaller” role, the consensus from the HA’s is that it should sacrifice maneuverability for toughness, not have both. I am more apt to see these things have a second shield for +10 points than let them have both 90deg turns and 6+ prows. I haven’t spoken to the HA’s about that nor have I play-tested it; I’m simply brainstorming while I reply to your post so I would definitely like thoughts on this.

Quote


As for the designers saying "NO" ... well, who gives a crap? Do they play the game? Do they talk to the community? If they want to make decisions like this then I say they should get on here and explain their reasoning, and open themselves up to the barrage of common sense they'd get in return. Maybe some of it will stick.



LOL!! Sigoroth, I kind of like being a HA, not least because I really love the game and I want it to be successful, and I have so many ideas bouncing around in my skull I would probably have an aneurysm if I didn't have some kind of outlet for it all. Besides, where else can I sit around and be railed up on and vilified for trying to make a game better and not even be paid for it? Since the designers would probably take offense to my telling them to sod off, I’ll leave that to you, Horizon and company.  :D

Quote


Oh, someone mentioned earlier that you could get a resin kit of the Voss. Where from? How much? ETC!?

I suddenly have a bad case of amnesia as to where I saw those gorgeous models! However, I’m sure Vaaish can steer you in the right direction.  ;)

-   Nate
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 14, 2010, 05:15:33 AM
Here are a few things I am approaching the HA's about

1. Thoughts on the Oberon BB. I never liked that the ship has reduced-range prow/dorsal WB’s compared to eth Emperor, though I do admit that it is themeful. Some have suggested that we “fix” the ship and raise the price but give it all 60cm WB’s, others have said leave it as-is because they like how cheap it is. What are the thoughts about this having a Tyrant-flavored option to pay for all-60cm WB’s for some given cost? Now the player can decide between cheap or shooty. I haven’t play-tested this yet, but I’m thinking +20 points sounds pretty fair.

2. Going up the thread, you can see what my thoughts are concerning the Voss CL's having both 90deg turns and 6+ prows. These ships having "either/or" as opposed to "and" is a general consensus among the HA's, but we are still discussing this ship because frankly the Voss CL's are marvelous vessels that are sadly underrated and very effective when used correctly.  In keeping with their cruisers but smaller theme, how about in addition to this, they are given an option to buy an additional shield for +10 points? Once again this is still under discussion and far from decided, and in truth I haven't even playtested this yet so it may end up being a non-starter.

Thoughts?

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 14, 2010, 05:20:00 AM
Quote
Insert Quote
It's an Emperor with lances installed. If anything, it should have 45 cm lances, not 45 cm WBs.

That's a swap that I wouldn't mind if it didn't come with a cost increase.

Most likely it will still increase but on a smaller scale. 10 points at most making it at par with the Retribution.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 14, 2010, 05:34:00 AM
With the Dauntless vs Voss:
On firepower:
The Dauntless str3 lance equals 9 batteries. The Voss CL cannot match that. Only the 'off-side' on the Voss is better: meaning the Voss will only have more firepower then the Dauntless if it has an enemy to port and starboard. This in the thick of fighting. If it only has 1 arc with an enemy it is below the Dauntless.

(eg this is the essence of Sigoroth's comparision in the weapon department).

Also, largely negated is the Dauntless strength 6 torpedo salvo. That is a lethal combination. A fast moving and turning torpedo platform able to even harass a battleship!

Voss:
90*and a prow armour of 6+. The second shield I wouldn't do. Really.


Oberon:
I like the lances to 45cm, batteries to 60cm approach for no cost change.
Paying +20 for all 60cm seems good to me as well.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 14, 2010, 05:40:24 AM
Here are a few things I am approaching the HA's about

1. Thoughts on the Oberon BB. I never liked that the ship has reduced-range prow/dorsal WB’s compared to eth Emperor, though I do admit that it is themeful. Some have suggested that we “fix” the ship and raise the price but give it all 60cm WB’s, others have said leave it as-is because they like how cheap it is. What are the thoughts about this having a Tyrant-flavored option to pay for all-60cm WB’s for some given cost? Now the player can decide between cheap or shooty. I haven’t play-tested this yet, but I’m thinking +20 points sounds pretty fair.

Definitely fair since that was the original design anyway and it was only 10 points cheaper than the Emperor. Pushing everything back to 60cm and priced at 355 would be definitely ok in my book.

2. Going up the thread, you can see what my thoughts are concerning the Voss CL's having both 90deg turns and 6+ prows. These ships having "either/or" as opposed to "and" is a general consensus among the HA's, but we are still discussing this ship because frankly the Voss CL's are marvelous vessels that are sadly underrated and very effective when used correctly.  In keeping with their cruisers but smaller theme, how about in addition to this, they are given an option to buy an additional shield for +10 points? Once again this is still under discussion and far from decided, and in truth I haven't even playtested this yet so it may end up being a non-starter.

Thoughts?

- Nate



6+ prow is ok already. Might still be a bit overpriced but I think not by much. Give it 90' turns and it should be about right. Forget about the second shield.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on October 14, 2010, 06:05:59 AM
Quote
Oberon:
I like the lances to 45cm, batteries to 60cm approach for no cost change.
Paying +20 for all 60cm seems good to me as well.

This I like as well. You get a gunship with LB but you have to pay more than a Ret for it. Or you can keep it as is and have the cheapest BB available to the IN.

Quote
6+ prow is ok already. Might still be a bit overpriced but I think not by much. Give it 90' turns and it should be about right. Forget about the second shield.

I agree with the Admiral and Horizon on this one. 90' turns are fine. I don't see any reason to drop them to 45' turns. The one niche they will have is a CL to support the line and be able to quickly redeploy to target threats to the line. Taking away the 90' turn takes away one of the features that make CL desirable. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 14, 2010, 08:45:28 AM
Hi Sigoroth! Not all of the changes to were done with the HA's input! That being said, I am really interested in hearing why you think the Armageddon should be brought down to 235. From much of the feedback I have seen, it is MUCH better than an Overlord for the same price, even without the 60cm WB's. I'm not saying we're not going to entertain it, I just want to hear your thoughts.

Separately, I agree the Oberon should not have been dumbed down, though the logic is sound- the ship is supposed to be OLD. I can bring this up with the HA's. Ray's back so he may already be reading this as well.

I especially want to address the Voss cruisers, but I will address that separately as a reply to another one of your posts.

- Nate

The Oberon range upgrade option is fine. I wouldn't mind it as a forced upgrade, but to me that's what it would be anyway. I see no use in the ship as it stands.

You're right that the Armageddon is much better than the Overlord. This, however, is because the Overlord is utter rubbish. Let's take a base cruiser with 12WB@30cmL+R and 6 prow torps for 180 pts. Add dorsal lances - 210 pts. Increase range of broadsides to 45cm - 225 pts (this is cheaper than if given the option to upgrade, because of the forced choice). Now, increase the range again, this time to 60cm but drop the strength down to 8. If this were optional I'd say that it should cost nothing. However I, and a lot of other players, would prefer the 12WB@45cm version, so I'd say that if this were a forced choice it should actually bring the price down to 220 pts. Now you can add another 5 pts just to cover any possible undercosting, bringing us back to 225 pts maximum. Of course, I still wouldn't take it because of how useless its firepower is.

For the Armageddon, let's take a Lunar (180), add dorsal lances (210), extend range to 45cm (230), add 5 pts for error = 235 pts. Basically there should only be a 5 pt difference between an Armageddon and a 12WB@45cmL+R Overlord (because lances are better at range). The 8WB@60cmL+R Overlord is crapper though, so the larger break.

If I were to make the range upgrades on the Armageddon optional I would simply make the base ship cost 215 pts with dorsal lances (error included), allow the WBs to be upgraded for 10 pts and the lances for 15 pts. Even this one is cheaper than the current incarnation.

As for the Voss ships, they cost two thirds of a line cruiser. So let's see what two thirds of a line cruiser would be:

Hits - 5.33
Speed - 20cm
Turns - 45°
Shields - 1.33
Armour - 6+/5+
Turrets - 1.33

Prow Torps - 4 F
P+S WBs - 8 L+R

Compared to the stats above the Voss has +0.67 hits, +0.67 turrets, -0.33 shields, -6+ prow, +45° turns, -2 torps, -2WBs (offside)
So, assuming that we do a straight swap of armour for turn rate, equalising these two attributes, do you think the loss of firepower and shielding (slight) makes up for the slight raise in hits/turrets (less than 1 in each case)? I think the rounding up of the turret makes up for rounding down the shields. I don't think that the +0.67 hits comes close to making up for 2 torps and 2 offside WBs (given it's a line-breaking ship after all).

So, from a balance perspective, if you're going to add another shield I don't think it should cost anything, since the Voss would still be overpriced at 6+ prow and 45° turns.

I believe the 90° turn is far more justified than the 2nd shield. For a start, it's a cruiser in miniature. One would presume that better handling would simply be a natural consequence of the lowered mass. The 2nd shield is unprecedented on an IN CL. Not saying that it isn't doable, or that 90° turn rate is unavoidable, just that the former is harder to justify than the latter.

As for being a "small cruiser" as opposed to "large escort" I get this in terms of its role. But what I want to know is, just what do these ships bring to the line? If they're identical in capabilities but smaller then what was the point of the IN making them in the first place? I would have thought that they'd have made them so that they could act in the line, but also to cover the weak spots of the IN line. I would have thought this would have been the entire point of making the ship in the first place. Huzzah for the 90°/6+ prow Voss!
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 14, 2010, 03:46:17 PM
Hi Sigoroth! Not all of the changes to were done with the HA's input! That being said, I am really interested in hearing why you think the Armageddon should be brought down to 235. From much of the feedback I have seen, it is MUCH better than an Overlord for the same price, even without the 60cm WB's. I'm not saying we're not going to entertain it, I just want to hear your thoughts.

Separately, I agree the Oberon should not have been dumbed down, though the logic is sound- the ship is supposed to be OLD. I can bring this up with the HA's. Ray's back so he may already be reading this as well.

I especially want to address the Voss cruisers, but I will address that separately as a reply to another one of your posts.

- Nate

The Oberon range upgrade option is fine. I wouldn't mind it as a forced upgrade, but to me that's what it would be anyway. I see no use in the ship as it stands.

You're right that the Armageddon is much better than the Overlord. This, however, is because the Overlord is utter rubbish. Let's take a base cruiser with 12WB@30cmL+R and 6 prow torps for 180 pts. Add dorsal lances - 210 pts. Increase range of broadsides to 45cm - 225 pts (this is cheaper than if given the option to upgrade, because of the forced choice). Now, increase the range again, this time to 60cm but drop the strength down to 8. If this were optional I'd say that it should cost nothing. However I, and a lot of other players, would prefer the 12WB@45cm version, so I'd say that if this were a forced choice it should actually bring the price down to 220 pts. Now you can add another 5 pts just to cover any possible undercosting, bringing us back to 225 pts maximum. Of course, I still wouldn't take it because of how useless its firepower is.

For the Armageddon, let's take a Lunar (180), add dorsal lances (210), extend range to 45cm (230), add 5 pts for error = 235 pts. Basically there should only be a 5 pt difference between an Armageddon and a 12WB@45cmL+R Overlord (because lances are better at range). The 8WB@60cmL+R Overlord is crapper though, so the larger break.

If I were to make the range upgrades on the Armageddon optional I would simply make the base ship cost 215 pts with dorsal lances (error included), allow the WBs to be upgraded for 10 pts and the lances for 15 pts. Even this one is cheaper than the current incarnation.




Sigoroth, before I say anything else, I received your off-line reply yesterday, and it’s too bad theire’s no emoticon here for ROFL LMAO!!! It’s nice to know you’re carefully monitoring your vegemite intake! Also, PLEASE feel free to keep kicking my @$$ and keeping me honest. I expect nothing less. I much prefer a reasoned argument that COMPLETELY and passionately disagrees with me any day of the week instead of, “the HA’s are all stupid, they don’t care about the fans, they’re ruining the game and can all go kick rocks, I'm not going to use anything they produce and may even quit ever playing the game anymore!” without even giving a chance to the rule changes simply because they disagreed with the HA’s or we didn’t take their suggestion onboard.

…even if I am stupid and can go kick rocks!  :D

(so what if I'm stupid?)   ???

In any case, your above analysis makes good sense, but one of the reasons I hate using the Smotherman formula for anything other than a soft baseline is because it does not account for how ships behave in a given fleet. A classic example is the Dauntless. Going by the Smotherman formula the Dauntless doesn’t seem that far out of balance, but the way its firepower is distributed on the ship makes this guy awesome for the points considering how it fits in an IN fleet.

By design, IN vessels are supposed to have shorter arms than Chaos, and 60cm weapons are supposed to be reserved for battleships in the Imperial Navy. This is what makes the Overlord the oddball- it’s the only cruiser-weight ship in the whole IN with 60cm batteries, and that’s where the point premium comes into play. If you consider the ship to be 2/3 a Retribution (or technically a tad less than that once you start counting shields & turrets), the points make much more sense. You are right that at range, 8WB’s aren’t rolling a lot of dice; at best it will do good to drop a BM on the enemy past 45cm before its lances go to work.  However, when you consider the IN does best to go prow-on until it can cross the T, then the Overlord comes into its own when reaching out at the enemy’s prows, and when doing so it’s the only IN cruiser in the fleet that can gun on with the battleships it is supporting. (Which brings us back to the Oberon…)

Quote



As for the Voss ships, they cost two thirds of a line cruiser. So let's see what two thirds of a line cruiser would be:

Hits - 5.33
Speed - 20cm
Turns - 45°
Shields - 1.33
Armour - 6+/5+
Turrets - 1.33

Prow Torps - 4 F
P+S WBs - 8 L+R

Compared to the stats above the Voss has +0.67 hits, +0.67 turrets, -0.33 shields, -6+ prow, +45° turns, -2 torps, -2WBs (offside)
So, assuming that we do a straight swap of armour for turn rate, equalising these two attributes, do you think the loss of firepower and shielding (slight) makes up for the slight raise in hits/turrets (less than 1 in each case)? I think the rounding up of the turret makes up for rounding down the shields. I don't think that the +0.67 hits comes close to making up for 2 torps and 2 offside WBs (given it's a line-breaking ship after all).




Did I mention how much I hate slide-rule profiling?!? How a ship fits into a fleet incorporates far more than its weapons loadout and hull characteristics. The fact that the IN has access to exceedingly cheap cruisers comes with a premium in and of itself.

Quote


So, from a balance perspective, if you're going to add another shield I don't think it should cost anything, since the Voss would still be overpriced at 6+ prow and 45° turns.

I believe the 90° turn is far more justified than the 2nd shield. For a start, it's a cruiser in miniature. One would presume that better handling would simply be a natural consequence of the lowered mass. The 2nd shield is unprecedented on an IN CL. Not saying that it isn't doable, or that 90° turn rate is unavoidable, just that the former is harder to justify than the latter.



Actually, a second shield is perfectly justifiable if the ship is going to be a line-breaker and a “cruiser but smaller” immersed in the gun line as opposed to an “escort but bigger” such as the Dauntless, designed to be a fleet greyhound or escort patrol leader for lonely patrols, running pirates down, scouting missions where it may have to male a quick getaway, etc.

So you know, we are examining several options with the Voss ships right now, one of which being the ship getting the 6+ prow for free (meaning no change in turn rate). I personally don’t like this outcome, but the stark reality is the Endeavor/Endurance are fantastic ships that are never going to get their due as long as the Dauntless remains a better deal for the point cost, which in the larger scheme is what really needs to be addressed.

Quote




As for being a "small cruiser" as opposed to "large escort" I get this in terms of its role. But what I want to know is, just what do these ships bring to the line? If they're identical in capabilities but smaller then what was the point of the IN making them in the first place? I would have thought that they'd have made them so that they could act in the line, but also to cover the weak spots of the IN line. I would have thought this would have been the entire point of making the ship in the first place. Huzzah for the 90°/6+ prow Voss!



I addressed this somewhat in the line above, but immersed in this paragraph is a $10k question: “what was the point of the IN making them in the first place?”

Does anyone notice no restriction was ever placed on how many Dauntless or Endeavor CL’s a fleet is allowed to have? From a fluff perspective, the Imperium is vast, far more so than can possibly be patrolled with any regularity, and entire sub-sectors sometimes go generations without the visit of a single capital ship of the Imperial Navy. Light cruisers are intended to fill this gap by being cheap capital ships with relatively undemanding weapon systems that can be built by secondary yards in considerable numbers. These are typically sent out in pairs or at best with a few escorts tossed in as under-strength cruiser-destroyer groups on lonely patrols through systems at risk from or frequented by pirates and such, freeing larger capital ships for the many wars the Imperium is engaged in at any one time.

Fluff is great, but here’s the real scoop. From a game (and model-selling) standpoint, the Dauntless was created as a counterpoint to the fact that ship-for-ship, Chaos capital ships are intentionally cheaper than their IN counterparts. Before BFG proved itself to be popular soon after 2000, the intention was for the four core fleets to be all that was developed for the game, with Orks and Eldar never intended to be more than peripheral components of a rule-set that was supposed to center around the conflict between Imperials and Chaos in general and the 12th Black Crusade in the Gothic Sector in particular.

Because the game actually did prove to be popular, the decision was made to expand the game beyond the Gothic Sector. This proved to be a bit difficult for several reasons. Think about it- for all the threat Chaos poses to the Imperium (and they do, no doubt), in the larger scheme of things Chaos is but one of several grave threats the Imperium faces at any given moment. In reality, the Eye of Terror (and to a smaller extent the Maelstrom) is the only real bastion of Chaos in the whole galaxy; everywhere else they exist only as small, isolated bands or lonely flotillas that become a threat only by cutting off remote systems or by subverting pre-existing Imperial authority. Even at the Eye of Terror, Chaos only holds firm to one actual forge world and whatever shipyards they managed to hold onto after the 13th Black Crusade, and in sum their resources are but a tiny fraction of the Imperium’s. For example, the first Armageddon War was between Chaos and the Imperium, but that entire war was waged from the Chaos side primarily from a single Space Hulk.

In the larger scheme of things, Chaos isn’t even the Imperium’s biggest threat. The Orks assail the Imperium in several different warzones at any given moment, each one as large as the Waagh! of Armageddon (what made Armageddon so significant was its importance to the Imperium as a linchpin of several different forgeworlds, the presence in the system of St. Jowen’s Dock and its vital shipyards and repair facilities, and not least its proximity to Holy Terra). The Tyranids are becoming an even greater threat; so far the only significant victory the Imperium has gained against their encroaching advance that didn’t cost the Exterminatus of a system was at Maccrage, and even that was at the expense of nearly an entire battlefleet. The list of threats go on and on, and the game can be expanded ad infinitum to an extent as varied and encompassing as Wh40k itself.

- Nate


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on October 14, 2010, 05:37:30 PM
Nate I can understand the logic of dauntless being an escort but bigger in the stats with its relative proximity in speed, armor, and maneuverability to IN escorts and following that the logic behind the endeavour as a Cruiser but smaller based on its stats. However, another thing to point out is that a shield is regenerative. Once you move, the shield is back meaning that until crippled, the ship effectively regenerates an additional hit each turn. This is the same thing that comes into play with the Vengeance having 3 shields but no 6+ prow. Personally, I find that extra shield infinitely more useful on a ship that is geared around the broadside arms than a 6+ prow because it is effective no matter the facing of the ship.

Second, I really do not want to see the endeavor series go up in cost. At 120 points they are already a bit pricey for what you are getting and removing what they have over line cruisers (their 90' turns) makes them even less desirable. Adding the 6+ prow is still in keeping with the idea of a cruiser but smaller in that it more closely matches what makes an IN line cruiser (the 6+ prow armor) while making them smaller by reducing the shields, firepower, and hits. Yes, giving them 45' turns makes them even more like the line cruisers, but it also removes one of the major reasons for taking a light cruiser.

As it stands now, the endeavour series is workable in pairs, squadroned with a larger cruiser for protection, or as admech with boosted batteries. It's not optimal, but it is workable. Giving them the 6+ prow opens up more options for their use without significantly changing their purpose.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zhukov on October 14, 2010, 06:24:57 PM
Does anyone notice no restriction was ever placed on how many Dauntless or Endeavor CL’s a fleet is allowed to have?

Wait, Dauntless' and the Voss CL's have no limit to how many may be taken in a fleet? I thought they counted against the 12 cruiser limit?

-Zhukov

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 14, 2010, 07:39:49 PM
Yep, Zhukov, that's true. I think Nate means that the rubbish Defiant and below mediocre Endurance are restricted.

Hi Nate,

not to intrude your ehm new found love with Sigoroth ;) I must point out he is not the only one who pointed out all and everything about the Voss CL.

When applying fluff our standard 1500pts fleet engagements are ultra-rare. The most common battles would see a couple of escorts. Or a single capital on patrol (eg Oberon) running into pirates or such.  When in fluff 90% of the battles should be under the 500pts mark.

I also think you make a mistake, you call the Voss CL fantastic ships but due the Dauntless being overlooked. I do not think that is true. The Voss will be equal with a 6+ prow and 90*.

The Defiant could use a weapon change though.

I tested it in an AdMech fleet and it just waste. Funny enough is that when I switched to an Endeavour I started winning with the AdMech.
Mind you, due all AdMech upgrades the Endeavour has an option: no torpedoes and 45cm batteries all round. This way the 6+ prow is less missed. But at a premium price of 145pts I think it should have one. ;)


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 14, 2010, 10:49:31 PM
In a way, the Endeavors are being overlooked because of the Dauntless but that's only because:

1. The Dauntless is cheaper bang for buck and
2. The Endeavors suck with what they have now.

6+ prow and 90' turns should fix it.

And I will vehemently object if you change the Dauntless in ANY way, regardless of what you think in the greater scheme of things.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 15, 2010, 12:12:32 AM
Yuck.  Don't gimp a light cruiser's turn bonus just for giving it 6+ prow armor.  Making the voss pattern more resilient to torps and batteries in the front only is just a consolation prize for it not being a dauntless ;)

The Dauntless is still cheaper, and hits harder.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 15, 2010, 04:05:39 AM
6+ prow and 45' turns should fix it.
Admiral, that is a typo... should be 90*...right?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 15, 2010, 04:20:10 AM
Sigoroth, before I say anything else, I received your off-line reply yesterday, and it’s too bad theire’s no emoticon here for ROFL LMAO!!! It’s nice to know you’re carefully monitoring your vegemite intake! Also, PLEASE feel free to keep kicking my @$$ and keeping me honest. I expect nothing less.

 ;)

Quote
(so what if I'm stupid?)   ???

Hey, what do you mean "if"?  ::)

Quote
In any case, your above analysis makes good sense, but one of the reasons I hate using the Smotherman formula for anything other than a soft baseline is because it does not account for how ships behave in a given fleet. A classic example is the Dauntless. Going by the Smotherman formula the Dauntless doesn’t seem that far out of balance, but the way its firepower is distributed on the ship makes this guy awesome for the points considering how it fits in an IN fleet.

Agreed, on both counts. The Smotherman formula should be used only as a very rough guideline and the Dauntless is a formidable little cruiser, mostly because of how differently it acts to other IN cruisers. However, I myself didn't use the Smotherman formula to calculate my Armageddon/Overlord costs. I used the difference in cost/stats between the Murder and Hades to arrive at a cost for the dorsal lances + battlecruiser status. Since there's 30 pts difference there then a Lunar with just the added dorsal weaponry would run (180+30) 210 pts. The Tyrant has an option to upgrade 6 WBs from 30cm to 45cm range for 10 pts. Lances don't suffer from the extra range, so I figured +15 pts for that, making 25 pts for both (making 235 pts total). However, options cost more than forced choice (as can be seen from the Dominator as well as common sense), so bring it down by 5 pts, to 230 pts total. Now you can add 5 pts "fudge factor", in case we're shaving some of these values too close to the bone. Brings it back up to 235 pts total. No Smotherman used.

Quote
By design, IN vessels are supposed to have shorter arms than Chaos, and 60cm weapons are supposed to be reserved for battleships in the Imperial Navy. This is what makes the Overlord the oddball- it’s the only cruiser-weight ship in the whole IN with 60cm batteries, and that’s where the point premium comes into play. If you consider the ship to be 2/3 a Retribution (or technically a tad less than that once you start counting shields & turrets), the points make much more sense. You are right that at range, 8WB’s aren’t rolling a lot of dice; at best it will do good to drop a BM on the enemy past 45cm before its lances go to work.  However, when you consider the IN does best to go prow-on until it can cross the T, then the Overlord comes into its own when reaching out at the enemy’s prows, and when doing so it’s the only IN cruiser in the fleet that can gun on with the battleships it is supporting. (Which brings us back to the Oberon…)

I'll stipulate to this. Hell, if the Armageddon was identical to a Lunar with the sole exception of the added dorsal lances and battlecruiser status I'd say that 215 pts was reasonable, though it should be quite clearly only 210 pts given the precedent of the Murder/Hades. So, while we can say that the IN have to pay a premium for 60cm main guns on hulls smaller than a battleship, this doesn't change the ships inherent worth. I rated the 60cm Overlord at 225 pts compared to the 235 of the Armageddon. I stand by this in terms of actual value. As you've said, Armageddons are better ships. Now, if you want to make people pay even more for the option to take 60cm weapons, then fine. Call it 235 pts for the Overlord. Hell, I would't take it at 225 pts, so what do I care? However, you can't then pass that premium cost onto the Armageddon too.

Quote
Did I mention how much I hate slide-rule profiling?!? How a ship fits into a fleet incorporates far more than its weapons loadout and hull characteristics. The fact that the IN has access to exceedingly cheap cruisers comes with a premium in and of itself.

So the reason the IN made the ship was so that players could get easier access to battlecruisers and battleships?

Quote
Actually, a second shield is perfectly justifiable if the ship is going to be a line-breaker and a “cruiser but smaller” immersed in the gun line as opposed to an “escort but bigger” such as the Dauntless, designed to be a fleet greyhound or escort patrol leader for lonely patrols, running pirates down, scouting missions where it may have to male a quick getaway, etc.

By justifiable I mean in terms of precedent and ease. I'm fairly confident that it'd be easier to make a CL turn faster than it would be to give it another shield. Sure, they might be able to give it another shield and sure it might not automatically get the increased turn rate. Just that out of the two, the turn rate strikes me as the more likely. Also as the preferable solution from the INs point of view (I imagine).

What I mean is that I think the increased turn rate would be easy, convenient and desirable. I'm sure that with further effort such ships could undergo refits to increase their shields (or whatever) like any other ship. The putative SM strike cruiser is an example of just such a case of the "extra effort", giving the elite of the Imperium the best protection possible. Note the SC has 6+ all round and is faster than the Voss cruisers while retaining the 90° turn.

Quote
So you know, we are examining several options with the Voss ships right now, one of which being the ship getting the 6+ prow for free (meaning no change in turn rate). I personally don’t like this outcome, but the stark reality is the Endeavor/Endurance are fantastic ships that are never going to get their due as long as the Dauntless remains a better deal for the point cost, which in the larger scheme is what really needs to be addressed.

To be honest, I don't think there's anything wrong with the Dauntless. I don't see people taking a 12 Dauntless fleet. I do agree that it's a well designed ship, and does fill a hole in the IN fleet. I feel it does this unobtrusively. That is to say that it adds to the IN bag of tricks without usurping either their feel or that of the Chaos fleet. Their weaponry layout and total firepower for cost makes them playable without being broken.

Quote
I addressed this somewhat in the line above, but immersed in this paragraph is a $10k question: “what was the point of the IN making them in the first place?”

Does anyone notice no restriction was ever placed on how many Dauntless or Endeavor CL’s a fleet is allowed to have? From a fluff perspective, the Imperium is vast, far more so than can possibly be patrolled with any regularity, and entire sub-sectors sometimes go generations without the visit of a single capital ship of the Imperial Navy. Light cruisers are intended to fill this gap by being cheap capital ships with relatively undemanding weapon systems that can be built by secondary yards in considerable numbers. These are typically sent out in pairs or at best with a few escorts tossed in as under-strength cruiser-destroyer groups on lonely patrols through systems at risk from or frequented by pirates and such, freeing larger capital ships for the many wars the Imperium is engaged in at any one time.

A role for which it seems a 90° turn would make them ideally suited ...

Quote
Fluff is great, but here’s the real scoop. From a game (and model-selling) standpoint, the Dauntless was created as a counterpoint to the fact that ship-for-ship, Chaos capital ships are intentionally cheaper than their IN counterparts. Before BFG proved itself to be popular soon after 2000, the intention was for the four core fleets to be all that was developed for the game, with Orks and Eldar never intended to be more than peripheral components of a rule-set that was supposed to center around the conflict between Imperials and Chaos in general and the 12th Black Crusade in the Gothic Sector in particular.

Because the game actually did prove to be popular, the decision was made to expand the game beyond the Gothic Sector. This proved to be a bit difficult for several reasons. Think about it- for all the threat Chaos poses to the Imperium (and they do, no doubt), in the larger scheme of things Chaos is but one of several grave threats the Imperium faces at any given moment. In reality, the Eye of Terror (and to a smaller extent the Maelstrom) is the only real bastion of Chaos in the whole galaxy; everywhere else they exist only as small, isolated bands or lonely flotillas that become a threat only by cutting off remote systems or by subverting pre-existing Imperial authority. Even at the Eye of Terror, Chaos only holds firm to one actual forge world and whatever shipyards they managed to hold onto after the 13th Black Crusade, and in sum their resources are but a tiny fraction of the Imperium’s. For example, the first Armageddon War was between Chaos and the Imperium, but that entire war was waged from the Chaos side primarily from a single Space Hulk.

In the larger scheme of things, Chaos isn’t even the Imperium’s biggest threat. The Orks assail the Imperium in several different warzones at any given moment, each one as large as the Waagh! of Armageddon (what made Armageddon so significant was its importance to the Imperium as a linchpin of several different forgeworlds, the presence in the system of St. Jowen’s Dock and its vital shipyards and repair facilities, and not least its proximity to Holy Terra). The Tyranids are becoming an even greater threat; so far the only significant victory the Imperium has gained against their encroaching advance that didn’t cost the Exterminatus of a system was at Maccrage, and even that was at the expense of nearly an entire battlefleet. The list of threats go on and on, and the game can be expanded ad infinitum to an extent as varied and encompassing as Wh40k itself.

- Nate

Which is actually pretty cool
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 15, 2010, 11:21:45 AM
Yes should be 90'. Edited accordingly.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 16, 2010, 06:40:53 PM
Are we talking about making the Dauntless pricier here, or limiting its inclusion?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 16, 2010, 07:11:41 PM
How on earth did you reach that conclusion???

Dauntless stays the same.

We are talking to change the Endeavour-Endurance-Defiant.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 16, 2010, 07:51:50 PM
Ah, misunderstood.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 16, 2010, 10:19:47 PM
Probably because of my reply to Nate about his comment on the Dauntless and the greater scheme of things which I do interpret as Nate thinking about changing the Dauntless.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on October 16, 2010, 10:38:36 PM
Changing the dauntless? what a strange idea, when most of the complaints focus around ships that suffer from even more player scrutiny (tyrant, overlord, endeavor family)

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 16, 2010, 10:48:19 PM
Which is why I would object vehemently if he even puts forth an inkling of an idea that he wants to change the Dauntless.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 16, 2010, 11:53:21 PM
Which is why I would object vehemently if he even puts forth an inkling of an idea that he wants to change the Dauntless.

No, there is NO intent or discussion to replace the Dauntless in any way, shpe or form, period.   

Game on, everyone!   ;D

- Nate
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 17, 2010, 12:08:57 AM
Good.  ;D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 18, 2010, 09:47:27 AM
Ok, got my computer out of storage and can now access my stored ship profiles. So for the IN here's one of the ships I had in mind:


Potentate Class Carrier                    220 pts
Hits - 8              Speed - 20cm   Turns - 45°
Armour - 6+/5+  Shields - 2       Turrets - 3

Armament     Speed/Range  Strength     Arc
P+S L. Bays     as craft           4            -
P+S Lances       30cm             2           L+R
Prow Torps        30cm            6             F
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: KivArn on October 18, 2010, 01:39:31 PM
Ok, got my computer out of storage and can now access my stored ship profiles. So for the IN here's one of the ships I had in mind:


Potentate Class Carrier                    220 pts
Hits - 8              Speed - 20cm   Turns - 45°
Armour - 6+/5+  Shields - 2       Turrets - 3

Armament     Speed/Range  Strength     Arc
P+S L. Bays     as craft           4            -
P+S Lances       30cm             2           L+R
Prow Torps        30cm            6             F


This would be my choice of ship to include. Plus maybe a BC variant akin to the mars
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zhukov on October 18, 2010, 04:29:38 PM
Just a reminder:

IF the Voss light cruisers points change due to the 6+ Prow (which I support), don't forget to change the Ad Mech document too!

-Zhukov
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 18, 2010, 05:00:48 PM
Points increase of any kind is a very sad idea.  I still wont take the voss patterns with a free armored prow, but at least it gives them something over the dauntless.  10 point cost reduction and an armored prow, I would consider them worthy opponents to the dauntless.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 18, 2010, 07:28:11 PM
A free 6+ prow would convince me to take them. I see oppurtunities.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 18, 2010, 07:38:49 PM
More survivability, in the front arc, against one weapon system, does not fully justify them to me.  How many points is armored prow worth on a light cruiser?  +20?  Because I currently see the voss patterns as 95-100 point ships.  +10 for the ordnance one.  Torp options would be nice, maybe.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 18, 2010, 07:50:47 PM
The Defiant is poor. Even with 6+ prow.

Yeah, so Endeavour is 120, deduct 15 for the prow and it is 105. So 120 is good with 6+ prow.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 18, 2010, 08:31:22 PM
While I like the idea of a Lance Carrier (and in particular having one more variant that frees up a WB deck), it would be even more useless as a stand alone cruiser than the gothic and dictator, utterly dependent on being in a fleet situation. I'd try a Battlecruiser variant instead:

Io Class Battlecruiser 260pts

Hits - 8              Speed - 20cm   Turns - 45°
Armour - 6+/5+  Shields - 2       Turrets - 3

Armament     Speed/Range  Strength     Arc
Prow Torps        30cm            6             F
P+S L. Bays     as craft           4            -
P+S Lances       45cm             2           L+R
Dorsal WB         60cm             6           F/L/R
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on October 18, 2010, 09:54:05 PM
sorry buddy, someone already used the name Io.. try again :D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 18, 2010, 10:11:02 PM
Oh well.  :D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zhukov on October 18, 2010, 11:15:02 PM
The Defiant is poor. Even with 6+ prow.

Yeah, so Endeavour is 120, deduct 15 for the prow and it is 105. So 120 is good with 6+ prow.

Agree on the point thing. Makes sense.

As for the Defiant, a pair of those has 4 Lances that shoot 30cm L/F/R. How is that a bad thing?

-Zhukov
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 18, 2010, 11:20:30 PM
Because for 2 Dauntless' I can have Str 6 lances even though only forward firing for cheaper.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zhukov on October 18, 2010, 11:27:42 PM

Well yeah, but lose two lances, gain 4 bombers? Um......... still not seeing how that's a waste of points...

-Zhukov
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 18, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
You were focusing on the lances. In the case of AC, I would counter that FP8 WBs per broadside are a much better deal esp when the Defiants are forced to BFI.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 19, 2010, 08:05:01 AM
As for the Defiant, a pair of those has 4 Lances that shoot 30cm L/F/R. How is that a bad thing?

-Zhukov
You really do not want Defiants to be that close to the enemy. They are easy to surpress carriers.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zhukov on October 19, 2010, 03:24:46 PM
They are easy to surpress carriers.
.

True. But so are most of the carriers in this game honestly. Its a support weapon, much like the Styx is in a Chaos fleet (minus the clear differences, I see them playing about the same). At least that's how I always viewed it.

-Zhukov
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on October 19, 2010, 03:29:42 PM
Support weapons want to stay back, but the defiant has short range and so must be close which puts it in position to be surpressed easily. This only changes if you squadron with a larger cruiser for protection, but does nothing to change the oddities of having a support ship tied to a line ship. Even then I would only think that putting it with a dictator would have any use.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 19, 2010, 08:01:45 PM
Styx has 60cm weapons, Devestation has 60cm weapon.
Mars has a Nova Cannon.
Dictator is unique (torps+attack craft) do head on along Gothics/Lunars/Dominators.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zhukov on October 20, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Support weapons want to stay back, but the defiant has short range and so must be close which puts it in position to be surpressed easily. This only changes if you squadron with a larger cruiser for protection, but does nothing to change the oddities of having a support ship tied to a line ship. Even then I would only think that putting it with a dictator would have any use.

Imperial fleet is mostly short range, so as far as supporting the line cruisers it will do fine. And having a support ship tied to a line ship is an oddity? I'm not following that at all... Putting it with a Dictator would be darn useful, especially with the 6+ prow added.

Styx has 60cm weapons, Devestation has 60cm weapon.
Mars has a Nova Cannon.
Dictator is unique (torps+attack craft) do head on along Gothics/Lunars/Dominators.

With the 6+ Prow it can still move in with the rest of the fleet. Hiding two Defiants behind one or two line cruisers is not a bad tactic IMO.

Then again, why are we arguing this? You can't buy the Endeavor models anymore, unless you decide on the terribly overpriced Ad Mech model...

-Zhukov
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on October 20, 2010, 06:05:13 PM
Quote
And having a support ship tied to a line ship is an oddity? I'm not following that at all
Line ships: Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, etc.
Support ship: Mars, Dictator (special case)

It would be odd to squadron the defiant to a lunar or gothic since the LB make it an odd composition. It would fit better squadroned with a mars or dictator since the armament is a better match. Without the 6+ prow it really needs to be squadroned to do anything useful since the larger cruiser can protect the weaker CL. Unlike a line cruiser, the defiant is much easier force BFI which hurts it even more since keeps it from reloading ordnance. Because of that you want to keep the things out of the line of fire, but paying 280 points for 4 LB isn't the best use of your points. That leaves squadroning the defiant. Put it with a mars and the lances and torpedoes don't so much. Put it with a lunar or gothic and things are a little better but you don't really have much option with the 2 LB making an endurance or endeavour a better choice. That leaves the dictator but even there it's a bit doubtful if there aren't better ways to spend the points.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 20, 2010, 07:51:09 PM
Another problem the defiant has is that 6 WB P/SB are equivalent to 4 Launch Bays, yet it trades those for just 2, making it under-armed in comparison to the Endeavour and Endurance, as well as being more expensive and eclectically armed.

Obviously it can't have 4LBs, so that leaves doing something sensible with the remaining armament. Perhaps +15cm on the lances, or 2 torps in addition.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zhukov on October 21, 2010, 04:48:47 PM
Quote
And having a support ship tied to a line ship is an oddity? I'm not following that at all
Line ships: Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, etc.
Support ship: Mars, Dictator (special case)

It would be odd to squadron the defiant to a lunar or gothic since the LB make it an odd composition. It would fit better squadroned with a mars or dictator since the armament is a better match. Without the 6+ prow it really needs to be squadroned to do anything useful since the larger cruiser can protect the weaker CL. Unlike a line cruiser, the defiant is much easier force BFI which hurts it even more since keeps it from reloading ordnance. Because of that you want to keep the things out of the line of fire, but paying 280 points for 4 LB isn't the best use of your points. That leaves squadroning the defiant. Put it with a mars and the lances and torpedoes don't so much. Put it with a lunar or gothic and things are a little better but you don't really have much option with the 2 LB making an endurance or endeavour a better choice. That leaves the dictator but even there it's a bit doubtful if there aren't better ways to spend the points.

Ah now I see where your going with that. You should have said 'squadroning' not 'tied too'. I was thinking you were just talking about having the CL follow the CA around all day, lol.

Agreed with what you say. The biggest thing with the CL's is they count as a cruiser toward getting larger ships. So in this aspect they can be a very useful 280 pts.


Obviously it can't have 4LBs, so that leaves doing something sensible with the remaining armament. Perhaps +15cm on the lances, or 2 torps in addition.

Interesting thought.

-Zhukov
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 21, 2010, 09:46:49 PM
280 vs 220. Sorry, still not worth it.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 22, 2010, 08:05:06 PM
So, how do we improve the Defiant?

I think drop the lances. Make it 6wb batteries.
Drop point value by..... 30.... it is a 1:1 with the Endeavour, thus restricted.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 22, 2010, 08:29:05 PM
Didnt you just make it an endevour?

And the Defiant iirc is the one with the bays.  So confused now :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 22, 2010, 08:46:34 PM
What I meant with 1:1
To take a Defiant you need to take an Endeavour first.
So that is already an 'extra cost' for the Defiant. It cannot be taken freely. Thus when both ships would be equal one would need to pay less for the restricted ship to balance it out.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 22, 2010, 09:36:06 PM
FP6 WB. The other variants only have FP2 WB though adding Str 2 torps. Personally, I'd just give it Str 6 torps for a pure RO ship and keep the pointage.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 25, 2010, 06:03:13 PM
What I meant with 1:1
To take a Defiant you need to take an Endeavour first.
So that is already an 'extra cost' for the Defiant. It cannot be taken freely. Thus when both ships would be equal one would need to pay less for the restricted ship to balance it out.

Yes, we're listening, so much so that instead of working on Orks this weekend, we ran three play-test battles. One was yet another SM's vs. Chaos battle to make sure we had that down right.

The rest of the weekend was spent tweaking the Endeavor. Everyone here posted multitudinous arguments as to why the Endeavor and its variants were broken, but the one I picked up on more than any other was the simplest argument: for the points, the Dauntless is simply a better ship so why would anyone pay +10 points for a ship that is inferior? I happen to like these ships and find them to be effective in a fleet setting so that was never my view- point values have more to do (or at least should have more to do) with how a ship behaves in a fleet setting than simply comparing one ship to another. However, that's all besides the point. If a model is too expensive for the points and a cheaper and better alternative exists, who will use it?

I took this to heart, as these three models were the first model profiles designed entirely by the HA's. The inspiration was the Siluria CL, essentially surplus Spacefleet Tyrant models from the Mail Order Archive. How did GW know BFG needed a cool new CL model? Spacefeet Tyrants were sitting in stock gathering dust for the better part of a decade, then sold out within two months of Planet Killer magazine's coming out.

Andy and Matt showed us the model and gave us broad brushstrokes, with the only guidance being they should be more expensive than a Dauntless because they were supposed to be older and represent "cruisers but smaller" as opposed to "escorts but bigger." That was it. We saw the model and play-tested profiles, with me going so far as to scratch-build a Dauntless hull to make the first Endeavor. Ray and I fought over the profiles, Bob thought of the cool names (the Defiant name was mine!) and we cobbled together what became these three ships.

The play-test battles were 8 against 8 CL's, as follows:

4x Dauntless (torp)
4x Dauntless (lances)
2x Cobra
1x Firestorm (I would have preferred 3x Cobras, but I wanted the points to be exactly equal for the play-tests)
vs.
4x Endeavor
2x Endurance
2x Defiant

The first play-test last weekend was with the variants getting an extra shield. What came up was Sigoroth's biggest complaint- the ships became too resilient compared to the Dauntless. 6+ armor and 90deg turns together turned into the same problem but for a completely different reason that DIDN'T come up in the play-test but came up in a game yesterday: Endeavors with 6+ prows and 90deg turns together gain the capability to come in line-abreast with the bigger ships, then quickly go abeam and use their broadsides far more effectively than the larger cruuisers. More importantly, they can present an abeam aspect to enemies far more easily than regular cruisers can, which is too much like escort behavior vs. cruiser behavior and is a potent ability in and of itself. I can see why Tau might need this because their broadsides suck on purpose, but Imperials shouldn't have this capability in a ship that is supposed to behave as a cruiser.

The last play-test proved to be REALLY balanced, so much so that we will probably play it again to make sure its properly tweaked, then play-test it in a fleet setting (with and against larger ships) to see how it behaves. Here's what we did for the last play-test:

4x Dauntless (torp)
4x Dauntless (lances)
2x Firestorm
vs.
4x Endeavor (6+armor, 45deg turns, 4 torps)
2x Endurance (6+armor, 45deg turns, 4 torps)
2x Defiant (no profile change, -10 point drop)

Adding two torps to the Endeavor and Endurance really gave these ships a much better feel than the other proposals (6+ prow with 90deg turns OR a second shield). This now really does make the ships worth the extra +10 points over a Dauntless. The problem was the Defiant: there really wasn't any way to properly tweak this ship without completely starting from scratch, and this ship isn't so broken as to warrant a complete re-write. Instead, we left it as-is and dropped the points to make it the same as the others.

Anyway, here's the proposal on the street:

Endeavor: 120 points (4 torps, optional 6+armor/45deg turns)
Endurance: 120 points (4 torps, optional 6+armor/45deg turns)
Defiant: 120 points (no profile change, optional 6+armor/45deg turns, -10 point drop)

BTW- you still need one Endeavor for every Endurance or Defiant in your fleet. That is intentional.

Before completely shooting this down, PLEASE actually play-test this. Real gaming will reveal behaviors that you will never see crunching numbers and playing with a slide rule. Thoughts?

- Nate


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 25, 2010, 07:16:26 PM
To be clear, is the optional 6+ armor/45 turn an alternate option you intend to include, or is that just saying one or the other will see the final draft?  It would be interesting to see something like 'some voss patterns were given additional armor on their prows, though this hampered their ability to rapidly turn.'
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 26, 2010, 11:22:27 AM
S4 torps on the Endeavour and Endurance welcome - optional 6+/45' does make them more like mini cruisers. Had a couple good games with the new rules last night, even though the Endurance isn't really to my taste and I'm left a little bit bemused by the S2 WB, but it still performed well.

The continued restriction of the Defiant and Endurance is unwelcome though. You buy ships to fill a role - roles that the Endeavour doesn't share. This will always make them deeply unattractive to me. Why so tied to this method of restriction anyway? If you want to make them rare variants, why not 1 per X points? That way you can still take them to fill their role, and keep them rare and denying the ability to spam them. Restriction of this kind works for Tau, because you're given a points break if you take the restricted escorts compared to not taking them, and there's always room for escorts in a list. It doesn't work for cruisers.

I also think the Defiant needs a little more help than just a points break. Its 2 lances are pitifully weak, and against 2 turrets its AC roll just 2 attacks on average - not enough to reliably score even one hit. In fact, mine didn't do any hits past shields last night. Its best use is to provide a CAP for two other cruisers, but at 120pts it's expensive for that, even without including the price of the mandatory Endeavour.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 26, 2010, 11:45:34 AM
To be clear, is the optional 6+ armor/45 turn an alternate option you intend to include, or is that just saying one or the other will see the final draft?  It would be interesting to see something like 'some voss patterns were given additional armor on their prows, though this hampered their ability to rapidly turn.'

Yes, the option is for it to be something exactly like this. the Rogue Trader Draft has something similar now in the notes for the CL.

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 26, 2010, 12:10:03 PM
The Defiant, in my opinion, is still inferior even at the same points.  Because it is essentially missing a hardpoint on each side.  Could it have its AC go up to 4, or gain a lance or str3 weapon battery on the sides?
Still leaves it with less hardpoints than a dictator.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 26, 2010, 12:13:39 PM
What about giving it S4 bays, fighters only?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 26, 2010, 12:15:05 PM
S4 torps on the Endeavour and Endurance welcome - optional 6+/45' does make them more like mini cruisers. Had a couple good games with the new rules last night, even though the Endurance isn't really to my taste and I'm left a little bit bemused by the S2 WB, but it still performed well.

The continued restriction of the Defiant and Endurance is unwelcome though. You buy ships to fill a role - roles that the Endeavour doesn't share. This will always make them deeply unattractive to me. Why so tied to this method of restriction anyway? If you want to make them rare variants, why not 1 per X points? That way you can still take them to fill their role, and keep them rare and denying the ability to spam them. Restriction of this kind works for Tau, because you're given a points break if you take the restricted escorts compared to not taking them, and there's always room for escorts in a list. It doesn't work for cruisers.

I also think the Defiant needs a little more help than just a points break. Its 2 lances are pitifully weak, and against 2 turrets its AC roll just 2 attacks on average - not enough to reliably score even one hit. In fact, mine didn't do any hits past shields last night. Its best use is to provide a CAP for two other cruisers, but at 120pts it's expensive for that, even without including the price of the mandatory Endeavour.

By design, the Defiant was only intended to provide support for the other ships. We most certainly did NOT want this to have a third prow lance because three L/F/R lances would make this ship ridiculous. If you think about it, in most situations 2 lances and a bomber is going to do about as much damage as 2 lances and 2 guns (Endurance). The strength is not in this ship on its own, but how it fits into the fleet.

Remember, it's easy to think of this in a ship to ship setting. Tweaking points and profiles in an individula ship is easy, but when you are only talking about >150 points to start with, small differences add up to a LOT. For example, even with the -10 point deduction it's easy to say a Defiant sucks for the points because for +100 points I get a full up Dictator with more turrets, shields and more than double weapons. However, pretend for a moment the restriction is gone and a player ONLY takes max-fleet, meaning a 1500-point fleet made up of only 12 Defiants. Now we have a fleet that can come up line-abreast with enough ordy to keep itself covered, then go abeam with 24 lances and 24 launch bays. Granted there are many 1500-point fleets that can exceed this for launch bays if you go max-carrier, but it's hard to exceed this AND have 12 capital ships on the table (with 72 total HP's), which is a force multiplier in and of itself.

While I understand their utility, I really dislike basing my arguments on slide-rule and calculator gaming. The Defiant has ALWAYS worked for 120 points. We made it 130 at the time because we purposely wanted this ship to be rarer. As Sigoroth likes to point out every now and again, using points to make a ship rare is a crappy mechanic so blame me for being a dingbat.

On that note, there's nothing wrong for using overpriced points to make a ship rarer, but experience has taught me this is a mechanic to be used for one-off vessels, NOT ships we're trying to incorporate in a fleet. What do I mean? Making the Defiant overpriced was a mistake. On the other hand, I have a single Jovian that I like because it's cool and I like the fluff. Should it be an official ship? Probably not- it doesn't fit well into the larger Imperial storyline for a fleet that is moving away from attack craft in favor of torpedoes. As a one-off ship however it's really neat, and for the privilige I price it at 275- the same cost of a Styx. For the record, a 6+ prow is NOT worth giving up prow weapons and -5cm speed, but that's the premium I pay for using a ship I like that doesn't plug well into official canon, and in any case I only have one in a 7000+ point Imperial fleet.

- Nate


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 26, 2010, 12:41:44 PM
So why not the 1 (Defiant &/OR Endurance) per Xpts mechanic I mentioned? If you want it to be rare, that seems like the way to go. It would also eliminate the spam you just mentioned.

You also say you want it to be a support ship - well, it has next to no ability to do that! A wave of 2 AC is far weaker per attack craft than a wave of 4, because turrets take a proportionally greater toll. It can protect itself and only one other ship at the same time with its fighters.

In addition, whilst a normal cruiser gets 4 LBs for trading in its broadsides, the Defiant gets a mere 2. You are effectively saying that S2 F/L/R Lances are equivalent to 3WB from each broadside, 2 F/L/R WBs and a S4 Torp Spread. They aren't. I completely agree with you that S3 F/L/R lances are out of the question, but what about S4 F/L/R WBs and a S4 Torp Salvo? It needs something extra. Even without bombers, S4 LBs and a prow armament similar to its cousins would give it a unique fleet support role.

It's horribly undergunned. Even before taking into account the mandatory Endeavour* I don't think any price break could help the Defiant.

*Please please find a more sensible way of limiting it than tying it to another ship. There are alternatives to a price hike or a mandatory Endeavour.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 26, 2010, 03:00:22 PM
What about giving it S4 bays, fighters only?

This was playtested in the past. What we ended up with was a purely defensive ship with almost no offensive capability whatsoever, which goes against anything themeful for this fleet. We also tried 4 normal launch bays as well (basically a cut-down Dictator), but this ended up making the ship too powerful compared to the other variants.

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 26, 2010, 03:32:23 PM
Again, I completely agree that it shouldn't have 4 regular bays.

But you say that with S4 fighters it was a completely defensive ship - With an average of 2 attack rolls vs a T2 target with its S2 AC, that doesn't really strike me as being a great deal better. The other variants will roll 3 attacks on average vs the same target with their torps alone, let alone their vastly better weapons fit.

It needs more. Either more weapons, or more of a support role. S4 Fighters, S2 F/L/R Lances, S4 Torps, or something along those lines.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zhukov on October 26, 2010, 05:10:32 PM

Nate,

When you say the Defiant works well in a fleet support role, how was the play testing done? How did you all use it? The only thing I have ever seen this do is pair up in base-to-base with a Dictator or have a pair base-to-base to lend only fighter coverage!

DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE ADEPTUS MECHANICUS!!!! They are the fleet I see benefiting to any change in the Defiant's profile as they are the only one to get models for it and have an unlimited number in their fleet. As it stands now, for 1500 pts, they get 10 Defiants. Not bad considering the gifts they get.

-Zhukov
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 26, 2010, 05:49:29 PM
Any chance the Endurance could go to 1Lance F/L/R instead of 2WB? Even at a cost increase. I like coherent armaments, me. :) Then again, when you have a squadron of three, it does become a sensible 6 WBs.

I think the defiant is so broken as to warrant a substantial re-write though. It simply has no offensive power, either from its launch bays or its lances.

And again, why can't Defiants and Endurances be 1 per X points, rather than tied to Endeavours?

But again, good job on the Endeavour. [Borat] I like! [/Borat]
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on October 26, 2010, 06:18:29 PM
Quote
Any chance the Endurance could go to 1Lance F/L/R instead of 2WB? Even at a cost increase. I like coherent armaments, me. Smiley Then again, when you have a squadron of three, it does become a sensible 6 WBs.

The problem being, to get a squadron of three you have to take three endeavours and I'd wager that the endeavour is just a better option all around. I'd like to see the lance as well, but I don't think it will happen. Would make the endurance more attractive :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 26, 2010, 07:05:49 PM
Defiant... flawed by intention? The problem is that Endeavour/Endurance match out weapons evenly and can be a great team (with 90* and 6+ prow ;) ).
In terms of balance of firepower the Defiant should get 4 launch bays with fighters and bombers.
Same prow weapons.

I mean, that's balanced. But the intention is not such a strong launch force. Agreed. But that's the way the modular options work.

So best would be str2 launch bays and then str3 batteries port.starboard. Yet modelling is the problem...

Lets see:
hits 6
speed 20cm
turrets 2
armour 6+/5+
turn 90*
shields 1

port/starboard launch bay str 1 (fighters and bombers)
prow weapons battery str.2 l/r
dorsal weapons battery str.2 lfr
prow torps str4(?)

That at a cost of ~same as others...
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 26, 2010, 07:30:45 PM
I'm perfectly happy with S4 torps and the option of 45'/6+ for the Endeavour/Endurance.

You're pretty much spot on with the Defiant. It has less than half the broadside power it should, (2AC != 6WB or 1/2 4AC), and the S2 Lances are not equal to S4 Torps and 2WB either.

It needs a boost of the equivalent of 3WB to each broadside, and the equivalent of 2WB to its prow armament (2L = 4T). It also needs to dissociate itself from the Endeavour to eliminate the additional opportunity cost.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 26, 2010, 08:23:26 PM
Hell, just give the Defiant a points boost and limited availability and its great for str4 bays, I think.  150-160 points sounds right.

But if you go the route Horizon posted, with torps and a str4 l/r/f, thatd be pretty sweet too.  Actually, I love that idea.  Torps give it more support role.  But I don't see a problem with 4 bays in fluff either, those damn escort carriers can crowd the same amount the Defiant currently has into their hulls.  Still, Pick Horizon's idea, Nate :).  Would this constitute it going back to 130?

Heres another question. Would the doubling of the torpedo armament have any effect on admech options?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 26, 2010, 10:47:13 PM
No. It's a Light Cruiser. It should not have more than 1 LB to a side.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 27, 2010, 01:44:33 AM
Hi everyone! Okay, here's what's going on with the Defiant.

Everyone here makes good points. However, this is not going to be a pure support ship (fighters only) because that is against Imperial fleet doctrine in that every cruiser hull should have some offensive capability regardless of how effective it may or may not be. Since it's going to have full-up launch bays, we can't raise the launch bays to 4 because that would make the ship too expensive, which again goes against Imperial fleet doctrine: CL's are SUPPOSED to be cheap.

The best argument so far is the one RCGothic and some others made, and this one is the most difficult to address: Why not simply make the Defiant prow suite the same as its cousins? The best thing I can say is that it's complicated. When we were first play-testing profiles for these models, it was simple logic to make the three variants a mini-Tyrant, mini-Gothic and mini-Dictator, respectively. Heck- I loved it! At the time, we were told by the designers that while the Endeavor was perfect and the Endurance was a natural fit, the Dictator was by design the only Imperial cruiser in the game that would have both torpedoes and attack craft (notice the Mars doesn't have a torps variant?). In fact, it was intended to be the only dual-ordnance cruiser in the entire game until the Tau came out. Except for the Tau, it still is.

Thus, we had to go with an alternate weapons fit for the prow. Rather than go with the 2x30cm WB's, we went with 2x30cm lances, which gives it considerably more punch and counterbalances the launch bays not being as hard-hitting as 4 bays would be. If you use a Defiant by itself it is not going to work very well, but points for points I think you would be hard-pressed to find any one ship that works really well all by itself. It's not impossible to think of one or two, but they are by no means common.

Zukov made a good point about the AdMech CL's being pretty good for what they bring to the table. This also was intentional: AdMech ships are supposed to be the very best the Imperium can put in space, and they are appropriately more expensive to boot. There is another, more subtle reason why AdMech CL's lean a bit to the right. If we made these models significantly less potent (for the points) than comparable full AdMech cruisers, nobody would ever buy them.

The Defiant may be difficult to use by itself, which is why it is attached to an Endeavor, with which it works brilliantly, especially now with the -10 point drop and the Endeavor’s +2 prow torps. If you think of the Defiant and Endeavor not as two separate vessels but a single one worth 240 points, you are getting a heck of a lot more hitting and defensive power for +20 points over a Dictator.

Sigoroth and Horizon have made another subtle point about the Defiant – the designers are no longer in charge, the HA’s are so we can fix this any way we want. I’ll be honest with you all. It took a leap of faith on their part to simply hand the three of us this game. It is something I take seriously, and while I don’t mind incorporating tweaks or making changes they were interested in seeing happen anyway, I would feel disingenuous if the HA’s started ripping up profiles in ways we know they wouldn’t approve of simply because we can. In the end, the HA’s would be doing ALL the fans a dis-service if we started behaving that way, even if in the end we instead make or don’t make all the changes the fans would like. I would rather err on the side of caution than make more drastic changes like completely re-writing profiles and such, even if it’s something a number of people are clamoring for or against. Even when you all are pissed at me, at least know that the three of us really are trying to be as good custodians of the game as we can.

-   Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 27, 2010, 03:20:38 AM
Nate, the Despoiler is a very powerful non-imperial, non-tau ship that can bring lots of torpedos and AC.

The HA sounds alot like the Imperium rulers, preserving rather than improving ;)
Being a custodian is fine, but if you are just a custodian, there is nothing new and living really happening to the game, is there?
Custodian makes me think of someone guarding an old trophy, one that brings fond memories, but no new excitement.

The designers don't do anything for this game, and the calls they made were of course by no means perfect, not so with even the best game system.
The inability to change things sounds like a real hindrance to you, and I for one would feel like you were doing us no disservice in improving things.

Here's a question.  What is the purpose of not allowing mixed ordnance in an Imperial fleet besides the Dictator?
Or was it a 'just because' kind of thing?  4 torps on a limited ship shouldn't do much to dramatically alter the battle line, I would think.

Horizon's suggestion would both bring more integration in the different variants, and make the Defiant worth using.
It bring it just to the point of being competative with the other 2, I feel.  Enough to make you forget that they converted half the broadside weapons into, apparently, luxury quarters ;)

On the overpowered nature of 6+ armor and 90* turns, I don't follow you there either.
A 45* turn already allows you to bring your broadsides to bear on an enemy dead ahead.  In a light cruiser built to fill a battleline like a small cruiser, with 20cm speed, how would a 90* change its tactics at all? 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 27, 2010, 04:16:59 AM
The only playtest experience I have with the Defiant is as an AdMech ship. Well, I lost all my AdMech games, the Defiant always being first target.,.. then I changed it to an Endeavour (first time ever I rebuild a ship! So bad was the Defiant!) and, heck, since the Endeavour is in it I start winning games with the AdMech and have yet to lose...
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 27, 2010, 04:38:38 AM
Forgot to add, Nate: With the doubling of torps, its far less tempting to go with the admech changes.  Any plans on switching out the 4 torps for 2 lances, or making custom torpedos cost 15 points?  Those are the only two changes that I can see happening with the switch.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 27, 2010, 07:34:24 AM
Sigoroth and Horizon have made another subtle point about the Defiant – the designers are no longer in charge ...

Horizon's point may have been subtle, but mine was about as subtle as a half-brick to the head. I hope they felt it too.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 27, 2010, 07:47:36 AM
Thus, we had to go with an alternate weapons fit for the prow. Rather than go with the 2x30cm WB's, we went with 2x30cm lances, which gives it considerably more punch and counterbalances the launch bays not being as hard-hitting as 4 bays would be.

That would have been true at the time, 2Torps and 2WB being (roughly) equivalent to 1.67 lances, 2L is a boost. It still lacked in its broadside, however.

Now the other variants have a weapons fit equivalent to 2.67 lances, and the defiant is still undergunned in its broadside as well.

Which brings me on to my next point:

The Defiant may be difficult to use by itself, which is why it is attached to an Endeavor, with which it works brilliantly, especially now with the -10 point drop and the Endeavor’s +2 prow torps. If you think of the Defiant and Endeavor not as two separate vessels but a single one worth 240 points, you are getting a heck of a lot more hitting and defensive power for +20 points over a Dictator.

And if the alternative was to take a second Endeavour, or an Endurance instead, why would anyone take a Defiant? The only way I can possibly see them half-working is squadroned with another Defiant (requiring another 2 Endeavours), or with a Dictator, (requiring a dictator and an endeavour.)

This is building your fleet around the light cruiser, and that is not the reason people take light cruisers (particularly cruisers but smaller) - to plug gaps in their fleet. And it would still be massively undergunned:

The Defiant does 1 attack per attack craft vs a T2 target. The dictator does 1.4attacks per attack craft. This makes the LBs on a Defiant roughly equivalent to just 2WB. It's undergunned by a factor of 4WB per broadside and 1WB on the prow - if you add up all that missing firepower you get more than half a Dauntless!

Sigoroth and Horizon have made another subtle point about the Defiant – the designers are no longer in charge, the HA’s are so we can fix this any way we want. I’ll be honest with you all. It took a leap of faith on their part to simply hand the three of us this game. It is something I take seriously, and while I don’t mind incorporating tweaks or making changes they were interested in seeing happen anyway, I would feel disingenuous if the HA’s started ripping up profiles in ways we know they wouldn’t approve of simply because we can.

OK, but this isn't the Lunar Class we're talking about here. This is the Defiant, the single most useless ship in the Imperial arsenal. The other Endeavour variants needed changes only 1/10th as much as the Defiant does. It needs far more than a points adjustment to make it useful.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 27, 2010, 07:53:50 AM
With the 2 bays you'll be launching fighters only in 99% if the cases.

As I see it the only viable scenario for the Defiant is in a small convoy scenario (paired with an Endeavour) protecting transports. There its fighters can actually do something (eliminate torp clusters).

For the rest it is meh. Ofcourse the HA shouldn't just adapt all and everything but the Defiant is such a poo-piece a complete profile rewrite is needed and warranted.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 27, 2010, 08:01:50 AM
For the rest it is meh. Ofcourse the HA shouldn't just adapt all and everything but the Defiant is such a poo-piece a complete profile rewrite is needed and warranted.

Hear hear!

It is simply not a combat effective ship. It will never be competitive with the Dictator/Mars, because its attack craft are so much less effective per AC, nor can it plug a gap left by the absence of a Dictator/mars, because of the additional cost of bringing along an Endeavour and the limited effect two fighters can have on fleet defence.

Another effect of having only two LBs is that because passnig a RO check is so low-gain, unlike the dictator which will mostly get first priority, reloading a Defiant will inevitably be the last thing you do, and so there is a far higher chance that it won't reload, due to earlier failed checks. This drops its LB effectiveness yet further.



This is a ship so sick that it needs a completely new MO. OK, so fighters only isn't an option, and neither is 4 full bays, but how about:



Defiant, 140pts (1 Defiant or Endurance per 500pts)

Cruiser6 Speed20 Turns90 Armour5+ Turrets2

Port/SB Launch Bays S1p/s Fighters/Bombers
Port/SB Launch Bays S1p/s Fighters
Prow Weapons Battery S4 30cm F/L/R
Prow Torps S4 30cm F

Optional: 6+ Prow in exchange for 45' Turns.




This way it would be a very effective escort carrier, without having offensive power of a Dictator. The Torps also give it additional incentive to reload. The WB aren't a straight swap for the lances, but are still a reasonably potent primary armament. It loses its tie to the Endeavour, but is still restricted, giving it the ability to plug a hole in a fleet without the expenditure of an entirely new ship, and again without being spammable. Even at 140pts, this would then be an attractive ship.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 27, 2010, 09:01:17 PM
Id like it even without the extra fighters at 130 points, I really would.  The torps give it more reason to RO as well.
When I have used the Defiant, I don't think I ever reloaded its ordnance.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 27, 2010, 10:01:47 PM
The Dictator has offensive (AC) firepower? I rather doubt that. That being the case, giving the Defiant that much ordnance is equalling the Dictator.

Aside from which, this being a game where launch bay limits dictate the amount of markers on the table, you will also have to figure out which the total number of fighters and bombers you can have available on the table every turn.

I still don't buy the Defiant getting anything more than 2 squadrons total.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 27, 2010, 11:15:42 PM
We're getting to an impasse then, stymied by modelling considerations and doctrine.

It can't take anything other than LBs for its broadside (leaving said broadside horribly underpowered), and if you increase the prow weaponry, it starts competing with the Dauntless.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 27, 2010, 11:41:08 PM
Which it should. Right now, there is no reason why one would take any other LC other than the Dauntless. Bumping the Defiant's prow weapon up to Str 3 front arc only lances wouldn't be bad and even then the current (or any future reworded) limitations preclude one from getting it en masse anyway.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 28, 2010, 02:52:56 AM
IF the Defiant can't take anything other than 2 AC broadside (total) and IF it can't take torpedoes for its prow weaponry THEN why not just drop its points cost? Bring it down to 110 pts.

As for the Endeavour and Endurance, well bring their prow torps back down to 2 (keeping their total armament in line with a Dauntless) and just give them the free 6+ prow with 90° turns. Simple really.

This means the Dauntless will still have same total firepower as the End/End but have slightly more focusable firepower in 1 (9WBe vs 8WBe) or 2 (13WBe vs 11WBe) quadrants assuming one of those is the prow. When targets are in all 3 they're the same, when just broadside the Ends have more (14WBe vs 9WBe). This advantage to the Dauntless, combined with its increased speed and decreased cost make it the first choice for a hunter-killer role.

The End's 6+ prows, extra turrets, superior broadsides, opportunistic/CAP breaking torps and 90° turn make them the ideal light line support cruiser.

The Defiant on the other hand brings less total and focusable fire than a Dauntless and is slower to boot. However it can support the fleet via its extra launch bays (launching CAP so larger carriers don't have to) and can operate in the line having 6+ prow and 2 turrets.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 07:42:19 AM
IF the Defiant can't take anything other than 2 AC broadside (total) and IF it can't take torpedoes for its prow weaponry THEN why not just drop its points cost? Bring it down to 110 pts.
Because it would still be rubbish for 110pts.


As for the Endeavour and Endurance, well bring their prow torps back down to 2 (keeping their total armament in line with a Dauntless) and just give them the free 6+ prow with 90° turns. Simple really.
I actually like the direction they've gone with the S4 torps and 45' turns.


The Defiant on the other hand brings less total and focusable fire than a Dauntless and is slower to boot. However it can support the fleet via its extra launch bays (launching CAP so larger carriers don't have to) and can operate in the line having 6+ prow and 2 turrets.
[/color]

2LBs is nothing - next to no offensive power at all. It will also struggle to protect a fleet with a mere 2 fighters. The very least it needs torps as well to encourage it to reload.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 28, 2010, 08:52:41 AM
Because it would still be rubbish for 110pts.

Perhaps.

Quote
I actually like the direction they've gone with the S4 torps and 45' turns.

I very much dislike it. It makes it seem that the only reason why the IN made these ships was so that players could get easy access to battleships. End+End+Def + Ret. Of course, people can do that with the Dauntless, but the Dauntless has an actual role. It can be used as a fleet support vessel or a patrol ship to cover space. I don't see the Endeavours be able to being used as a solitary patrol ship. With 20cm speed, 45° turns and no support I don't see them being able to even catch pirates, let alone do anything about them.

They're a straight up fleet support ship, and without the 90° turns I don't see why the IN wouldn't just make 2 CAs instead of 3 CLs. Same cost, less a couple of hits, plus a shield, same number of torps, same armour, speed, manoeuvrability, turrets (each hull is equally protected) same focusable firepower but better total firepower. Firepower loss thresholds favour the cruisers too. Sooooo why would the IN make these ships again? At least with 90° turns there is a proper trade-off for the losses stipulated and a rationale for making them.

Quote
2LBs is nothing - next to no offensive power at all. It will also struggle to protect a fleet with a mere 2 fighters. The very least it needs torps as well to encourage it to reload.

The only thing those 2 LBs would be useful against, in offensive terms, is escorts. This is fine, I wouldn't expect much more from a light carrier. In defensive terms it might just mean the difference between forcing your main CV to go on CAP or not. Say you've got 2 carriers, 1 of them launches CAP. You don't think that'll be enough, so you're forced to launch more from your other one, even though they likely won't all be needed. With the 2 bays from the Dauntless on CAP duty you can then use your Dictator offensively. In short, it just allows you to go offensive with your other carriers when you might not have otherwise done so.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 28, 2010, 12:21:17 PM
I believe someone suggested str2 l/r/f prow battery and str2 l/r/f dorsal battery along with the str4 torps.
I hope we go with that option.

I dont think it has yet been properly explained why 90* is so much better than 45* degree and thus incompatible with 6+ prow armor.  It doesn't effect what you can fire at when coming in line-abreast even.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 28, 2010, 12:55:34 PM
I believe someone suggested str2 l/r/f prow battery and str2 l/r/f dorsal battery along with the str4 torps.
I hope we go with that option.

No too much firepower and ordnance on a light cruiser hull. Stick with the prow lance and 2 side launch bays. Just bump up the lances to Str 3 and it should be fine.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 01:33:25 PM
Hell NO should it get S3 Lances! Not that I think that would make it overpowered (15WBe), but it is not meant to be a super-dauntless with L/F/R Lances and AC, it is a mini-dictator.

I think lastspartacus's suggestion was eminently reasonable. It NEEDS the torps in order to give it a chance of getting a reload ordnance special order, and given 4wbs (the firepower of a sword) in addition to torps, it would have 16WB equivs (and that's counting the LBs as 6WBe despite being more like 4WBe offensively), compared to a dauntless's 17WBe, and the Endev/Endur 20Wbe - hardly overpowered.

It would still be undergunned, but it might just carve itself enough of a role to make itself useful with that load out.

As for why 45' turns is fine - These are mini line cruisers. Their role is identical to that of a line cruiser. The Imperium builds them because it is vast and it needs to show the flag of a capital ship in more places than it would otherwise be able to with standard line cruiser. It is still effective in the line of battle, and it can head up a flotilla of escorts in standard combat missions just as well as the dauntless can (better even), and in defensive situations is also worth more than a dauntless. Its role is that of a line cruiser, and it doesn't need to be given additional roles by making it more manouevrable.

As to why the player would take them instead of a line cruiser: They're a cheap way to cover your bases (another reason why the endeavour-endurance/defiant link needs to be severed), adding more WB, lances or LBs if that's what you need. They're also an alternative to the line cruisers, if that's your preference. You may prefer to field more ships than fewer - as long as they're viable alternatives to line cruisers then this will work. It's also fluffy, which again will work as long as they're viable alternatives.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 28, 2010, 02:17:50 PM
Hell NO should it get S3 Lances! Not that I think that would make it overpowered (15WBe), but it is not meant to be a super-dauntless with L/F/R Lances and AC, it is a mini-dictator.

Who said anything about LFR lances? Front only like the Dauntless.

I think lastspartacus's suggestion was eminently reasonable. It NEEDS the torps in order to give it a chance of getting a reload ordnance special order, and given 4wbs (the firepower of a sword) in addition to torps, it would have 16WB equivs (and that's counting the LBs as 6WBe despite being more like 4WBe offensively), compared to a dauntless's 17WBe, and the Endev/Endur 20Wbe - hardly overpowered.

Aside from the fact that there is no LC with dorsal weapons, it just has too many weapons. You can't have everything on one Imperial ship. The SC unfortunately is a special case. If you want torps on the Defiant, then give it Str 6 torps like the Dauntless. It will lose the guns but if that's what you want, that's what you get and no adding dorsal weaponry. Then bring down the price a bit as Sigoroth suggested.

It would still be undergunned, but it might just carve itself enough of a role to make itself useful with that load out.

It's a carrier. It's supposed to be undergunned, Emperor and Oberon notwithstanding.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 02:21:11 PM
It would be undergunned, INCLUDING its launch capacity. It's not too many weapons on one cruiser.

The other Voss variants would be 4-6WBe more powerful than the Defiant, INCLUDING its LBs.

You also said "Bump the Lances up to S3", and the lances are F/L/R.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 28, 2010, 02:24:18 PM
In BFG carriers are only little undergunned compared gunnery ships if at all.

Also:
2 prow batteries lfr
2 prow torps
1 launch port/starboard (total of 2 AC that is).
2 dorsal batteries lfr

That means: prow is same as other Voss CL = nice.
port/starboard is same, ok for CL.
dorsal added to make up for total fp loss.

4 batteries is less then 3 lances by a large margin.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 28, 2010, 02:28:56 PM
It would be undergunned, INCLUDING its launch capacity. It's not too many weapons on one cruiser.

The other Voss variants would be 4WBe more powerful than the Defiant, INCLUDING its LBs.

Why does everything have to have the same power? Do you really think the Emperor has equal gunnery with the Retribution? The Defiant has a role and it's not supposed to be shooting at stuff. Who cares that the other Voss variants would be more powerful as long as the ship is priced accordingly. If that is so, then everything is still balanced.

And I still am not agreeable to an LC getting dorsal weaponry. Stick to one prow weapon and make it as strong as one can instead of sticking a weapon battery and torp weapons and then not making them worth a damn by keeping them both at strength 2.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 28, 2010, 02:31:58 PM
Just in case of the Voss CL design principle equal strength (as much as possible) is to be adviced.

In my opinion that is.

This because I don't see the Defiant with 3 lances, dropped down to 120 getting a first choice vessel. Not as bad as it is but still... meh-ish.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 28, 2010, 02:34:42 PM
Maybe not at 120 but what happens if you then drop it to 115? 110? You now start to take notice.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 02:47:51 PM
Why does everything have to have the same power? Do you really think the Emperor has equal gunnery with the Retribution? The Defiant has a role and it's not supposed to be shooting at stuff. Who cares that the other Voss variants would be more powerful as long as the ship is priced accordingly. If that is so, then everything is still balanced.

The Emperor and Oberon are within half a WBe of the Retribution. The Dictator has identical WBe to the Lunar and Gothic. What they lack in WB power, they make up in LB power. So your "Carriers should be undergunned" is nonsense.

Even with a dorsal S2 WB, the Defiant is 4-6WBe weaker than its cousins, and would be 10WBe weaker in direct firepower alone.

Yes, if you drop the price, it is going to start looking more attractive, but I'd far rather it be the equal of its peers, rather than the runt of the litter.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 28, 2010, 03:01:26 PM
The Emperor and Oberon are within half a WBe of the Retribution.

Within half a WB? So what about the lances and the LBs? Do they not count as well? Of course the Ret has torps. My point is they do not have the same total WB if one converts everything. In the case of battleships, the carriers potential to do damage is definitely greater than that of the Retribution.

The Dictator has identical WBe to the Lunar and Gothic. What they lack in WB power, they make up in LB power. So your "Carriers should be undergunned" is nonsense.

Carriers should not be able to outgun pure gunships is what I meant. What you are doing is trying to make them all equal in gunnery which should not be the case. You can convert all you want but the fact is your conversions are only guides. They are not hard rules that one should follow.

Even with a dorsal S2 WB, the Defiant is 4-6WBe weaker than its cousins, and would be 10WBe weaker in direct firepower alone.

Yes, if you drop the price, it is going to start looking more attractive, but I'd far rather it be the equal of its peers, rather than the runt of the litter.

That is your perspective. Personally, I feel the Defiant given Str 3 lances with Str 2 AC support fits a niche role well, esp if given at a cheap price. You cannot directly convert weapons and expect each to perform as the other. This is because each weapon system plays differently esp those between direct fire weapons and ordnance. You cannot expect AC to give out the same damage as WBs since the IN generally has fewer AC and will most likely be using fighters instead of bombers.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 03:09:36 PM
>>Within half a WB? So what about the lances and the LBs?

No, within half a WBe (Weapon battery Equivalent). The Emperor has 22WBs, and LBs worth 24, for a total of 46WBe. The Retribution has 24WBs, Lances worth 9, and Torps worth 13.5 for a total of 46.5WBe.

I'm honestly baffled at how you think 4WB F/L/R and 4 Torps outguns 14WB and 4 Torps.  It's clear to everyone else here that the Defiant as proposed would still be substantially weaker than its peers.

Anyway, yes I'd completely back this profile:

Defiant, 120pts
Cruiser/6 Speed20/Turns45 Armour 6+/5+ T2

Prow Torps S4 F
Prow WB S2 30cm F/L/R
Dorsal WB S2 30cm F/L/R
Port/SB LB S2 total

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 28, 2010, 03:49:39 PM
Hell NO should it get S3 Lances! Not that I think that would make it overpowered (15WBe), but it is not meant to be a super-dauntless with L/F/R Lances and AC, it is a mini-dictator.

I think lastspartacus's suggestion was eminently reasonable. It NEEDS the torps in order to give it a chance of getting a reload ordnance special order, and given 4wbs (the firepower of a sword) in addition to torps, it would have 16WB equivs (and that's counting the LBs as 6WBe despite being more like 4WBe offensively), compared to a dauntless's 17WBe, and the Endev/Endur 20Wbe - hardly overpowered.

Eh, I agree that it shouldn't have 3 lances due to direct competition with the Dauntless, however it isn't necessarily a mini-Dictator. It could be a mini-Mars, for example. I don't object to it getting torps, however I do object to the decision to go 6+/45° with +2 torps instead of 6+/90°. So, for that reason alone I don't want to see it get 4 torps. Apart from that, there's a stated "no dual AC policy" on it. I don't particularly care about this policy either way. The ship could be reloaded simply by putting it in a squadron with a Dictator. I don't care either way, just don't want the extra torps as a hand waving way of getting away from the problem with the design.

Quote
As for why 45' turns is fine - These are mini line cruisers. Their role is identical to that of a line cruiser.

There is zero reason to do this.

Quote
The Imperium builds them because it is vast and it needs to show the flag of a capital ship in more places than it would otherwise be able to with standard line cruiser. It is still effective in the line of battle, and it can head up a flotilla of escorts in standard combat missions just as well as the dauntless can (better even), and in defensive situations is also worth more than a dauntless. Its role is that of a line cruiser, and it doesn't need to be given additional roles by making it more manouevrable.

It certainly can not. IN cruisers are able to defend outpost from opportunistic pirate raids due to their displacement. Light cruisers are not meant as defenders, they're meant to hunt pirates. The ability of the Endeavour series CLs to operate independently on solo patrols actively hunting pirates or defending planets or shipping lanes would be far worse than a Dauntless. The Dauntless is like a Chaos ship, good individually. IN cruisers function poorly by themselves (much better in a fleet) and a smaller version would be no better.

It's role is certainly in the line, but there would be no reason to make them if they were just identical to a cruiser but smaller. "Showing the flag" is not a reason when it would perform far worse than a (cheaper to make) Dauntless.

Therefore the reason to make it would have to be that it provides something to the line that a regular IN cruiser does not. With 6WB@30cmL+R + 4 torps + 2WB@30cmLFR weaponry, 45° turns and 2 turrets, at 120 points the ship is still worse than simply buying line cruisers.

If you bought 2 Endeavour's and 1 Endurance you would get 12 torps, 12WB@30cmL+R, 2L@30cmL+R and 6WB@30cmLFR. If you simply bought 2 Lunars instead you would get 12 torps, 12WB@30cmL+R and 4L@30cmL+R. So by focusing the prow weaponry to one side the CLs can match the firepower of Lunars. However they're still short 6WBe on their offside weaponry. Not good for a line splitter. All ships have 2 turrets each, making them identical against ordnance. The CLs have a total of +2 hits, but they have 1 less shield both in total and on each target, so they are more likely to take damage from incidental direct fire and will at least take more hull from any attempt at focused fire. This is made worse since at just 3 hull hits (4 in any one turn) the CLs lose 1/6 of total firepoiwer. For one of the cruisers to lose anything they'd have to take 4 hull hits, which is 6 in any one turn. The same damage against the CLs will result in nearly 1 destroyed CL (1/3 of total firepower).

So even with this "fix" there's still no reason to use them over typical line cruisers. Mind you, this "fix" manages to put the total firepower of the Endeavour over that of the Dauntless. And it's still not good enough. This means that this fix isn't a fix.

There should be a point of difference. These ships should be line cruisers but smaller, but there should have been a reason to make them smaller! Dauntlesses are the solo-operators, pirate hunters, shipping lane patrol boats, etc. They can go "show the flag".

Quote
As to why the player would take them instead of a line cruiser: They're a cheap way to cover your bases (another reason why the endeavour-endurance/defiant link needs to be severed), adding more WB, lances or LBs if that's what you need. They're also an alternative to the line cruisers, if that's your preference. You may prefer to field more ships than fewer - as long as they're viable alternatives to line cruisers then this will work. It's also fluffy, which again will work as long as they're viable alternatives.

I think it is the opposite of fluffy. There seems no reason whatsoever why the IN would have made these ships if this is going to be the final profile. As for players, the only reason I can think they'd take them, from a play reason, is to take a BB with 2 line cruisers (ie, the CLs simulating line cruisers), rather than 3 Dauntless. This does not justify their existence. You could of course cite model reasons, personal preferences or "just coz" as reasons for people to play them, but there's no play reason to do so apart from some slight beardiness with fleet selection and there's no background reason for them to be made in the first place.

Must be 90°.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 28, 2010, 03:54:23 PM
>>Within half a WB? So what about the lances and the LBs?

No, within half a WBe (Weapon battery Equivalent). The Emperor has 22WBs, and LBs worth 24, for a total of 46WBe. The Retribution has 24WBs, Lances worth 9, and Torps worth 13.5 for a total of 46.5WBe.

Indeed. However, the Emperor can focus 16 WBs and 8 AC (24WBe) in the one arc for a total of 40WBe in one arc. The Ret can do 22.5WBe in one arc at best. The Emp can't combine to 2 disparate weapon types, but they can all go in the one direction, ie, at the enemy. The Ret has to get targets in multiple arcs before it starts to come good.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
And to some extent that's why the Emperor is more expensive, and the Retribution is still considered underpowered for its cost. Obviously you have to consider the role. But in pure firepower terms, they're pretty even. For someone to be calling the defiant undergunned, when it's both clearly overmatched by every other variant and has the most tenuous role, it's a bit mind boggling.

I also absolutely hate the idea that a Defiant is going to be forced to be part of a squadron with another carrier just to make it worth reloading. One of the reasons for having one is because you don't HAVE another carrier. Giving it torps is such an obvious fix for this. The 45' isn't such a loss for these ships - they can still turn and fire their broadsides entirely forward or backward. It's vital on the Dauntless, because if it's facing the wrong way it's as good as useless, but the Voss have no such weakness.

Sure, against a single escort-type pirate a Dauntless is going to be better at chasing it down and destroying it, but if:

There are multiple pirate ships
And/or you've found a position the pirates have to defend (such as their base)
And/or they've got AC
And/or you're engaging in a skirmish with escorts from another power
And/or you have to defend a fixed position (such as a planet from invasion)

Then the Voss is far and away a better choice, and these are all vital roles that must be performed. The dauntless is good at one thing and one thing only - hunting down and destroying a lone, fast enemy vessel. The Voss are so much more than that.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 28, 2010, 04:28:09 PM
And to some extent that's why the Emperor is more expensive, and the Retribution is still considered underpowered for its cost. Obviously you have to consider the role. But in pure firepower terms, they're pretty even. For someone to be calling the defiant undergunned, when it's both clearly overmatched by every other variant and has the most tenuous role, it's a bit mind boggling.

I also absolutely hate the idea that a Defiant is going to be forced to be part of a squadron with another carrier just to make it worth reloading. One of the reasons for having one is because you don't HAVE another carrier. Giving it torps is such an obvious fix for this. The 45' isn't such a loss for these ships - they can still turn and fire their broadsides entirely forward or backward. It's vital on the Dauntless, because if it's facing the wrong way it's as good as useless, but the Voss have no such weakness.

I find it strange that you're so fired up over finding a role for the Dauntless when there is no role for the other 2. I agree that the Dauntless is pathetic for the most part, but since it's significantly different from just 2/3 of a line cruiser for 2/3 of the cost it actually has the most "role" to offer the fleet, weak as it may be.

Quote
Sure, against a single escort-type pirate a Dauntless is going to be better at chasing it down and destroying it, but if:

There are multiple pirate ships
And/or you've found a position the pirates have to defend (such as their base)
And/or they've got AC
And/or you're engaging in a skirmish with escorts from another power
And/or you have to defend a fixed position (such as a planet from invasion)

Then the Voss is far and away a better choice, and these are all vital roles that must be performed. The dauntless is good at one thing and one thing only - hunting down and destroying a lone, fast enemy vessel. The Voss are so much more than that.

If any of those things happen the Voss is just as screwed as a Dauntless. More so in fact, since the Dauntless will have a much better chance of getting the hell out of there and calling for reinforcements.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 04:36:32 PM
Not necessarily. That depends entirely what the threat is, but agaisnt multiple ships or where a position must be attacked or defended and fighting is the only option, the Voss is an entirely better choice than the Dauntless.

The other two are good ships, and I don't need much prodding to take them. The Defiant needs more firepower, and a reason to reload without slaving it to another ship. Both it and the Endurance need to be able to be taken by themselves.

I'd much rather have +2 torps than 90' turns.

As I've said before, the reason for making them smaller is so there can be more of them and so they can be in more places at once.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
If the HAs are absolutely determined to keep the link between Endeavours and Endurances/Defiants, and won't tie it into 1 per X points as would be most sensible (srsly, why not?), how about this:

For each Defiant/Endurance after the first, an Endeavour must be taken.

Again, like 1 per X points, this doesn't stop people plugging gaps in their list with the 1 variant they desperately need, but does put restrictions on spamming them.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on October 28, 2010, 06:20:22 PM
Not necessarily. That depends entirely what the threat is, but agaisnt multiple ships or where a position must be attacked or defended and fighting is the only option, the Voss is an entirely better choice than the Dauntless.

So your entire argument is that there might some possible situations where a Dauntless would not be able to cut it but a cruiser would be overkill. Right. This is obviously going to be much more common than sporadic pirate activity for which a fast and manoeuvrable ship would be ideal. Whatever slight teeny tiny percentage chance increase of survival of a lone Voss against multiple ships/AC (which is either coming from escort carriers, which a Dauntless is more likely to be able to catch and deal with, or an enemy CV in which case the Voss is screwed anyway) is more than made up for by the Dauntless being a more capable pirate hunting vessel. Any authority that decided to use Voss cruisers in place of the Dauntless for this role would be somewhat cracked in the head.

Quote
The other two are good ships, and I don't need much prodding to take them. The Defiant needs more firepower, and a reason to reload without slaving it to another ship. Both it and the Endurance need to be able to be taken by themselves.

I'd much rather have +2 torps than 90' turns.

Why? Why not just take full line cruisers? Pointless ships.

Quote
As I've said before, the reason for making them smaller is so there can be more of them and so they can be in more places at once.

Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Hell, if they want numbers they can make escorts. If they want a proper presence they can make CAs. If they want a pirate hunter they can make a Dauntless. A cut down CA will do nothing on its own.

The biggest problem with these ship stats is that they are so easy to compare to a line cruiser. A comparison that, despite being so close, favours the CAs. There is no point of difference between the ships. No background necessity for making the ships. No playable utility in taking the ships. No rationale as to why the ship manages to shed mass compared to a line cruiser but gains back nothing for having done so.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 06:57:07 PM
No, situations for which a cruiser would be ideal, but for which one is not available. The Voss probably will be accompanied by escorts. If it's one ship, they can do the chasing down. You don't need a Dauntless for that. If it's a situation where you'd want a cruiser, such as the aforementioned situations, then you'd be glad to have a Voss rather than a Dauntless. In fact, in a duel I'd expect a Voss to thoroughly paste a Dauntless. The Dauntless would do slightly more in the first turn, but as soon as you get close you end up locked broadside to broadside, and that's a situation the Dauntless isn't getting out of, regardless of its better rate of turn and higher top speed.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on October 28, 2010, 07:30:44 PM
Hey, what about my profile?

It got overlooked? Denied?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on October 28, 2010, 09:33:22 PM
If the other Voss stay at 2T, then your profile would be the best compromise, but I really do think they should go to 4T.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 28, 2010, 10:25:16 PM
And to some extent that's why the Emperor is more expensive, and the Retribution is still considered underpowered for its cost. Obviously you have to consider the role. But in pure firepower terms, they're pretty even.

That was before the points swap. Right now, I would say the price is about right for the power the Retribution brings. In pure firepower terms, yes they're pretty even. Add the LB and the Retribution is now overmatched.

For someone to be calling the defiant undergunned, when it's both clearly overmatched by every other variant and has the most tenuous role, it's a bit mind boggling.

So try it out first. I do think it should have Str 3 forward only firing lances even if only to directly compete vs the Dauntless. Even with Str 2 though, why don't you try going one on one vs the other variants. You will pretty much see the Defiant being able to stand toe to toe with the other 2 variants. Why? Because it has the advantage of AC and can actually stay farther out, sending out bombers and whittling away at the Endeavor or Endurance and then killing them when they're crippled. This is what I mean by weapon systems performing differently and you cannot just assume 1 weapon systems is worth x of another weapon system.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 29, 2010, 10:06:19 PM
It needs torps, simply to make RO worth it.  Right now it has to choose 'do I want to invest in pathetic ordnance or pathetic shooting?'
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 29, 2010, 10:21:45 PM
No it does not. It's not supposed to be a gunline support. It's supposed to be AC support. With this Defiant, you almost always have to go with AC. I'm open to it getting Str 6 torps though as an option. Not this FP wimpy WBs and Str wimpy torps because they insist on wanting 2 types of weapons on the prow.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on October 30, 2010, 07:32:39 AM
Well, then I guess forgetting it exists is an option too :)

I havn't really said it before, but I really do like the proposal for how to fix the other two.

But, Nate, I still havnt heard whats OP about prow armor and 90 turns compared to 45.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 03, 2010, 07:43:11 AM
Seeing as how my new Imperial Light Cruisers got destroyed by the post, I've thought of another reason why the Endurance and Defiant should be point restricted rather than tied to the Endeavour.

Models of this ship type are freaking rare, and yet to field a Defiant or Endurance you must have two. To field both a Defiant and an Endurance at once means you must have four. That's incredibly unlikely when the only official kit is for Ad Mech, who have no restriction, or a garage-kit that only a select few will ever hear about.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 03, 2010, 11:01:50 AM
If its impossible to add anything to the sides of the Defiant, why not give it a fluffy answer:

The Defiant is a luxury ship for pilots, boasting twice the room and facilities most military vessels have for a similar amount of craft.
'Defiants do not need to RO to replinish their ordnance'
or 'Defiants automatically pass RO'
or at the very least 'Defiants gain +1 LD for RO 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 03, 2010, 11:36:31 AM
That is a good idea. Or rather "The Defiant's launch bays never have to reload", just in case it gets torps (which i still think it needs.) S4 Torps, S2 Dorsal Lances, and that rule would really help the Defiant.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 03, 2010, 07:56:25 PM
If it gains the unique ability to replenish attack craft without RO, I think I would like it fine at 120 points.
I forgot to add a caveat I thought was needed 'Defiants do not need to RO to replenish attack craft, automatically replenishing at the start of your turn, unless the Defiant is under BFI'
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on November 03, 2010, 08:23:06 PM
This feels like a bad idea to me. I can't think of anything that is capable of launching ordnance without RO, even nids who by any stretch should be the race that doesn't need to RO aren't able to pull off that trick so why would a light cruiser be able to do it? +1 to RO rolls is an interesting idea and such things do have precedent with Ork rules, the Empy, etc. In the end, even with added special rules, I just don't see much point in taking the defiant since it would likely squadron with another ship anyway and that ship would still need to RO.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 03, 2010, 08:54:44 PM
Well, I figure for nids the special order means its a deliberate action of the mind of the hiveship to reload its ordnance.
The idea behind the Dauntless is that, with an immense facility to craft ratio, the function takes place as easily as reloading a direct fire weapon, that is, can function independantly of the rest of the ship.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 03, 2010, 09:52:56 PM
The defiant has 3 major problems:

#1. It's just plain undergunned by 5-10WBe, even counting it's AC, compared to its other variants. It can focus what it does have better, but that doesn't cover the whole gap.
#2. It's barely worth risking a RO order on for just 2 AC. Any RO check for it will almost always come last, after all other SO, and without RO it's worse than 1/4 of a gothic.
#3. It's tied to another non-AC physically rare LC, when all you wanted to do was fill an AC niche.

A fix has to address all three. #3 can be done by tying to points. #2 Can be done with more torps, or a special rule as just suggested. #1 is just a straight bump in firepower.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 03, 2010, 10:57:28 PM
Again, do not compare gunships with carriers. Just because one thinks one ship is undergunned compared to another does not mean the undergunned (or so one thinks) ship cannot win. The Defiant can easily take out the other two Endeavor variants one on one as long as it does not come close and just stays away until the target Endeavor/Endurance is crippled. Even the Dauntless can be given a run for its money by a crafty Defiant user.

Do not even just convert one weapon type to another type because you have no hard and fast rules for doing so and because each weapon type performs differently from one another.

If anything, I think its time to drop the 1 Endeavor required for each variant. Having that requirement is the one which makes the Defiant expensive so I am all for removing it and thereby solve the #3 problem.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 04, 2010, 12:12:59 AM
I'm assuming by saying that you dont mean to say thats all that needs doing to the Defiant.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 04, 2010, 02:45:51 AM
Of course not. Giving it the 6+ prow armor and picking only one weapon system but maximizing it should be fine, either Str 6 (most likely scenario) torps or FP6 WBs or Str 3 Front only lances although Str 2 LFR lances is also fine.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 04, 2010, 06:46:15 AM
:/

Special rules are definatelly not the path I'd like to see taken.

I still advocate my variant. :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 04, 2010, 09:24:34 AM
I advocate it as well, but with S4 torps if that's what the other variants get.

Admiral, I think you over-rate carriers.

On a 6x4' board, starting at opposite long edges, with the Endeavour Closing and Defiant Abeam, the defiant, doing everything it can to evade the Endeavour, will get off 3 AC waves before the Endeavour gets into weapons range, doing 6 attack runs. The Endeavour is free to go on Lock-on to try and swat the waves, and free to brace if it fails, as it isn't doing anything else. Assuming the AC don't get swatted, it will do 4 attack runs against a braced ship, and 2 against an un-braced one (because the Endeavour will imminently be in firing range and would rather Lock On.) The Endeavour takes 1.33 hits average before entering weapons range.

Thereafter, the Defiant's lances will only damage the Endeavour's hull in 1/4 of shooting phases. The Endeavour will do 0.6 hits with its torps, (1.3 hits if S4), and then 0.3 hull hits (1.3 if locked on). The Defiant cannot brace, as it depends on its AC, and it cannot lock on, as it depends on its AC.

In the following turn, the Endeavour closes to close range, and from then on it's all going the Endeavour's way. As soon as it's crippled, S1 AC pose no real threat, (being shot down 75% of the time by 2 turrets) and S1 lances won't ever get past 1 shield. The Endeavour, with S4 WBs, can still pose a threat, even when crippled.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 04, 2010, 12:09:08 PM
Admiral, I think you over-rate carriers.

I think you underrate them. There's a reason why carriers are generally more expensive than their gunship counterparts.

On a 6x4' board, starting at opposite long edges, with the Endeavour Closing and Defiant Abeam, the defiant, doing everything it can to evade the Endeavour, will get off 3 AC waves before the Endeavour gets into weapons range, doing 6 attack runs. The Endeavour is free to go on Lock-on to try and swat the waves, and free to brace if it fails, as it isn't doing anything else. Assuming the AC don't get swatted, it will do 4 attack runs against a braced ship, and 2 against an un-braced one (because the Endeavour will imminently be in firing range and would rather Lock On.) The Endeavour takes 1.33 hits average before entering weapons range.

And why would I let the Endeavor get close to even attack me? The Defiant will be staying away.

Sure try to swat the wave with 2 dice. Shoot them down. As long as you keep shooting them, you're not shooting at the Defiant. And if your LO WB shots fail, which is quite likely, then the bombers swarm over the Endeavor. 50-50 chance to kill both counters. Chances are I will still get 1 counter in. 1 counter which will net 2-3 attacks. If 2 bombers attack then that;s 4-6 attacks in on average rolls.

All I have to do is stay away.

Thereafter, the Defiant's lances will only damage the Endeavour's hull in 1/4 of shooting phases. The Endeavour will do 0.6 hits with its torps, (1.3 hits if S4), and then 0.3 hull hits (1.3 if locked on). The Defiant cannot brace, as it depends on its AC, and it cannot lock on, as it depends on its AC.

Which is why the Defiant will be staying away as much as possible hiding behind celestial phenomena (you do play with them right?) and just bide its time until the Endeavor is crippled. Once it's crippled, it can still either stay away or finally decide to swing around and engage the Endeavor.

In the following turn, the Endeavour closes to close range, and from then on it's all going the Endeavour's way. As soon as it's crippled, S1 AC pose no real threat, (being shot down 75% of the time by 2 turrets) and S1 lances won't ever get past 1 shield. The Endeavour, with S4 WBs, can still pose a threat, even when crippled.

Again, why would I let the Endeavor get into range? I sure as hell would not. Not when I have the AC range advantage. The Endeavor has to go on AAF to try and catch up. Even then, the Defiant can just do the run around. All it has to do is keep the range open and go for abeam profiles at best and away setting at worst to minimize the WB threat. Sure go ahead and try to catch the Defiant played by a player making use of the table, terrain and maneuver space.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 04, 2010, 01:44:02 PM
Carriers are only more expensive than their counterparts when they get the full 4AC per 2WBs. IN is also deliberately overcharged for its carriers, more than other races. AC Power also scales with size of wave. 2 Carriers launching waves of 2 are less powerful than a carrier launching waves of 4. Carriers were also priced with the ability to build up enormors waves of attack craft, which has since been nerfed. All of this makes the defiant less powerful than it should be - it's 130pts, it should be able to defeat the other Voss, but it can't.

Which brings us back to the duel:

On a 6ft board, it will take the Endeavour 7 turns to bring any part of the board within weapons range - without AAF, thanks for pointing that out (5 turns). The Defiant has no choice but to let the Endeavour get in range. The Defiant is already as far away as it can get, so the Endeavour merely needs to plot an intercept course - even if it attempts to hide behind celestial phenomenon, the Endeavour can just intercept it on the other side. Sure, on an infinite board, the Defiant could run away and cripple the Defiant before it has a chance to catch up, but that's just not the case.

I see you also massively overestimate the power of AC. 2 Bombers at (D6-2) average 1.5 attacks each, but 1/2 the time 1 will be dead and 1/4 of the time both will be, giving an average 1.5 attacks total. (0.5 hits per wave) Better to send 1 fighter and get 2.5 attacks for 75% of the time, giving 2 attacks average (0.67hits). But then the Endeavour can shoot them down with torps, and then you're looking at 0.375 attacks from the remaining bomber. (0.125hits). That's also not including brace saves, and the Endeavour can happily swap from AAF or LO to BFI if neccessary - it doesn't need its firepower until it reaches weapons range.

This is far less than your supposed 2-3 attacks per bomber (which is a natural 4 and a natural 5 - not average rolls), it's more like 1 attack per marker if you make use of fighter suppression, otherwise it's 0.75.

And shooting the waves will reduce this average further. The Defiant is out of range for the majority of the journey, so it's no great loss of firepower. Considering that the Defiant will only get three attack runs before the Endeavour catches up, and it struggles to do half a hit per attack run,
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on November 04, 2010, 02:34:28 PM
The admirals position on this has been my experience as well. More often than not, once I've achieved AC superiority I can just whittle away at the remaining ships. Generally my opponents disengage at that point rather than slowly get wasted. The defiant can escape if it wants to, all you have to do is figure out the intercept point and AAF as you reach it to throw off the Endeavours targeting solution.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 04, 2010, 06:58:05 PM
Agreed ordnance are powerful.  But in 2's, not so much.

At least give the thing auto RO.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 04, 2010, 07:04:32 PM
As said: no special rulings.

Okay, admiral d'artagnan.

A break down why this is not good:

Defiant
hits 6
turns 90
shields 1
turrets 2
armour 6+/5+

prow batteries str.2 LFR 30cm
prow torpedoes str.3 F 30cm.
port/starboard launch bay str.2 (fighter/bomber)
dorsal battery str.2 LFR 30cm

Still weaker gunnery then the Endeavour/Endurance. Weaker firepower then your str.3 lance proposal, even less then the 2 lances.

Cost it at 120pts and keep it per current restriction.

Given the Voss (fluff) design logic there is no logic for the prow lances.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 04, 2010, 09:24:45 PM
Horizon, the problem is you're still insisting on having 2 prow weapons vs my preference for one. If prow weapons were more focused on one type of weapon system, you wouldn't have to have those puny WB and torp strengths and would not need to have dorsal weaponry included and I would prefer to keep dorsal weaponry on IN and Chaos ships limited to BCs. and HCs.

You design philosophy objection is even flawed with your design. 2 prow weapons on a ship with 6+ armor? This is much more flawed than the lances. Secondly, the design of the Voss is based on an all 5+ design. The 6+ is just how we think the design should have to make it worth taking. If we keep to the existing 5+ I will agree it can take 2 weapon system. If it goes to 6+, then I would say it should only take 1, WBs, lances or torps.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 04, 2010, 09:33:51 PM
Carriers are only more expensive than their counterparts when they get the full 4AC per 2WBs. IN is also deliberately overcharged for its carriers, more than other races. AC Power also scales with size of wave. 2 Carriers launching waves of 2 are less powerful than a carrier launching waves of 4. Carriers were also priced with the ability to build up enormors waves of attack craft, which has since been nerfed. All of this makes the defiant less powerful than it should be - it's 130pts, it should be able to defeat the other Voss, but it can't.

No they are not. Look at all the races and you will see carriers are generally more expensive than pure gunships regardless of strength. At the cost it is at now, yes it can defeat the other Voss LCs one on one.

Which brings us back to the duel:

On a 6ft board, it will take the Endeavour 7 turns to bring any part of the board within weapons range - without AAF, thanks for pointing that out (5 turns). The Defiant has no choice but to let the Endeavour get in range. The Defiant is already as far away as it can get, so the Endeavour merely needs to plot an intercept course - even if it attempts to hide behind celestial phenomenon, the Endeavour can just intercept it on the other side. Sure, on an infinite board, the Defiant could run away and cripple the Defiant before it has a chance to catch up, but that's just not the case.

Ah so the Defiant will just sit there. No wonder you think the Endeavor will catch up. Sorry but I tend to move my ships around. You move this way I move the other way. You move there, I counter move. And generally, it will be moving away from your approaching Endeavor.

If you prefer to let your Defiant be literally a sitting target, well sorry but that's not me. Even 3 turns of bombing runs will mess up an Endeavors day.

I see you also massively overestimate the power of AC. 2 Bombers at (D6-2) average 1.5 attacks each, but 1/2 the time 1 will be dead and 1/4 of the time both will be, giving an average 1.5 attacks total. (0.5 hits per wave) Better to send 1 fighter and get 2.5 attacks for 75% of the time, giving 2 attacks average (0.67hits). But then the Endeavour can shoot them down with torps, and then you're looking at 0.375 attacks from the remaining bomber. (0.125hits). That's also not including brace saves, and the Endeavour can happily swap from AAF or LO to BFI if neccessary - it doesn't need its firepower until it reaches weapons range.

Why should I send 2 bombers out? I'd just take the risk of getting more attacks in and trying to bomb you out anyway because as you point out, the torps can just take the fighter away. Even with those stats, you are focusing on the pessimistic results and ignoring the optimistic. Sure 1/2 the time 1 will be dead and 1/4 the time both will be but then there's the opposite end of the spectrum where  both are alive and will roll well to get a lot of attack runs.

Yes, you can choose between those orders, fine, and the Defiant can just keep staying away and launching bombers to its heart's content.

This is far less than your supposed 2-3 attacks per bomber (which is a natural 4 and a natural 5 - not average rolls), it's more like 1 attack per marker if you make use of fighter suppression, otherwise it's 0.75.

And shooting the waves will reduce this average further. The Defiant is out of range for the majority of the journey, so it's no great loss of firepower. Considering that the Defiant will only get three attack runs before the Endeavour catches up, and it struggles to do half a hit per attack run,

Sure keep on doing that. If you LO trying to shoot down the bombers, you're not being maneuverable are you? So now my Defiant gets the maneuver room it needs to further stay away. Really you are underestimating AC. And trust me, I am not underestimating gunships which is why I will make max use of the table to stay away from the Endeavor as much as I can. a 6x4 table is huge real estate for a 1 vs 1 battle. You can probably cover a foot and a half per arc which means even on the short side of the table, the Defiant will still have a half a foot either long edge to maneuver out of the the closing Endeavor's clutches if it's coming up the middle.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 05, 2010, 04:08:26 AM
Horizon, the problem is you're still insisting on having 2 prow weapons vs my preference for one. If prow weapons were more focused on one type of weapon system, you wouldn't have to have those puny WB and torp strengths and would not need to have dorsal weaponry included and I would prefer to keep dorsal weaponry on IN and Chaos ships limited to BCs. and HCs.

You design philosophy objection is even flawed with your design. 2 prow weapons on a ship with 6+ armor? This is much more flawed than the lances. Secondly, the design of the Voss is based on an all 5+ design. The 6+ is just how we think the design should have to make it worth taking. If we keep to the existing 5+ I will agree it can take 2 weapon system. If it goes to 6+, then I would say it should only take 1, WBs, lances or torps.

Then you disagree with the Endeavour & Endurance as well. Both have 2 prow weapons both even with the proposed 6+ armour.
So you are saying they need changes too?

I just say the Defiant should be like its sister ships.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 05, 2010, 09:11:15 AM
Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 05, 2010, 06:53:37 PM
The hardpoints are just split in variety, they dont equal more power, Admiral.
Even the cheaper Dauntless carries cruiser level prow with the torp variant.  The Voss patterns just lose a couple torps for weapons batteries.
Put the weapon batteries on the dorsal, like the strike cruiser, if it makes you queezy.  Id prefer that actually, as it helps balance criticals, and it also makes sense that forgeworld light cruisers could have some small dorsal weaponry.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 05, 2010, 07:36:55 PM
Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.
Now I think you're doing apples and oranges. ;)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 05, 2010, 08:20:42 PM
Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.

That's a ridiculous position. I suppose you'd like to pop back in time and tell the admiralty that Nelson class battleships can't have all-prow main weapons, because other battleships of their size and armour don't? The power and location of weapons hardpoints is defined by the class and subtype of vessel, not its battlefield designation.

The attached file is a battle simulation, HA's Proposed Endeavour vs HA's proposed Defiant. Endeavour starts on the on the left, Defiant on the right. Defiant gets first turn:

Defiant heads north, launches 2 bombers (trading power for immunity to torps)
Endeavour goes on AAF, covers 64cm in 2 turns. Gets intercepted in 4th Ordnance Phase, fails to brace, shoots down one bomber, takes 2 attacks, but no hits.
Defiant launches again, and now has a choice - try and do a U-turn, or try and escape along the top border.
Endeavour turns north to intercept, and goes AAF. After turning west, Defiant also goes AAF, in an attempt to take advantage of the Endeavour slightly overextending itself.
Endeavour is intercepted by AC a second time. Its turrets fail to down a bomber, they get 4 attack runs, and score 1 hit. Endeavour comes to new heading, and positions itself on the tail of the Defiant.
Defiant launches again, now in nearly shotgun range, but Endeavour's turrets shoot down the entire wave.
Endeavour fires back with 4 torps, 1 shot down, 1 hit.

Endeavour is now in a perfect position, able to fire a full broadside at Defiant, with no lances in return because the defiant moves on. In addition, the Endeavour can fire torps into the Defiant's path, which are twice as damaging as Defiant's bombers, forcing it to retain fighters on CAP - stripping it of any offensive ability. If Defiant turns to bring its lances to bear, its lances only have a 1/4 chance of getting past the shields, and invite a Lock On from Endeavour. It can't get away, because blast markers in contact slow it down.

Defiant is rapidly crippled, boarded, and captured. The End.

This scenario is not significantly changed with 5+ Prows, 90' turns, the Defiant doing U-turn instead, or Celestial Phenomena.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 05, 2010, 08:23:44 PM
Really wish Flybywire would come back and comment :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 05, 2010, 08:25:10 PM
Me too! It's been a bit of an HA free zone around her the last week and a bit. Could do with some input.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on November 05, 2010, 08:44:09 PM
RC, I don't think your conclusion is accurate after the point the plotted positions end. After that point, the defiant can go AAF to increase the distance between and if the endeavour follows it can't reload torpedoes if it doesn't, the defiant will only face the s2 battery fire on the prow and be forced to intercept the torpedo wave or the endeavor will need to turn away to bring the broadsides to bear if the defiant can't pull enough speed with the AAF to get out of weapons range.

Of course, I'd argue that the defiant should try to control the point where both pass to AAF past while forcing the endeavour to CTNH or burn retros. In any event, most any SO will work to reduce the firepower as they pass and limit the damage to the defiant. To be honest, such debates really aren't practical since one side will always point out what they would have done to ensure the desired outcome :)

Final note, you aren't assuming standard table size or any celestial phenomena?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 05, 2010, 08:55:54 PM
It's a 6ft by 4ft table, with the ships starting a maximum distance apart. Celestial Phenomenon don't change much, because if you're in weapons range anyway, you just follow the ship around, and if you aren't, then it's a rare phenomenon you can't intercept on the other side of.

Note that the Defiant DID force CTNH, and the Endeavour still got into firing position. After that, the Defiant can AAF all it likes once the Endeavour is in pursuit - but the Endeavour can just do the same and nothing will change. 2WB is better than none, and the odd blast marker will mean the Endeavour steadily gains. The Defiant can't attack, because it needs its cap, and eventually, they'll come to a corner, where the pursuer will be able to plot a shorter course and again get into optimum firing position.

The Defiant is even weaker in a fleet situation, where it is forced to stand and fight to support the other ships.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 06, 2010, 10:24:18 PM
Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.
Now I think you're doing apples and oranges. ;)

Why would it be apples and oranges?
1. We all want the Voss LCs to get 6+ prow.
2. IN 6+ prow ships only have one weapon.
3. If the Voss LCs get the 6+ prow, then they should also have only one weapon.
4. If a mere LC can get 2 weapons and still have a 6+ prow then I want my regular cruisers to get another weapon other than prow torps.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 06, 2010, 10:31:31 PM
That's a ridiculous position. I suppose you'd like to pop back in time and tell the admiralty that Nelson class battleships can't have all-prow main weapons, because other battleships of their size and armour don't? The power and location of weapons hardpoints is defined by the class and subtype of vessel, not its battlefield designation.

Who cares about real life battleships? What's important is what's available in the game. The proposal was to give the Voss LCs 6+ prow which I agree is needed. However, I also believe if that happens, the number of weapon systems on the prow should be downgraded to 1 because if one could have two prow weapons, wouldn't the regular cruisers have them instead of a mere LC? So while yes, it is a ridiculous proposition, it is more ridiculous to maintain it on an LC if the 6+ prow was approved.

The attached file is a battle simulation, HA's Proposed Endeavour vs HA's proposed Defiant. Endeavour starts on the on the left, Defiant on the right. Defiant gets first turn:

Defiant heads north, launches 2 bombers (trading power for immunity to torps)
Endeavour goes on AAF, covers 64cm in 2 turns. Gets intercepted in 4th Ordnance Phase, fails to brace, shoots down one bomber, takes 2 attacks, but no hits.
Defiant launches again, and now has a choice - try and do a U-turn, or try and escape along the top border.
Endeavour turns north to intercept, and goes AAF. After turning west, Defiant also goes AAF, in an attempt to take advantage of the Endeavour slightly overextending itself.
Endeavour is intercepted by AC a second time. Its turrets fail to down a bomber, they get 4 attack runs, and score 1 hit. Endeavour comes to new heading, and positions itself on the tail of the Defiant.
Defiant launches again, now in nearly shotgun range, but Endeavour's turrets shoot down the entire wave.
Endeavour fires back with 4 torps, 1 shot down, 1 hit.

Endeavour is now in a perfect position, able to fire a full broadside at Defiant, with no lances in return because the defiant moves on. In addition, the Endeavour can fire torps into the Defiant's path, which are twice as damaging as Defiant's bombers, forcing it to retain fighters on CAP - stripping it of any offensive ability. If Defiant turns to bring its lances to bear, its lances only have a 1/4 chance of getting past the shields, and invite a Lock On from Endeavour. It can't get away, because blast markers in contact slow it down.

Defiant is rapidly crippled, boarded, and captured. The End.

This scenario is not significantly changed with 5+ Prows, 90' turns, the Defiant doing U-turn instead, or Celestial Phenomena.

Wow how nice it is to see a battle report with no distances involved and I don't even know what the celestial phenomena is even with your last reply to Vaaish. Really, your bias against the Defiant is showing. Play the Defiant smartly.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 06, 2010, 10:57:08 PM
Look at the illustration provided then.  

"All Imperial Ships with 6+ prow have only 1 prow weapon."

So what? The Voss ships are differently engineered. That's an entirely arbitrary and ridiculous restriction, because they require their multiple prow weapons to function.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 08, 2010, 09:15:56 PM
Me too! It's been a bit of an HA free zone around her the last week and a bit. Could do with some input.

Sorry, I've been out of town last week. Bob and I both were on separate business trips, and we wrapped it up by meeting at his home town for a few days to play, drink coffee and hash out rules. A half-hour of talking over coffee with books spread out around you beats two weeks of e-mail tag hands down.

Actually, this exchange about the Voss CL's is doing just fine without our input. It's the arguments for or against something that help us decide which way is the right way to go and which way isn't. Now, the Voss CL's are fundamentally different from the Mars-pattern vessels, which were incorporated by Cypra Mundi beginning about M37 when it was determined their own-pattern warships relied on ancient technology that was difficult to maintain, subject to warp taint in a lot of circumstances and in sum were no longer viable. This doesn't mean they weren't in use at all- many of these vessels remained in service right up to the 12th Black Crusade, when a disproportonately large number (though not all by far) went renegade, bringing up the possibility that they were flawed and hastening their decommissioning in favor of the newer Mars-pattern designs. 

From a model profile standpoint, the Voss is simply too different in layout and mission profile to say it compares to the Mars-type cruiser hulls. Having 6+ armor does not in and of itself demand that the ships have only one weapon system.  Letting these ships take 6+ armor as an option (as opposed to a fundamental requirement on the larger ships) in itself refletcs the fundamental difference in design. Voss is purposely and by intention as different from Mars-pattern ships as Chaos ships are, keeping in mind that until relatively recently, Chaos ships were (and in some cases still ARE!) Imperial ships.

I've read the arguments about the Defiant, I've seen the clever graphics, and I really admire the passion the players here exhibit concerning their positions. As with everything else, we are NOT going to make everyone happy. The tweaks incorporated into the Voss CL's were the easiest way to make them useful and congruent without going back to the drawing board or breaking what's in Armada. Despite the vociferous arguments going back and forth, I haven't seen or heard anything  to make me believe what we did to these ships doesn't appear to fix 90% of their problems, keeping in mind we are never going to achieve 100% with anything we do to this game system.

Set fluff aside, put down your calculators, put your models on the table and HAVE FUN!!

- Nate
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 08, 2010, 09:44:19 PM
Look at the illustration provided then.  

"All Imperial Ships with 6+ prow have only 1 prow weapon."

So what? The Voss ships are differently engineered. That's an entirely arbitrary and ridiculous restriction, because they require their multiple prow weapons to function.

That's because they had 5+ prows then. If they get 6+ prows, they should get only one. Sorry but regular cruiser sized ships should have more space to insert multiple weapons than smaller sized ones on the prow.

It's not a problem with the illustration. It's the bias you have that the Defiant has no way of winning against the Defiant.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 08, 2010, 09:51:31 PM
From a model profile standpoint, the Voss is simply too different in layout and mission profile to say it compares to the Mars-type cruiser hulls. Having 6+ armor does not in and of itself demand that the ships have only one weapon system.  Letting these ships take 6+ armor as an option (as opposed to a fundamental requirement on the larger ships) in itself refletcs the fundamental difference in design. Voss is purposely and by intention as different from Mars-pattern ships as Chaos ships are, keeping in mind that until relatively recently, Chaos ships were (and in some cases still ARE!) Imperial ships.

- Nate


Even if there are differences in the design, I seriously doubt you can put 2 prow weapons on a 6+ prow ship. The Dauntless even looks like it has a bigger prow than the Endeavors.

Even for the sake of argument that you can put 2 prow weapons on a 6+ prow ship, what you are doing is limiting the effectiveness of the prow weapon by keepiing the Str low. In which case, I would prefer it keep one prow weapon if I can just bump up the Str to regular levels like 6 torps instead of 2 or WB 5. As it is, FP2 WB plus Str 2 torps are puny. I

f you don't like to redesign then introduce this as an option. I know what I would choose given the options.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 08, 2010, 09:58:36 PM
Orks 6+ prows two weapon systems.
Marines 6+ allround, two weapon systems.

So...

Voss is different. Can have 2 small prow weapons. 1 big or 2 small (special order conflicting ones).
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 08, 2010, 11:39:32 PM
I don't see why the weapon batteries just cant go on the dorsal.  Spreads things out nicely for crits, and just makes alot more sense.  And theres more precedent for it.


Nate, please explain to the need for 45* turns if a 6+ prow.  I don't understand the need to nerf the turning ability.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 09, 2010, 12:53:33 AM
I don't see why the weapon batteries just cant go on the dorsal.  Spreads things out nicely for crits, and just makes alot more sense.  And theres more precedent for it.


Nate, please explain to the need for 45* turns if a 6+ prow.  I don't understand the need to nerf the turning ability.

Voss cruisers don't have the engine power of a Dauntless. if you beef up the prow, the extra armor makes it clumsier to turn. That's why it's an option.

Speaking of Dauntless, no they are in no way getting changed period. I'm just saying.  :)

- Nate
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 09, 2010, 12:56:51 AM
Now that the Voss is for the most part sorted, here's a new argument: should the Vengeance GC variants (both Chaos and Imps) get 6 prow torps as an option?

If taken, it will be expensive, and it abrogates the free prow crit. However, it can then take an exterminatus weapon for the same cost if desired.

As the Vengeance GC's don't have a 6+ prow (and are NOT getting them), no they CANNOT have a Nova Cannon!!

Well, there it is. Thoughts?

- Nate
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 09, 2010, 01:18:06 AM
I don't mean in a technical sense, I mean what imbalanced them when you tested 6+ armor and 90* that caused you to think it wouldnt be practical.  Cuz I dont see it.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on November 09, 2010, 06:13:57 AM
it would make a lot of sense if they had torps - as it is, GC's are sweetest because their cheap (relative).
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on November 09, 2010, 06:50:44 AM
Carrying over from the Chaos thread, I don't mind seeing the vengeance and her cousins get the option for a prow weapon, but I do not want to see it standard and I do not want to see a price increase on the base model. I very much like them as they stand and I've never felt that they needed the prow weapons with their 5+ armor and heavy broadside offerings. In fact I rarely leave home without two Vengeance in my fleet and I'm planning on adding an exorcist sometime soon.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 09, 2010, 08:00:12 AM
Me too! It's been a bit of an HA free zone around her the last week and a bit. Could do with some input.
I haven't seen or heard anything  to make me believe what we did to these ships doesn't appear to fix 90% of their problems, keeping in mind we are never going to achieve 100% with anything we do to this game system.

Can you confirm what the changes are? 6+ Prow option and S4 Torps(except Defiant)?

I do agree that fixes 100% of any problems with Endeavour and 90% of the problems with Endurance, but it does next to nothing for Defiant, which was always the worst of the options, which still has the following problems:

#1. It can't be used as an easy stop gap for a lack of AC unless the fleet already includes an Endeavour - extremely high opportunity cost.
#2. Very little incentive to risk a RO order on it for only 2AC.
#3. Very weak compared to the other variants.

Endurance shares #1, but it's not so much a problem as it's a gunship. Why can the restriction not be points-tied instead?

Secondly, As you are going to have to re-write all the profiles anyway to insert the 6+ prow option, why not also give the Defiant S4 Torps whilst you're at it and make it similar to its brethren? OK, that could be construed as slightly too strong, but it is currently 10pts more, and we have also been advocating  a drop to S4WBs.

Why is this not an option? Particularly points restriction, rather than ship restriction?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 09, 2010, 09:42:16 AM
Now that the Voss is for the most part sorted, here's a new argument: should the Vengeance GC variants (both Chaos and Imps) get 6 prow torps as an option?

- Nate

Better if they get them as standard and not as an option.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 09, 2010, 09:43:47 AM
I'm more with Vaaish.

Not standard but an option.

About the Vengeance prow torpedo idea that is.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 09, 2010, 10:17:18 AM
I just checked the math now using Smotherman. I am getting the Vengeance at 243, the Exorcist is at 211, the Avenger at 133, Executor at 225 and the Retaliator at 239. Now granted the Smotherman Formula is just a guide but there is a huge discrepancy with the Avenger.

Edit: Sorry redid the math.

I think there should be some rebalancing done with the Vengeance and their variants' costing. The Repulsive's cost comes out quite spot on.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 09, 2010, 11:04:33 AM
Voss cruisers don't have the engine power of a Dauntless. if you beef up the prow, the extra armor makes it clumsier to turn. That's why it's an option.

What? Since when don't they have the engine power of the Dauntless? Because they've only got 20cm speed? This was an incongruity that the addition of the 6+ prow rationalised. To further penalise the ship again is just silly.

Here are the issues at play:

For the above 4 issues there is one very simple fix. Give them 6+ prows. No other change. This fixes the balance issue, allows them to function in the line, explains why they're slower than a Dauntless (extra mass of the armour) and also explains why they were made. That is, with their extra manoeuvrability they can cover holes in the line.

Really simple small change fixes all their problems. I don't get why we're even considering making it an either/or between the armour and turn rate. They're already being penalised by virtue of the 20cm speed (and slower AAF) compared to their nearest analogue, the Dauntless. Yes, they're heavier than a Dauntless, due to the armour, but they're also lighter than a full cruiser too. Why can't their movement stats sit in between the two?

To then further complicate the issue by adding extra torps to balance the loss of the turn rate seems silly. I've always seen the torps as an incidental weapon, to be reloaded when convenient and useful to clear enemy ordnance, take potshots at enemy escorts or bolster the strength of any other cruisers torps if in squadron. Its main weaponry has always been its broadsides.

Of the 4 afore mentioned issues the "armour for manoeuvrability option + extra torps" proposal only addresses the first.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 09, 2010, 12:23:48 PM
Sig, what about the Defiant?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 09, 2010, 12:32:22 PM
Sig, what about the Defiant?

Well I think that it's fairly clear that there are some problems with the Defiant that are a good deal harder to fix. To me a good fix would be to highlight its entry in Armada and press delete. Either way, before tackling any fixes to this ship we'd have to know what the profile of the Endeavour/Endurance would be.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 09, 2010, 07:23:17 PM
I think 'auto pass RO' would go a long way in helping the Defiant, and it makes perfect fluff sense, SO MUCH ROOM! :p

I'd just like to see a clear answer to the suggestions/arguments that were brought up in the last 5 or so posts, as that about sums up the concerns.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 09, 2010, 07:55:11 PM
Defiant definitely needs help, but I can see the point in waiting to see what happens with the other too first - Defiant DEFINITELY needs more work than the other two.

#1. Remove the link between Defiant/Endurance and Endeavour - Point restrict instead.

Such an important change, I'm going to keep on stating it.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 12, 2010, 11:37:07 PM
Just in case the HA is thinking about adding a Gothic Battlecruiser, here's one I made before with accompanying fluff:

Conqueror class battlecruiser………………………………………………220 pts.

Type/Hits: Cruiser/8
Speed: 20 cm
Turn: 45'
Shields: 2
Turrets: 2
Armor: 6+/5+

Armament:         FP/Str      Range      Fire Arc
Dorsal Lance Battery      2      60 cm      L/F/R
Port Lance Battery      4      30 cm      Left
Starboard Lance Battery   4      30 cm      Right
Prow Torpedoes      6      30 cm      Front
Prow Power Ram      1      -      Front

Famous Ships:

Intercessor’s Faith   Judicious


History:

The Conqueror class battlecruiser was the outcome of the rumors of the impending demise of the Gothic class cruiser. The Gothics had sadly proven ineffective against its opponents, especially the Eldar, thus circulation of news that the entire class was about to be decommissioned. They had actually fallen in priority when it came to repairs and/or recommissionings. One captain, however, still believed in the Gothics and actually proposed to upgrade them instead to battlecruiser status like what the Armageddons are to the Lunars. Captain Milech Roderiguez managed to get permission to upgrade his cruiser, the Sachsenwald, to prove that there is still a place for the all lance warship in the Emperor’s fleet. After three years of modifications, delays and sabotage and  despite the misgivings of the Adeptus Mechanicus because of their experience with the Acheron, the lead ship in a new class of battlecruiser emerged. The Intercessor’s Faith entered the Imperial roster and began her trials. Much to the disappointment of Captain Roderiguez, the conversion was not a total success. While the dorsal lances performed to specification, the port and starboard lances’ range was not capable of being extended. This was due to the enormous power required by lances to function. Even though it was not a total success, Captain Roderiguez was satisfied that with the modifications, the life of the fated Gothics could still be extended further.


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 13, 2010, 12:22:00 AM
Pricey.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 13, 2010, 12:26:27 AM
Yep. It is lance heavy. Ideally should only be 200. But then, the Dictator would take a hit if I kept the price at 200.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eudaimon on November 13, 2010, 12:53:39 AM
I would like to play a cruiser with launch bays and lances. Would it break IN concept?
Maybe it'll remain only a desire, but I meant something like a 2 launch bays and 2 lances (30 cm) per broadside.
There would be the problem of the prow weapon ("no torpedoes on a ship with launch bays!"), maybe we can place a Nova Cannon (even if I don't like them, but IN in this question doesn't offer choice)


Type/Hits: Cruiser/8
Speed: 20 cm
Turn: 45'
Shields: 2
Turrets: 2
Armor: 6+/5+


Armament:                    FP/Str      Range        Fire Arc
Port Lance Battery           2           30 cm         Left
Starboard Lance Battery    2           30 cm        Right
Port Launch Bay               2                           Left
Starboard Launch Bay       2                            Right
Prow Nova Cannon           1         30-150 cm     Front


230 point for not to enter in competition with the Dictator (not too much hovever).
Change the point as you want.

I forgot the name: Gaia Class    ;D
Pure support and in conflict with every order you can give to her   :D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 13, 2010, 07:42:40 PM
Concept has been done many times. Jovian iirc, Dominion in Book of Nemesis iirc.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 16, 2010, 10:00:43 PM
I wonder if the HA ever plans to address its logic in limiting the Voss patterns to a 45* if 6+ prow armor :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 23, 2010, 03:59:21 AM
Hi all! The following two items were added to the Battlefleet Gothic Repository:

1.      Eldar Domains and Refits (20101122).pdf

All I did here is correct some formatting and spelling errors, and I made a minor tweak to the wording of the Repulsor Field rules. It’s actually a major tweak in that it’s not called that anymore, but in game-rule terms the adjustment is actually very small. All I did was take two pre-existing Eldar refits and incorporate it into the Haven to replace the Repulsor Field so that it uses pre-existing mechanics instead of something completely new and totally unique to just this model. The critical chart also reflects this change.


2.     Inquisition DRAFT v1.0.pdf

This is a completely new file, yet something else to incorporate the last missing component to an Imperial force in BFG. There’s two new ships: the Inquisition Blackship and an Inquisitorial cruiser. I expect there will be some surprises here, and this is intentional. I am really surprised how often Blackships are misrepresented from what they actually represent in the WH40k storyline, but this is clarified in this document, the Grey Knights are fleshed out a bit and a LOT of background has been added concerning the Inquisition as a whole.


Files in the repository can be seen and downloaded from here:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q 

Smile, game on and enjoy!

-   Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on November 23, 2010, 04:25:06 AM
To 'fix' Defiant, I'd give it +5 speed and ditch the Endeavor requirement. 

As far as my requests:

Bring Exorcist into line as IN's answer to Styx.  (+1LB P/S, +40pts)

Long Serpent and Invincible would be my first choices to be added.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 23, 2010, 11:28:06 AM
To bring up the subject of the Voss CLs again, this is what I would find ideal:

Endeavour   120pts
Hits6 Shields1 Speed20 Turns90 Armour6+/5+ Turrets2
Port/SB WBs FP6 R30 L/R
Prow Torps S4 S30 F
Prow WBs FP2 R30 F/L/R

Endurance  120pts
Hits6 Shields1 Speed20 Turns90 Armour6+/5+ Turrets2
Port/SB Lances S2 R30 L/R
Prow Torps S4 S30 F
Prow WBs FP2 R30 F/L/R

Defiant  130pts
Hits6 Shields1 Speed20 Turns90 Armour6+/5+ Turrets2
Port/SB LBs S2 -  -
Prow Torps S4 S30 F
Prow WBs FP2 R30 F/L/R
Dorsal WBs FP2 R30 F/L/R

Restrictions: Due to rarity, combined Defiant/Endurances may not exceed 1 per 500pts or part thereof.

Note: I'm willing to compromise on the 6+ Prow/90' turns issue. I'd also still call the Defiant underpowered, but at least it would be a reasonable choice in an otherwise all-gun fleet to provide a little bit of CAP.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 12:54:40 PM
Love it, its nearly perfect.  I'd still list the Defiant as a 120 point ship though, as its missing half a hardpoint, as has been noted.

Assuming the +1 to boarding is included.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 01:03:50 PM
Okay, proposal:
Since Nate has made clear that stats as been cannot be changed (why? bugger! They should!) I propose the following battleship for the Imperial Navy.

A new design to replace to poor performing Retribution :


Revolution Class Battleship
345 points

12 hits
6+/5+ armour
speed 20cm
turns 45*
turrets 4
shields 4

port weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - L
starboard weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - R
dorsal lance battery strenght 3 @ 60cm - LFR
prow torpedoes strength 9 @ 30cm speed

As a model the Retribution model is perfect.

<grin>
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 23, 2010, 01:08:21 PM
Evil! I like. :D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 23, 2010, 02:01:13 PM
Heh.  ;D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 23, 2010, 02:13:12 PM
So, if we're going to be finickety:

Defiance Class Light Cruiser!

Voss Variant,

130pts
Hits6 Shields1 Speed20 Turns90 Armour 6+/5+ Turrets 2
Port/SB LBs S2 - -
Prow Torps S4 30cm F
Prow WBs FP2 30cm F/L/R
Dorsal WBs FP2 30cm F/L/R

Easy to defend vs boarding.
Restriction: Rare variant, combined Defiant, Defiance & Endurance may not exceed 1 per 500pts.

Fluff: The Defiant was found to be rubbish, so production at Voss was switched to Defiances instead.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 23, 2010, 02:18:21 PM
Note that the above is firmly tongue in cheek, but it is ridiculous that we're having to come up with new variants to do the job the old ones should be doing but aren't, simply because the HAs are refusing to entertain any sort of profile creep, even for the ships that really need it.

(Overlord, Defiant, Retribution)

It must be hard to be an HA, I haven't seen anything but criticism recently. I do appreciate their efforts in keeping BFG going, even if I do disagree with a lot of their decisions!
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 02:19:36 PM
<3

Except I really do think 130 is too much.  Maybe its just defiant syndrome ^^

(Don't forget Tyrant, but you can gaurantee I won't follow the rules if they suck, though i do as much as possible)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 02:50:30 PM
130pts is good enough for that vessel (Defiance/Defiant).


As for HA criticism.... hey I gave my halleluyah on Marine & Tau development. Plus the Haven. :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 03:21:54 PM
Is this the time for Admech discussion, with the new LC profiles? 

My first thought was 'well, torps doubled, so replacement lances double!'  but no, thats OP.
Then it hit me.  'Admech light cruisers with torpedos may replace torpedos for one 60cm l/r/f lance.'
Its perfect, fits the other 60cm lances, and I'd have to think hard before losing 4 torps for it :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 23, 2010, 03:36:26 PM
Sounds good to me!
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 07:29:42 PM
If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.

That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: fracas on November 23, 2010, 08:54:31 PM
Okay, proposal:
Since Nate has made clear that stats as been cannot be changed (why? bugger! They should!) I propose the following battleship for the Imperial Navy.

A new design to replace to poor performing Retribution :


Revolution Class Battleship
345 points

12 hits
6+/5+ armour
speed 20cm
turns 45*
turrets 4
shields 4

port weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - L
starboard weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - R
dorsal lance battery strenght 3 @ 60cm - LFR
prow torpedoes strength 9 @ 30cm speed

As a model the Retribution model is perfect.

<grin>

i like this but rather have it as an option to the ret rather than a completely different ship
for instance:
instead of 60cm batteries, refit allows the ret to increase its firepower but at the cost of reduced maximum range

or allow the ret to take a targetting matrix ala the mars
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on November 23, 2010, 10:38:37 PM
Okay, proposal:
Since Nate has made clear that stats as been cannot be changed (why? bugger! They should!) I propose the following battleship for the Imperial Navy.

He's a thought: cant we create a new rule for them that we could 'buy' the new stat lines?  (Such as the left shift for Mars or the NC for lunars?)  This doesn't alter the stats, per se, it just adds a new 'upgrade' as was done for the SM SCs.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 12:28:17 AM
One little thing to maybe consider is giving the Endurance a small buff and switching the prow batteries with one lance.  Never liked its low damage output, or had any intentions of ever taking one over the endevour, so at least it could have some armor punching capability.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 24, 2010, 02:24:59 AM
i like this but rather have it as an option to the ret rather than a completely different ship
for instance:
instead of 60cm batteries, refit allows the ret to increase its firepower but at the cost of reduced maximum range

or allow the ret to take a targetting matrix ala the mars

Woosh!
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 24, 2010, 01:06:48 PM
One little thing to maybe consider is giving the Endurance a small buff and switching the prow batteries with one lance.  Never liked its low damage output, or had any intentions of ever taking one over the endevour, so at least it could have some armor punching capability.

The AM version of the Endurance lets you do exactly that in the current online rules.

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 24, 2010, 01:16:54 PM
Okay, proposal:
Since Nate has made clear that stats as been cannot be changed (why? bugger! They should!) I propose the following battleship for the Imperial Navy.

A new design to replace to poor performing Retribution :


Revolution Class Battleship
345 points

12 hits
6+/5+ armour
speed 20cm
turns 45*
turrets 4
shields 4

port weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - L
starboard weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - R
dorsal lance battery strenght 3 @ 60cm - LFR
prow torpedoes strength 9 @ 30cm speed

As a model the Retribution model is perfect.

<grin>

If you like big guns, I like Bob DeAngelis's idea even better:

Empress Battleship (what he called it)

12 hits
5+ armour
speed 15cm
turns 45*
turrets 5
shields 4

port weapons battery strength 12 @ 45cm - L
starboard weapons battery strength 12 @ 45cm - R
dorsal weapons battery strength 5@ 60cm - LFR
prow weapons battery strength 5@ 60cm - LFR

It's ancient, slow, clunky... and kills ANYTHING!    ;D

You ask me, its as fluff-true an Imperial battleship as there ever was. BTW- Revolution sounds to Chaos-y. The very word evokes images of Commisars looking for someone to shoot at.

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 01:23:09 PM
Jee Nate! Talk about missing the point...

http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1979.0

We (a lot) want the Retribution like I propose in the Revolution design.
Thus we want a Retribution NOT with 60cm str12 batteries but with 45cm str18 batteries.

:)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 24, 2010, 01:33:32 PM
Indeed! Completely missed the point. Not a fan at all. It's slow and weak on the prow, preventing it closing, and doesn't even outgun a Retribution. (3L at 60cm worth more than 10WB at 45) On the Beam, it isn't even a match for an Oberon, even without considering the AC. The Empress would be utterly obsolete and I'd expect it to cost sub 300pts.

What you've proposed is a cheap escort-BB that probably has to sit with the Carriers, has difficulty getting into the heart of an enemy fleet, and wouldn't know what to do when it got there.

What we want is a Retribution with FP18@45cm Broadsides and 3 Dorsal Lances, a BB that can charge in with the cruisers and brutalise everything around it. Return it to 365pts, we don't care. But it has to have more menace.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 24, 2010, 01:54:14 PM
If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.

That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/

CL's are NOT getting a 60cm lance. However, the AdMech rules do have a screw-up that IS getting fixed in the FAQ. According to the AM rules, the Endeavor/Endurance can trade their prow torps for a single 30cm L/F/R lance. That is rubbish, is not WYSIWYG to the model and does NOT match what we wrote. Here's what should have happened:

AdMech Voss CL's (ALL of them) can purchase one 30cm L/F/R dorsal lance for +10 points.

Speaking of the Voss CL's, I figure I should warn everyone now. the Voss CL's have been discussed at length, and to be honest they have been the biggest hang-up for why the FAQ has been taking so long (once again, right is more important than fast). The consensus is that rather than effect major changes to the profiles of these ships that may have unintended consequences later on, the profiles themselves will remain unchanged.

Boo! Hiss!  ??? >:( :'( Yes, I get it.

Can they be better? Yes, but their basic profiles are not inherently broken. That being said, some of their rules ARE broken, and this is what we are fixing:

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 02:01:16 PM
If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.

That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/

CL's are NOT getting a 60cm lance. However, the AdMech rules do have a screw-up that IS getting fixed in the FAQ. According to the AM rules, the Endeavor/Endurance can trade their prow torps for a single 30cm L/F/R lance. That is rubbish, is not WYSIWYG to the model and does NOT match what we wrote. Here's what should have happened:

AdMech Voss CL's (ALL of them) can purchase one 30cm L/F/R dorsal lance for +10 points.
Aside of the "standard" Voss CL changes I am shocked by above. Very!

Almost every AdMech player I know takes the lance instead of torps.
Everyone who does has modelled their Voss AdMech CL with a dorsal lance on top. I have.
The AdMech prow in fact: does not have torp slits like standard IN prow... (sensor array would make more sense).

140pts (130+10) for such a little bugger.... naaah. :/

A pledge to NOT FAQ this mentioned AdMech change.

This is a boo - hiss.


:)


Personally the voss should've been seperated from the FAQ anyway.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 24, 2010, 02:03:35 PM
What possible unintended consequences could have happened from just adding a 6+ prow to them for no other change?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 24, 2010, 02:10:25 PM
There is still no explanation as to why these CLs are so slow. Either justify the sluggish speed by giving it extra armour or just give them +5cm speed. They'd be crap, but at least it would be consistent.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 24, 2010, 02:18:19 PM
I have to agree with Sig. What possibly unintended consequences could there be? They get a buff and people take more of them?

Anyway, if they're holding up the FAQ, then leave them as is for now and come back later. I can always houserule them in the meantime.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 24, 2010, 02:20:15 PM
Jee Nate! Talk about missing the point...

http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1979.0

We (a lot) want the Retribution like I propose in the Revolution design.
Thus we want a Retribution NOT with 60cm str12 batteries but with 45cm str18 batteries.

:)

Hi Horizon! No, I didn't miss the point. I was just ruminating on a ship I happen to like, not anything we're talking about making official.

A lot of people hate the Retribution, not because its broken, but because they want something shootier. What was broken about the Retribution was the price- there's no way it was worth the original price for what it brought to the table, and EVERYONE agreed the original Emperor price was way under-cost, which is why their costs were swapped. For what it does and its present cost, the Retribution is an excellent ship and themeful for the Imperial fleet.

Can we look at a shootier, shorter-ranged Retribution? Of course. Keep in mind that we're starting with ships that are already well play-tested like the Victory, but nothing's out of the question.

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 24, 2010, 02:29:29 PM
I have to agree with Sig. What possibly unintended consequences could there be? They get a buff and people take more of them?

Anyway, if they're holding up the FAQ, then leave them as is for now and come back later. I can always houserule them in the meantime.

"getting a buff" is the biggest problem we're seeing as we go through this process. With the exception of ONLY the Devastation (which is already ridiculously under-costed), every suggestion for ships in the current rules is for some kind of profile improvement. If we take this kind of up-creep on-board, down the line the trend will be to compensate by up-creeping the ships that get left behind by the changes, and it becomes a never-ending cycle, which is the biggest problem with WH40k today.

The Voss CL's needed a tweak. We took it on board, and the Voss CL's are improved: for no profile change, they are now cheaper. Incidentally, this price change (-10 points across the board) will apply to their AdMech variants as well.

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 02:37:37 PM
"getting a buff" is the biggest problem we're seeing as we go through this process. With the exception of ONLY the Devastation (which is already ridiculously under-costed), every suggestion for ships in the current rules is for some kind of profile improvement. If we take this kind of up-creep on-board, down the line the trend will be to compensate by up-creeping the ships that get left behind by the changes, and it becomes a never-ending cycle, which is the biggest problem with WH40k today.

Hmmm.

Necron Scythe/Tombship could need a slight downscale in strength.
Corsair Eldar (when keeping current rules) : point raise for Nightshades/Hemlocks needed.
Orks need upscaling (escorts)
Marines got an upscaling (needed) draft2010
Tau FW got a design change (horizontal scaling ;) ).
DE per current rules no adjustement needed tbh.
Chaos Devestation downscaling
Nids got a downscaling in FAQ2010 (sort of, the evolution note).





If up"creeping" is needed to make every ship a worthy choice then what is the problem?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 24, 2010, 02:40:19 PM
If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.

That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/

CL's are NOT getting a 60cm lance. However, the AdMech rules do have a screw-up that IS getting fixed in the FAQ. According to the AM rules, the Endeavor/Endurance can trade their prow torps for a single 30cm L/F/R lance. That is rubbish, is not WYSIWYG to the model and does NOT match what we wrote. Here's what should have happened:

AdMech Voss CL's (ALL of them) can purchase one 30cm L/F/R dorsal lance for +10 points.
Aside of the "standard" Voss CL changes I am shocked by above. Very!

Almost every AdMech player I know takes the lance instead of torps.
Everyone who does has modelled their Voss AdMech CL with a dorsal lance on top. I have.
The AdMech prow in fact: does not have torp slits like standard IN prow... (sensor array would make more sense).

140pts (130+10) for such a little bugger.... naaah. :/

A pledge to NOT FAQ this mentioned AdMech change.

This is a boo - hiss.


:)


Personally the voss should've been seperated from the FAQ anyway.

Keep in mind that the -10 point price change applies to AdMech vessels as well. Also, their increased base cost is NOT because of the dorsal lance option; it is for the +1 turret and Omnissiah's Gift benefit, which are rolled into their point cost before taking any additional improvements. When taken into account, that certainly does make the AdMech Endeavor worth 125 points.

Personally, I don't like it- the Voss CL's were supposed to have this as an "addition to" as opposed to a "free instead of." However, its far easier to leave well enough alone if the fans want it. Thoughts?

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on November 24, 2010, 03:41:31 PM
Eh, like I said: make the improved stats something you have to buy with increased point cost like all the other upgrades.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 24, 2010, 03:51:53 PM
  • The Endurance/Defiant will be unhinged from the Endeavor and instead be limited to a TOTAL of two per 500 points (not two each).
Thanks for this, but it needs to be more tightly worded.
Is that 2 per 500pts or part thereof? Eg 4 Max Endurances in a 750pt fleet?
2 per full 500pts? 1 per full 250pts? Or 1 per part 250pts?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on November 24, 2010, 04:11:06 PM
I'm a little annoyed that the endeavour series gets 6+ prow at the cost of 90' turns. Since you are reducing the cost of the ships, can we not get the option for 6+ prows for +10 points and retain the 90' turns?

I don't mind the Endurance and Defiant solutions.

I'm a little perplexed by the Admech change. The free lance swap fits nicely with the rest of the fleet. Since they are light cruisers, having a 60cm lance like other admech cruisers is too much, but swapping torpedoes for a 30cm lance has never felt overpowered and felt flavorful in the most advanced Imperium fleet. This does balance out with the -10 point cost reduction the CL so that taking the lance will end up costing the same as it does now and boosts the CL since they aren't giving up torpedoes to take the lance, but it makes me wonder at bothering at all. Why not just leave the admech costs as is and let the swap the lance for free?

It just feels weird to have a CL with broadside, dorsal, and 3 prow weapons
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 24, 2010, 05:31:52 PM
I'm a little annoyed that the endeavour series gets 6+ prow at the cost of 90' turns. Since you are reducing the cost of the ships, can we not get the option for 6+ prows for +10 points and retain the 90' turns?

I don't mind the Endurance and Defiant solutions.


I know players want more from these ships, but they by intent simply were not designed to offer that to the Imperial fleet. To be honest, we wouldn't be offering any of this at all except that it fits the actual models that were produced quite well. To be honest, the only reason broadside-strong CL's need this at all is to give them a chance to close with the enemy prow on before swinging their guns around. That is the ONLY reason this is even being entertained, and the longest part of the discussion was to drop the price and change NOTHING as opposed to even offering the up-armored prow as an option at all.

Quote

I'm a little perplexed by the Admech change. The free lance swap fits nicely with the rest of the fleet. Since they are light cruisers, having a 60cm lance like other admech cruisers is too much, but swapping torpedoes for a 30cm lance has never felt overpowered and felt flavorful in the most advanced Imperium fleet. This does balance out with the -10 point cost reduction the CL so that taking the lance will end up costing the same as it does now and boosts the CL since they aren't giving up torpedoes to take the lance, but it makes me wonder at bothering at all. Why not just leave the admech costs as is and let the swap the lance for free?

It just feels weird to have a CL with broadside, dorsal, and 3 prow weapons

That's two votes against. Contrary to public opinion, the HA's are not just crafting things willy-nilly. Because this is already in print and isn't broken in and of itself, this will remain as-is if enough people want it to remain so (meaning against changing it).   <pouts>

- Nate

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 07:34:28 PM
Quote
I know players want more from these ships, but they by intent simply were not designed to offer that to the Imperial fleet. To be honest, we wouldn't be offering any of this at all except that it fits the actual models that were produced quite well. To be honest, the only reason broadside-strong CL's need this at all is to give them a chance to close with the enemy prow on before swinging their guns around. That is the ONLY reason this is even being entertained, and the longest part of the discussion was to drop the price and change NOTHING as opposed to even offering the up-armored prow as an option at all.
To be honest the bold part is debatable. As you have read most view the design as light cruiser of the line.
"Of the line" means 6+ prow. Agreed. Broadside focused firepower.
"Light" means: speed and/or manoeuvrable. Thus 25cm speed and/or 90* turns.

The Dauntless is what it is per design: a light cruiser. Thus 25cm speed & 90* turns and prow focused weapons.

Per those 3 points of design the Voss should be: 6+ prow and 90* turns OR 25cm speed. Per fleet design (IN) 90* is more logical then 25cm speed.

See, per design the Voss is: 6+ prow/90* turns.

If we would have gotten a reasonable, background driven, or perhaps even a well founded 'broken' explanation we would sh*t up about it (I think ;) ), but so far no such explanation has been brought forward (simply as it doesn't exist ;) ).

Thanks on the AdMech. :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 09:13:02 PM
Well, heres more forcing my playgroup deeper into house rules to play the game the correct way. :)

The Voss fluff seems rather pointless the way you describe it as 'soooo rare' yet they are made to cheaply fill a cruiser gap.

But besides that, I have two questions for you, just your opinions because an unchanged voss pattern will at this point be ignored, the Imperials in my playgroup got too excited by now :)

1. I've asked this in about 5 posts by now.  Could you please give insight into why exactly you felt 90* turns and 6+ prows broke the ship?

2. Firstly, having range on a light cruiser would of course be possible on an admech light cruiser, with all their fancy gizmos, and fill the space of 4 torps.  But if that is OP for some reason I am missing, can you think of any other method for a good replacement of str4 torps without simply tacking on a dorsal lance?  I ask because my admech player likes his 'no torps' fleet because its operational paradigm is so far removed from a standard IN fleet, and feels quite unique.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 24, 2010, 10:44:11 PM
We aren't getting S4 Torps. :(
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on November 24, 2010, 10:57:38 PM
I'm starting to wonder what hte point of FAQ2010 is if not to fix ships that are broken?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 24, 2010, 11:04:25 PM
We aren't getting S4 Torps. :(

Yeah. Should be getting Str 6 torps while ditching the FP2 WBs for the Voss LCs except the Defiant which should up the prow lances to Str 3.  ;D :P
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 11:38:26 PM
I realize that, but I'm talking about in theory here.  We will not be playing crappy ships with a simple points decrease around here, that are still quite inferior to the Dauntless at same points, especially in multiples.  So I'm asking in theory, because thats how we will be playing it in my group, and I want to do it 'right' as in 'maybe not what official rules are, but as right as we can be along the lines of thought we are using'.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 25, 2010, 04:23:15 AM
If we want improvements, then I feel we should have something more solid to base things on. So I check again with Smotherman. Not the best way to check it but again useable enough.

Turns out the Endeavor should only be at 92 points, the Endurance at 110 points and the Defiant at 110 points. This does not include the +1 to Boarding Roll cost which I feel should be added only to the Endeavor and cancelled out by the limiting rule on the other 2 variants.

As it is the Endeavor and Defiant is overcosted and the Endurance slightly undercosted. If we factor in the 6+/5+ prow, Endeavor goes up to 124.5, Endurance and Defiant becomes 132.5. So I think we can all agree that the armor values be built in though Endeavor and Endurance might need a bump from 120.

Weapons wise, I don't think there's a problem with the loadout of the Endeavor and Endurance. So here's a couple of ideas:
1. We up the Defiant's prow lances to Str 3 with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 150.
2. We just make the Defiant take Str 6 torps as prow weapons and it becomes and all ordnance ship with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 145.
3. We let the Defiant take Str 2 torps in addition to the Str 2 lances as prow weapons with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 150 as well.
4. We let the Defiant have the same FP2 WBs and Str 2 torps as the other 2 variants and with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 134.5.

If we use RCGothic's suggestion and we let the Defiant the same FP2 WBs and Str 2 torps as the other 2 variants and add FP2 dorsal WBs with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 137.5. Personally, I would prefer IN regular cruisers not to have dorsal weaponry and just up the prow FP to 4.

All 4 variants I propose as well as RCGothic's proposal still wouldn't result in a ship which can be comparable to the cost and effectiveness of the Dauntless, however. Again there might be stuff the Smotherman formula is missing but it's spot on with the cost of the Dauntless. The Dauntless just hits that sweet spot.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 25, 2010, 04:43:15 AM
Admiral, I get that the Voss patterns have a different purpose than the Dauntless kind of LC, but They at least deserve a less puny frontal attack, I feel.  Str4 torps is a lovely way to go.  Even if it costs more.  Honestly I wanted the 90 turn more for sensibility than tactics, I can't see them benefiting much more with it.  Does 45 make them cheaper?

I'm using fleet master, so I'm not getting quite the same numbers.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 25, 2010, 04:48:25 AM
Smotherman is much better for me.

I agree they should get a better prow weapon. Which is why I don't like this dual weapons on the prow. It's sacrificing a lot of the weapons' firepower. Stick to one weapon system and you'd get FP6@30cm WBs, Str@30cm lances or Str 6 torps.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 25, 2010, 04:52:20 AM
I'd be happy with str4 torps.  I say that because its really cool getting a str8 broadside out of the Endeavor.  At least gives it almost Dauntless like power on one broadside :(
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 25, 2010, 04:59:42 AM
FP6 is better than FP4 and the Str 6 torps would equal the torp variant of the Dauntless so technically, the Endeavor can match a Dauntless on a broadside basis. The only one it can't match would be the Str 3 lance but even that's debatable if it can get into 15 cm range.

The Endurance would almost have the same broadside power as the torp Dauntless as well. Str 2 lances vs FP4 WBs are not that different. Having Str 6 torp only prow weapons would again make it equal to the torp Dauntless.

The Defiant is the problem since it uses AC which are expensive in the game. Which is why I prefer the lances to be upped to 3 or use Str 6 torps to match the Dauntless' prow weapons.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 25, 2010, 05:03:38 AM
"getting a buff" is the biggest problem we're seeing as we go through this process. With the exception of ONLY the Devastation (which is already ridiculously under-costed), every suggestion for ships in the current rules is for some kind of profile improvement. If we take this kind of up-creep on-board, down the line the trend will be to compensate by up-creeping the ships that get left behind by the changes, and it becomes a never-ending cycle, which is the biggest problem with WH40k today.

The alternative to this "profile creep" is to nerf the used ships. After all, if you're going to balance weak ships against strong ships you either need to boost the weak ones or nerf the strong ones right? So, why do people want boosts instead of nerfs generally? Because generally there are more balanced ships than unbalanced. The Lunar, Gothic, Dominator and Dauntless are all balanced ships. In what way balanced you ask? Well, they're internally balanced (ie, against each other) and they're balanced against analogues from other fleets. Soooo if you were going to try to fix the Voss CLs by nerfing other ships, you'd have to nerf an awful lot of them.

Also, I've never seen the point of unbalanced ships. Oh I understand that there's reason to not maximise every system on every ship, but since these ships don't fill slots (ie, you can take one ship, which do you want, an Emperor or a Sword?) they instead cost points, then there's no reason why they can't all be balanced apart from the mathematical difficulty of doing so. So "up-creep" would be fine as it's correcting a problem of the ship that makes it unbalanced.

Quote
The Voss CL's needed a tweak. We took it on board, and the Voss CL's are improved: for no profile change, they are now cheaper. Incidentally, this price change (-10 points across the board) will apply to their AdMech variants as well.

OK, I fail to see how this is any different to the up-creep you're mentioning. Well, you've just improved the Voss CLs ... what about ships X, Y and Z!? A fix is a fix. One isn't a case of creep where the other isn't. Also, this "fix" of just lowering the cost doesn't give the ship a role in the fleet, a purpose for being built, nor a justification for being so slow.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 25, 2010, 05:06:39 AM
I know players want more from these ships, but they by intent simply were not designed to offer that to the Imperial fleet. To be honest, we wouldn't be offering any of this at all except that it fits the actual models that were produced quite well. To be honest, the only reason broadside-strong CL's need this at all is to give them a chance to close with the enemy prow on before swinging their guns around. That is the ONLY reason this is even being entertained, and the longest part of the discussion was to drop the price and change NOTHING as opposed to even offering the up-armored prow as an option at all.

Then the intent of these ships must have been pure decoration.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 25, 2010, 05:15:07 AM
@Ad'A

The Endeavour and Endurance should be identical costs. If Smotherman comes up with something different then that's because Smotherman is crap.

If you gave the Voss CLs 6 prow torps then they would be more powerful than a Daunt (simply +2WB broadsides). I quite like 2 torps and 2WB they have. They're a broadside ship with some torps to clear fighter screens or make opportunistic attacks.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on November 25, 2010, 05:21:25 AM
If we're claiming WYSIWYG as justification for profile increases, make the Exorcist 260ish and 3 lbs on each side to bring it in line with the Styx.  It could use it, though Horizon and I disagree on this issue.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 25, 2010, 05:24:35 AM
If we're claiming WYSIWYG as justification for profile increases, make the Exorcist 260ish and 3 lbs on each side to bring it in line with the Styx.  It could use it, though Horizon and I disagree on this issue.

There is a case for such an argument, though the Exorcist isn't unbalanced and the fluff tends to view them as old junkers that are pretty much useless. I don't find this terribly convincing myself. It would be more convincing if they were civilian grade materials. Anyway, if we're going to go down that route the Retaliator needs the boost much much more.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on November 25, 2010, 05:48:02 AM
If we're claiming WYSIWYG as justification for profile increases, make the Exorcist 260ish and 3 lbs on each side to bring it in line with the Styx.  It could use it, though Horizon and I disagree on this issue.

There is a case for such an argument, though the Exorcist isn't unbalanced and the fluff tends to view them as old junkers that are pretty much useless. I don't find this terribly convincing myself. It would be more convincing if they were civilian grade materials. Anyway, if we're going to go down that route the Retaliator needs the boost much much more.



Yeah, there is that problem that in 40k older = better, not worse.  I'm not saying for it's current point cost it's not balanced, I'm just saying that it's not as attractive as a Mars, despite it's higher HP.  And they say that of all the Grand Cruisers, even though some are actually superior to some BCs that cost more.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 25, 2010, 06:34:27 AM
I think it is equal attractive as a Mars (surely for 40 or 55pts less!). Depending on the rest of the fleet ofcourse.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 25, 2010, 06:59:03 AM
@Ad'A

The Endeavour and Endurance should be identical costs. If Smotherman comes up with something different then that's because Smotherman is crap.

If you gave the Voss CLs 6 prow torps then they would be more powerful than a Daunt (simply +2WB broadsides). I quite like 2 torps and 2WB they have. They're a broadside ship with some torps to clear fighter screens or make opportunistic attacks.

Well, as I said, Smotherman isn't a perfect system but it does accurately get the costs of a lot of the ships in the BBB though there are some fudging needed for some so it can be used as a reference not necessarily as the basis.

It could very well be that the Endeavor and Endurance though it might also be true that the Endeavor is undercosted since we do not really have a formula for the ships. For now, we'll go with the existing cost.

With respect to the prow weapons, my preference is still using only one weapon system.  I can see the benefit of the additional FP2 WB for the Endurance. I do not see how FP2 can help the Str 2 lances of the Endurance unless of course one can take them in pairs or support the Endurance with an Endeavor.

I will try to proxy them and try them out to see how it goes but if it turns out I need another ship to compliment the Endurance, then I might as well just stick with the Dauntless.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on November 25, 2010, 09:20:23 AM
I suppose I am the only one who thinks the proposed changes are actually a good choice... Keep it up guys!

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 25, 2010, 11:36:18 AM
I think it's a step in the right direction, but they still need more.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on November 25, 2010, 02:10:46 PM
I may be a wooden conservative on the issue, but I am failing to see what more you need.

What they are offering is WAY more then what most of us were asking for. It's not -just- a points reduction, we get a small heap of options for the vessel. I agree with the HA that we do not need to change it's profile, mostly what it needed was a points reduction and a few tweaks here and there.

The only thing that i could see as viable is the +5cm speed bump, for the sake of it being a light cruiser.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on November 25, 2010, 02:22:47 PM
Hi Zelnik,

many/most/some did not ask for point reduction.

We asked for:
a 6+ prow. For no points in addition to the existing profile (with 90*).

But what do we get:
a point reduction and the option to get a 6+ prow but drop the 90* turn.

I rather have 90* on a light cruiser of the line (!) then 25cm speed.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 25, 2010, 04:00:17 PM
The Smotherman totally fails to take into account the reduced effectiveness of low LB capacity though. 2x2 AC is roughly 2/3 as effective as 4AC, which gets the Defiant a 9pt points break.

So what do we want from the Voss? We want a Light Cruiser of the line. A ship that stays with the cruisers (so 20cm speed), can get into the line of battle (so 6+ prow), support the cruisers on their way in (modest forward torps), fight it out when it gets there (broadside firepower), and, unlike the larger cruisers, react to changing battlefield conditions (90' turns).

The Defiant additionally needs torps to make it worth reloading, and trading the Lances for FP4 WBs (A downgrade from 2 lances)

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on November 25, 2010, 04:37:37 PM
Or, instead of fighting with it as a line cruiser, give it 25cm and +2 AC and use it as a baby flattop.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 25, 2010, 05:24:08 PM
The point is, I think, the Dauntless is still a more desirable ship.  Also, they just don't bring anything new or exciting to the table, nothing really different but moving some weapon systems to the broadisdes and losing strong frontal fire.  Whoopdeedoo! :P
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on November 25, 2010, 06:09:12 PM
Eh, I suppose that's a matter of taste, Horizon.

And when it comes to a matter of 'desirable', the best fleet that the imperials have at their disposal doesn't give you a choice. You can't have everything you see on TV.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 25, 2010, 07:21:57 PM
As an avid gamer, I maintain that everything can be both competative and flavorful, and I will never accept that I can't have everything!
:)

*Steps off soap box*
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on November 25, 2010, 07:45:35 PM
And I will retort with this:

That kind of talk leads to nova cannon escorts and straight jackets.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 26, 2010, 12:23:05 AM
Heh, by everything, I meant everything previously mentioned, not EVERYTHING.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on November 26, 2010, 03:54:47 AM
So what do we want from the Voss? We want a Light Cruiser of the line. A ship that stays with the cruisers (so 20cm speed), can get into the line of battle (so 6+ prow), support the cruisers on their way in (modest forward torps), fight it out when it gets there (broadside firepower), and, unlike the larger cruisers, react to changing battlefield conditions (90' turns).

This is it exactly. Exactly. Why would we make a light cruiser-of-the-line? To be able to react quickly. For this we want the 90°. Is speed useful? Yes, but it's more important for the speed to be the same as the rest of the line. To function in the line the ship should be broadside oriented, with only the incidental frontal fire (note: the str 2 torps would have been ideal to fit between the bases of more forward ships). So far the Voss checks all these boxes. So, what more would we want? Well, to be able to survive as a line ship it needs 6+ armour. This is where the Voss CLs fall down.

OK, so that's the role. What about logistics? OK, so we know that a CL can go faster and is more agile than typical line cruisers. Presumably a function of the reduced mass. The Voss CLs are more agile, but no faster. There's no reason shown as to why it's not faster. Sure, due to the role of the ship we don't want it to be faster, but we also want it to have 6+ prow armour, which it doesn't have. So that's not a reason. If we had the 6+ prow armour the ship would have increased mass, so this might be a reason why it's slower (as well as it being the desired outcome). So logistically speaking it is not only possible to have a 90°, 20cm, 6+ prow CL, but it seems necessary to include something like this to explain the loss of speed.

So, role and logistics bare out this idea, now onto balance. Everyone agrees that the Voss CLs are weak. Yes, this can possibly be fixed by lowering their cost. However, that does nothing to address the role and logistics issues. They could possibly be balanced by making them faster, but that does nothing to address the role issue. Giving 6+ prow armour fixes all these issues.

Making these ships successful in their intended role (line support) would also add a nice touch to the fleet. It would not invalidate line cruisers (because CLs really don't cut it when used on their own) and would not encroach on the role of the Dauntless variants.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on November 26, 2010, 06:14:30 AM
your singing to the choir, Sig.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on November 26, 2010, 07:19:00 AM
Perfectly worded Sig.  Who cares if you lower the cost on a crappy ship until its rightly costed?  What we want is something different with a unique role, a true 'cruiser lite'.  It has still and probably will never be explained at this point what is so broken about 6+ prows and 90* turns, especially since broadside ships never struggle to draw a bead. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on November 26, 2010, 09:40:48 AM
The SM SC also has more armour, is faster, and still has 90' turns, which sets precedent.

So to recap, the Imperial most requested new ships/fixes are:

#1. Voss Cruisers at original price with 6+ armour and 90' turns. (possibly S4 torps, but not essential)
#2. Torps for Defiant, Lances swapped for a total FP4 F/L/R Battery.
#3. Retribution with FP18 @ 45cm, with possible price increase.

And if these profiles are going to require protracted play testing to get the costs right (note that we're not interested in different profiles), then we would rather you NOT make any changes during FAQ 2010, because that will only complicate changing the prices back again. We do NOT want quick Fixes, we would rather these not be included in FAQ 2010, but introduced with due care and attention next year.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on November 26, 2010, 11:49:59 AM
I -really- don't think it's a good idea to bring in the strike cruiser into this argument. It really is a beast of it's own.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: fracas on November 26, 2010, 02:28:32 PM
why would anyone want escorts with CL that can turn 90 and have armor 6 prow?
in fact, same for the dauntless

i think CL should be able to make 2 45 degree turns with minimum move of 10 rather than see 90 turn after 10
and yes, applies to Dauntless as well
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 26, 2010, 02:38:17 PM
It is not the same for the Dauntless because the Dauntless is a very fast and maneuverable ship which can bring Str 3 lances to bear. The problem with IN Voss LC is their speed 20 ships. They won't be able to get their weapons to places as fast as the Dauntless. Also even with 6+ prow, the Voss LCs are not true line cruisers. They can try but they are just not as durable as the regular cruisers.

Escorts help the IN in the speed department and their in game cost is fair enough that one would still take escorts over the Voss LCs and maybe even the Dauntless. Having multiple targets instead of 1 will also force the opponent to dilute the amount of firepower it can bear since no one would want escorts to get to the rear of his ships.  
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on December 07, 2010, 01:08:48 PM
Have the ironclads been completely and utterly retconned?  Or are there still examples of them floating around in drydock somewhere?

I'd be keen to look into that as an IN ship.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: commander on December 07, 2010, 03:10:02 PM
Well, from the fluff (not much said about them), they would be 6+ armour all round, no shields, short ranged (30 cm) but extreemly powerful guns.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on December 12, 2010, 05:39:57 AM
Its been asked so many times I cant actually remember if a response was ever gleaned.

Did the HA ever explain what it found to be broken about 6+ prow armor and 90* turns on the voss patterns?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on December 12, 2010, 06:31:56 AM
I think they mentioned it was too easy to drive in prow on and then turn to cross the t. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on December 12, 2010, 07:27:55 AM
But...you can do that with 45* turns...
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on December 12, 2010, 08:57:09 AM
But...you can do that with 45* turns...

+1
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on December 12, 2010, 03:17:39 PM
heh. I think that's what the consensus was but apparently 90' turns let you do it in style. And that's just not befitting the IN. :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on December 12, 2010, 08:43:25 PM

The play-test battles were 8 against 8 CL's, as follows:

4x Dauntless (torp)
4x Dauntless (lances)
2x Cobra
1x Firestorm (I would have preferred 3x Cobras, but I wanted the points to be exactly equal for the play-tests)
vs.
4x Endeavor
2x Endurance
2x Defiant

The first play-test last weekend was with the variants getting an extra shield. What came up was Sigoroth's biggest complaint- the ships became too resilient compared to the Dauntless. 6+ armor and 90deg turns together turned into the same problem but for a completely different reason that DIDN'T come up in the play-test but came up in a game yesterday: Endeavors with 6+ prows and 90deg turns together gain the capability to come in line-abreast with the bigger ships, then quickly go abeam and use their broadsides far more effectively than the larger cruuisers. More importantly, they can present an abeam aspect to enemies far more easily than regular cruisers can, which is too much like escort behavior vs. cruiser behavior and is a potent ability in and of itself.

How did you test that in a battle between nothing but CLs?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on December 12, 2010, 09:25:58 PM
How did you test that in a battle between nothing but CLs?

Every good scientist needs a control. He would need to do a similar experiment where he did something with cruisers at the same points, and compare with proper maths.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on December 12, 2010, 10:42:33 PM
Yeah... Well list me as one of the "6+/45 turn" tradeoff crowd.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on December 12, 2010, 11:08:54 PM
Oh, good.  Zelnik is more vocal than Nate.  So whats your reasoning behind that?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eldanesh on December 20, 2010, 03:41:20 AM
Quote
Every good scientist needs a control.
lol
The only real test for a hypothesis is reality. And I doubt that you'll find a lot of players out there who field an IN fleet consisting only of CL's.

IF you want a proper test use an Armaggedon list as intended (meaning a list consisting mainly of CL's and BC's) an look how it performs against a regular navy fleet (meaning an emperor, Mars, a combination of Lunar/Gothic/Dominator, some dauntless' and some Cobras to fill up points). I'll doub't that the Armaggedon list will be on the winning side...

My 2 cents: If i get the designers intenion correctly the CL's should work as a kind of "half cruiser", so 2 CL's should do the work of 1 regular cruiser in another fleet. The probem is, that due to the mechanics (especially of shields) such a "half cruiser" is usually worse than 0.5 cruisers. Maybe not at 1 on 1 (or in this case 1 on 2  ;D) but surly on the fleet level. so to bring them in line I see 3 options

a) forget about the whole "Half line cruiser" Idea an make them real light crusiers. meaning beef up speed/turns and make the weaponary more front-centred or better flexible (F/L/R)
b) improve their combat stats so that they can hold a line: 2nd shield will do the job, but 2/3of a regular Crusiers armament should also do it if you want to stay with 1 shield
c) decrease their price a good bit. At ~80-90 points I would consider to use some of them (but even than not more than say 3 ships on 1500 Point and only if the opponent isn't too competitive) but not at the current price.

From a historical view the whole concept is a bit weird: CL's were usually never more than oversized escorts (or refitted civil ships) and could never stand a chance against real ships of the Line.                    
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 20, 2010, 04:38:52 AM
Quote
Every good scientist needs a control.
lol
The only real test for a hypothesis is reality. And I doubt that you'll find a lot of players out there who field an IN fleet consisting only of CL's.

IF you want a proper test use an Armaggedon list as intended (meaning a list consisting mainly of CL's and BC's) an look how it performs against a regular navy fleet (meaning an emperor, Mars, a combination of Lunar/Gothic/Dominator, some dauntless' and some Cobras to fill up points). I'll doub't that the Armaggedon list will be on the winning side...

My 2 cents: If i get the designers intenion correctly the CL's should work as a kind of "half cruiser", so 2 CL's should do the work of 1 regular cruiser in another fleet. The probem is, that due to the mechanics (especially of shields) such a "half cruiser" is usually worse than 0.5 cruisers. Maybe not at 1 on 1 (or in this case 1 on 2  ;D) but surly on the fleet level. so to bring them in line I see 3 options

1) forget about the whole "Half line cruiser" Idea an make them real light crusiers. meaning beef up speed/turns and make the weaponary more front-centred or better flexible (F/L/R)
b) improve their combat stats so that they can hold a line: 2nd shield will do the job, but 2/3of a regular Crusiers armament should also do it if you want to stay with 1 shield
c) decrease their price a good bit. At ~80-90 points I would consider to use some of them (but even than not more than say 3 ships on 1500 Point and only if the opponent isn't too competitive) but not at the current price.

From a historical view the whole concept is a bit weird: CL's were usually never more than oversized escorts (or refitted civil ships) and could never stand a chance against real ships of the Line.                     

Which several members of this forum have suggested they would see me hanged first before they'd allow the Defiant to be a 25cm ship. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on December 20, 2010, 01:57:08 PM
That's because it wouldn't be a Voss variant any more.

We have nothing against the Enforcer class Dauntless Variant. Nobody's saying you can't have an AV5+ 1/2 Carrier with 25cm speed and a strong forward armament like the Dauntless, just that it can't be the Defiant. Such a ship would make an exceptional patrol cruiser, there is no doubt.

The Enforcer is actually a cruiser I would like to see make officialdom - it's significantly different from any of the existing cruisers/GCs/BBs, makes absolute sense as a patrol cruiser, doesn't really threaten the line carriers role, and would probably be the most unique addition to the IN we could make.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on December 20, 2010, 09:04:40 PM
Hey folks, I just played a game with my very sexy Endeavors and endurances (3 squadroned together, 2 endeavors 1 endurance) (thank you Zac!)

To put it mildly, they rocked my opponents world.

Either way, the current point costs and restrictions finally made a dream fleet of mine possible.

2x endurances
2x endeavors
2x Mars battle cruiser
2x Avenger GC's.

wheee!
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on December 20, 2010, 09:41:42 PM
A fun thing for you guys to look at. Now the overlord is 220 points. For it's original price of 235, it gets a left column shift.

Overlords now are even MORE badass.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 20, 2010, 10:40:28 PM
Just for clarification, are the changes in the upgrade options overriding the existing upgrades in the Rulebook and Armada? Ex. does this mean the Mars has lost the targeting matrix option or is the new turret upgrade in addition to the targeting matrix?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on December 21, 2010, 03:59:26 AM
Additions. Mars still has taregtting matrix.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on December 21, 2010, 04:22:44 AM
Hmm, I think they should clarify it then. Wording can make one think that the FAQ is replacing the entries.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on December 21, 2010, 02:18:01 PM
Character Ironclad, triple nova cannon :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on December 21, 2010, 06:45:53 PM
Yeah... right. There is a prolific forum member who made such a triple NC ship once. LFR on top iirc. He is now declared healthy again. :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eddie Orlock on December 21, 2010, 09:21:21 PM
I dunno, I could see a triple Nova Turret as a basilica replacement for a Mechanicus Ramiles. That might be a large enough frame to support such a weapon system. Though rebuilding the superstructer and the power demands would likely compromise other weapon systems.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on December 22, 2010, 12:14:37 AM
I realize for balance purposes, of course, anything with 3 novas is potentially silly.

However, I was only partially joking.  The Ironclad ships are noted to be both rare, and a popular platform for rare and ultra-powerful weapon systems, because of the ship being almost completely made of adamantine makes for a stable firing platform.  Thus it gave me the idea for an ancient, shieldless battleship having 3 nova armaments running down its spine.  Could work as a one off.

A ramilies could also reasonably have 3 basilica novas, or a nova per quadrant.  Makes for nice 'GTFO my system' kind of weapons :)

Just some fun ideas.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on December 22, 2010, 06:08:47 AM
NO
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on December 25, 2010, 07:51:14 PM
People want to make triple-NC ships legal but then say the Jovian is a bad idea and against fluff? Wow.

- Nate

 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on December 25, 2010, 10:58:54 PM
It was mostly a joke, though it would be a fun just-for-fun character ship.  It would be fitting as an Ironclad as well.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on December 26, 2010, 08:39:31 PM
I repeat.  -no-
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: commander on December 26, 2010, 11:01:13 PM
Don't think so. In fluff is said very powerful but short ranged weaponry. Something about fusion guns???
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on December 26, 2010, 11:48:13 PM
I dunno, just going off the fluff saved in the Lexicanum site.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 27, 2010, 01:08:55 AM
I'd still like ot see the Long Serpent added to an official fleetlist.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Xyon on December 28, 2010, 04:42:28 PM
Grand cruiser, 10 hits, 2 shields, 15cm move, 45 degree move, 2 turrets. 5+ armor
Dorsal heavy lance,     1 strength, 30 cm, LFR
Port heavy lance,         2 strength, 30 cm,  L
Port weapon battery   , 6 strength, 45 cm, L
Starboard heavy lance, 2 strength, 30 cm, R
Port weapon battery,    6 strength, 45 cm, R
pts to be determined.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on December 28, 2010, 06:07:00 PM
Xylon, you would make a super crappy version of the vengeance?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Xyon on December 28, 2010, 07:52:01 PM
Is that what I did?    I havent really checked to see what we all ready have.   And, Heavy lances score 2 hits for each hit rolled, like the ork heavy guns. So I figured I'd have somewhat shorter range.  I'm surprised you didnt ask me what 'heavy lances' were, since I wrote that down instead of regular lances for the weapons.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on December 28, 2010, 09:37:11 PM
I assumed it was a mistake since there isn't any such weapon available to the IN and you hadn't bothered to note any difference.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Xyon on December 29, 2010, 04:43:57 AM
I make very few mistakes. And since this is basically a wishlist thread about what ship you would want to make legal, it doesnt matter if Imperial have access to it normally or not,  they'd get access to it if it was a legal ship. Not trying t be mean, just blunt.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on December 29, 2010, 05:49:13 PM
Then I gather it wasn't a mistake you ignored the first post in the thread before posting a new special weapon? :)

Quote
. No special weapon mechanic! "This cruiser is equipped with a Wave Matter Motion Destroyer: If it hits a targget less than 30cm away, roll 2D6. On a roll of 12, the target is destroyed! On a roll of 2, the Wave Matter Motion Destroyer causes the firing ship to take 2D6 Fire criticals!" Yeah, nothing like that
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Xyon on December 29, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
I guess I did,  21 pages to read through didnt appeal to me.   And its nothing new,  just the ork heavy gunz rule boiled down to a generic special rule and applied to lances.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Dark Depths on January 06, 2011, 08:04:04 PM
Grand cruiser, 10 hits, 2 shields, 15cm move, 45 degree move, 2 turrets. 5+ armor
Dorsal heavy lance,     1 strength, 30 cm, LFR
Port heavy lance,         2 strength, 30 cm,  L
Port weapon battery   , 6 strength, 45 cm, L
Starboard heavy lance, 2 strength, 30 cm, R
Port weapon battery,    6 strength, 45 cm, R
pts to be determined.

Apart from the underpowered turrets, shields and speed, my issue with this design is that it doesn't fill a hole as we already have the Executor GC, which is a traitor vessel, but it doesn't take much imagination to use it as an Imperial ship considering it is one of the Vengeance class (I know what the fluff says, but there are always exceptions...)  Sorry, that's just my opinion, I don't like unneccersary duplication.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 21, 2011, 11:20:37 PM
Here's something to REALLY get the pot stirred. Freshly posted at the BFG Repository is the first draft (v1.0) of Battlefleet Bakka.

As this is a first draft, there of course is going to be some tweaking involved to get it right so please don't everyone pull out their boltguns, las-pistols and assorted other favorite weaponry and shoot me full of holes all at once! At least get in line first, dammit!   ;D

This represents the last project the HA's will be working on before we get everything trucked off to GW. Once it's done, it's done. In the meantime, please let us know if something is horribly screwed up in the documents already stamped "FINAL."  We won't be adding any rulings or making any significant changes, but if something is actually busted, we can fix it before it goes to GW.  No, the Tau Custodian isn't going to be a grand cruiser.

Smile, game on and enjoy!
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 22, 2011, 12:07:17 AM
I wasn't expecting that..... wow.

Nice stats on the Havoc. It is a hard ship to make unique, although I think it should have lighter armor (5+ prow and 4+ sides and rear) as it is described as a glass cannon. Probably should be 30 pts as well.

Other than that, the Jovian needs a prow weapon.... even for the fact that it has the 'prow sensors' it suffers the issue that the vengeances had with criticals. So either it needs a prow whatever, or it needs to ignore prow criticals.


Hmmm.... the Vanquisher kind of needs a dorsal weapon, but this is only in theme with larger vessels having dorsal weaponry. It is also rather.... underpowered feeling due to this. I would give it a dorsal wb that is str 6 @45cm, but that's unecessary.

I would remove the Uniqueness on the Jovian as well, iirc there is no fluff basis for that, and it works fine so long as it is contained in the bakka list.

The mercury battlecruiser is a bit meh, but I don't know what I would change on it.

The siluria was more interesting with its original profile. Also the model is quite small, and it would make it more unique to make it 4 hits rather than 6. I wouldn't give it improved engines.... just make it something cheap and weak with (relatively) high firepower.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eldanesh on January 22, 2011, 12:45:38 AM
Battlefleet Bakka

I don't see the "theme" for the list: I can have (and will always use) an Emperor and have unlimited access to the Mars class. I don't see where this kind of list has less flyers than any regular navy list, as the dictator was always a bad joke and never a serious option.

Fleet decence turrets: as there is no real "lack" of flyers, there is no reason to pay for this upgrade. Should be free for the first and 5P for the second turret.

Classes:  
Victory
1.to expensive to even consider to use one. Make her cheaper an give her something that makes her somehow attractive: 6 turrets, 5th shield, 25cm speed – doesn't matter. But at the moment its just as weak as a Retribution and more expensive.
2. The torpedo option should NOT lower the point costs! S9 torpedos are better than a Nova cannon under current rules.

Vanquisher:
lol. It's a joke, isn't it? Why? This has the same firepower as an Armageddon BC.

Mercury:
A Mars that trades 4 launch bays for a S4@45cm +5cm speed and -10 points? Would be an option if that speed had any value in fleet context. But as there is no other cruiser that can follow her it's almost useless – not interesting.

Jovian
nice concept but still overpriced... reduce it ~30 points or give it at least some prow weapon system and we could talk, but in this condition... no

Siluria
don't have an opinion yet. IMO better than endeavour/endurance, but still no good ship. Would be better ~90 or 80 points

Havok.
I doubt that +1 Bat is worth showing the enemy the front side. And considering the -1 turret compared to the sword...no, I still prefer the sword.

Viper.
Yes!!! a cobra thats get rid of the useless battery in favor of an additional torpedo. Finally the IN has a good escort!

Admiral Rath: compared to a regular LD10 Admiral he is a real good deal. But as Admirals in general are horribly overpriced I'd never take more than a LD8 Admiral with 2 rerolls sitting on an emperor. So I can't really imagine to ever use this guy If I can have an additional cruiser for the same points.

Conclusion: I hate it to be so terribly negative, but at all it would be simpler by just adding the Viper to the other imperial fleetlists. The other stuff isn't interesting.


Oh and by the way: why is the IN always restricted by this “sectorlist”-stuff? Chaos as well as Tau can combine their ships in any way they are happy: Tau don't even have the same optical theme and can mix them, and Chaos can use all the Blue book ships in the Armada-list.
Just the navy is limited in the access of their ships. Why?
(And don't say “Background reasons”: There are only 3 Despoilers and only 1 Acheron ever build – and both ships are unrestricted in both Chaos fleet lists...)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 22, 2011, 03:12:37 AM
Hmm... this is interesting. Lets see where to start....

Emperor limitations. This is effectively a false limitation since 90% of the time people only take one battleship anyway so limiting a fleet to a single emperor really doesn't change anything. If you want the fleet to feel more unique, remove the option for the Emperor entirely because unless you do it will remain the most cost effective and capable means of acquiring the necessary AC in the fleet.

Victory and Vanquisher. I'm grouping these together because the Vanquisher is basically a poor man's Victory. The Victory class can't stand in its current form because it outclasses the Apocalypse with the ability to use the 60cm lances without penalty and swapping for torpedoes far more useful than the extra 2 lances the apocalypse especially given the retribution speed this ship has. The Vanquisher is basically the same thing, just shorter ranged, slower, and less capable, but hey, at least it's 20 points cheaper and you get a free turret. See the point about the emperor on the 0-1 limit of battleships.

In fact, looking at the picture, the loadout for the Vanquisher seems quite odd. Typically one IN lance module represents s2 lances. This is how it's been on every IN ship up to this one, yet the Vanquisher mounts three modules but only has s4 lances. I think that the Victory load out is much more sensible with the loss of the dorsal weapons and the addition of the battery module up front.

When it comes down to it, there really isn't much point in taking the Victory class at all with the options available to the IN with the apocalypse and the Vanquisher. In that match up, the vanquisher wins out with the speed, options, and no funky penalty for using it's lances at range.

Mercury class. Yes, I realize that it's a slightly modified long serpent, this is a conflicted design. It has a NC which makes it want to hold back, but it has more speed than anything else the IN has available at a full cruiser level and it's a battlecruiser to boot. It ends up as a far more expensive Overlord even with the drop in price with slightly better batteries out the gate and a NC. To be useful this ship needs shorter ranged batteries, but heavier and trade out the NC for torpedoes. Then you have a ship that uses it's speed to close and harass the enemy and can make a mess of things if they take it down when it's close to enemy ships.

Jovian. I don't like this as I feel it goes against the theme of the IN fleet with regard to AC, but you do have even more limited options for AC than a typical IN fleet so I guess it can slide although if you pull the Emperor all together (not a bad idea) you are looking at two options for AC. That limits you to a Jovian + your choice of reserve vessels or Mars + jovian. I also see this ship as a problem since it is much easier to take it as reserve in another IN fleet where there is wider access to carriers. Lack of prow weapon leaves it open to the same AB exploit you just patched for the Vengeance class.

Endeavour/Endurance. Why are these 10 points more than the same ships in other lists as per the 2010 FAQ? and why are you restricting the Prow armor swap?

Siluria. I don't really have an opinion on this. It's the weapons of an endeavor slapped on a dauntless with a slight price reduction. Nothing supremely interesting save that it lets you take battlecruisers effectively at a 1:1 cost.

Havoc: too conflicted to be useful. One point better battery strength for one less turret and restricted firing arcs. Not really worth taking over the sword that's also in the list.

Viper: alright, slightly better than a cobra but not sure I'd bother paying the +5 points for the extra torpedo when the cobra is available.

Fleet list. You are making a NC players dream come true. Every other fleet outside of the gothic list makes you pay at least 200 points for the NC. You say you dislike the NC and want to limit the number taken, yet you've just created a fleet where NC are everywhere.

There are also FAR too many options for reserves. I think it could be more interesting if you kept the reserve options you have but prevent the list from pulling ships from other IN lists and vv. You've effectively done this already by making grand cruisers and battlecruisers require three battlecruisers from the bakka list to pull in and giving them access to every IN cruiser except the Dictator, dauntless, and defiant. Battleships already require so high a point limit as to make it impractical.

Direction: Fleet defense turrets are gimmicky when you have to pay for them. Give them to the whole fleet for free, remove the emperor, and mars to limit the AC in the fleet and make the Fleet defense turrets more useful. Remove the Dominator to keep the NC spam down.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 22, 2011, 04:49:00 AM
I have to say, the 'theme' your going for in this fleet is REALLY lost due to the joke of carrier restrictions.

Remove the emperor entirely.  Remove the jovian entirely (it is a poorly designed vessel, and should never have been added to the imperial navy in the first place... and is entirely contrary to the fluff of the segmentum!)

Here is another alternative, since the fleet uses older vessels.

Replace all of the battlecruiser options with -grand cruisers-.  Let them use the imperial grand cruiser hull with impunity! If they want to have carriers, make them pay for Exorcists and Retaliators.  That way you keep with the fluff of "using old ships" and "not favoring carriers".... you even get the benefit of "big guns" to boot (especially when it comes to Avengers and Execution's) Add in the Governor as a character flagship for the special character.


The battleships are.... very meh.  I fail to see why I would take the victory over and Apocalypse. Same points, better broadsides, better fleet to back it up!

I don't mind the idea of a 'very light' cruiser, especially in a grand cruiser fleet. the new escort is only questionable in effectiveness.

The 3 torpedo escort is... meh? I can see this being abused heavily. 

The Mercury is an Overlord analogue, and of questionable effectiveness. With a st10 battery, but no free column shift, I fail to see it's effectiveness at range. Not to mention, it's weapon loadout is conflicting with it's enhanced speed.  Also, it's going to be outstripping the rest of the fleet and breaking up the phalanx in a very bad way.

the Endeavors and Endurances are 10 points more expensive.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 22, 2011, 04:55:26 AM
Here, how about this for a fleet list.

(standard imperial command, the new character must be on a Governor or a battleship)

Imperial Battleships:
Apocalypse
Retribution
Oberon (0-1)

Grand Cruisers
Avenger
Vengence
Exorcist
Execution
Retaliator

Cruisers:
Lunar
Tyrant
Gothic

Light Cruisers
Endeavor
Endurance
Silurian

Escorts
Sword
Firestorm
Cobra

Character Vessel: Governor Grand Cruiser (0-1) 1 per 1500 points, Your commander must be embarked if no battleship is present.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 22, 2011, 05:03:54 AM
Hi all! I appreciate all the quick fast-pass responses so here's a fast-pass response of my own. I'll let this simmer for a few days before adding something more coherent!  ;D

Some of the comments are conflicting in that some people hate Ship A but like Ship B, others Liek Ship B but hate Shp A, etc. That's perfectly understandable- every player will tailor their fleet list to how they like to play, and even the most reasonable and fair player of any game system will "power game" to their own strengths, not intentionally or with any malice but purely for the sake of what they find to be the most fun. It makes perfect sense- its a GAME!

The intention of the Bakka fleet list is NOT to fix anything broken in the current Imperial fleet. The intention is to create a fleet list that follows their theme, is congruent to existing fluff and frankly provides a venue to loop in a few of the ships that have existed for the better part of ten years now but never became official. We can't inlude them all, but the intent is to include the ones that don't really break anything or "break theme" either. The Jovian was a close one- this really has no business in an Imperial fleet if one looks at the fluff storyline irregardless of game balance because the point as HA's in the end is if we incorporate anything at all, it has to fit in the story, be true to the fleet's "flavor" AND be balanced. It's a tall order, and we would rather do NOTHING than break this ethos. Once again, anyone can house-rule any ship they want, but that does in NO WAY mean it NEEDS to be made official.

The Vanquisher remains exactly as it appeared in Warp Storm, with the only changes being +1 turret and -5cm speed to reflect its age. It does not have dorsal weapons on purpose and isn't getting any. The Jovian "prow problem" is another matter and will have to e revisited, but it will not be getting a prow weapon. the Endeavor and Endurance are +10 points because they actually come with two FDT's for "free" in that they always have them and always pay for them by being +10 points more expensive in their basic cost.

Simply getting rid of the Dominator would be a fluff violation because Kar Durniash (the place that INVENTED the Dominator) is far closer to Bakka than Cypra Mundi is.  If Obscurus fleets can have unlimited Dominators, it would be wrong to say Bakka can’t. That’s not to say there isn’t an easy fix for this- just like Bakka fleets can have unlimited Endurance CL’s, Fleet Defense Turrets and has no Dictators, it is just as easy to say what refits these ships can have as well. Simply stating Tyrants and Lunars can’t take NC’s in a Bakka fleet list is a start. Another one can be a subtle restriction that isn’t restrictive in and of itself, such as “Lunars are ubiquititous throughout the Imperium and nowhere more so than in Bakka; no single cruiser class can outnumber the number of Lunars in a fleet list.” This isn’t fixed or set in stone or anything, its just directions to take this. Keep in mind the entire project is still a work in progress.

The ships included in this list are for the most part a "best of" over the last ten years of BFG Magazine as one last chance to get some of them looped in before we unplug this process for good. None of these are much better than anything currently in the Imperial fleet, and that is ALSO intentional. Once again it comes down to flavor- people who want characterful fleets with some unusual variety can use them if they want. People who play tailored fleets to win games don't have to use them if they don't want to. As it was pointed out in a previous post, the Reserves rule lets a player circumvent any part of this fleet list he or she chooses, as can already be done with every Imperial fleet in the game.

Game on.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 22, 2011, 05:11:21 AM
Hey nate.

Just becuase they are the 'best of' does NOT mean they should be in the game.  The real 'best of''s made it into armada because they held a monocre of sense and balance without blowing the other fleets out of the water... or just didn't capsize the whole idea of an imperial fleet. 

This list CLEARLY violates several statements in it's OWN fluff! The ability to take an emperor (which we all know is a huge "WTF" when you insist on a low-carrier setup.  Also, this fleet is begging for "nova cannon spam" up the wazoo with unlimited mars and dominator ships.

Nate, your great, but have a look at the fleet list I suggested, and maybe we can prevent this fleet from being a disaster :D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 22, 2011, 06:47:12 AM
Quote
The Jovian was a close one- this really has no business in an Imperial fleet if one looks at the fluff storyline irregardless of game balance because the point as HA's in the end is if we incorporate anything at all, it has to fit in the story, be true to the fleet's "flavor" AND be balanced.

With ships like this where only a single ship was supposed to be built, I think you should exempt it from being used as a reserve in any other fleets since it would be highly unlikely for it to somehow filter around the galaxy and it provides a filler for the planned AC gap with IN. Being able to pull over even one ship is usually enough so the 0-1 limit will mean little to someone picking out a fleet.

Quote
Simply getting rid of the Dominator would be a fluff violation because Kar Durniash (the place that INVENTED the Dominator) is far closer to Bakka than Cypra Mundi is.  If Obscurus fleets can have unlimited Dominators, it would be wrong to say Bakka can’t.
Ok, fluff violation it may be, but it is the simplest solution. Whatever you decide to do the NC options should be more limited unless you've changed your mind about NC spam :)

Quote
None of these are much better than anything currently in the Imperial fleet, and that is ALSO intentional.
Yes and No. The victory would outpace the Apocalypse despite having two fewer lances because it is capable of firing them at max range for no penalty. The Jovian is set to become the best cruiser carrier available to the IN. Stuff like the Mercury and Havoc are just plain nonsense. They are cool ideas, but they need fixing first. Neither have to be BETTER than what we have, but it would be nice for them to make sense too.

Quote
the Endeavor and Endurance are +10 points because they actually come with two FDT's for "free" in that they always have them and always pay for them by being +10 points more expensive in their basic cost.
I missed that when I was reading the PDF. Seeing that, I'd get rid of the Fleet defense turrets as an upgrade altogether and just incorporate them into the profiles and costs like with admech. that will add the flavor to the fleet and simplify the list building and focus the fleet more on shooting and less on AC.

I really would ditch the emperor all together though. It's in EVERY list available to the IN and this is one where it is supposed to be rare. with average games at 1500 points most times you only see one battleship thus making the restriction a joke.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eldanesh on January 22, 2011, 06:55:26 AM
Quote
This list CLEARLY violates several statements in it's OWN fluff! The ability to take an emperor (which we all know is a huge "WTF" when you insist on a low-carrier setup.
The domius astra was an Emperor battleship and it was the flagship of battlefleet bakka. So using it can hardly be a "violation of the own fluff".

If you want to restrict it you can bound it to admiral rath: if you want the flagship, you'll have to pay the admiral. This makes it so expensive (565 points and an LD10 which is useless on an emperor) that you'll hardlysee one.

Oh, and @Zelnik: your list suggestion has nothing to offer, sorry. Bluebooklist is preferable. A list should have advantages as well as disadavtages. This list has only the later.

And why the hell is everybody afraid with NC spam? Under current rules NC are teethless tigers, only real dangerous in their shortest distance from 30 to 45cm. And NC Spam means lack of torpedos, meaning the enemy easily gets the upper hand in the "ordnance battle". and if i want to "powergame" I'll don't play navy, I'll use tyranids, Chaos, Eldar or even Necrons.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 22, 2011, 06:57:48 AM
Any fleet with easier access to grand cruisers does not lack advantages, especially with the new rules that the 2010 faq provided. I am sorry your not flexible enough to see that, Eldanesh. 

The fluff written in the document is new, and thus can be altered. Throw out the emperor.. hell throw out the entire fleet.

why are we afraid of NC spam? because it's a problem. you may not see it, but we do.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eldanesh on January 22, 2011, 07:30:54 AM
1. Well no, the whole Battlefleet Bakka stuff is old AFAIK it has been in an old BFG Mag issue, along with the rules.

2. You didn't write anything about easier access of of CG's. One CG for every cruiser or what do you have in mind?

3. Even with the new rules using CG's is no advantage. Just not such a big disadvantage as it was before. They have still too much tactical flaws compared to battlecruisers as well as being somewhat overpriced.

4. NC Spam. Compared to Chaos the IN has roughtly 1 cruiser less on the field per 1500 points. And these cruisers are even inferior on a 1 on 1 ratio. The chance of crippling one cruiser by pure luck is one of the few real options for a IN to just even the odds before it goes to bloody "infight" at < 30cm. And it comes with disadvantages: you have less torps and usually you pay more compared to torpedo loadout. In fact the average damage of torpedos is usually even higher than that of an NC, due to the shield ignoring nature of torps. If someone really has a problem with NC spam under the current rules (I don't talk about the old "only 1D6 Scatter ever" rules) I see only 3 possible Options:
a) he isn't able to do the math
b) there is too less/none terrain on the field
c) he is an inapt tactican.
And additionaly he does not see the options of other fleet lists. As I said: a powergamer would not play IN. It's like playing Necrons, Tau or sisters of battle in 40k. The IN simply isn't at the upper end of the food chain in BFG, even with NC spam.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 22, 2011, 08:58:43 AM
Hey nate.

Just becuase they are the 'best of' does NOT mean they should be in the game.  The real 'best of''s made it into armada because they held a monocre of sense and balance without blowing the other fleets out of the water... or just didn't capsize the whole idea of an imperial fleet. 

This list CLEARLY violates several statements in it's OWN fluff! The ability to take an emperor (which we all know is a huge "WTF" when you insist on a low-carrier setup.  Also, this fleet is begging for "nova cannon spam" up the wazoo with unlimited mars and dominator ships.

Nate, your great, but have a look at the fleet list I suggested, and maybe we can prevent this fleet from being a disaster :D

Great points made here. Like I said, this is only v1.0 so the document comes with a lot of wrinkles, bad creases, occasional potholes, etc.

By design intent Grand Cruisers are specifically a product of Cypra Mundi and aren't even very common in Segmentum Obscurus fleets. We can't make grand cruisers a primary part of Bakka fleets, though they can of course be reserves normally.

The "one of" Emperor is kind of the cornerstone of the whole fluff, but it is certainly true that in most games a "one of" battleship will end up being the Emperor so we will have to revisit this. While I don't mind if 1.1 ends up looking significantly different from 1.0, I am a bit disappointed about how different this will end up looking from the 2002 Annual.

More to follow.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 22, 2011, 09:19:59 AM
Addressing specifically concerns about NC spam, there is nothing now from preventing a player from taking nothig but Mars and Dominator ships so Battlefleet Bakka is not "broken" for allowing this as well.

I REALLY like the idea of the Jovian being a reserve vessel in Battlefleet Bakka, which recycles the Bastion Fleets rule of not being able to take a reserve of a reserve. I can also see Emperor BB's only being available as reserves unless Admiral Rath leads the fleet. I will have to crunch this more, but not tonight.

It goes without saying the Mercury needs some tweaking. How about 20cm speed and 10x60cm batteries, still keeping the pops-with-a-bang characteristic? Once again this will need some playtesting before it is dug into much further, but you can only cram so much into an Imp BC hull before it starts becoming a hack job, which we need to avoid.

Once again, the ships that don't seem so great are done so ON PURPOSE. the Siluria feels like junk because it’s supposed to be junk- it’s an old CL that has long ago been superseded by better ships but Bakka keeps them around because they need the hulls. Not everything new necessarily needs to be shiny! The Imperial fleet is sorely lacking in cheap ships, but by default cheap ships will not be anywhere as capable as their more shiny cousins.

The Spacefleet Tyrant is a great model for the Siluria, but we can’t call the model out by name because you can’t get them anywhere anymore (even eBay’s been tapped out of these for quite some time!).

I’m going to bed…
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 22, 2011, 12:14:43 PM
Alright... then lets make a cypra mundi fleet!  The imperial gc hull is such a pretty model and really needs a fleet to spotlight it.

Eldanesh: the fleet i am proposing will have access to all of the vessels that use the imperial gc hull, where in other fleets they are difficult to access.  Also, making room for the Governor which is a tried and tested vessel, and new varients for the hull that we can come up with.

Nate: hey i like the idea of the siluria.
giving the mercury 10  wb at 60 makes it effectively an upgraded overlord. What this fleet really suffers from is "every bit of the kit" fever.  You see people appear with ships like the jovian or the mercury and say "where are the rules for this?"   
It breaks my heart to tell em there are no rules and they made a dud cruiser (espcially in the case of the jovian).  This situation, while sad, does not warrent making new rules.   
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eldanesh on January 22, 2011, 01:40:34 PM
Quote
the fleet i am proposing will have access to all of the vessels that use the imperial gc hull, where in other fleets they are difficult to access.  Also, making room for the Governor which is a tried and tested vessel, and new varients for the hull that we can come up with.
As I said before: this is simply not an attractive option. There is absoluty no reason why anyone should choose this list over any other.
The both "chaotic" GC's aren't very appealing. De facto it would end with 2 Exorcists, simply because the game mechanics force you to use some carriers, because all the avaible basic cruisers rely on Torpedos and without some flyers to "clear the way" you'll hardly get a Torpedo wave into the target.
And there are still the mentioned disadvantages of CG's: they are robust, but undergunned and they miss the 6+ prow of imperial cruisers. In a fleet context this makes the 6+ dispensable, as the enemy can simply shoot on the CG's. This wouldn't be a big problem if you could squadron them with regular cruisers, so that you can deny direct fire on them, but well...you can not squadron them with cruisers. This is another point: even if most people here dislike Squadrons of capital ships it is a nice option to have, just in case there are too much low LD values: a squadron of a Lunar or Gothic with an Armageddon does not lose much, as well as a Mars/Dominator (or upgraded Lunar) combination can be a good idea sometimes... a CG list doesn't have this options.

face it, there is a reason that you hardly face CG's in an imperial fleet: they are crap. Imperial regular cruisers as well as CG's are substandard, so why on earth would anybody use a list which lacks almost all higher-than-average ships (Emperor, Dauntless, Mars, Dominator and with some distance Armageddon) without a positive trade of. OK, the governor is a well rounded ship I'd like to have in my fleet, but that's all...
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 22, 2011, 01:57:31 PM
Or retaliators. Or maybe you can take a pair of dictators and throw in a pair of executions or avengers.

I made a competative 1500 point fleet out of segmentum solar, using 4 endeavor light cruisers (or two endeavors and two endurance's), 2 mars battle cruisers and 2 avenger GC's.

Again: viewing them as 'crap' is your opinion.

I can see merit to taking either the retaliator or the exorcist, they are both legitimate carrier options in a fleet where both are accessible.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eldanesh on January 22, 2011, 02:11:08 PM
Quote
Again: viewing them as 'crap' is your opinion.
Ok than show me someone who really plays them except for "Style" reasons...

Quote
Or maybe you can take a pair of dictators

You list suggesgtion has no dictarors in it...

Quote
I made a competative 1500 point fleet out of segmentum solar, using 4 endeavor light cruisers (or two endeavors and two endurance's), 2 mars battle cruisers and 2 avenger GC's.
This tournament list for Adepticon? Please tell us how it went when you are finished :)
But to be honest I won't bet any money on this list

But also this is no argument for your list proposal: Solar list has a clear advantage: more BC's / CG's tan a rgular list. Your proposal does not have something like this. A list where CG's are completly unrestriced - well, this could be something where I could consider not having an Emperor or any BC's...
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 22, 2011, 02:32:31 PM
Quote
And why the hell is everybody afraid with NC spam? Under current rules NC are teethless tigers, only real dangerous in their shortest distance from 30 to 45cm.

Not afraid of it, but with the HA opinion on the NC, I felt it should be pointed out that they just created the ultimate NC fleet list.

Quote
3. Even with the new rules using CG's is no advantage. Just not such a big disadvantage as it was before. They have still too much tactical flaws compared to battlecruisers as well as being somewhat overpriced.
This is blatantly false. Have you even used one outside of theoryhammer? The vengeance is one of the best gunships an IN fleet can take with the price it has and if you think that they are flawed tactically, perhaps it's just your tactics that are flawed. I use two in my fleet regularly and have always found them to be a far greater tactical asset than any of the other battlecruisers. The three turrets and three shields plus the extra hits while keeping all the maneuverability of a regular cruiser makes them an very versatile resource. The only other ship I put in a battlecruiser slot with any regularity is the Armageddon when I want a nice ranged lance boat. You hardly face CG in IN fleets because the models are expensive and most people aren't fond of the look.

Nate:

Quote
I REALLY like the idea of the Jovian being a reserve vessel in Battlefleet Bakka, which recycles the Bastion Fleets rule of not being able to take a reserve of a reserve. I can also see Emperor BB's only being available as reserves unless Admiral Rath leads the fleet. I will have to crunch this more, but not tonight.

I think these two ideas have merit.

Quote
It goes without saying the Mercury needs some tweaking. How about 20cm speed and 10x60cm batteries, still keeping the pops-with-a-bang characteristic? Once again this will need some playtesting before it is dug into much further, but you can only cram so much into an Imp BC hull before it starts becoming a hack job, which we need to avoid.

I think this is the exact OPPOSITE direction this ship needs to go. 25cm speed on an IN cruiser is what makes it unique and interesting. Dropping it to 20cm just makes it an overlord that takes a NC rather than a targeting array and costs far more to boot. I really think you need to drop the NC and either give it 45cm prow WB to boost the battery strength or torpedoes. Keeping the speed and heavy weapons load out goes with the fluff of having a battleship level power generation capability in a cruiser frame. Making it slower and basically the same as the pre-FAQ overlord makes for a "huh, what?" for why it has such a big explosive capability.

Quote
The Spacefleet Tyrant is a great model for the Siluria, but we can’t call the model out by name because you can’t get them anywhere anymore (even eBay’s been tapped out of these for quite some time!).

On the Siluria, I think that 90 points could be a reasonably attractive value for them. It gives you two for 180 points which is the same cost as a lunar. That lets you build a fleet around these and battlecruisers and escorts that gives you numbers on the field which the IN doesn't typically have access to and might be a good place for the ship.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Xyon on January 22, 2011, 06:04:42 PM
Any other Dr Who fans notice the "hammer of scaro" (skaro, scaro, pretty much the same thing) ? :D
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 22, 2011, 06:33:35 PM
Grand Cruisers are cool & good. Especially Excorcist & Vengeance.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 22, 2011, 08:35:56 PM
Grand cruisers require different tactics then normal imperial cruisers. I want to enjoy this in a proper fleet based manner.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 22, 2011, 11:33:10 PM
I just saw that bakka was being made official.  Now let me have my fanboyish 'HUZZAH!' and wonder where the Huud and Long Serpent are?  LS is perfect for the GW 'We need them to buy more kits' philosophy. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 22, 2011, 11:56:49 PM
Neat.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 23, 2011, 03:12:08 AM
I am torn on that philosophy.  I would rather buy lots of kits and make ships that we know work, instead of "lets make every possible combo and screw balance and stability"


It's how 40k went from being a fun game to play, to a game where you throw dice at each other and swear a lot because either "my 70 dollar mini just exploded round one" or "My army has not been updated in a decade and cannot compete"
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 24, 2011, 08:21:09 PM
Hi,

Bakka:

Lord Admiral Rath, what Ld?

Victory Battleship: prow torpedoes please. As original Cold Passage iirc.

Vanquisher: BB without a dorsal? With a broadside value at 30cm of 18 eqv wb. I'll never take this one. :/
It also contradicts the reason you gave me for not giving the Oberon a range upgrade.... ;)

Mercury CB: special rule: like the IN wants 25cm odd cruisers... ;)   It is an essence a battlecruiser of the Tyrant.  Tyrant with range upgrade + NC = 215pts.
Thus now we pay 45 points for 2 dorsal lances (=30pts), 15cm extra range on some batteries (=15pts) and a special rule with a pro and con. The con exceeding the pro.

But the Tyrant is overcosted in itself, the 25cm speed isn't needed thus the special rule a downfall. Thus the Mercury should be 250pts top. As a CB it is already restricted.

Jovian = go away with this rubbish ship. :)

Siluria = much better then the Voss ones. The voss ones still need 6+ prows and 90*. The Siluria has not the kinda wasted 2torps. Can focus fp on a 25cm / 90* hull. Competition for the Dauntless.... to be honest it is better then the Dauntless. Dauntless must choose strong prow weaponry or weak abeam. Prow on it is vulnerable. The Siluria can str2 lance / str 6 = like str4 lance with an abeam presence.
Point increase needed to equal Dauntless.

Havoc & Viper are cool.

Fleet : problem with less carriers the Emperor will always be taken I reckon. Drop it. Add Oberon.

That's about it.


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 24, 2011, 08:34:34 PM
Quote
Siluria = much better then the Voss ones. The voss ones still need 6+ prows and 90*. The Siluria has not the kinda wasted 2torps. Can focus fp on a 25cm / 90* hull. Competition for the Dauntless.... to be honest it is better then the Dauntless. Dauntless must choose strong prow weaponry or weak abeam. Prow on it is vulnerable. The Siluria can str2 lance / str 6 = like str4 lance with an abeam presence.

I'm confused here Horizon. I'm not seeing an option for a lance on there at all. The Siluria has the same weapons as an endeavour, but with -1 turret, +5cm speed, and the dauntless AAF instead of the Endeavour boarding.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 24, 2011, 08:36:26 PM
lol, I misread the prow 2wb for 2 lance.

Ah well... it is then 8wb on the focus vs 3 lances.
Abeam vs prow on.
I'd equal it to the Dauntless.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 25, 2011, 10:02:11 AM
Love this Battlefleet. Only thing I would change is to disallow ships from this fleet to be used as reserves in other fleets. Then this list can wallow in its own putrescence forever, and I can just laugh at anyone who uses it.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 25, 2011, 01:50:56 PM
Love this Battlefleet. Only thing I would change is to disallow ships from this fleet to be used as reserves in other fleets. Then this list can wallow in its own putrescence forever, and I can just laugh at anyone who uses it.
My pc just got a sarcasm overload. lol

I will hunt you down with a fleet of Siluria's, Vipers & Havoc's. ;)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 25, 2011, 04:05:19 PM
Love this Battlefleet. Only thing I would change is to disallow ships from this fleet to be used as reserves in other fleets. Then this list can wallow in its own putrescence forever, and I can just laugh at anyone who uses it.
My pc just got a sarcasm overload. lol

I will hunt you down with a fleet of Siluria's, Vipers & Havoc's. ;)

Funnily enough, the most tolerable elements of this document.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 25, 2011, 05:04:36 PM
I really need to agree with Sig here.

There is no real redemption for this fleet. It's just "Lets mishmash every bit of the left over ships that never made it into Armada into a single document".

It just DOES NOT WORK!  The special ships in the fleet are bad jokes, and just don't function in an imperial fleet. 

Bakka is huge in BFG, being one of the earliest lists to grace the game.  However, it also became a dumping ground for every crackpot ship that was ever made.  The result? the ships that were actually creative made it into the Armada book, the rest were discarded.

the ONLY ship that I like is the Siluria, because its a "super light cruiser" concept.  The viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?

This fleet suffers from so many flaws, it's benefits are being overshadowed.  Scrap this and try again.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 25, 2011, 05:09:13 PM
Quote
The viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?
While I agree with you in the overall point of view, I'd actually say the exact OPPOSITE here. Why take the viper when you can take a cobra for less with +1 to RO rolls?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 25, 2011, 06:03:47 PM
I really need to agree with Sig here.

There is no real redemption for this fleet. It's just "Lets mishmash every bit of the left over ships that never made it into Armada into a single document".

It just DOES NOT WORK!  The special ships in the fleet are bad jokes, and just don't function in an imperial fleet.  

Bakka is huge in BFG, being one of the earliest lists to grace the game.  However, it also became a dumping ground for every crackpot ship that was ever made.  The result? the ships that were actually creative made it into the Armada book, the rest were discarded.

the ONLY ship that I like is the Siluria, because its a "super light cruiser" concept.  The viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?

This fleet suffers from so many flaws, it's benefits are being overshadowed.  Scrap this and try again.

Don't really care about the Vipers to be honest. 7WBs & +17% survivability vs 4 torps spread across 210 pts (7 Cobras vs 6 Vipers). They used to have an extra downside if I remember. Still, not a problem as far as I'm concerned. Even if you would always take this trade-off in favour of the Vipers, the rest of the list is pretty rubbish, so it doesn't make too much difference. The Havoc seems fine too, particularly if you account for the +1 turret on the Falchion and 5 pt cost reduction for the Firestorm as proposed in the flawed ships thread. Again, as there's neither Falchion nor Firestorm in this list, it's not a big deal.

It's the rest of the list that presents a problem. The Jovian is the subject of much debate. A fleet carrier of this nature is anathema to current IN doctrine, but it makes sense in a list with no carrier CAs (or cheap carrier CGs for that matter). Speaking of which, having no line carriers is not only a bit odd, but it makes the selection of the supposedly rare Jovian and Emperor almost certainties.

The Mercury is just a joke. It's a Tyrant with +15cm range and dorsal lances. If that were all it was it would be crapola. But instead it also automatically includes the NC upgrade and so lacks the choice of torps. This is odd given the pages and pages of posts written of people's concerns with the NC. However, on top of all this it gets even worse. Not only is the range upgrade on the Mercury more expensive than the same upgrade on the Tyrant, but the Mercury is faster than any other IN CA, CB, CG or BB. Why oh why would we want speed on a stand off vessel?  ??? This ship has (weak) long ranged guns and a Nova Cannon! If it was 12WB@30cm and torps then I could see wanting the speed. Otherwise it's just rubbish. Not to mention out of line with the rest of the fleet. But wait, there's more! A trade-off to this "bonus" speed is that the ship is more likely to blow up, and blow up more spectactularly! Then, on top of all this, the ship is overpriced even when compared to a Tyrant! I mean, what?  ???  :'(

The Victory and Vanquisher classes are also way overpriced. Way. Both can be compared unfavourably to a Desolator. The Vanquisher has 25% less range on its lances, a rather massive 40% speed reduction, 50% torpedo reduction and costs 30 pts more. It gains prow armour and 6 offside WBs. Way crap. The Victory can have the exact same armament as the Desolator, making the only differences in profiles -20% speed in exchange for 6+ prow armour. OK, this is pretty even, given that neither is all that useful in a stand-off vessel. The prow armour is slightly better. Not 55 pts better though.  :o

However, by far the worst aspect of the entire list is the FDT. I've never liked this rule. Can someone tell me the type of weapon the IN have that is large enough to fire 15,000 kms, and yet tracks so well that it can target bombers with ease? That is powerful enough to fire across this vast distance quick enough to be able to shoot down bombers before they can change course and yet gentle enough to not hurt the friendly ship when it gets hit (as would be inevitable when tracking a 50 odd meter target against a backdrop of a 5 km long ship)? In short, it is absolutely absurd. I really cannot stress how dumb this damn thing is. I know, I know, the AdMech already have it. I think it's dumb there too. However, in Bakka you can just buy them. In AdMech they're a random roll, and getting them in that fleet seems more like a punishment than a bonus (since it's a turret heavy fleet and the other options are better). None of this makes it any more sensible, but adding more of this crap rule really is a step in the wrong direction.

So far we've got some really crap ships (Mercury, Vanquisher, Victory) and some ships that are really only viable in a restricted list (Jovian, Viper, Havoc, Siluria) as a way to make up for not having other stuff. This is not a good start. However, when you add in that other lists could pull in these Bakka ships as reserves, it means that the Jovian, Viper, Havoc and Siluria are available to all IN lists. In fact, since composition restrictions of the parent fleet are ignored for reserves rules then it seems possible that another IN list could pull in 2 or more Jovians as reserves. Wot? Not to mention that it will give any IN list access to the terribad FDT.

My immediate solution would be to not allow reserves to be used for Bakka. So no Bakka ships in other IN lists and no other IN reserves in Bakka. Contain the crapness. If that is done then I can happily ignore the list.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 25, 2011, 06:04:39 PM
Quote
The viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?
While I agree with you in the overall point of view, I'd actually say the exact OPPOSITE here. Why take the viper when you can take a cobra for less with +1 to RO rolls?

Eh? No difference in RO rolls. That seems to have been dropped.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 25, 2011, 06:11:11 PM
In all honesty... just bin the fleet and start again. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zhukov on January 25, 2011, 07:07:36 PM
Honestly now, I think we should rename this document to:

"Old Chaos vessels refitted to modern Imperial Navy standards!"

This document is total crap. Nothing truly original to it at all. It seems we have built this document in response to the Powers of Chaos document. If that is the case, then scrap them both. In the Powers of Chaos document, we liked the idea of having actual differences in the POWERS of the Chaos only TOLERATING the new ship profiles (even though they were ones EVERYONE was pushing for in the case of the basic Despoiler variant). Those vessels weren't needed and everybody (IIRC) said that and I believe the same is true here.

The stuff in this document should stick to being just house rules.

Now if this is going through no matter what, here's my critique:

Bit of editing needed on the Rath page. Get rid of the second Imperial eagle in the middle of the page. It would resolve the issue of the picture in the bottom right covering up some of the fluff.

Victory: NO! Modern IN version of Despoiler? Nothing original to it's design? Scrap it.
Vanquisher: This ship is only on this document because the Retribution is undergunned. Sad sad... otherwise, it's a cheap BB. So I can't say much is "wrong" with it. It's definately undergunned without a dorsal armament but that's why it's cheap!
Mercury: NO! Modern IN cruisers shouldn't have 25cm cruisers. That's a core mechanic of the game.
Jovian: NO! Modern IN version of Styx? Nothing original to it's design? Scrap it.
Endeavor and Endurance: It's sad we have to do these profiles because GW no longer sells the models for the ACTUAL Endeavor and Endurance. Give them new names and we're all set!
Siluria: Should be 4 hp's.
Havoc: Reading the fluff, it shouldn't be in this document. Put it in the Rogue Trader and Pirates document. Nice ship, IMO.
Viper: Needed ship IMO. I like it.

Fleet List: Make the Emperor only available when Rath is taken. This way it's only present for very large engagements, aka the Tyrannic War.
Add the Oberon to replace it.

Well, that's my opinion of it.
 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 25, 2011, 07:27:46 PM
Quote
The viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?
While I agree with you in the overall point of view, I'd actually say the exact OPPOSITE here. Why take the viper when you can take a cobra for less with +1 to RO rolls?

Eh? No difference in RO rolls. That seems to have been dropped.

He means the +1 LD that cobras can get.


I like some elements of the list, others not so much.  Its got the right idea for flavor, anyway.  Long way to go.

As far as the 'already been done before' argument, its a game with a total number of weapon systems I can count on a hand.  Differences in classes will be subtle, not dramatic.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 25, 2011, 07:48:51 PM
Quote
Eh? No difference in RO rolls. That seems to have been dropped.
Referencing the trade that cobras can do to drop the 1wb in favor of +1 ld to RO rolls.

Quote
The Havoc seems fine too, particularly if you account for the +1 turret on the Falchion and 5 pt cost reduction for the Firestorm as proposed in the flawed ships thread. Again, as there's neither Falchion nor Firestorm in this list, it's not a big deal.
The thing is, nothing in the flawed ships thread makes a lick of difference since it's not getting an official stamp. Add to that the sword is already available in the list and the havoc becomes useless as you lose one turret and unrestricted weapons arcs while gaining..  +1 wb. There's quite literally no time a sword wouldn't be better than this thing and it's the same cost!
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 26, 2011, 04:10:39 AM
Love this Battlefleet. Only thing I would change is to disallow ships from this fleet to be used as reserves in other fleets. Then this list can wallow in its own putrescence forever, and I can just laugh at anyone who uses it.

My pc just got a sarcasm overload. lol

I will hunt you down with a fleet of Siluria's, Vipers & Havoc's. ;)

Funnily enough, the most tolerable elements of this document.

That's why took them, I want to stand at least something of a chance. haha



////

With all this going on: how different is this from the original Bakka list? If it is very much like this I can understand why it never made it into an official publication...


/////

For a carrier variant instead of the Jovian: add the Dominion from the Book of Nemesis.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 26, 2011, 06:13:06 AM
Wow! Lots of feedback and great ideas here! THANKS! Here's my fedback to your feedback, in a nutshell. Many of the ideas here have been taken on so I will focus mainly on the ones we're not.

While I am replying to Horizon's post here, that's mainly to collate my responses in one place.  I am answering questions from several sources here to everyone who had something to add. Please don’t take any of my responses personally, and if it seems like my comments aren’t directed at you, then they’re not! :)   Of course, responses based solely on vitriol with no actually useful feedback are being ignored.  :D

Hi,

Bakka:

Lord Admiral Rath, what Ld?


LD-10. This has been fixed. Oops!   :P

Quote

Victory Battleship: prow torpedoes please. As original Cold Passage iirc.


Already done. I don’t know about the Cold Passage article, but as far back as BFG mag#2  in 2001 this ship has had a Nova Cannon. Following the logic that a NC is +20 points over six torps, we extrapolated that for simplicity’s sake to mean it would be +10 points against 9 torps  or free against 12 torps, thus, the 9-torp version of the Victory is -10 points. We also reduced the Victory by -5 points so that a torp-Victory ends up being only +5 points over a Retribution. That was done only for simplicity (I hate using math for gaming), but in reality the ship fares about on par with a Retribution.

Quote

Vanquisher: BB without a dorsal? With a broadside value at 30cm of 18 eqv wb. I'll never take this one. :/
It also contradicts the reason you gave me for not giving the Oberon a range upgrade.... ;)


Then don’t take it. It’s meant to be a cheap character vessel, and consideration has been made that it does not even necessarily have to be a “one-of.” Not all character ships NEED to be super-powerful, and not everyone plays BFG simply to smash their opponents with the shootiest fleet one can assemble for the points.  Strategy should consist of far more than whipping out a calculator and trying to determine how much firepower one can squeeze into a given point limit. If that's how you play, stick with Battlefleet Solar and move on- there’s nothing for you here.

Quote


Mercury CB: special rule: like the IN wants 25cm odd cruisers... ;)   It is an essence a battlecruiser of the Tyrant.  Tyrant with range upgrade + NC = 215pts.
Thus now we pay 45 points for 2 dorsal lances (=30pts), 15cm extra range on some batteries (=15pts) and a special rule with a pro and con. The con exceeding the pro.

But the Tyrant is overcosted in itself, the 25cm speed isn't needed thus the special rule a downfall. Thus the Mercury should be 250pts top. As a CB it is already restricted.



Bob loves this ship, and so do I, and it has proven to be somewhat more popular over the years than I anticipated, especially at some of the GamesDays I attended over the years.

Here’s why the Long Serpent is such a great ship- Nova Cannon have by default become a weapon players ONLY use to hang back and use as BFG artillery. You wonder how I was so lucky with my NC rolls? I’ll tell you how: the Imp fleet is shorter-ranged than Chaos and plays best in a knife fight. NC’s DON’T HAVE TO BE ARTILLERY! Push your ships forward and get into the knife fight. Sure you will get less NC shots in, but they will be far more accurate for the shots you do get in. This ship is designed to MAKE players take advantage of how NC’s are SUPPOSED to work best for Imperials, and that is the true genius of the Dominator- one of the things I agree with Sigoroth about.

Giving this ship torps (even as an option) would completely defeat what we are trying to do with it. We are dumbing down the guns a bit to make it a Tyrant-BC and reducing the cost to boot, but only a bit- it should be a bit overpriced because of how it fits in the Imp fleet. Once again, if you don’t like it, don’t take it.

Quote

Jovian = go away with this rubbish ship. :)



I prefer the term “character vessel.”   :) It’s a one-of reserve ship that will at best make very rare appearances on the tabletop- as a reserve you need three BC’s to field it, and as a one-of you can’t ever have more than one. Why is everyone convinced character ships have to be 50-pound sledgehammers?

Quote


Siluria = much better then the Voss ones. The voss ones still need 6+ prows and 90*. The Siluria has not the kinda wasted 2torps. Can focus fp on a 25cm / 90* hull. Competition for the Dauntless.... to be honest it is better then the Dauntless. Dauntless must choose strong prow weaponry or weak abeam. Prow on it is vulnerable. The Siluria can str2 lance / str 6 = like str4 lance with an abeam presence.
Point increase needed to equal Dauntless.



Here you and I are in complete agreement. Andy C and co loved the Siluria so much, it was the actual true-to-life inspiration for the Endeavor and all its variants. By making it an “Endeavor-minus,” we are bringing back what has always been a cool ship. Though faster than an Endeavor, it has one less turret, no torps and no boarding bonus for otherwise the same guns fit so it can stay ten points cheaper.

Some have suggested that it should be even cheaper still, making it 90 points so that it can be a half-Dominator or something to that effect. Doing so ignores the fact that two 6HP hulls are ALWAYS more survivable than a single 8HP hull, not to mention that making this a neat “half-cruiser” pointswise encourages the kind of min-maxing we strive to avoid.

Quote


Havoc & Viper are cool.



Agreed!  :) The intent with the Havoc was to make this as parallel as possible with that in the Koronus Expanse, keeping in mind that it is IMPOSSIBLE to neatly collate these two game systems due to the vast differences in scope. However, it has been noted that the Havoc is a bit overpriced so to make it more congruent with a Sword and to better fit the Bakka theme, it has been given a second turret for no price change.

Quote


Fleet : problem with less carriers the Emperor will always be taken I reckon. Drop it. Add Oberon.

That's about it.



Agreed. As written, even an “0-1 Emperor” means in most battles an Emperor will be taken- it’s just that good. Instead we made it a reserve unless Admiral Rath is taken, in which case it can be taken as the flagship. This keeps true to the Bakka storyline and means if you want an Emperor up front, it’s going to cost you a LOT of points.

Rather than taking the Oberon (which doesn’t entirely solve the problem), we instead are using the Vanquisher as a “Bakka-Oberon” with more guns and no launch bays. Once again, the lack of dorsals are intentional



I really need to agree with Sig here.

There is no real redemption for this fleet. It's just "Lets mishmash every bit of the left over ships that never made it into Armada into a single document".

It just DOES NOT WORK!  The special ships in the fleet are bad jokes, and just don't function in an imperial fleet. 

Bakka is huge in BFG, being one of the earliest lists to grace the game.  However, it also became a dumping ground for every crackpot ship that was ever made.  The result? the ships that were actually creative made it into the Armada book, the rest were discarded.


As one of the people that helped write the 2002 Annual and assisted with designing the profiles, playtesting the ships and helping to decide which ones made it into Armada, I beg to differ.

The first constraint was space- we only had 160 pages to work with and a lot of material to cover. Some ships were NEVER going to see the light of day- the Nemesis fleet carrier was DOA, and the Demon Slayer with its Psychic Cannon was a non-starter. However, some of these ships are actually quite balanced and themeful, whether some players like them or not. Make no mistake: “I don’t like a ship” is not the same thing as “This ship is garbage.”

There was always the intent to create more fleet lists, and the first one was going to be Battlefleet Bakka to document the other side of the Tyranic war introduced by the Tyranids in Armada. It was the shut-down of Fanatic that brought an end to this, not lack of interest for the ships in the BFG 2002 Annual. The first reflex from the game designers when Fanatic was unplugged was to simply declare that ALL the BFG Magazine ships were official and call it good, and it was the HA’s that argued against it.

Quote

The ONLY ship that I like is the Siluria, because its a "super light cruiser" concept.  The viper is just something that should not exist, period. Why take a cobra if you could take this?


About the Viper: some people love it, some people hate it. The Cobra is cheaper and can trade its battery for +1Ld. The argument has been made against Vipers in this same thread. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, but that doesn’t make it broken.

Quote

This fleet suffers from so many flaws, it's benefits are being overshadowed.  Scrap this and try again.


How about giving the HA’s more input than “this is garbage, start over?” I’m not worried about the fans not liking this first draft- that’s what makes it a first draft. Flak I’m not worried about- constructive criticism and reasoned disagreement, no matter how passionate, is ALWAYS helpful. I don’t expect everyone to agree with the HA’s. Heck, I hope lots of people DON’T- groupthink always results in a crappy product.

I am concerned with how many arguments on this thread consist of, “this list sucks because I can take better ships for less points and smash a Bakka fleet to dust.” The HA’s are tired of fielding requests to “fix” ships by making them either cheaper or shootier. Strategy and tactics are about working with what you have, not designing patches for every hole in the fleet. Really- if that’s all people care about, they can just stick with Battlefleet Solar, min-max their fleet lists to their little hearts’ content and move on. These ships in the Bakka list are the last ships that originate from 2001. Contrary to one of the arguments, this absolutely was NOT a mash-up of all the rest of the ships not taken. The Nemesis battleship is an abortion better left dead, and don’t EVEN get me started on the Demon Slayer!!

The funniest part is how we were warned by the game designers not to get the fans involved with this process. We were told we would waste most of our time trying to justify what we were doing to people who only wanted what they wanted and nothing else, and in the end they would just be pissed at us anyway.

I still have faith the fans can help make this right. All constructive criticism is NEEDED and will be noted. However, we don’t have a lot of time left before we will be unplugged whether we are done or not, and I am no longer going to sit here and argue with people who argue for fun. I want people to disagree with me until we get this right. However, if your responses are noise and drivel, you will be ignored.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 26, 2011, 06:21:11 AM
Quote
Eh? No difference in RO rolls. That seems to have been dropped.
Referencing the trade that cobras can do to drop the 1wb in favor of +1 ld to RO rolls.

Ah, forgot about that. I never use that option myself (rarely use Cobras). In the comparison it would be +0.9 Ld & +17% survivability vs 4 torps.

Quote
The thing is, nothing in the flawed ships thread makes a lick of difference since it's not getting an official stamp. Add to that the sword is already available in the list and the havoc becomes useless as you lose one turret and unrestricted weapons arcs while gaining..  +1 wb. There's quite literally no time a sword wouldn't be better than this thing and it's the same cost!

Consider the Falchion vs the Sword. The loss of firepower is made up for by the addition of the torp. 1 torp is generally worth 1.5 WBs, but this is obviously worth a little less, since it makes the ship want to RO and is only a F arc weapon. Also, it is not very great offensively, having to put at least 3 ships in base contact to get a decent chance of taking down an enemy escort. However, it is a superb defensive torp-breaker and CAP clearer, being the most efficient at these two jobs in the entire game. So, this is worth the loss of 1 WB. Not the loss of 1 turret on top though. If it had the extra turret it would be equivalent of the Sword.

The Firestorm is like a Sword but with +1WBe and 60% of its firepower locked forward. A reasonable trade-off. So if it was the same price as a Sword it would be worth the same, just like Falchion.

The Havoc, on the other hand, is much like the Firestorm in the above comparison, but has only 40% of its weaponry locked forward. Compared to the Falchion it's identical except 1 torp swapped for 2 WBs (1 torp worth 1.5 WBs). So, turrets and price being equal, the Havoc is superior to these ships. That's why I say with the Firestorm's drop in cost and the Falchion's extra turret the Havoc slots in well. It maybe slightly inferior to corrected alternatives, but that's fine for a new escort that provides more variety anyway. As it stands it's superior to the Firestorm as far as I'm concerned, which is again fine since the Firestorm is crap.

It is strange that this list has access to both the Sword and Havoc, since they're the most competing alternatives, but then again, it has Cobras and Vipers too. I'd have preferred a list with only Vipers, Havocs and Falchions.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 26, 2011, 06:42:35 AM
Quote
The funniest part is how we were warned by the game designers not to get the fans involved with this process. We were told we would waste most of our time trying to justify what we were doing to people who only wanted what they wanted and nothing else, and in the end they would just be pissed at us anyway
These game designers are lame and insecure. With a game like BFG fans are the heart, the ones who kept the game alive.
I appreciate the HA took this route. A more difficult route but a much better one!



Jovian, character or not, I dislike the design. It does not say: Imperial Navy.
Same applies to the Mercury: 20cm speed and 240pts. Max.

Extra turret for Havoc: nice.
Keep Viper/Siluria as is.

Drop (per Sig's suggestion) the Cobra and perhaps even Sword from the list.

I'll mail you Cold Passage & Old Victory Stats if I'll find them.




Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 26, 2011, 08:26:32 AM
Nate, you created a fleet that is a bad joke. Why is it a bad joke? lets go down the list.


1. It is in total contrast with what an Imperial navy fleet should be, as established in the fluff for the following reasons:
a. The jovian is present, which should never have been built in the first place, as the entire imperial navy decided against this philosophy.  
b. The Havoc's hull design is nearly identical to that of the Infadel. Imperial commanders tend not to use known designs that are used by chaos for fear of warp corruption.
c. The Mercury is fast, yet not effective as artillery because it's speed is too high, and in a knife fight it is easily outstripped by overlords because they don't suffer from a minimum range of 30 cm.

The nova cannon IS space artillery.  It's what it was designed for ever since the beginning of the game... otherwise it would not have 150 cm of range and a scatter-to-hit.

2. The limits on carriers are not going to be felt.  First things first, the 200 point commander is now useless if he is limited to the Emperor (or vise versa). His LD 10 goes to waste on it.  The Jovian will be in EVERY FLEET, and now will be taken as reserves in EVERY OTHER fleet.  Unless you remove the emperor entirely, your not going to feel the squeeze.

3. The point costs for known vessels are going to be different then in other fleets, causing confusion

4. The Silurian has no mini available, unless you butcher a $16.50 miniature.  

5. Fleet defense turrets were established as RARE when you made the Ad mech fleet.  If they were so common, why do you have to roll randomly for the holders of imperial technology?

6. you call for this fleet to have old technology, and yet you spurn the grand cruiser which is established to be the old warhorse of the imperial fleet.

7. The battleships have no place to fill, and are almost entirely identical to each other.

Nate, I live for your work, but stop being selective with your fluff, and stop accusing us of being so negative. It is possible that we could be right for a change :D
    
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 26, 2011, 08:27:56 AM
@Nate

I notice you didn't address any of the concerns I raised. If you don't actually want to make this list balanced, fine, at the very least cut off reserves. Limit this list into its own microcosm that will not effect the rest of BFG. Make no mistake, the Bakka list is a shit list. That's just the way it is, whether you want to call it "character" or whatever. The biggest problem however is the fact that other (not crap) lists can take these ships. Let's use the Jovian as an example. Because its special rules say only 1 max, this means you can't reserve in 2 or more. Fine so far. However, you said that people would need 3 CBs to field it. This is incorrect. You'd only need 3 cruisers of any type: CLs, CA, CBs, CGs. So in allowing Bakka vessels to be used as reserves then you're simply adding 0-1 Jovian to every IN fleet list. You can even field a 750 pt list comprising 2 Defiants, 1 Dictator and 1 Jovian, for a total of 14 AC at 740 pts. An Emperor and 3 Defiants would give 14 AC, but that combination comes to 755 pts.

Also, the FDT. I know it exists already in the AdMech. This is the thing about precedents, bad ones allow for the introduction of crap like this. I know that the Bakka list is meant to be low AC, hence the FDT. However, it is absurd. Not the mechanic, the notion. I have no idea how the IN have targeting systems that can track and predict the movements of enemy bombers as they are manoeuvring to make their attack runs from up to 15,000 kms away. Then add into this logical absurdity that they have guns that are powerful enough to reach this far out and in a timely manner to destroy bombers, yet are so weak that they cannot possibly hurt even an escort. The concept is ludicrous. These weapons should NOT take the place of turreted weaponry. They should take the place of main guns. This should allow a weapon system to hit ordnance on a 4+, not act like a turret. And again, just like the Jovian, this rule should not be available to any fleet list willy nilly through reserves! Bad ideas should not be spread!

I am with Zhukov completely in that this document, as well as the travesty that is the Powers of Chaos, should just both be binned. You (the HA) seem unwilling or unable to enact the changes necessary that would make these documents anything but a bad joke. The Powers of Chaos has not a single good ship in it. The closest is the Inferno, but it's not only boring but it has a really crap name. Rejected. The Hecate? Not too bad, name fits, but the ship itself doesn't. You overwrote the original fluff for absolutely no reason. This should have been a heavy Dev. Yet another Chaos cruiser with WB pieces. Rejected. These are the good ships. All of the BBs with the exception of the Wages of Sin is based on a flawed ship or concept. A flaw which you were unwilling to fix. Worse, in the case of the Wages of Sin, a ship that could actually have been acceptable, you decided to break it. You gave it 3 AC per bay. What the hell were you thinking? Rejected, rejected, rejected. The entire document is utter RUBBISH. So, if that's the extent of you responding to constructive criticism then I have zero hopes for this document. So, like Zhukov, I suggest you just bin them both. If you REALLY want to fix this document then you have to be willing to slash to the bone. I doubt you're willing though.


Quote
Bob loves this ship, and so do I, and it has proven to be somewhat more popular over the years than I anticipated, especially at some of the GamesDays I attended over the years.

Here’s why the Long Serpent is such a great ship- Nova Cannon have by default become a weapon players ONLY use to hang back and use as BFG artillery. You wonder how I was so lucky with my NC rolls? I’ll tell you how: the Imp fleet is shorter-ranged than Chaos and plays best in a knife fight. NC’s DON’T HAVE TO BE ARTILLERY! Push your ships forward and get into the knife fight. Sure you will get less NC shots in, but they will be far more accurate for the shots you do get in. This ship is designed to MAKE players take advantage of how NC’s are SUPPOSED to work best for Imperials, and that is the true genius of the Dominator- one of the things I agree with Sigoroth about.

Giving this ship torps (even as an option) would completely defeat what we are trying to do with it. We are dumbing down the guns a bit to make it a Tyrant-BC and reducing the cost to boot, but only a bit- it should be a bit overpriced because of how it fits in the Imp fleet. Once again, if you don’t like it, don’t take it.


The Mercury. This ship is rubbish. It's just ... rubbish. Bring its cost down to around 220 base, and you're getting somewhere. Everyone knows I dislike the Overlord. It seems a pointless ship to me. However, long ago I priced it at 220 pts and now, eventually, that's what its cost is. Still a crap ship as far as I'm concerned, I don't like it, but at least priced right. So, compare this improved Long Serpent to the correctly priced Overlord. It has -2WB at >45cm & +2WB at <45cm. Meh, +5 pts for the Mercury. It has a NC instead of torps (non-optional) so add another 10 pts. Now it has extra speed which is almost completely useless on a stand-off ship and is surely a detriment when every other cruiser has speed 20cm. So -5 pts there. And it blows up spectacularly. Since it's a CB and therefore has a higher firepower to survivability ratio than a typical cruiser, is worth more VPs than a typical cruiser and explodes rather easily and spectacularly this ship is going to be the prime target of the opposing fleet, and in all likelihood is going to explode in your own line and cripple your other ships. Sooooo -10 pts for that. 220 pts base, 235 with range upgrade and it would not be too cheap. Hint, I'd take the Armageddon over it every time. Hell, I'd take the Overlord over the unupgraded version!

OK, so, having it pointed out just how shit it is, you're still not going to drop its cost down to something reasonable. You have ideas that a fast NC ship is brilliant. ??? You're not even going to give it an option for torps, or fix the ludicrous cost of the range upgrade. Fine. It'll just be another lemon in the IN fleet. Whatever. Not a problem really, so long as normal (ie, proper) IN lists can't get access to the Jovian or the horrible FDTs.

The Victory. OK, this ship is identical to a Desolator, trading 5cm speed for a 6+ prow for a whopping 55 pts! Surely this does not even approach balance? It is a stand off vessel. You compare it to a Retribution when the Retribution is universally recognised as a shit ship and a line-breaker. One of the first fan changes in the flawed ships thread and the easiest agreed on was to push the Ret out to 18WBs at 45cm range. The Victory compares unfavourably to the current Retribution! And it costs more! Hell, when comparing the prow armour of the Victory to the extra speed of the Desolator I'd probably take the speed! At least then you could turn when crippled with a BM! If you dropped the armour and dropped the cost to 300 pts it would not be overpowered (it would be a slow Desolator with a NC option).

The Vanquisher. This ship is even worse than the Victory in the Desolator comparison. It gives up range, so it has to close. It has + off-side weaponry, so to get best use out of this bonus it is has to break the line, so it has to close. For this the 6+ prow armour is good. However, in this aspect you really feel the loss of the torpedo strength. However, the biggest loss is in its speed. A ship that has to close and break the line but only has 15cm speed. It's even slower than the Victory, which is slow compared to the Desolator. And yet again this ship is more expensive than the Desolator. Again 300 pts is not too cheap.

Presumably you will again ignore this and argue some crap like "aw, I think they have their uses" or "I think you underestimate them" or "I don't think they can be compared to the Desolator". Fine. Leave them shit. I don't care. So long as other IN lists are not spoiled by the Jovian or FDTs, what do I care if this list is pure garbage?

So again we have this theme of a crap list and a Pandora's box of crapness for other lists. Best solution is to highlight the entire document and hit 'delete'. In lieu of this I will be content with just containing the fail to this list only. At the very least, disallow other lists from using Bakka ships as reserves. You can, if you want, also try to fix the Victory, Vanquisher and Mercury. That's optional.

Now, you have pointed out that there's a difference between "don't like" and "broken". I'll sort the ships of Bakka such that you know my opinion of both the ship itself and its balance:

Victory - ambivalent/broken
Vanquisher - like/broken
Mercury - hate/broken
Jovian - like/broken
Siluria - ambivalent/fine
Viper - ambivalent/fine
Havoc - like/fine
FDTs - hatehatehate/broken

Note: I do NOT think that the Havoc requires the extra turret and I'm quite surprised to see that you're giving it to it. The Falchion is the one that needs the extra turret for parity. The Firestorm currently has 2 turrets and 5WBe (60% forward only) for 40 pts. This should be only 35 pts for parity with the Sword. The Havoc has 5WB (40% forward only) and is only 35 pts, making it cheaper than the Firestorm for the same total firepower and more versatility with that firepower. It seems OTT to give it an extra turret. Assuming that the Firestorm came down to 35 pts and the Falchion got the extra turret then the Havoc might compare oh so slightly less favourably than these 3 ships (Falchion, Firestorm, Sword). Slightly.

Compared to the Sword you can keep the same defensive aspect but lose 1WB or make your aspect worse but gain 1WB. This isn't quite parity since the choice is yours (not random), pushing the advantage slightly to the Havoc. The loss of a turret swings it back to the Sword. Compared to the Firestorm (at 35 pts) the Havoc is a specialist ship (meaning better) and has greater swing with its weaponry (slight advantage). So it's flat out better with 2 turrets. With 1 turret the advantage swings back to the Firestorm (but it's currently 40 pts, giving the Havoc the advantage). Against the Falchion you sacrifice extremely efficient CAP/torp-breaking for pure firepower. A 67% increase on main guns. This is already advantage Havoc. Giving the Havoc the extra turret instead of the Falchion is just weird.

The overall result is that a 1 turret Havoc is very slightly behind a 2 turret Falchion, 35pt Firestorm and the Sword. To me this is fine. It's ability to specialise in pure WBs at Firestorm level firepower is enough of an addition to make this OK. Particularly when you factor in that the Falchion does not officially have 2 turrets, and the Firestorm is officially still 40 pts. If it had 2 turrets it would be slightly better than all those (fixed) ships, and that seems a little odd to me.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 26, 2011, 08:34:25 AM
Sig, I use the overlord to great effect, and will do so at Adepticon :)

But aside from that...


I happen to like the forces of chaos list... If you have problems with -this- list, mention them here, keep the issues for the chaos list in the proper forum.

We don't hate the list because we are insubordinate children... We hate it because it fails to live up to it's own fluff and because it is not comparable to the other imperial lists.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 26, 2011, 08:42:14 AM
I think the Powers of Chaos list is better then Bakka.

The problem is again that the core lists have problems which should be fixed first (eg Retribution, Falchion) to make new ships more balanced and all.
This applies to PoC & Bakka.

New Overlord @ 220pts with matrix @ 15pts is fine to me.

@ Sig,
in the end your list is still pretty positive on the general view. ;)








Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 26, 2011, 08:54:09 AM
PoC list is worse. There are only 2 major issues with Bakka. Those are the Jovian and FDTs in other lists. The crapness of its ships is more of a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. No one has to play Bakka and if you play against it chances are you'll thump it. The PoC is worse because it enshrines some pretty terrible flaws, extending and compounding upon confusions that have always been associated with some Chaos profiles. At least Bakka has 3 perfectly acceptable profiles (Siluria, Viper, Havoc).
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eldanesh on January 26, 2011, 09:45:23 AM
@Nate
Quote
I am concerned with how many arguments on this thread consist of, “this list sucks because I can take better ships for less points and smash a Bakka fleet to dust.”

I really L O V E the original idea of the list: a IN list without flyers just gunboats, I'd love to play this. (We all know that flyers were never really intended, don't we?  ;D)

But it is a simple fact that you need flyers to some degree: for defensive purposes as well as for offense. I don't talk about bombers - Imps don't do much damage with their flyers at all - but you need them to get your torpedos trough. Otherwise the other player just sets some AC on CAP and your torpedos won't do any damage.

This simply means an IN without flyers is challengend on the offense as well as on defence and needs something to equalize this disadvantage.
The logical choice would be that the list gets access to some superior gunships. But there the list fails.
You can call it "character" as often as you want, but the fact stands that all the crusiers and Battelships are simply crap. Way undergunned (especially strange for an intended gun ship fleet) and way to expensive.

Quote
The funniest part is how we were warned by the game designers not to get the fans involved with this process. We were told we would waste most of our time trying to justify what we were doing to people who only wanted what they wanted and nothing else, and in the end they would just be pissed at us anyway.
Perhaps it would help if you explain what IS the intenion, because some rules/ships simply don't make much sense. Or at least I/we can't see them.

Let's take the Victory for example.

Compared to the Retribution you have
- +20 points
- -S3@60cm dorsal Firepower
- Nova Cannon instead of S9 torpdeos
If we consider the Hammer of Scaro -Variant we essentially have a Retribution with 3 points of firepower less but 10 points more expensive.
This does not make sense, especially since the Retribution is already considered underpowered/overpriced by most people. So what you call "character" is de facto a crap variant of an already crap battleship.
Why should I even consider it?

If anything the Victory should be dropped to at least 320 points if you want people even consider taking one. And, as Sig said, even at 300 points its not overpowered.


Did I miss something? some hidden point or synergy I forget? If yes, please explain. If not its, well... a characterful crap ship  ^^
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 26, 2011, 12:57:31 PM
Guys, save the problems with chaos for the chaos board. Post -there- not -here- on issues pertaining to it.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 26, 2011, 04:02:00 PM
Nate:

ok, so you don't really want to do much to change any of the profiles and you seem to want to build an all guns fleet. With the change (and rightly so) to make the emperor very expensive with Rath on board, and the need to take three other cruisers to get one of the two remaining carriers in the fleet you really aren't leaving many options to make the fleet work. The problem is you are trying to limit the access to AC but you aren't really replacing it with a viable alternative. Fleet defense turrets are alright, but limit you to helping a single ship and force you to use the same restrictions as squadroning your ships but with few real benefits. This in turn limits the number of tactics you can use if you want to get the full effect of the turrets to block AC. This doesn't really encourage their use which is one of the key pieces of flavor in the Bakka list.

I would suggest scrapping the mechanic completely (I don't care how long the rule has been around, longevity isn't a good baseline for utility) and instead make the turrets on the ships better by allowing rerolls a la Tau or letting them target both AC and torpedoes in a single turn or letting ships in base contact mass turrets but treat that massing in all ways like onboard turrets so they effect bomber attack runs as well as lending extra dice to shoot down ordnance. Any of those methods gives them a pretty good boost against ordnance and reduces the need for bringing AC of your own.

Now, since you don't seem to want to make any changes to the profiles themselves, you need to do more adjustment the fleet list. Drop the Sword and Cobra since these two directly compete with the Havoc and Viper leaving little reason to bother with these two.

To further build up the idea of a big guns fleet, I'd think about scrapping the Mars and replacing it with one of the other IN battlecruisers or grand cruisers. That will force any AC to come from reserves either via the expensive Emperor, or via reserve which will likely limit you to one carrier since you would be taking six cruisers to get two carriers. With the Siluria, it would still be possible to pull in two carriers, but not what I'd call practical since you'd be sacrificing quite a bit.

Those changes should result in fewer carriers and thus less AC appearing in the list while not penalizing the player for taking less AC and making the newer ships more attractive.

Now as far as reserves go, I think you should limit the jovian so that it can never be taken as a reserve in any other fleet list. There is only supposed to be one so it shouldn't be showing up all over the galaxy and other IN fleets will benefit from it far more than the bakka list.

Mercury:
That may be how you see the NC but that's NOT how people play it. I can't think of any reason to trade those extra shots as the enemy closes to attempt swooping in to smack them at close range. Either way you still have a 1/3 odds of a direct hit so more shots means higher odds of getting a hit at range AND when they are in close. There just isn't anything that justifies closing more quickly. To be honest, we already HAVE a tyrant based battlecruiser with the Overlord. If you want this one to justify its overcharged reactor when the overlord can output the same firepower, you NEED to boost this ship to battleship firepower levels. If you don't want to give it torpedoes, give it an extra prow lance or prow weapons batteries. Then you will have a ship that wants to use the speed to close and that has the firepower to justify the fancy explosion.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 26, 2011, 04:47:42 PM
Can I ask why we are even considering a new imperial fleet? Currently, the count for the Imperial navy is:

Battlefleet Gothic
Segmentum Solar
Segmentum Obscuris
Battlefleet Cadia
Reserve fleet of Segmentum Obscuris

Why do we need more?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 26, 2011, 05:29:01 PM
Nate, personally, I like Bakka as it was, and though I'd like to see the Invincible, Nemesis, and Long Serpent included, I can deal.  

EDIT: and I just realized that the Mercury was the renamed Long Serpent.  NVM  LOL  I've gotten a lot of use out of this baby over the years and am very fond of it.  Admittedly though, mine has a str 6 torp instead of a NC, but so far I haven't had anyone say no to that and think it should have that option.

(http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2010/5/3/102280_md-Battlecruiser%2C%20Battlefleet%20Gothic%2C%20Imperial%20Navy.jpg)

I say just put it out as was in BFGM, and Let the Galaxy (and Sig) Burn.  Reserve rules are fine as is, though FDT I'd rather see on a specialized ship, it makes sense to me.  And, Sig, the FDT has been around a lot longer then just the admech rules.  I believe they first turned up in BFGM 2.




I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny.  Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth.  OMG!  IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!!  IT'S THE END! 

Get a grip.  Hell, I'd have them give us the Enforcer.  There's a lot of 'IN must be this' or 'this fleet HAS to be this way', and they forget that IN is not uniform across the Imperium.  I have no doubts that out there someplace is a fleet heavy on AC that has a dozen carriers.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 26, 2011, 05:48:50 PM
Baron, that does not make them good rules.

Nice ship though!
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 26, 2011, 05:55:47 PM
Baron, that does not make them good rules.

Nice ship though!

Meh, the FDT is fine.  It's not super broken, and frankly, I can explain how it could be done using 'modern' technology, let alone the the magitech available in 40k.  Personally though I'd rather it be soemthing that was limited to a dedicated 'flak ship' but I suppose that would just make that ship a primary target.  I would make the gunnery upgrade to the LS a bit cheaper and allow her to be fitted with torps.  That's really the only changes I see being needed.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 26, 2011, 06:28:08 PM

Let's take the Victory for example.


Game on.

Quote

Compared to the Retribution you have
- +20 points
- -S3@60cm dorsal Firepower
- Nova Cannon instead of S9 torpdeos
If we consider the Hammer of Scaro -Variant we essentially have a Retribution with 3 points of firepower less but 10 points more expensive.
This does not make sense, especially since the Retribution is already considered underpowered/overpriced by most people. So what you call "character" is de facto a crap variant of an already crap battleship.
Why should I even consider it?

If anything the Victory should be dropped to at least 320 points if you want people even consider taking one. And, as Sig said, even at 300 points its not overpowered.



I HATE the Smotheman formula, but let’s use it for the sake of argument because that’s what everyone seems to like using when discussing how unfair the HA’s are. I’ll even stick to comparing it to a Retribution, which at 345 points is very well costed for the Imperial fleet. If this debate is going to devolve into the Retribution itself is too expensive (which it is NOT), then you can ignore this post entirely.

Let’s start with some basic caveats: Nova Cannon have been +20 points over str-6 torps since 1999. If we are going to debate this, then you can once again stop reading now and ignore this post entirely. It’s a comparison I HATE to make because it’s like comparing apples to basketballs, but we’re using the Smotherman rules here so let’s move on. If we assume a NC is +20 points over str-6 torps, then a simple extrapolation (since I refuse to slide-rule this any more deeply) is that it would be +10 points over str-9 torps or free against str-12 torps. We can of course nit-pick this further to say each torp is worth 1.5 WB’s@30cm, but like I said, I’m not going down this road and will instead  simply cheat by saying “Smotherman says” a NC should cost roughly 40 points. In any case, this argument ends with a Retribution upgrading its prow torps for a NC for +10 points, giving us 355 Points.

Smotherman says a given lance is roughly worth the same amount as 3 WB’s at the same range. This makes it easy- a Retribution broadside at 12x60cm WB’s should be worth 4x60cm lances. Even-Steven. Of course, we can now argue about possible effective hits, calculate permutations of dice rolls and throw up some logarithmic tables, but I save that kind of math for my job. If I wanted to play a game needing a slide rule and calculator, I would be playing Star Fleet Battles instead of BFG. So far, we’re still at 355 Points.

Now we get to the dorsal weapons. Here the Retribution has a clear advantage. It’s 3x60cm dorsal L/F/R lances are at LEAST 1/3 again better than the Victory’s 6x60cm L/F/R WB’s which at best is worth only 2x60cm lances. Smotherman says each 60cm lance should cost about 13 points. This brings the cost down to 340 points for a Victory. Add +5 points for fudge factor, and we have a ship that is noticeably different than the Retribution, doesn’t violate fluff, and for the sake of elegance is even the same price. Using your own argument, 320 points for the Victory is not under discussion, and anything less doesn’t bear remarking upon. 345 points however isn’t too bad so let’s make it so. If someone STILL doesn’t like it, they can use something else.

The same kind of consideration has been made for the Mercury, and it’s price has been adjusted as well. However, the “Tyrant BC” isn’t such a far-off analogy. While the argument has been made that the Tyrant is overpriced, the fact is Imperial cruisers by design aren’t supposed to have 45cm weapons at all, and the +5 points (which is a pittance) pays for that premium. You don’t have to like it, but that was the design intent, and you can protest it by never using them. In any case, a Tyrant with NC’s costs 215 points. Strap on 2x60cm dorsal lances, and Smotherman says add +30 points. Even if we do nothing else, this ship now costs 245 points. Now up all the guns by +15cm, and Smotherman says the upgrade costs 1.5 points x10Wb’s, giving us 260 points. We’ll ignore the +5cm speed because it’s offset with how the ship goes pop when it dies. What do you get? That’s right- the exact price listed in v1.0, and the HA’s DIDN’T EVEN USE SMOTHERMAN TO GET THAT FIGURE!

Isn’t play-testing great?

What’s the moral of the story? The HA’s are listening. That being said, other ships don’t meld in as neatly as the Victory, though the Victory made for the easiest argument. Other ships HAVE to be looked at in the manner they play with the fleet as a whole because very few people play single-ship duels. Sadly most players just min-max their fleets and armies, which is what we actually have to consider when programming the rules.  Some of the arguments have been a bit silly- one post complaining the Jovian is junk that should never be allowed in an Imperial fleet goes on in a later post to say it is overpriced. Other arguments call the Havoc crap, then complain its overpowered when we add a turret. Really?

Eldanesh, you’re right- people that want NC’s to ONLY be artillery will be miffed by the Mercury’s +5cm speed, which in actual gameplay will MAYBE give up one round of NC shooting if the Imperial player is especially sloppy AND the opponent is especially clever. In exchange you get for the points one of the shootiest ships in the game, especially when you can upgrade all 10wb’s to 60cm. If you still really hate it, the fleet list lets you take the Armageddon instead, and the FAQ lets you upgrade the Armageddon to take an NC, which ends up costing 255 points for the upgrade, only five points less than the Mercury. Let’s say for argument’s sake we wanted to remove any disparity between these two ships. Is that worth -5 points? Sure! Done.

We don't hate the list because we are insubordinate children... We hate it because it fails to live up to it's own fluff and because it is not comparable to the other imperial lists.

Zelnik, you and EVERYONE ELSE HERE are NOT insubordinate children (even you Sig! :) ). Your input is appreciated, and we are listening. This was only a FIRST DRAFT - we are still working it, and in the end it will be right. However, some of the demands we are seeing here are really Christmas lists. By fluff the grand cruiser is a Cypra Mundi innovation so Battlefleet Bakka on the other side of the galaxy would not be using these ships as primary fleet elements, though of course they are welcome to as reserves. Can they make up GC’s of their own? I’m sure they could, but as these have NEVER appeared ANYWHERE before, it would take too long to get the profiles balanced and right, and frankly some of the proposed GC profiles I have seen are better than most Imperial battleships!

Nate:

ok, so you don't really want to do much to change any of the profiles and you seem to want to build an all guns fleet. With the change (and rightly so) to make the emperor very expensive with Rath on board, and the need to take three other cruisers to get one of the two remaining carriers in the fleet you really aren't leaving many options to make the fleet work. The problem is you are trying to limit the access to AC but you aren't really replacing it with a viable alternative. Fleet defense turrets are alright, but limit you to helping a single ship and force you to use the same restrictions as squadroning your ships but with few real benefits. This in turn limits the number of tactics you can use if you want to get the full effect of the turrets to block AC. This doesn't really encourage their use which is one of the key pieces of flavor in the Bakka list.

I would suggest scrapping the mechanic completely (I don't care how long the rule has been around, longevity isn't a good baseline for utility) and instead make the turrets on the ships better by allowing rerolls a la Tau or letting them target both AC and torpedoes in a single turn or letting ships in base contact mass turrets but treat that massing in all ways like onboard turrets so they effect bomber attack runs as well as lending extra dice to shoot down ordnance. Any of those methods gives them a pretty good boost against ordnance and reduces the need for bringing AC of your own.


I understand the longevity argument, and I know some people don’t like them. However, FDT’s are tested and work. Getting rid of them to create a brand-new and untested mechanic will only create an entirely different set of problems, and re-hashing something from another fleet that makes that fleet unique (Tau turrets) is bad for the entire game and completely anathema. It was already decided that unique traits form each fleet would never EVER be recycled for other fleets unless absolutely unavoidable, and we won’t be starting now. This fleet list does NOT constitute “unavoidable.”

Quote

Now, since you don't seem to want to make any changes to the profiles themselves, you need to do more adjustment the fleet list. Drop the Sword and Cobra since these two directly compete with the Havoc and Viper leaving little reason to bother with these two.


The Sword and Cobra are supposed to be the two most ubiquitous escorts in the whole galaxy so taking them out would violate fluff. Fluff aside, there isn’t any real reason to get rid of them- these are different enough from the Havoc and Viper to not create any conflict. This can be left up to player preference. Lots of people never use Tyrants because Dominators are a better deal, but that doesn’t make Tyrants junk worthy only of being removed from the game.

Quote

To further build up the idea of a big guns fleet, I'd think about scrapping the Mars and replacing it with one of the other IN battlecruisers or grand cruisers. That will force any AC to come from reserves either via the expensive Emperor, or via reserve which will likely limit you to one carrier since you would be taking six cruisers to get two carriers. With the Siluria, it would still be possible to pull in two carriers, but not what I'd call practical since you'd be sacrificing quite a bit.

Those changes should result in fewer carriers and thus less AC appearing in the list while not penalizing the player for taking less AC and making the newer ships more attractive.


Keep in mind the Mars is available as a regular fleet choice because we wanted the fleet to be AC-poor, not AC-absent! Taking out the Mars would involve restructuring this entire fleet list to prevent AC from becoming either more prevalent or nearly absent, since the number of carrier hulls available to the Imperial Navy is rather limited.

Quote

Now as far as reserves go, I think you should limit the jovian so that it can never be taken as a reserve in any other fleet list. There is only supposed to be one so it shouldn't be showing up all over the galaxy and other IN fleets will benefit from it far more than the bakka list.


Already done. :)

v1.1 will be out sometime later today, along with updates on the other projects we’re working on. While we are still taking input on the updated drafts that will be posted today, this will probably be the last open debate I have on the forum- we’re getting too close to having the door close on this thing, and from this point on we will only be looking at small tweaks unless something is actually broken. Once again, keep in mind that “I hate this ship” and “this rule is broken” are two different things.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 26, 2011, 07:10:38 PM
I HATE the Smotheman formula, but let’s use it for the sake of argument because that’s what everyone seems to like using when discussing how unfair the HA’s are. I’ll even stick to comparing it to a Retribution, which at 345 points is very well costed for the Imperial fleet. If this debate is going to devolve into the Retribution itself is too expensive (which it is NOT), then you can ignore this post entirely.
Most use examples from other ships to determine point costs, backed up with smotherman for adjusting/checking.

Like 2 dorsal lances at 60cm LFR = 30pts (Murder -> Hades)
Like NC over 6 torps = 20pts
Like NC over 9 torps = 10pts.
etc

Quote
The same kind of consideration has been made for the Mercury, and it’s price has been adjusted as well. However, the “Tyrant BC” isn’t such a far-off analogy. While the argument has been made that the Tyrant is overpriced, the fact is Imperial cruisers by design aren’t supposed to have 45cm weapons at all, and the +5 points (which is a pittance) pays for that premium. You don’t have to like it, but that was the design intent, and you can protest it by never using them. In any case, a Tyrant with NC’s costs 215 points. Strap on 2x60cm dorsal lances, and Smotherman says add +30 points. Even if we do nothing else, this ship now costs 245 points. Now up all the guns by +15cm, and Smotherman says the upgrade costs 1.5 points x10Wb’s, giving us 260 points. We’ll ignore the +5cm speed because it’s offset with how the ship goes pop when it dies. What do you get? That’s right- the exact price listed in v1.0, and the HA’s DIDN’T EVEN USE SMOTHERMAN TO GET THAT FIGURE!
You did not factor in:
that 25cm speed on an IN line cruiser is not wanted and rather a downfall. (Aside of being non fluffy), and the downside of the special rule.

@ BaronI: I did not want extra lb on the the CG's. ;)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 26, 2011, 07:14:03 PM
All,

Draft Updates have been uploaded for all four of the last projects the HA’s are working on.

- Battlefleet Bakka DRAFT v1.1
Lots of changes here- too many to list.

- Inquisition DRAFT v1.6
Minor tailoring of points and questions at this stage, slightly improved GK boarding value, improved graphics and formatting.

- Ork Clanz DRAFT v1.3
Fixed and adjusted a number of confusing points, improved graphics and formatting.

- Powers of Chaos DRAFT v3.2
Fixed and clarified a number of confusing points, made some changes to the Powers of Chaos, adjusted some point values, improved graphics and formatting.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 26, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
Quote
I understand the longevity argument, and I know some people don’t like them. However, FDT’s are tested and work. Getting rid of them to create a brand-new and untested mechanic will only create an entirely different set of problems, and re-hashing something from another fleet that makes that fleet unique (Tau turrets) is bad for the entire game and completely anathema. It was already decided that unique traits form each fleet would never EVER be recycled for other fleets unless absolutely unavoidable, and we won’t be starting now. This fleet list does NOT constitute “unavoidable.”

Ok, fine, then how about dropping the need for the FDT's to designated a protected ship since that makes them pretty easy to avoid? And how about incorporating one into the default profile of the Bakka ships with the option to upgrade additional turrets? Both of those would give the FDT's a bit more teeth to help offset the reduced AC and give more flavor to the list.

Quote
The Sword and Cobra are supposed to be the two most ubiquitous escorts in the whole galaxy so taking them out would violate fluff. Fluff aside, there isn’t any real reason to get rid of them- these are different enough from the Havoc and Viper to not create any conflict. This can be left up to player preference. Lots of people never use Tyrants because Dominators are a better deal, but that doesn’t make Tyrants junk worthy only of being removed from the game.

The fluff you have in the document points to practically the entire tempestus fleet being annihilated by the nids and specifically says they tend to use older, smaller hulls. I think that leave you with more than enough leeway to say that because of the extremely high attrition or doctrine the fleet has had to pull these alternative or older hull designs out of reserve. In any event, you have precedent for leaving out the sword with the armageddon fleet where both are only available as marine RSV.

Quote
Keep in mind the Mars is available as a regular fleet choice because we wanted the fleet to be AC-poor, not AC-absent! Taking out the Mars would involve restructuring this entire fleet list to prevent AC from becoming either more prevalent or nearly absent, since the number of carrier hulls available to the Imperial Navy is rather limited.

I had considered that before I suggested it, but I don't think that would move the fleet to AC-absent. If anything it ensures the fleet is AC poor since you will need three cruisers to pull any carriers at all or spend a third of your points on the emperor. The metagame will ensure that some carrier is taken from reserves since few out there have the guts to try IN with no AC at all. :) Pulling the mars means that a NC armed carrier isn't going to be added to the NC armed BB and NC armed cruisers without some cost. It helps reign in the NC spam you folks aren't fond of and pushes players more toward a big guns fleet!


I see the new PDF went up too:

Victory: 325-335. I still think this ship is going to be OP. It's functionally the equivalent of the Apocalypse BB but trades two lances and the special critical rule for four lances that are always capable of firing 60cm with no penalty and it's as fast as a retribution. It seems extremely attractive at 335 or the more likely 325 points with torpedoes.

Vanquisher: there just isn't any reason to ever take this over a Victory class outside of a special story driven scenario. Character ship or no, it's just too close to the Victory's profile and cost.

Mercury: Still messed up. this thing really needs a reason to exist as it does. Compare it to an overlord which has equivalent firepower but none of the drawbacks this ship has. If you are going to make it blow up spectacularly because of it's battleship power systems, it needs a bit more than an extra 5cm speed to make the need for those systems believable. Give this thing battleship grade weapons and it'll be more reasonable. It really does not have any reason to blow up like it does right now. Really, look at the stats. It gains +2 batteries over an overlord battelcruiser which amounts to a single dice gained for all its battleship power generation capability. That one dice is completely negated by the Overlord's targeting array. All this ship gains for the spectacular explosive ability is +5cm speed. Congratulations, it is now a 250 point fireship.

Jovian: I'm not fond of how if breaks the IN rules, but it's effectively limited so it's not problematic. I'm sure the IN did some experimentation along the way to the modern fleet. The ignored prow critical fixes any problem the ship itself has.


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 26, 2011, 08:10:51 PM
One thing I've learned from my experiment is that Sigoroth is generally right. He does form his arguments and research quite well.

Reserve rules: I really don't like reserve rules, they really break the idea behind fleet lists. As Horizon said, in a Obscuras fleet you can easily take a Dominator with reserve rules, making the Gothic sector list pointless unless you want more than one or two dominators. Fleet lists should be built as a whole, with their own individual character, rather than with the possibility of contamination from any other fleet. I sincerely think that the HA should've made reserves only allowed if the opponent agrees beforehand. They don't make sense on a general basis, and the limitations aren't so limited when it comes to anything other than battleships. Also they are confusing in themselves, and could be interpreted as a person could take extra cbs or whatnot beyond limitations.

Dominator: Nate, your argument for including the Dominator in this list is that Bakka is closer to Kar Duniash? what? Rubbish. The gothic sector only had one Dominator (which makes it more like a reserve vessel in that sense) and the writers said unlimited because there was no gameplay reason to limit them. I really don't think that the dominator should be in this list, and should almost be a 'Ultima' only ship. (reserves in other fleets as normal)

The Victory: boring... just... boring... but that's not that it's unbalanced. It's just you could've had something more interesting.

The Vanquisher: I don't see any reason why you couldn't give it some dorsal wbs, you have the power to do so, and it wouldn't be gamebreaking. Not only that but it would make more sense as a battleship and stop all our 'underpowered' whining. I don't think anyone would come out and say 'well in fanatic it was so'. Changes are an adaptation, you don't have to duplicate the past.

Also the Vanquisher in the fluff is said to have had prow launch bays at one point. I would love it if you made it have the option to swap its torps and prow 6+ armor for 4 launch bays.

The Jovian: Well... I really don't think that this belongs here. It belongs in a different style of fleetlist. Much like the one that I wrote for the Tartanus sector. IN vessels trade off easy access to AC for wide use of torpedoes. In my Tartanus list, torpedoes are reduced, however there is a larger number of launch bay ships. Again this ship makes much more sense in a 'Ultima' list, as every description of battles in segmentum ultima involve carriers. Naturally it is presumable that Kar Duniash naval HQ simply prefers ships that follow the Garox Perrogative, and even are old fashioned in maintaining the Idealogy.

That said I think that the fluff on the vessel should be modified slightly. In my Tartanus list I made it make sense in the fact that the launch bays weren't added by choice, or by favor of the IN as a whole. Simply they didn't have the resources or technology available to replace the mars' damaged wbs at the time, and instead the ship was refitted with whatever they had available. The Jovian already describes the LBs as being worse tech. Again, makes sense in an 'Ultima' type list where the sector is desperate for vessels, even ones that don't make sense, to patrol their vast segmentum.

Like the Vanquisher, I don't see any reason that this vessel couldn't have a prow something. Give it prow torps, even lower than normal strength ones. The 'ignores prow criticals' is a strange band-aid to its problem. Again, I don't think anyone would cry out about 'it was so in fanatic'. Also I think the vessel should be purposefully overpriced, to make it unreasonable to take in any fleet besides Bakka.

The Siluria: This ship is not unique enough. I really think that you could shoot for 4 hits and 80 points (the cheapness to represent that it is old and useless). Then it would be something interesting to take. I wrote it into Tartanus as it is a reserve vessel that they would be desperate for. Here, it isn't something that doesn't make sense... it's just... well... not ideal.

Also Sigoroth noted that the game really doesn't have much 4+ armor. I could see reducing it to 85-90 points and making it 5+/4+, which would make it very unique. Oh, and another thought, I don't think it should have improved thrusters, as it should be crap, but cheap crap.

The Havoc: I really think that this should have either 5+/4+ or just 4+. The vessel is explicitly stated in the fluff as being a glass cannon. It barely beats out 'wolfpack raiders' for armor. This would make it unique and interesting. With this it should be 30 points, which will make it more appealing compared to the sword. Also the vessel is old, and nice to see, but I think that it at least should be part of the RT document.

And I think that it should be able to swap its prow batteries for a single torp, but that's just me. It would look like a better falchion unless you did the armor drop.

The Mercury: ....just delete it.... Another ship from the RT books is the Ignus class, which makes for a far more interesting vessel, albeit somewhat similar to this one. I wrote up some stats for it:

(cruiser stats)
Port/Starboard Wbs  14@30cm
Dorsal WBs 6@30cm
Prow Torps (in mine it's four, but could be 6)

Improved thrusters, but places a blast marker in contact with its base when declaring LO special orders. (basically just reducing its speed.

More in character with IN, and adding a unique vessel to the list.

Fleet Overall;

Well it's something to toss in I guess. Not really anything spectacular. I don't like the Idea of fleet defense turrets, and I understand that you're throwing them in to make the metagame hate ordinance more. Like Horizon said, its really sad that you, and the other HAs have your hands tied for a lot of things in the system. Like Sigoroth said, retroactive fixes can only go so far, and eventually you can only build so high on a bad system before it starts to fall apart, or you have strange things that don't work well/make sense.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 26, 2011, 08:19:11 PM
I only just had a chance to read the first draft, and now there's a second! Ok, my thoughts, in order of strength:

Fleet Defence Turrets: NONONONONONONO NO! They were a teribad idea in admech when they were a random refit, and they're even worse available generally. I am in complete agreement with Sigoroth when he suggests binning these. They're conceptually horrible, even if the rules were any good (which as vaaish has pointed out, they aren't). This is why it's never a good idea to set bad precedents. At least in the ad mech list they won't be freely available to other fleet lists).

Jovian: It's simultaneously overcosted, undergunned and horrendously broken. It's not a vessel the IN should have, especially not in the Bakka fleet list! Just because something was in a magazine once doesn't mean it should ever see the light of day. Bin. There's nothing you can do to fix this ship, and I don't think you should try.

Viper/Havoc: Woo! I really like these escorts. Locking some of the FP front is a decent way to bulk up the firepower on the Havoc, though I agree it didn't really need a 2nd turret. I'd happily take a Viper any day of the

Victory: As undergunned as the Retribution! Not only that, but it takes the Retribution's flaws and amplifies them. The Retribution wants to close, to use its WBs to maximum effect, but simultaneously the 60cm range doesn't come in useful or the off-side firepower is wasted. The Victory is similar, but its broadsides don't get more effective at close range, and the NC means you want to hold back, negating the 20cm speed. Now I don't honestly mind a ship not being maximally gunned, but it should be priced taking its weakness into account. I would put it in the 325-335pt price bracket. I like the S9 Torp option - I'd take it over the NC any day.

Vanquisher: Actually less conflicted than the Victory. I could like it as a cheap BB, but it could do with 20cm speed - for which I'd happily trade the WBs 60cm range down to 45cm. Around about the 290-300pt mark would be viable.

Mercury: Why does it need BB power systems again? It doesn't have BB level weapons. It has what the Overlord should have had to begin with. In exchange for the +5cm speed (which as noted, useless in a fleet context) it becomes a flying bomb. No thanks. There's just not enough useful distinction between it and the Overlord (which with a targeting matrix it doesn't actually outgun), and I would rather the Armageddon every day of the week. I don't think it's worth 355pts either. More like 335, or perhaps a third shield for same price?

Siluria: Yeah, nice cheap LC. Cool.

Endeavour/Endurance: Bin fleet turrets. Bin them now. Kill them. Kill them with FIRE. Why is the 6+ restricted? Hate to beat a dead horse, but they need 6+/90' as well. Without the Jovian, the Defiant could usefully sneak in as a defensive AC platform without being too against the bakka paradigm (it's only 2 AC after all - not a fleet carrier by any standards).

0-12 limit on cruisers. Why? I know it's not necessarily specific to this fleet list, but all it does is needlessly limit the upper size of fleets. If you can legally take 12 Dominators or 12 Lunars, why not 24 Cruisers total (or more)?

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 26, 2011, 08:25:14 PM
@ BaronI: I did not want extra lb on the the CG's. ;)

I know, you've repeatedly made plain you want IN free of AC in general.

Achem: As, probably the only person outside the HA on this board who's actually used one more then a handful of times, the 'Mercury' is excellent as a flagship for Fast Imperial.  While, I have lost games to the special rule doing more damage to my fleet then the enemy, just as often I've found it useful, with it's downside making it balanced.  

@Sig: Actually, Sig, it would have to have been used as a reserve ship for Battlefleet Obscurus if the fluff for Battlefleet Bakka is correct.  So, sorry, your fluff 'does not match logic or precedent and is therefor bad' as you yourself have stated in the past.  The IN has a great deal of variety between sectors let alone between segmentums so saying IN IS AGAINST X is sort of silly as it's easy to point out that IN does not follow a single doctrine any more then the Imperial Creed is a uniform faith.  While there are a few common tenants, both are molded by local conditions.    

@Nate: Maybe I'm misreading this, but making the Jovian a reserve ship and stating no one else can take it directly conflicts with the AdMech rules that state that they can take 'any' IN ship or SM ship without restriction, as long as they all come from the same fleet.  



I propose the following, since it's clear that we're about to re-enact the dispute between Battlefleet Gaerox and Battlefleet Bakka: I say we make two lists.  One IN AC heavy, and one IN gun heavy.  This heads off the chest beating and allows everyone to have the ships they like.  Does this sound reasonable?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 26, 2011, 08:32:11 PM
ShipObscurasTempestusPacificusSolarUltima
LunarYesYes?YesYes
GothicYesYesYesYesYes
DictatorYesYes?Yes?
TyrantYesNo?Yes?
DominatorNoYes?NoYes
DauntlessYesYes?NoYes
End/End/DefYesYes?Yes?
ArmageddonYesNo?Yes?
MarsYesYes?Yes?
OverlordYesYes?YesYes
VengeanceYesYesYesNo?
AvengerYesYes?Yes?
ExorcistYesYes?NoYes
RetributionYesNo?Yes?
EmperorYesYesYesYesYes
OberonNoNo?Yes?
ApocalypseYesNoYesYes?
FalchionNoNo?Yes?
SwordYesYes?NoYes
FirestormYesYes?YesYes
CobraYesYes?NoYes
InvincibleNoYes?No?
NemesisNo??No?
VictoryNoYes?NoYes
VanquishernoyesnoNono
FuriousYesYes?No?
CardinalYesYes?No?
JovianNoYes?NoYes
SerpentYesNoYesNo?
OrionNoYes?NoYes
Daemon SlayerNoYes?NoYes
HawkingYesYesYesYesYes
EnforcerNoYes?NoYes
SiluriaYesYesYesYesYes
ViperNoYes?NoYes

Compilation of where ships are available from a previous thread and extensive research.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 26, 2011, 08:32:47 PM
What exactly is wrong with FDT now?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 26, 2011, 08:36:10 PM
LS, outside of the oddity of the rule itself, you have to pay extra for something that's supposed to be ubiquitous to Bakka which ensures that few will be taken because their rules limit them to protecting a single designated ship per turn and you really don't gain much over the regular BTB turret massing.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 26, 2011, 08:44:21 PM
@Plaxor: At the Segmentum level, yes, though there are classes such as the Kar-Dunish class cruiser that seem to be missing.  Also, the battleship sized fleet carrier of the Segmentum Obsucus, the Majestic Class, would be likely similar to the Nemesis, though no stats have ever been given, since it's only ever appeared in fluff.


@lastsparticus: They don't like it since there's no limit on how many turrets you can give a ship with it if enough are in range, as opposed to the limited number you can with turret massing.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 26, 2011, 08:47:45 PM
That's not even remotely one of the reasons why I don't like it. It's an atrocious concept. You cannot pick out bombers from such range without using weaponry that stands a substantial chance of damaging the ship you're attempting to protect.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 26, 2011, 08:49:22 PM
1cm = 1000km

Lets see,
AdMech makes it that a ship has 2 turrets able to assist a friendly ship within ~15cm iirc.

It are 2 turrets that can hit enemy ordnance at a distance of 15000km on a 4+.
While such a ship could direct its batteries at ordnance  a phase earlies at ordnance being away 30000km (30cm ranged vessels), 45000km (45cm) or 60000km (60cm).
Depending on strength this will vary between 1 (or even 0) and 3 dice hitting on a 6+.

A Gothic with 4 lances has 4 shots on a 6+ at 30000km. The Desolator 4 lances @ 60000km.


With all this in mind I do not object to FDT (for which ship has to pay extra) being highly accurate at 15000km.

So fluff objection can be reasonable be countered I think.


@RcG, see my reasonings above.
To add. Ships can pick out targets being in base to base contact (non squadroned) at a range of 60000km. Even a wave of bombers.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on January 26, 2011, 09:24:04 PM
I dig it. its a sweet lil list. within time, plax, I or both or someone else will be putting together the AC heavy IN (though unofficial prolly). I do have the issue with the lack of guns to the merc, perhaps making those 4wb at 60 into 2 lances at 60 would properly suit it all. as for the 25cm speed not fitting in? run it with some escorts, or CL's

yes torps would rock some socks on the mercury, but this fleet specifically has little to no AC to guide those torps in. thus: NC. the option would be nice though.

victory is fine. 20cm is so it can turn with BM in contact to face either those LONG RANGE lances or LONG RANGE NC at targets. its a survivable long range gunship. very similar to the apoc, but -2 lances, better speed, cheaper. I've always wanted one official.

IMO dauntless should be included as well as defiant. daunt especially with the lack of the firestorm.

FDT's seem fine in theory. I'll playtest em out later.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 26, 2011, 09:28:36 PM
That's not even remotely one of the reasons why I don't like it. It's an atrocious concept. You cannot pick out bombers from such range without using weaponry that stands a substantial chance of damaging the ship you're attempting to protect.

Actually you do it by predicting the most likely path that bombers would take, adjust for TOT and figure the probable vector.  Now fill the sky there with flak style fire.  the shards will probably have near zero effect on an object the size of a ship, but would be quite deadly to AC. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 26, 2011, 10:49:45 PM
1cm = 1000km

Lets see,
AdMech makes it that a ship has 2 turrets able to assist a friendly ship within ~15cm iirc.

This is the same rule that we're currently discussing. FDTs appeared in the original Bakka list (which was never made official because, let's face it, the community had enough sense to say "hell no") and was (mis)appropriated into the AdMech rules.

Quote
It are 2 turrets that can hit enemy ordnance at a distance of 15000km on a 4+.
While such a ship could direct its batteries at ordnance  a phase earlies at ordnance being away 30000km (30cm ranged vessels), 45000km (45cm) or 60000km (60cm).
Depending on strength this will vary between 1 (or even 0) and 3 dice hitting on a 6+.

A Gothic with 4 lances has 4 shots on a 6+ at 30000km. The Desolator 4 lances @ 60000km.

Ok, let's look at the differences here. Yes, you can shoot at ordnance from a long way away. However, this is done with main guns. Weapon batteries attempt to saturate the area. However, the targets are small and this is very very difficult. This is represented by using the far right column which means that to get even one dice you need 3 Weapon Batteries. This is a substantial amount of firepower, and even then you have minimal chances of hitting (6+). You can also use highly accurate lances to cut a swathe through space, hoping to take out the wave. But even with their accuracy you still only hit on a 6+ and again it's a large amount of firepower. This is when they're en route. So they're pretty much just flying flat chat in a straight line, which would be the easiest possible target.

That was main guns. Now we're talking about turrets. Turrets are much shorter range. We're not talking thousands of kilometres here, we're talking a few kilometres, maybe tens of kilometres, tops. Turret guns are the sort of weaponry you'd see in WH40k. Burst cannons and whatnot. Larger, yes, but the same sort of weapon. Lascannons, multi-lasers, etc. There's no way that an anti-ordnance turret weapon is ever going to be able to fire 15,000 kms in a timely enough fashion to reach its target while it still mattered. Worse, these turrets are supposedly shooting at bombers that are dodging flak and lining up their attack runs. In other words, ships that are actively manoeuvring, not flying in a straight line. So, these turrets are able to fire at similar range to main guns but are 3 times more accurate against a harder target and can't damage the ship that is being attacked? Bullshit. If they have the power to reach that far then they've got the power to harm ships. If they're shooting at bombers around another ship then half the time they'll hit the ship they're trying to protect. Even then I see absolutely no reason why these things should hit the bombers on a 4+. Ridiculous.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 26, 2011, 10:53:25 PM
Actually you do it by predicting the most likely path that bombers would take, adjust for TOT and figure the probable vector.  Now fill the sky there with flak style fire.  the shards will probably have near zero effect on an object the size of a ship, but would be quite deadly to AC.  

Right, so WBs can't do it with their much greater yield explosions, saturating a much greater area, with much more firepower when the bombers are flying a much more predictable path and yet these turrets can do it? Not to mention that half the time the bombers would likely be on the other side of the ship, and so out of LoS. Pure drivel.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 26, 2011, 10:56:50 PM
I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny.  Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth.  OMG!  IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!!  IT'S THE END! 

The reason why the Exorcist and Retaliator should have the extra LB is because of its size. It's certainly much bigger than any cruiser chassis would be. These being pre-heresy to heresy designs as well means they are available to current fleets. The Jovian is on a modern chassis where the doctrines are more favorable to shooting rather than to AC. That is the objection to the Jovian.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 26, 2011, 11:03:27 PM
Let’s start with some basic caveats: Nova Cannon have been +20 points over str-6 torps since 1999. If we are going to debate this, then you can once again stop reading now and ignore this post entirely. It’s a comparison I HATE to make because it’s like comparing apples to basketballs, but we’re using the Smotherman rules here so let’s move on. If we assume a NC is +20 points over str-6 torps, then a simple extrapolation (since I refuse to slide-rule this any more deeply) is that it would be +10 points over str-9 torps or free against str-12 torps. We can of course nit-pick this further to say each torp is worth 1.5 WB’s@30cm, but like I said, I’m not going down this road and will instead  simply cheat by saying “Smotherman says” a NC should cost roughly 40 points. In any case, this argument ends with a Retribution upgrading its prow torps for a NC for +10 points, giving us 355 Points.

Not true Nate. If we do NOT go by Smotherman, the NC on an original NC ship like the Dominator only costs 10 points more. The Dominator is 190 points vs a Lunar and Gothic. The latter two are both 180, with the Lunar having a bay of WBs and a bay of lances while the Gothic has both bays with lances. Stands to conclude that a ship with both bays filled with WBs should cost the same as a Lunar and Gothic at 180. This means the Dominator gets the NC cheap compared to the other ships.

Smotherman again is just a tool to assist but is not the end all be all. You also have to factor in the existing in game cost interaction.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 26, 2011, 11:07:08 PM
@Nate

There have been 3 arguments presented against FDTs. The ludicrousness of the premise is one. The fact that it's widely available in this list but implied as rare in the AdMech is another. And the third is that it's unsatisfactory for the job (even if it made you immune to ordnance it would still not clear CAP to help your torps hit home). Add to that the fact that any IN fleet list will be able to pay 10-20 pts to give 1 or 2 of its Lunars or Gothics or Doms FDTs then it just becomes a terribly terribly awful addition to the game. Less is more. Drop this crappy rule, or limit it to only this crappy list. I really don't care which.

Oh, and by the way, your maths is off. Firstly, the cost of the NC option. When you said +20 pts over the 6 torps and +10 pts over the 9 torps you were right. However, that's as an option. It is well overpriced as an option, presumably to limit NC spam. However, when it's non-optional it's only worth at most, 10 pts more than 6 torps, or parity with 9 torps. So take 10 pts off for a start. Secondly, you started with a range-upgraded Tyrant as your base ship and then further upgraded the range off all 10 WBs, meaning your price of 260 included optional range upgrade (15 pts). So if you want to keep the range upgrade as +15 pts you'd need to drop the ship down to 245 for a start. Then drop it down by another 10 pts since you overvalued the NC. Then drop it down by another 5 pts because you started with an already overpriced ship. This brings us to 230 pts. Now drop it another 10 pts because of unwanted speed and the extra liability it presents to your fleet. And you get, hmm, what 220 pts? Isn't that what I said the unupgraded range Mercury should cost? I swear to god the only use for this ship would be to AAF into the heart of the enemy and blow up. A task for which torpedoes would be vastly preferable to the NC.

I wonder, are you afraid that it would be overpowered at that price? Really? A range upgraded one would be 235 pts, same as a matrix fitted Overlord. So you're getting less firepower from the Mercury at >15cm. You have to take a NC, when most people actually prefer torps (particularly for this ship!) and you're able to sit back and make full use of your range with the Overlord, without it outpacing the fleet and without fear that it's going to massively explode in your own lines. In short, even at 220 (235 upgraded) the Overlord is preferable, and I don't even like the Overlord (I'd take the Armageddon for sure). There is no way this hunk of junk is worth that much.

On to the Victory. The approximation of 1 lance to 3WB only works on 30cm weaponry. A strength 1 lance at 15cm is worth less than 3WB at 15cm. Similarly, 1 lance at 30cm is worth more than 3WB at 30cm if those WB can't get a LCS when firing at <15cm. So this approximation only really works as an average across the range bands presented. It breaks down when we extend the range further. So, when we make the Victory/Retribution comparison we should bear this in mind. It's also only worth noting this range favour to lances for the on-side weaponry; off-side weaponry will almost always be within 30cm. So focusable fire of Victory vs Retribution shows +1L to the Vic, +6WB to the Ret. Clearly in favour of the Ret, even taking the range discrepancy into account (1L=3WB<30cm, 1L=~5.5WB>30cm, so 1L@60cmLFR worth ~4-4.5WB@60cmLFR). Given that this ship now costs 10 pts less than a Ret and has the option to take a NC then it would seem to be fine.

Problem is, the Ret isn't any good. I don't see it getting the targeting matrix the Overlord got. With its weaponry getting better at closer range such that at <30cm it has +3WBe over the Victory it really is a line-breaker, for which role its range is fairly useless. The Victory on the other hand is a stand-off vessel for the same but opposite reason. In which case its range is useful, but its prow weaponry and armour aren't so useful, and its speed is also a little wasted (it could go down to 15cm like the Emp/Ober/Apoc/Vanq and still fulfill its role). So the Retribution is more efficient than the Victory, even though its conflicted design has been much lamented. Consider a Ret with 18WB@45cm for 355 pts. This is what the community would like and what we all agree is balanced. OK, so you don't want to change the Ret for various reasons. However, since you're introducing the Victory here then surely this is the benchmark it ought to be balanced against, and not the current crappy Ret.

This has mostly been an exercise in comparative ship valuation rather than any true gripe. At 335 pts (torps) the Victory isn't too bad. It's 35 pts more than a Desolator, but has the extra armour on the prow. This roughly ballpark for this upgrade normally, but it does lose the speed as well, which isn't too big a deal on a stand-off vessel, but with the 6+ prow that speed would have actually been useful. Of course, the Desolator is definitely the better ship. There isn't much between the speed/prow armour in terms of actual (ie, role) value, so the Vic is a little pricey still.

It compares unfavourably in stand-off role to a known good ship (Desolator) and compares unfavourably in a line-breaker role to an acknowledged bench mark (fixed Ret). Still, you could argue the Ret isn't fixed and the fleet can't get the Desolator. So I would just suggest upping the dorsal weapons to 9.

The Vanquisher is still just too pricey. I like the idea, but it really is not equipped to do what needs to be done. Unlike the Victory it could really maximise the prow torps and extra speed. It wants to break the line and in this role the range on the WBs is wasted. This makes it a terribly inefficient ship. It doesn't matter that it's inefficient, but at least cost it appropriately. Most of the time it won't be able to turn and the enemy will be able to dictate terms of engagement. It also has the same firepower as the Armageddon at <45cm, and slightly worse at >45cm (better off-side firepower, but less ability to manoeuvre to be able to use it). So take an Armageddon, add 4 hits, 2 shields and 2 turrets (no firepower) and then knock of 5cm speed and make it BB status (large base, crap turn radius). Let's just assume 10 pts per hit and turret and 15 pts per shield. That's a total of 325 pts. Now knock off the speed and give it BB status. Together I would call that at least 25 pts. If I had the choice between a 300 pt 15cm BB line-breaker or the same ship with 20cm movement and cruiser turn rate for 325 pts I'd take the latter. So 300 pts is probably a little high still, particularly when compared to the Desolator, but it's a nice round number.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 26, 2011, 11:16:08 PM
@Nate

A note on the whole CG/old ships thing. In WWII the RN gave their old superseded WWI ships to Australia (the cast iron flotilla) who used them successfully to supply the Rats of Tobruk, who halted Rommel's advance, at least until they were relieved by English and Indian regulars supplied by the pride of the British navy, at which point Tobruk fell to Rommel. Nevertheless, the point is that just because these old ships were laid down in England they eventually ended up on the other side of the world. There's no reason why the same sort of thing could not happen in BFG. In fact, if Bakka's fluff suggests that they rely on older ships or recommissioned vessels or spare/auxiliary vessels from other battlefleets then it would make sense that these are the sorts of resources that would be redirected from other Segmentum, rather than shiny new ships.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 26, 2011, 11:40:21 PM
I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny.  Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth.  OMG!  IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!!  IT'S THE END!  

The reason why the Exorcist and Retaliator should have the extra LB is because of its size. It's certainly much bigger than any cruiser chassis would be. These being pre-heresy to heresy designs as well means they are available to current fleets. The Jovian is on a modern chassis where the doctrines are more favorable to shooting rather than to AC. That is the objection to the Jovian.

The idea that shooting is favored assumes that fleet strategy is uniform across the entire Imperium.  Considering the variation from one area to another and the variety of threats it faces, this is unlikely, and further, even a single sector can change over time.  Consider that despite Bakka detesting AC, they adopted the Jovian, a pure carrier, due to their abysmal performance against the tyranids in Ultramar.  It is not very far fetched to suggest that in some areas AC carriers are more common then they are in the Gothic, Armageddon, or Bakka sectors, particularly when AC ships seem to be preferred for anti-pirate details.

While some classes of ship seem fairly ubiquitous, we then have ships like the Tempest that are unique to certain regions, arising out of the particular needs of those fleets.  

I submit that we need an additional fleetlist, of AC oriented IN.  It is not even unlikely given fluff, and seems to be something that at least some people want.  

Perhaps Battlefleet Calixis?  Assuming FFG would be interested.  



Reflecting on this for a moment: Wouldn't the Tempestus fleet arriving in Ultramar be them coming in as a Reserve unit?



@Sig:

Actually turrets are more akin to Hydra batteries or the Vulcan Megabolters you would see on a battle titan.  However, I'll point out: ships within 15cm are close enough to share LD so this would imply that they have some means of high speed, real time communication inside that range.  If this is true, then FDT makes perfect sense, working together similar to modern ships sharing targeting data. and CIWS.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 26, 2011, 11:57:57 PM
I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny.  Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth.  OMG!  IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!!  IT'S THE END! 

The reason why the Exorcist and Retaliator should have the extra LB is because of its size. It's certainly much bigger than any cruiser chassis would be. These being pre-heresy to heresy designs as well means they are available to current fleets. The Jovian is on a modern chassis where the doctrines are more favorable to shooting rather than to AC. That is the objection to the Jovian.

The idea that shooting is favored assumes that fleet strategy is uniform across the entire Imperium.  Considering the variation from one area to another and the variety of threats it faces, this is unlikely, and further, even a single sector can change over time.  Consider that despite Bakka detesting AC, they adopted the Jovian, a pure carrier, due to their abysmal performance against the tyranids in Ultramar.  It is not very far fetched to suggest that in some areas AC carriers are more common then they are in the Gothic, Armageddon, or Bakka sectors, particularly when AC ships seem to be preferred for anti-pirate details.

While some classes of ship seem fairly ubiquitous, we then have ships like the Tempest that are unique to certain regions, arising out of the particular needs of those fleets. 

I submit that we need an additional fleetlist, of AC oriented IN.  It is not even unlikely given fluff, and seems to be something that at least some people want. 

Perhaps Battlefleet Calixis?  Assuming FFG would be interested. 

Or we could just avoid those ships in BFG as not fitting the feel of the wider IN combat doctrine. I myself like the Jovian. I don't think it's balance is that far off and it is even a plausible refit as long as it is only allowed in BF Bakka and even then unique. The potential for abuse elsewhere is high and even moreso when spammable. Since it is a unique ship and is restricted to a list with no Dictators, Defiants, Exorcists or Emperors then it's fine. The nervousness about it from the community is warranted too. It's just stupid to be blasé about going counter to the established fleet doctrine willy nilly. Sure there would be a heap of ships out there that don't stack up to the "standard" IN, but compared to the number of IN ships there are this would be a tiny percentage. Given that players are generally constructing 'typical' fleets it's not unreasonable to leave these out altogether. You could, I suppose, come up with a whole slew of modified or counter-doctrine ships, but then limit their inclusion very specifically. Say, only one such special ship in any given fleet for example. Maybe further restrictions too. You might, for example, build the Nemesis fleet carrier (or the Majestic), but restrict it so that no other carriers can be taken in a fleet with either of them in it (as well as no other non-standard ships).
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 12:53:55 AM
Well, first of all, I dislike that you used the term 'didn't stack up to standard IN' insinuating that they're inferior.  Bluntly, the fleet lists we have are a very tiny cross section of IN, one of which is stated to be abnormal in IN in it's large scale rejection of AC.  


Why am I blasé about it?  Because I beat Styx based Chaos fleets like red headed step children six times a week and they're a lot worse.  (We won't even mention Tau)  Would it change how some people play their fleets?  Sure.  Would it Utterly break IN so that no one ever used another BC?  No, not really.  The fact that IN would have a BC similar to the Styx actually makes a lot of balance sense, and comparatively, even the 'one per fleet' rule is needlessly limiting.  There are better ways to Spam AC with IN then to take a Jovian, the SC/Dictator Armageddon list springing instantly to mind.  Would it be better with a Jovian instead of a Mars?  Sure, but only marginally so.  (Costwise I'm only getting a small savings over using the points to buy 6lbs worth of SCs, which are much better.)


@Nate: BTW, I noticed a reference in the Havok Entry for the Preator destroyer.  Will this have stats or was this just an oversight?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 02:19:35 AM
It's almost puzzling to me the BaronI is so good at being on the opposite side of the consensus.

The Jovian is fine. I like the ship, its one of those things I would never run.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 03:30:27 AM
Sorry to Get a little off topic but sigoroth should I delete gets from my admech?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 27, 2011, 04:04:41 AM
Sig isn't holy you know... ;) heh heh



Sigoroth,
But they aren't turrets, they are fleet defense turrets. An upgrade. An addition. Thus they can be better. They can have their accuracy at range.

Would you be happier if they only could hit on a 6+ instead of 4+?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 04:33:10 AM
Yeah, he just usually has the most insight when it comes to IN/Chaos stuffs. Like you for eldar ;), just wait until we get around to making DE 'mms' equivalent.

Also Sigoroth is the most willing to defend his opinions, so if someone else comes to argue against something, agreeing with sigoroth is the best defense.

I didn't mind the idea of FDTs that were 15cm wbs. I like that better than current FDT rules. Although I'm not too much of a fan of them existing overall (lesser of two evils) as it is detrimental to the metagame. If someone were to spam FDTs, then potentially it could turn an ordinance list to a bunch of flying bricks.

I'm going to be playtesting a fleet of 70 Iconoclasts (at -1ld) against a 1500 point IN fleet (well I might mix in some other escorts that aren't Iconoclasts at reduced points) to see if Sigoroth's escort theory has any validity.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 05:58:53 AM
It's almost puzzling to me the BaronI is so good at being on the opposite side of the consensus.

The Jovian is fine. I like the ship, its one of those things I would never run.

Because I want to see the game grow and change.  Or because I serve as an Arch-priest to the Ruinous Power known as the Changer of Ways, depending on who on this board you talk to.  

I dislike it when people decry something as a thing which should never have been without justifying their position.  The Jovian is a perfectly good, non-broken, ship.  The fundamental reason that people don't want it is that they have a preconception of what each fleet 'must' be.  IN 'must' be big guns.  The idea of IN as AC is anathema to them, and, when they encounter it, they don't know what to do.   So they cry for the HA to limit it further.  My God, it might show up in a fleet with other carriers.  Oh noes!   :o

Like you never faced off against a carrier based fleet before.   >:(

Frankly, everyone on this board has complained when the HA has proposed a change.  Sigoroth, in particular, has argued against almost all of them, as though any change would destroy him utterly.  Personally, I like a lot of their ideas.  I think we need more ships.  I'd make every ship BFGM ever printed legal and then start making new ones.  

Why?  

Because this game has been stagnant for over ten frikkin years.  The few people who still play it have been using the same strategies against the same fleets for a decade, including having the probability of any given result memorized.  

I want to see how you deal with something NEW.  Something you haven't faced a thousand times, and mathhammered fifteen times over.  Do you know why 40k is still going?  Because it gets refreshed every few years.  New units, new rules, fresh strategies.  It makes it *fun*.  Mean while, GW has taken a big dump on us longer then Dark Eldar, and when we FINALLY get something going I sit here and listen to people try and STOP it.    

Not offer new ideas.  

Not even suggest alterations to existing ones.  

They just throw in their heels and scream 'This sucks, we don't want it!  Throw this out, it's garbage!'  

As a review writer, I take each game book or modual out and play it and THEN pass judgment.  And then, even if my review is 'this sucks' (see my review of The Frozen Reaches) I actually make suggestions on how it could have been done better and what parts of it needed work.  

Not one of you has given a valid reason for this level of restriction for the Jovian.  It was fine as it was.  Now it's 'the' most restricted ship in the game, which is flatly broken.  


Nate, whoever told you not to ask us was right.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 06:23:13 AM
I dislike it when people decry something as a thing which should never have been without justifying their position.  The Jovian is a perfectly good, non-broken, ship.  The fundamental reason that people don't want it is that they have a preconception of what each fleet 'must' be.  IN 'must' be big guns.  The idea of IN as AC is anathema to them, and, when they encounter it, they don't know what to do.   So they cry for the HA to limit it further.  My God, it might show up in a fleet with other carriers.  Oh noes!   :o

It isn't. Never would be broken, the only complaint from people is that it alters the 'feel' of IN. Which it kinda does. I don't think that it should be restricted at all in this list, but I do think that reserves shouldn't be 'always allowed' type thing.

Quote
Frankly, everyone on this board has complained when the HA has proposed a change.  Sigoroth, in particular, has argued against almost all of them, as though any change would destroy him utterly.  Personally, I like a lot of their ideas.  I think we need more ships.  I'd make every ship BFGM ever printed legal and then start making new ones. 


Yep. Changes are scary. I wouldn't do every ship in BFGm, although 90% of them could be at least adapted and included. I don't see why the enforcer didn't make it into this document. It's a great idea.

Quote
Because this game has been stagnant for over ten frikkin years.  The few people who still play it have been using the same strategies against the same fleets for a decade, including having the probability of any given result memorized. 

True, which is why in 'my' ruleset I've tried to include every reasonable conversion of ships for low ship count races, such as DE and Necrons.
Hopefully I will be able to build Armada/Nemesis type updates for the ruleset yearly, with new ship classes/conversions.

Quote
Not even suggest alterations to existing ones. 


I do feel for you, the lance thing in SM is one of those. I don't think that it is necessary, or even viable, but I also don't think that any option should be absurdly overcosted. 5-10 points eq would make 90-95% of players not want the lance. Look at the nova cannon, probably 5-10 points too expensive (from a competitive standpoint) for the ships with options for it. This is enough make most players not take one unless they have to, rarely do you see someone give their tyrant/lunar a NC 'just cause'.

Quote
Not one of you has given a valid reason for this level of restriction for the Jovian.  It was fine as it was.  Now it's 'the' most restricted ship in the game, which is flatly broken. 


Like I said, it's just a feel thing. Like the lance in SM, it makes the feel of the fleet diluted. That is, and will be the only good decent reason.

It works on the Exorcist because the ship itself is an oddity within IN lists, and plays quite differently. Also most people don't use GCs, so it's no big deal. With a BC like this, it is a lot different, as it would play normally within IN, without any odd or different tactics to keep your (likely) flagship alive.

Quote
What Nate should have done before folding like superman on laundry day was ask to see your battle reports.  Proove that this would be a bad thing

I'll tell you what. I will.

Next batrep (will include at least, need to add up points);

Vanquisher
Jovian
Havocs
Siluria
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 27, 2011, 06:38:51 AM

Hi BaronI,

Quote
Because I want to see the game grow and change. Or because I serve as an Arch-priest to the Ruinous Power known as the Changer of Ways, depending on who on this board you talk to.
Growth and Change should be kept in check, because: is BFG broken as it is? No. Thus changes need to be done carefully.

Quote
I dislike it when people decry something as a thing which should never have been without justifying their position. The Jovian is a perfectly good, non-broken, ship. The fundamental reason that people don't want it is that they have a preconception of what each fleet 'must' be. IN 'must' be big guns. The idea of IN as AC is anathema to them, and, when they encounter it, they don't know what to do. So they cry for the HA to limit it further. My God, it might show up in a fleet with other carriers. Oh noes!
Noodles. ;)  where has someone asked for a limit on the existing carrier options for the Imperial Navy? At no time anyone did! Look at the fan thread: Oberon made better, Dictator cheaper, Defiant better. Is that limiting carrier capabilities for the IN? No. It is working within the existing playfield.
Adding new ships like a Jovian can throw it off.

Quote
Frankly, everyone on this board has complained when the HA has proposed a change. Sigoroth, in particular, has argued against almost all of them, as though any change would destroy him utterly. Personally, I like a lot of their ideas. I think we need more ships. I'd make every ship BFGM ever printed legal and then start making new ones.
Urgh. Never. Not like this. As you can see I like and dislike some ships in the Bakka PDF. Making something legal should be done carefully.

Quote
Why?

Because this game has been stagnant for over ten frikkin years. The few people who still play it have been using the same strategies against the same fleets for a decade, including having the probability of any given result memorized.
as said, BFG ain't broken (aside of Eldar ;) ). Looking at 40k/whfb growth/change is very bad.

Quote
I want to see how you deal with something NEW. Something you haven't faced a thousand times, and mathhammered fifteen times over. Do you know why 40k is still going? Because it gets refreshed every few years. New units, new rules, fresh strategies. It makes it *fun*. Mean while, GW has taken a big dump on us longer then Dark Eldar, and when we FINALLY get something going I sit here and listen to people try and STOP it.
Because there are countless tactics possible within the current parameters.

Quote
Not offer new ideas.

Not even suggest alterations to existing ones.

They just throw in their heels and scream 'This sucks, we don't want it! Throw this out, it's garbage!'
Then to think Sig and I developed MMS. Talk about changing. ;)
Or where we started about a 90* Protector years ago.

Quote
Not one of you has given a valid reason for this level of restriction for the Jovian. It was fine as it was. Now it's 'the' most restricted ship in the game, which is flatly broken.
I did not ask for a restriction. I asked for a removal. Insert the Dominion from the Book of Nemesis. :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on January 27, 2011, 07:00:56 AM
^truth.

baron: just see the wildly excepted mms, plax's [fan] revisions, and distant darkness. plenty of nice unofficial change happens - bgf is a specialist game after all
hmm. FDT's shredded an enemy carrier fleet in a small fight... didn't expect that.
No reserve jovian solves everyone's problems, whether you like bakka or not. swapping with the dominion would be frakkin sweet cuz its my favorite IN carrier.
Bakka still really needs dauntless and defiant/enforer regardless.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 07:07:24 AM
I think I'll swap Jovian for dominion in my list. People seem to like that much better.

Edit: funny coincidence the dominion's fluff says that they are used in ultima most often. That is convenient.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 27, 2011, 07:42:11 AM
The idea that shooting is favored assumes that fleet strategy is uniform across the entire Imperium.  Considering the variation from one area to another and the variety of threats it faces, this is unlikely, and further, even a single sector can change over time.  Consider that despite Bakka detesting AC, they adopted the Jovian, a pure carrier, due to their abysmal performance against the tyranids in Ultramar.  It is not very far fetched to suggest that in some areas AC carriers are more common then they are in the Gothic, Armageddon, or Bakka sectors, particularly when AC ships seem to be preferred for anti-pirate details.

Not when the Despoilers are still fresh in everyone's minds. IN would still be very, very wary about a new almost, purely LB ship because of what happened with the Despoilers.

As it is, carriers are still available in the IN fleet anyway and it should suffice. I'd love to have one as well as the Nemesis but it really breaks the character of IN. If it is limited totally to Bakka, I might concede but it should really be only 1 ship. Otherwise, a couple of Enforcers and you easily get 12 LBs for cheap and that would break the feel of having only few carriers in Bakka.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 07:59:01 AM
I like the fact that you added more vanquishers, but you have some typos in the rules. Notably the cannot ctnh part which says that only the vae victus can't do this.

Why is the vanquishers spd 15? Shouldnt it be 20 like in the bfgm? Also the ship desperately needs more firepower or needs to cost about 290 points. It's worse than a desolator. Should be cheaper, especially as how in the fluff no one liked it anyways.

The IN deserve another bb with 20cm speed. It's something to give it that isn't dorsal weaponry. It will make it slightly more appealing.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 08:14:42 AM
Oh and the carrier restriction just means that every list will have a Jovian in it. You have to think about what normal semi competitive players would make of the list. This is why I think that the vanquisher should have the optional prow lb. As it is written in the fluff that they had these. People can convert them
If they like, although i don't really have any ideas of how I would do it yet. This would prevent the static list error that this is going to become. One flaw with many game systems, particularly gws, is that lists/armies become static builds. Players need at least one carrier. If they only have one option and 0-1 on them you will almost always see it in the list.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 27, 2011, 09:35:34 AM
What battleships does bakka have, and what are their price/role?

Emperor: 565pts Stand Off/Fleet Carrier
Retribution: 345pts Fast Stand Off/Linebreaker
Victory: 345pts Fast Stand Off/Artillery/Linebreaker
Vanquisher: 320pts Cheap Linebreaker

For its role, the Vanquisher needs 20cm speed more than the Victory does. It's also has 3L, 3Torps fewer and 2/3 of its broadside has 15cm less range. That's worth FAR more than a 25pt discount. It should be around 280pts, 290pts with 20cm speed. (There could even be an aguement for it having 25cm speed due to its reduced armament.)

The Victory needs a price break compared to the Retribution, as it's a more conflicted design (and that's saying something, because the Retribution really isn't strong either.) I'd call it 335 maximum, and I think the benefits of 15cm speed and thus 7.5cm half speed on this ship would balance the inabilty to turn under fire.
I'd make the torps a free swap rather than -10pts, and here's why: The NC is objectively equal to 6T+10pts (if even that), and would be a straight swap for 9Torps. Even if you don't agree with that, you must concede that options command a premium - if you want a NC on a ship that's usually torps, you have to pay for it. In this case you want torps on a ship with a NC, so it's the torps that command the premium, and should therefore be more expensive, PARTICULARLY as it makes the role less conflicted - point prow at enemy and use speed to full advantage whilst clearing way with torps.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 27, 2011, 10:04:50 AM
As for the Jovian: It is a fleet carrier in a sector list that despises fleet carriers. Why oh why is it included? It's overcosted at 260pts because it has no prow weapons, and 3AC per side should be a straight swap for WBe12 per side. So it's not worth what you pay for it.

But it will be taken anyway, because the Mars is more expensive for fewer AC and the Emperor is Ludicrous Cost (but good). So increasing the cost to make it less desireable breaks it further in a not-worth-the-points way, whilst decreasing its points to waht it's truly worth would just make it auto-include (which it pretty much is anyway, as the most efficient way of including AC.

Everyone recognises that at least some AC are necessary for a torp fleet to clear CAP with, but the bakka list so far has completely missed the obvious: The Enforcer and Defiant. These ships are completely overshadowed by their larger brethren in the other lists, but would make perfect sense in a bakka list:

1. They aren't offensive carriers, as 2 AC scarecely scratch even a T2 target. Spamming them might gain you defensive superiority, but would be a very inefficient way of gaining attack power compared to an all dictator list from one of the other sectors.
2. They aren't fleet carriers, but light/escort carriers, which bakka isn't specifically against.
3. They'd be exactly what a bakka list needs from a "gameplay insists you have at least some carriers, if only to escort your torp waves in" point of view.
4. They make ideal anti-pirate patrol cruisers, alongside the other LCs that bakka's philosophy favours.

So drop the Jovian, and let's have the Defiant and Enforcer. They make far more sense.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 10:41:57 AM
Second RCs thoughts, couldn't have said it better myself.

Ships should be priced according to what they can do, not by what they are. So it's a battleship, that doesn't mean it should be priced so high just for battleshippy feel. It has the firepower of an armaggeddon, and the hits of a retribution. Slower speed sure. Lets take the average of the two points values, 290. With 20cm speed this is perfect. Not my favorite option, I'd prefer more out of a battleship. +4 wbs a side somehow at the least you can even show it in your picture with only one lance bay but double sided, (meaning there are lances on top and bottom) and two weapons bays.

I love the vanquisher and will almost always run one. I'm trying to convert out a kar-duniash type version for my IN now. It would be disappOInting for it to be like the Styx was, way overpriced for what it does.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 27, 2011, 10:53:49 AM
@Sig:

Actually turrets are more akin to Hydra batteries or the Vulcan Megabolters you would see on a battle titan.  However, I'll point out: ships within 15cm are close enough to share LD so this would imply that they have some means of high speed, real time communication inside that range.  If this is true, then FDT makes perfect sense, working together similar to modern ships sharing targeting data. and CIWS.

Er, no it doesn't. It makes no sense whatsoever. Even the weapons you describe would not be able to fire at those ranges. Also their ability to predict the location of manoeuvring bombers from so far away so far in advance is ludicrous. That's not even taking into account the cover the ship itself would provide. Oh, and the fact that this is all being accomplished by secondary weaponry with no loss of primary weapon power. Ludicrous concept.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 27, 2011, 10:59:56 AM
Nate, whoever told you not to ask us was right.

In your case, certainly.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 27, 2011, 12:40:16 PM
Okay now that I have had time to look over the list...


The Mercury is now far better then it was, however, I don't see anyone ever taking it over a Mars or a Jovian.  The costs are starting to skyrocket here, and people will still try to nab that golden number of LC8

I still loathe the Jovian, and agree, the Defiant should be in it's place.

The sole reason why I don't like fleet defense turrets (IF we insist on ignoring sig, which i don't think we should do in the first place), is because they have been established as rare by the admech list. Why does one fleet with a bunch of old rusted tubs get technology the admech has problems replicating on a large scale?

With the new astronomical cost of the Emperor, i am finding it less harmful to the fleet. It's still going to be selected most of the time, but hell, at least it is a huge target.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 27, 2011, 12:54:50 PM
The only direct-fire weapons capable of targeting AC from such range are going to be causing blast markers and therefore harm to the defended ships - clouds of shrapnel big enough to hit manouevring targets at 15,000 km are going to form blast markers if frozen snotings do! (ork clanz pdf).

The only possible weapon I can think of that could cause a kill at 15,000km without saturating an area of space are guided missiles, which the IN isn't big on. There's no need for them - just drop them.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 04:34:17 PM
The only possible weapon I can think of that could cause a kill at 15,000km without saturating an area of space are guided missiles, which the IN isn't big on. There's no need for them - just drop them.

According to revised fluff from FFG, IN cruisers can be fitted with guided missiles, which are slightly longer range then macrocannons.  It is not, however, common.  At least in the Calixis Sector.


Er, no it doesn't. It makes no sense whatsoever. Even the weapons you describe would not be able to fire at those ranges. Also their ability to predict the location of manoeuvring bombers from so far away so far in advance is ludicrous. That's not even taking into account the cover the ship itself would provide. Oh, and the fact that this is all being accomplished by secondary weaponry with no loss of primary weapon power. Ludicrous concept.

Sigoroth, this is space.  Projectiles don't lose power until they hit something.  Just about every projectile weapon is range = infinite.  As everyone likes to say about orks, fill a volume of space with munitions and you'll hit something.  

"Gunnery Chief: This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferris slug, feel the weight. Every five seconds, the main gun of an everest class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3% of light-speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kiloton bomb. That is three times the yield of the city-buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth. That means- Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's first law?
Serviceman Burnside: Sir! An object in motion stays in motion, sir!
Gunnery Chief: No credit for partial answers, maggot!
Serviceman Burnside: Sir! Unless acted on by an outside force, sir!
Gunnery Chief: Damn straight! I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going til it hits something. That can be a ship. Or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you are ruining someones day, somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your targets. That is why you wait for the computer to give you a damn firing solution. That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not "eyeball it". This is a weapon of mass destruction. You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!
Serviceman Chung: Sir, yes sir! " - Mass Effect 2

As far as the ship providing cover, I remind you that, at least in this game, most of the time ships don't even provide over from other ships firing their main weapons at a target on the other side.  Cover is (mostly)a a non-entity in this game unless you're a planet or something similarly large


Not when the Despoilers are still fresh in everyone's minds. IN would still be very, very wary about a new almost, purely LB ship because of what happened with the Despoilers.

Why would the Despoiler be fresh in anyone's mind?  According to the fluff for the Gaerox Incident, the Inquisition covered the entire thing up afterwards, so only the members of high command at Bakka and the Inquisition would know what went on.  (which is why the more or less lack of AC is considered an aberration by IN standards) What little fluff we have to go on for other sectors occasionally mentions pure carriers in the employ of IN.  

I think I'll swap Jovian for dominion in my list. People seem to like that much better.

Of course they like it.  It's an Armageddon with 4 lbs for +15 points.  That's a hell of a weapon upgrade.



Then to think Sig and I developed MMS. Talk about changing. ;)
Or where we started about a 90* Protector years ago.

I did not ask for a restriction. I asked for a removal. Insert the Dominion from the Book of Nemesis. :)

I'll admit, I had to ask an eldar player what MMS was, since no one I know uses it.  If what he said about it was true, I feel for you.  His reaction was right up there with Sigoroth's views on SM lances.

Dominion is ridiculously powerful.  If it was brought into this list, and not restricted to 1 per fleet, the list would probably immediately replace Armageddon as the most common competitive IN list.  Combine it with Gothics and a Vicky and we'll see a new dawn for the Torp Beamer build.

And aside: Mercury is better, now, but still could use that torp swap.  
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 27, 2011, 05:11:51 PM
And, as has been stated, if a pile of frozen snotlings can form a blast marker, the sufficient shrapnel/flak to take down a bomber at long range is also going to cause problems for the ship you're trying to protect. The only way you could comfortably pick off bombers from such range is with guided missiles, which wouldn't function as turrets in other respects and aren't exactly common in teh Imperium.

I would far, far rather the FDT idea gets binned. If even the ad mech can't reliably produce the tech, it shouldn't be in a fleet-wide deployment.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 27, 2011, 05:32:53 PM
If FDT are binned, it needs to be replaced by some other mechanic or the low/no AC IN fleet concept can't work.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 27, 2011, 06:50:12 PM
Low AC still works. Exhibit A: 1 Falchion/Cobra and 5 Vipers. That's up to 15 torps delivered THROUGH a CAP onto a single target. Target annihilated.

FDT aren't needed or wanted.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 27, 2011, 07:08:56 PM
I'm not talking about offensively; with the amount of torpedoes available offensive operations aren't even a question. I'm talking about enemy AB and Bombers. IN without Ac or with low AC isn't all that great because most of your stuff has either 1 or 2 turrets and even with turret massing you will eventually get picked apart. FDT or some such mechanism is needed to counterbalance the loss or severe reduction of defensive ordnance.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on January 27, 2011, 08:16:58 PM
exactly vaaish. hence the need for defiant/enforcer whether fdt's or not.

however, its really too bad people are against the theory behind fdts cuz its really quite a badass concept. putting your turrets where you need them most at any given point.

as written (or as i read it last night) the fdt's reduce bomber attacks. thus they whoop vs bombers. a-boats and massed torps however still provide a problem. either keep FDT and allow access to CL's with LB's or replace the mechanic with the new proposition of 15cm weapons that hit ordy on 4+. though this would make the profiles of the ships very convoluted (in comparison to the norm).

as to placing BMs for guns that could counter AC... we don't place BM's when we direct fire at ord normally, so why - in this standardized abstraction - should we place bm for fdt's?

if fluffiness is the only real counter to fdt's then lets just ask that this fleet list which makes use of them cannot reserve into other IN. like no donor, but universal acceptor blood type. we all know that balance is more important that fluff.

Thus I think occams razor makes keeping fdt's the simplest solution. though the fleet should be isolated from reserving off to other IN, period.


and btw, Victory needs 20cm move, cuz if its at 15cm and gets a BM on it, then it can't maneuver that cannon where it wants.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 08:28:42 PM
Low AC still works. Exhibit A: 1 Falchion/Cobra and 5 Vipers. That's up to 15 torps delivered THROUGH a CAP onto a single target. Target annihilated.

FDT aren't needed or wanted.

Maybe my math is off, but no, target probably crippled, since torps have to beat armor.  BTW: Wouldn't a single escort by itself be illegal?

Valhallen, restricting them from going into other fleets is pointless as you can still bring them into another fleet using the admech list.  So if it's unbalanced, it has been for years.

@Nate: btw, I was reading the description of the Havoc, and, this description implies that Havoks are pre-heresy frigates, as the Sword came into service at the beginning of the HH.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 27, 2011, 08:48:26 PM
I have no objection to some special rule allowing a ships main guns to have an easier time hitting AC. Certainly this sort of thing can be justified. What is implausible is having secondary weaponry powerful enough to do this. And yes BI, it does require power to achieve this in a timely manner. Of course I know that a moving body will keep moving until acted upon by some force. I'm not an idiot. I had, however, assumed that you knew that we're talking a specific time-frame here, as determined by muzzle velocity (ie, power input). Else all projectile weapons would have unlimited range. Also, it's more likely that you'd be able to hit straight flying targets rather than jinking targets and could use the ship you're trying to protect for cover. And yes, BI, they would be able to use it as cover. Bombers are tiny, ships are huge, the two are close together. The shadow the ship will cast is certainly enough to consider cover.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 09:15:37 PM
I have no objection to some special rule allowing a ships main guns to have an easier time hitting AC. Certainly this sort of thing can be justified. What is implausible is having secondary weaponry powerful enough to do this. And yes BI, it does require power to achieve this in a timely manner. Of course I know that a moving body will keep moving until acted upon by some force. I'm not an idiot. I had, however, assumed that you knew that we're talking a specific time-frame here, as determined by muzzle velocity (ie, power input). Else all projectile weapons would have unlimited range. Also, it's more likely that you'd be able to hit straight flying targets rather than jinking targets and could use the ship you're trying to protect for cover. And yes, BI, they would be able to use it as cover. Bombers are tiny, ships are huge, the two are close together. The shadow the ship will cast is certainly enough to consider cover.

Sig, I'm quite familiar with ToT (and that a projectile would take about 3 hours to travel that distance with a 1.1kmps muzzle velocity).  I'm also familiar that macrocannon projectiles travel um, 60,000km in one combat turn, and bombers about 20,000km.  I would suggest that a bomber is much slower then a bullet.  So how much time is a single round of combat really? 

Given the listed speed for a Fury interceptor is 2,500kph, and they move 20,000km, this means that a combat turn's real time is approx 8 hours.

Further, bombers are not exactly known for being slippery targets.  Particularity when they're as large as a 747 like the Starhhawk is.  The bigger it is, the more inertia it has, and the more sudden changes in direction put stress on your fuselage, since thrust stresses are not even across the bird.  If you were to try and jink in something like this, the stresses would snap your bird like a twig.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 27, 2011, 09:17:08 PM
Why can't we assume that it is improved targeting rather than improved range?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 09:17:56 PM
The only real reason for range limitations is targeting capability. Sure you can launch a warhead an infinite distance, but the question is will you be able to predict where the ship will be when it hits, and if it has enough time to react and move the 100 meters to get out of the way.

Even if the weapons were travelling at one million kmph, a ship would have almost 2 minutes to move out of the way. Even a few seconds is potentially enough to make a course correction. (presuming that the systems are automated).

Anyways, BFG isn't truly a representation of spaceship battles. It is a little, but it is more WWI/II naval battles. Even some fleets take more after modern fleets (TAU), and others, more ancient fleets (Eldar)

BaronI, in 'flawed ships' the Dominion isn't a +15 point upgrade for the Armageddon, it's +25. Remember the armageddon got reduced 10 points, and in the case of how I would represent it, it would have only 4 torps, to fit with BFT. Making this more like 30, a reasonable (albeit still low) price for 4lb.


The Victory doesn't need 20cm speed for its NC, the Apocalypse has 15cm and it does fine. Besides, if your enemy can shoot at your NC battleship, you're doing it wrong. (or probably couldn't use the NC anyways)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 27, 2011, 09:27:01 PM
Sounds right, BI.  I always assumed  they were actually very long affairs, because of the distances and ship sizes. 
And indeed, in space, manouverability is much tougher.  You just head for the ship you are making your attack run on, dead ahead.

Edit:  What plaxor said, as far as shooting goes.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 09:35:52 PM
The only real reason for range limitations is targeting capability. Sure you can launch a warhead an infinite distance, but the question is will you be able to predict where the ship will be when it hits, and if it has enough time to react and move the 100 meters to get out of the way.

Even if the weapons were travelling at one million kmph, a ship would have almost 2 minutes to move out of the way. Even a few seconds is potentially enough to make a course correction. (presuming that the systems are automated).

Anyways, BFG isn't truly a representation of spaceship battles. It is a little, but it is more WWI/II naval battles. Even some fleets take more after modern fleets (TAU), and others, more ancient fleets (Eldar)

BaronI, in 'flawed ships' the Dominion isn't a +15 point upgrade for the Armageddon, it's +25. Remember the armageddon got reduced 10 points, and in the case of how I would represent it, it would have only 4 torps, to fit with BFT. Making this more like 30, a reasonable (albeit still low) price for 4lb.


The Victory doesn't need 20cm speed for its NC, the Apocalypse has 15cm and it does fine. Besides, if your enemy can shoot at your NC battleship, you're doing it wrong. (or probably couldn't use the NC anyways)

I was using it's official stats rather then the 'flawed ships' stats.  and even at 30 it's damn cheap.  2 escort carriers cost 120.

Personal opinion: if you're taking the NC at all, you're doing it wrong.  Put her in with gothics and a mars or two and give her guided torps.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 27, 2011, 09:44:52 PM
BTW: Wouldn't a single escort by itself be illegal?

Mixed squadrons are not.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 09:48:30 PM
Funny, in RT the turns are considered to be 1/2 hour. Seemed about logical to me.

However everyone knows GW doesn't do math when writing fluff! They aren't scientists! I mean they wrote fluff about 30 space wolves JUMPING from thier exploding strike cruiser onto a chaos ship, propelled by the explosion (I don't care how superhuman you are... that is a shit-ton of radiation, enough to break carbon-carbon bonds, destroying you at a molecular level). Not only that but they jumped what? 30,000 km? in a reasonable time frame? so they were travelling at least 250,000 KMPH. Which means they should impact the void shields and be molecularizedulated (my new word ;)) like a bug on a windshield, times 100,000. Then the 30 space wolves take over the chaos cruiser (what the hell?) and turn the weapons on the chaos fleet around them (who is running the guns if they killed everyone?, a ship must have at least 10-15% of its crew in order to move! JUST MOVE.)

Anyways, cruisers travel at ~40,000 kmph according to FF. Pretty reasonable, most satelites do about 12kmps, or 40,000kmph.

And a bomber goes at 2500 per hour? Wrong. They would need to do 22kmps. Pretty epic.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 09:53:00 PM
Good point BaronI. I do think that the depressed cost is somewhat sensible due to the slight confusion of roles (is it supposed to shoot, or be a carrier?) Although 260 seems reasonable to me.

Escort carriers are crap.... if they didn't have the LD loss they might not be. I doubt it though. I came up with a design for the Tempest class frigate (and even converted one, yay! which you can see in the modeling thread) Its a firestorm which swaps out the lance for a LB@45pts. Squadrons can upgrade Sharks for +5 points. Maybe overcosted by 5 points. I would love to hear someones thoughts on the subject, but I think we should concentrate on Bakka here.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 10:05:46 PM
Funny, in RT the turns are considered to be 1/2 hour. Seemed about logical to me.

However everyone knows GW doesn't do math when writing fluff! They aren't scientists! I mean they wrote fluff about 30 space wolves JUMPING from thier exploding strike cruiser onto a chaos ship, propelled by the explosion (I don't care how superhuman you are... that is a shit-ton of radiation, enough to break carbon-carbon bonds, destroying you at a molecular level). Not only that but they jumped what? 30,000 km? in a reasonable time frame? so they were travelling at least 250,000 KMPH. Which means they should impact the void shields and be molecularizedulated (my new word ;)) like a bug on a windshield, times 100,000. Then the 30 space wolves take over the chaos cruiser (what the hell?) and turn the weapons on the chaos fleet around them (who is running the guns if they killed everyone?, a ship must have at least 10-15% of its crew in order to move! JUST MOVE.)

Anyways, cruisers travel at ~40,000 kmph according to FF. Pretty reasonable, most satelites do about 12kmps, or 40,000kmph.

And a bomber goes at 2500 per hour? Wrong. They would need to do 22kmps. Pretty epic.



FFG wrote the 2,500kmph thing in Into the Storm.  Sorry, can't lay this one on GW.  However, I'll also point out that it this is true, the 10vus in 1/2 hour for a fury means that a Sword's combat speed is only 2000 kmph (baseline) according to it's in game stats.  Cruisers even slower.  None of them are going any 40k kmph if the movement scale is right.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 27, 2011, 10:06:08 PM
Sig, I'm quite familiar with ToT (and that a projectile would take about 3 hours to travel that distance with a 1.1kmps muzzle velocity).  I'm also familiar that macrocannon projectiles travel um, 60,000km in one combat turn, and bombers about 20,000km.  I would suggest that a bomber is much slower then a bullet.  So how much time is a single round of combat really? 

Given the listed speed for a Fury interceptor is 2,500kph, and they move 20,000km, this means that a combat turn's real time is approx 8 hours.

Well, the approximation given is that one game turn represents one hour. Regardless, it obviously does not take this amount of time for the shot to reach the target. Predicting where the target will be with any degree of precision minutes ahead of time is unlikely. More likely requiring seconds at the most.

Quote
Further, bombers are not exactly known for being slippery targets.  Particularity when they're as large as a 747 like the Starhhawk is.  The bigger it is, the more inertia it has, and the more sudden changes in direction put stress on your fuselage, since thrust stresses are not even across the bird.  If you were to try and jink in something like this, the stresses would snap your bird like a twig.

This makes sense when they're flying at top speed on their way to the target, however, once there they will have to slow down to line up attack runs and attempt to avoid flak fire, making them far more manoeuvrable by necessity. This is the time when the FDTs are trying to shoot them. When they're at their most manoeuvrable, right next to a friendly target and possibly hidden by it. And they're using weaponry powerful enough to reach this far in a timely fashion enough fashion, but not powerful enough to hurt the friendly target nor so powerful as to even cost the firing ship a single point of its main guns firepower. On top of all this, this weaponry is somehow 3 times more accurate (while taking less than 1 third the firepower).

Face it, it's a bad rule. In order to do this sort of thing it makes much more sense to use main guns, and giving Bakka ships some special rule when doing so is fine. FDTs just suck balls though.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 10:19:43 PM
Sig, I'm quite familiar with ToT (and that a projectile would take about 3 hours to travel that distance with a 1.1kmps muzzle velocity).  I'm also familiar that macrocannon projectiles travel um, 60,000km in one combat turn, and bombers about 20,000km.  I would suggest that a bomber is much slower then a bullet.  So how much time is a single round of combat really? 

Given the listed speed for a Fury interceptor is 2,500kph, and they move 20,000km, this means that a combat turn's real time is approx 8 hours.

Well, the approximation given is that one game turn represents one hour. Regardless, it obviously does not take this amount of time for the shot to reach the target. Predicting where the target will be with any degree of precision minutes ahead of time is unlikely. More likely requiring seconds at the most.

Quote
Further, bombers are not exactly known for being slippery targets.  Particularity when they're as large as a 747 like the Starhhawk is.  The bigger it is, the more inertia it has, and the more sudden changes in direction put stress on your fuselage, since thrust stresses are not even across the bird.  If you were to try and jink in something like this, the stresses would snap your bird like a twig.

This makes sense when they're flying at top speed on their way to the target, however, once there they will have to slow down to line up attack runs and attempt to avoid flak fire, making them far more manoeuvrable by necessity. This is the time when the FDTs are trying to shoot them. When they're at their most manoeuvrable, right next to a friendly target and possibly hidden by it. And they're using weaponry powerful enough to reach this far in a timely fashion enough fashion, but not powerful enough to hurt the friendly target nor so powerful as to even cost the firing ship a single point of its main guns firepower. On top of all this, this weaponry is somehow 3 times more accurate (while taking less than 1 third the firepower).

Face it, it's a bad rule. In order to do this sort of thing it makes much more sense to use main guns, and giving Bakka ships some special rule when doing so is fine. FDTs just suck balls though.

Main guns would have even poorer tracking then smaller more quickly maneuverable weapons.  The simplest approach would be to fire cans of frozen peas at them.  (This sounds insane but bear with me for a moment.) The reason is that the peas would easily hole a lightly armored bomber or fighter, but would impact harmlessly on the meters thick armor of a larger starship.  For any doubts on this:

(http://www.aero.org/capabilities/cords/images/window_000.gif)

This is the damage inflicted on a shuttle orbiter by a paint chip. 

According to NASA, a 1 cm aluminum sphere deals comparable damage to a 400 pound safe traveling at 60mph.  This would probably wreck a Fury or Starhawk, but have little impact on the armor of a ship. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 10:30:53 PM
What I think would be interesting and logical from baronI would be that fdts place a bm on all pieces of ordinance within 15cm. Say they are launching a flak field of minor projectiles at the ordinance.

This would make sense from a defensive standpoint, although not very effective it is gamplay and scientifically sensible.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 10:49:02 PM
What I think would be interesting and logical from baronI would be that fdts place a bm on all pieces of ordinance within 15cm. Say they are launching a flak field of minor projectiles at the ordinance.

This would make sense from a defensive standpoint, although not very effective it is gamplay and scientifically sensible.

Hmm... that's not bad, but there'd have to be some sort of special rule to make them vanish except on +4 or better.  Nate has mentioned in the past they're not interested in making lots of new complicated rules.  Personally, I say we just go with the existing rule, rename it FDS, Fleet Defense System, and say that the increase in turrets represents greater co-ordination between the fleet's CIWS systems creating a tighter fire screen around the selected ship.  The fact it can only work on one target per turn is due to signal lag between ships.


To pour a little promethium on the fire with AC: the Tempest strike frigate of the Calixis Sector is, if you read it's description, a frigate aboat carrier peculiar to Calixis, Ixnaid, Mandragora, and Scarus sectors.  Scarus also being a bastion fleet.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 10:55:52 PM
No I'm saying that it doesn't need to be that complicated. It would be by no means good, but it would fulfill the role. Not only that but as BMs it would destroy entire waves Or salvoes making it better than fdts in a way. I think it's a decent enough representation of the rule.

I would give it to every capital in the list. Only one bm can be placed per ordinance marker.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 11:01:21 PM
No I'm saying that it doesn't need to be that complicated. It would be by no means good, but it would fulfill the role. Not only that but as BMs it would destroy entire waves Or salvoes making it better than fdts in a way. I think it's a decent enough representation of the rule.

I would give it to every capital in the list. Only one bm can be placed per ordinance marker.

HHmmm... somehow this feels like it would be abusable against WB based fleets, particularly if you are lance heavy...  it's also be possible to penalize ships for having fighters on CAP.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 27, 2011, 11:04:37 PM
I'm sure that the speed required to get those peas there in a timely fashion would make them a threat to the friendly ship.

Anyway, what's wrong with the Dominion? It's perfectly fine. Consider a balanced Dictator (210 pts) with a Lunar. It swaps out half its firepower for 4 AC at +30 pts. Now compare the Dominion to a balanced Armageddon (235 pts tops). Again we're swapping half firepower, this time for only 25 pts, however we're losing 45cm range guns this time, instead of 30cm range. This suggests that the Dominion is actually 5 pts overpriced.

Breakdown:

Armageddon = Lunar (180) + dorsal lances/CB status (+30) + WB range (+10) + lance range (+15) = 235

Dictator (210) - Lunar (180) = 30. Therefore 4AC = 6WB@30cm+30pts

Since 6WB@45cm = +10 pts, 4AC = 6WB@45cm+20pts

Therefore Dominion should cost Armageddon +20 pts (255).

Convergent evidence:

Dictator (210) + dorsal lances/CB status (+30) + lance range (+15) = 255 pts

Criticism:

Current Dictator is 220, Armageddon is 245 (though 235 for Bakka  ???)

Rebutal:

These ships are both overpriced. The Armageddon was originally 235 pts and there was no problem with them. Their price increase was completely unexpected and uncalled for. The Dictator has always been overpriced. Even with the Dev reduced to 45cm the Dictator is overpriced. New ships should not be made nerfed to keep parity with unbalanced ships, so while they may currently be 10 pts overpriced, we should be using balanced ships in comparisons.

The price of the Dominion, assuming the Armageddon and Dictator are priced accurately (which they certainly are not), is 270 pts. Armageddon = Lunar (180) + CB (30) + WB range (+15!?) + lance range (+20!?) = 245. 4AC = 6WB@30cm +40 pts (Lunar vs Dictator), 6WB@45cm=+15pts, therefore 4AC = 6WB@45cm +25 pts, therefore Dominion = Armageddon (245) + 25 = 270. However, there are some problems with this valuation of the range upgrades, since the Tyrant establishes +15cm range (from 30cm to 45cm) for 6WBs is +10 pts. This is for an optional upgrade, not a forced one, which should be cheaper. I would much much prefer an Armageddon with 30cm range broadsides for 210 pts, that's for sure.

Therefore, given the established and extrapolated costs of optional range upgrades and the fact that forced range upgrades are worth less the Armageddon tops out at 235 pts maximum. There really is no justification for costing it higher, though it is plausible that it could cost less since you are forced to take the range upgrades.

If you take the Dictator to be priced correctly (wot?) but agree the Armageddon is too costly from the above then the Dominion comes in at 265 pts. So since any reasonable analysis puts it in the 255 to 265 pt range there's nothing wrong with its 260 pt price tag.

Note: I omitted the turret difference between Lunar/Dictator and Armageddon/Dominion, since they cancel out and it's simplifies the analysis somewhat. However, extrapolating to other situations using this valuation should keep it in mind. So if you believe the Dictator should be 210 pts then 4AC +1 turret = 6WB@30cm +30 pts.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 11:22:13 PM
Sig, the dominion is 250 In BoN.

Baron, I don't think there is so much room for abuse, as the turrets are only 15cm range, and it is quite difficult to put your ships within 15. Although, it would make your opponent not want to cap fighters, which he wouldn't really do anyway, as bakka is very lacking in offensive ordinance.

I would suggest that my invention wouldn't work whilst on aaf, bfi, crippled, ctnh, or br orders. At the very least aaf, as the tracking systems aren't that fast/it would prevent abuse.

Everything new besides the viper either lacks torps or has a lower than normal number of them, also this list has a high number of nc vessels or other vessels with low torp count.  so I don't think enemy ordinance would really be playing the defensive game.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 27, 2011, 11:24:14 PM
Why would the Despoiler be fresh in anyone's mind?  According to the fluff for the Gaerox Incident, the Inquisition covered the entire thing up afterwards, so only the members of high command at Bakka and the Inquisition would know what went on.  (which is why the more or less lack of AC is considered an aberration by IN standards) What little fluff we have to go on for other sectors occasionally mentions pure carriers in the employ of IN.

AM would also know and they're the ones who build the ships. Sorry, won't fly. What fluff? Show me. Haven't seen any fluff, no matter how little, about pure carriers in the employ of IN.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 27, 2011, 11:29:33 PM
Sig, the dominion is 250 In BoN.

The BoN I'm looking at says 260 pts. Also, from both yours and BI's comments (quoted below) you both seem to be talking about a 260 pt Dominion, as you say +25 pts over 'flawed ships' Armageddon (which is 235) giving 260, and he responds that his +15 pts was compared to the official Armageddon (245) which is again 260 pts.

BaronI, in 'flawed ships' the Dominion isn't a +15 point upgrade for the Armageddon, it's +25. Remember the armageddon got reduced 10 points, and in the case of how I would represent it, it would have only 4 torps, to fit with BFT. Making this more like 30, a reasonable (albeit still low) price for 4lb.


I was using it's official stats rather then the 'flawed ships' stats.  and even at 30 it's damn cheap.  2 escort carriers cost 120.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 27, 2011, 11:33:09 PM
Oops, my bad sig. Don't know where I got that in my head.

As another thought for my fdt idea, to prevent abuse you could say that they are fired at the end of the shooting phase.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 27, 2011, 11:52:13 PM
Why would the Despoiler be fresh in anyone's mind?  According to the fluff for the Gaerox Incident, the Inquisition covered the entire thing up afterwards, so only the members of high command at Bakka and the Inquisition would know what went on.  (which is why the more or less lack of AC is considered an aberration by IN standards) What little fluff we have to go on for other sectors occasionally mentions pure carriers in the employ of IN.

AM would also know and they're the ones who build the ships. Sorry, won't fly. What fluff? Show me. Haven't seen any fluff, no matter how little, about pure carriers in the employ of IN.

*sigh*

Ark Imperial a Majestic Class, battleship sized super carrier, Shadow Point, chapter 9. 

Tempest class strike frigate, Rogue Trader corebook, Page 195 (fluff lists one of it's configurations as an aboat carrier)

Defiant class light cruiser, Armada, page 19. 

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.  I'm certain that there are other vague-er references to carriers in other books, but those were the ones that I remember the class being named.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 28, 2011, 12:12:05 AM
Tempest is a modified sword with a launch bay, that is often equipped with assault boats. See my post a page ago.

I'm Actually confused as to why the emperor is not on the fleet carrier list. Is it something with launch bays and little or no weapons?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 28, 2011, 12:38:23 AM
Tempest is a modified sword with a launch bay, that is often equipped with assault boats. See my post a page ago.

I'm Actually confused as to why the emperor is not on the fleet carrier list. Is it something with launch bays and little or no weapons?

I was being nice and not pointing out the obvious?  Though I suspect that the Emp has too many guns for D'Art to consider it a 'pure' carrier.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 28, 2011, 04:22:01 AM
Hi BaronI,
your Eldar MMS comment... that Eldar player needs to check back in. Let him mail me. And I am puzzled you don't know MMS yourselves.

Ayway, Armageddon is 235 points in FAQ2010 (yay me ;) ).
Dominion is 260 in new BoN.



Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 28, 2011, 04:33:07 AM
*sigh*

Ark Imperial a Majestic Class, battleship sized super carrier, Shadow Point, chapter 9.  

Tempest class strike frigate, Rogue Trader corebook, Page 195 (fluff lists one of it's configurations as an aboat carrier)

Defiant class light cruiser, Armada, page 19.  

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.  I'm certain that there are other vague-er references to carriers in other books, but those were the ones that I remember the class being named.

And you also notice the Majestic is one of those really old ships out there? Which is so old its warp engines are about to fall apart. Old, rare and not in use anymore in combat other than as a base of operations.

Defiant still has weapons and not a pure carrier. I don't know about the stats of the Tempest though even if it were a pure carrier, it would mainly be categorized as an escort carrier. You want those escort carriers? Sure, take em.

I was being nice and not pointing out the obvious?  Though I suspect that the Emp has too many guns for D'Art to consider it a 'pure' carrier.

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING! Give the man a lollipop.  Yes, Emperor is not a pure carrier, not the way the unofficial Nemesis or the official Styx would be. So sorry you've still struck out. Still no proof of a pure carrier for me.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on January 28, 2011, 04:52:25 AM
what is the outline for the stats of the majestic (same as nemesis?)

the least convoluted counter to FDT's i could come up with is a special rule: stealing plax's name fleet defense something or other: 'in friendly ordy phases, the imperial ship's turrets may fire at nearby (15cm) enemy ord markers. these attacks roll 1 dice per turret and hit a wave/salvo on a 4+'

this would cause bakka to defend against ordy with confidance, and without relyance on carriers. though they'd have to be ballsy as all hell. fitting.

still like FDT's better (add the clause NO reserves may be taken from this fleet. explicitly mentioning that this includes Ad Mec.).
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 28, 2011, 05:12:04 AM

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING! Give the man a lollipop.  Yes, Emperor is not a pure carrier, not the way the unofficial Nemesis or the official Styx would be. So sorry you've still struck out. Still no proof of a pure carrier for me.


D'Art, if the Defiant isn't a pure carrier, then the Styx isn't either.  Nor is the Jovian.  All three of them have lances.  In fact, the Styx has MORE non carrier based firepower then the Defiant and the Jovian combined.  

In fact, having glanced around a bit, not one race in this game has a 'pure' carrier by that measure.  (This includes Tau, who make AC look easy) Even escort carriers have a str 2 weapon battery.  Hell, even the Nemesis has a str 3 60cm lance battery.  

So, quite possibly, with the Majestic and Tempest, IN may actually have the ONLY 'pure carriers'.  


Valhallen, why would admech reserve in Bakka ships?  Admech already gets FDT's.  They've had them for years.

Horizon , I'll take some time later and read this MMS thing in greater detail.  Though I think from what I'm reading I see why he said it, my IN would be on him like the white on rice without the ability to move shoot move.  I'd propose we adopt it at the next meeting, but I don't want to lose another player, since, reading through these stats, he's die horribly.

I do suppose, though that there must be some advantage to this on a 6x6 though.  

Edit: 6x4.  6x4... I'll remember that yet.  You guys and your tiny assed tables.  How the hell does anyone maneuver in such a small space?  It's not even a whole starsystem to move around in.  Everyone just jumps in a little box and fights like two cats tied by their tails.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 28, 2011, 06:19:06 AM
Gotta fight somewhere, little boxes are the best. Can't maneuver? Baron, I'm afraid you've been tainted by the dark ones.

Even battleships can turn eight times in 120cm.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 28, 2011, 06:21:54 AM
Gotta fight somewhere, little boxes are the best. Can't maneuver? Baron, I'm afraid you've been tainted by the dark ones.

Even battleships can turn eight times in 120cm.


I'm not sure how many times you can turn on the 20x40.  I'll go with 'a lot'  but we also have a lot of terrain.  

There's a reason I'm a big fan of the 'Mercury' and the Invincible.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 28, 2011, 06:29:27 AM
TO avoid further derailing:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/sg/forum/index.php?topic=208.0
to talk about Eldar MMS.

General:
180cm x 120xm (BFG = centimetres ;)  yay !!!)
Is standard size.
Is Perfect for battles up to 2000pts.
Has lots and lots of room to manoeuvre.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 28, 2011, 06:43:41 AM
Horizon says yay to cm.... Do you know how hard it is to get a cm tape measure in the us? It's like hunting for diamonds.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 28, 2011, 06:45:44 AM
General:
180cm x 120xm (BFG = centimetres ;)  yay !!!)
Is standard size.
Is Perfect for battles up to 2000pts.
Has lots and lots of room to manoeuvre.

Horizon says yay to cm.... Do you know how hard it is to get a cm tape measure in the us? It's like hunting for diamonds.

I just use my meter stick.  And with six to twelve meters between deployment zones, there's none of that NC first turn crap.  (Or, in 40k, any of that Basilisk or Warlord titan first turn crap.)

And it makes a healthy truncheon for necron players.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 28, 2011, 06:54:55 AM
@ Plaxor, blame it on the US trying to create something new. They should have stuck with the good old cm. ;)


@ BaronI, six to twelve metres is sick. With 1200cm between... :/ what's the point of the first turns.
To keep in mind some scenarios are aimed at 8 turns.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 28, 2011, 07:23:21 AM
Plaxor... Go to a hardware store or your local GW.  problem solved.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 28, 2011, 07:25:09 AM
@ BaronI, six to twelve metres is sick. With 1200cm between... :/ what's the point of the first turns.
To keep in mind some scenarios are aimed at 8 turns.

There's suppose to be a point to the first turn?  I always figured it was the turn after I put the minis on the table, and 45 turns till we brake for lunch.  There will probably be scout elements of either fleet probing throughout the afternoon, possibly with some AC contact.  Usually a third person serves as ref so neither side knows the other's objectives.  It's hard to figure out what another player's real goal is at times.  I know last time we played I managed to draw Tau off after a larger force when the smaller force was the one that actually was carrying out my objective.  (Planetary assault)

Zelnik, not one hardware store in my area carries cm rulers.  I've looked.   (the nearest GW is over 200 miles from here)


BTW: John, our Tau guy, would like to tank D'Art et al for getting me to buy some Strike cruisers, possibly with blunt instruments.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 28, 2011, 07:51:33 AM
What baron said. Had to order a tape measure from gw. But people in my group tell me that ace sells one, albeit huge. It's a half and half.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 28, 2011, 08:04:22 AM
It doesn't matter how accurate your targetting system is, any bomber worth its salt will pick up on an incoming flak volley from such long range and neatly jink out the way. (given that it has at least 2 minutes to get out of the target zone.) You'd either need to saturate the space with such a large amount of flak that we're talking blast markers and main weaponry, or have long-range guided missiles, which aren't common and wouldn't function as turrets in other respects.

Fleet Defence turrets were a bad idea in ad mech, and they are a WORSE idea in bakka because they're so unrestricted and available.

The fleet doesn't even need the extra defence, low AC is perfectly viable - it only takes a couple small volleys from escorts to clear the CAP from enough targets for the entire fleet (bakka should have the falchion, but cobras will do), so offensive power is no problem, whilst defensively you can either mass turrets normally, use escort carriers like the Defiant/Enforcer (perfect choice defensively), or take the hit on the nose like most fleets with only 1 or 2 carriers do at close range. Either way, the fleet will survive having a low AC count.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 28, 2011, 08:11:44 AM
Wow... I am both shocked, horrified and amused in a cynical "this nation is going to the tubes" manner.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 28, 2011, 08:22:49 AM
D'Art, if the Defiant isn't a pure carrier, then the Styx isn't either.  Nor is the Jovian.  All three of them have lances.  In fact, the Styx has MORE non carrier based firepower then the Defiant and the Jovian combined.  

In fact, having glanced around a bit, not one race in this game has a 'pure' carrier by that measure.  (This includes Tau, who make AC look easy) Even escort carriers have a str 2 weapon battery.  Hell, even the Nemesis has a str 3 60cm lance battery.  

So, quite possibly, with the Majestic and Tempest, IN may actually have the ONLY 'pure carriers'.

Granted those ships aren't pure carriers. They're still closer to pure carriers ships in BFG will ever get by virtue of having launch bays in their broadsides. Let's say I agree with the Defiant. Still at best it's not a ship which can give IN a serious upgrade in AC. Which is the problem with the Jovian. It can give IN serious increase in it's AC number for a cost much more efficient than a Dictator. Which should not be the case. Hakka a fleet where IN should not have AC in serious numbers can get them via Jovian and Emperor even at higher than normal cost. In effect, it loses this disadvantage. I don't buy it.

Note also the IN has not gotten any launch bay heavy cruiser and up sized ship. The Mars and Dictator are the heaviest they have gotten. The Emperor and Oberon and Exorcist are all pre- or Heresy time ships. Only the Defiant can be said to be launch bay heavy as well as the escort carriers but again, they're not really frontline ships.


However, if the number of AC can really be capped while still allowing access to the Jovian then I can be amenable.

As to the SC comment, you're welcome. Now start playing them.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 28, 2011, 11:13:01 AM
2 x Defiant (4AC) - 260 pts
1 x Dictator (4AC+6T) - 220 pts
1 x Jovian (6AC) - 260 pts

14 AC + 6 torps at <750 pts if Jovian allowed as a reserve.

2 x Defiant (4AC) - 260 pts
1 x Defiant (6T) - 120 pts
1 x Emperor (8AC) - 365 pts

12 AC + 6 torps at < 750 pts and this is considered a cheesy list.

For Chaos who are supposed to be AC dominant compared to the IN you can get:

2 x Devastation (8AC) - 380 pts
1 x Styx (6AC) - 260 pts
2 x Infidel (4T) - 80 pts
1 x Iconoclast (0) - 30 pts

Giving 14 AC and 4 torps at <750. So the Jovian being available as a reserve gives more cheese than the cheesy IN list and more ordnance than Chaos. Wot?


As for what constitutes a 'pure' carrier, well I think that there are two metrics at play in peoples general estimation. The first is that all available broadside hardpoints should be launch bays. Ships like the Despoiler (model) could take this further by adding a prow launch bay on top. The second metric is that the total converted WBe of the launch bays should at least exceed the value of the ships direct fire weaponry.

In the example of the Defiant the first metric is satisfied, but the second is not. 2AC is 6WBe firepower, as is the 2 lances of the prow. So it is half gunship and half carrier. In the case of the Styx both metrics are satisfied (all launch bays, 18WBe AC vs 12WBe direct fire). In the case of the Jovian, again both metrics are satisfied, this time even moreso than the only known previous pure carrier. It has 18WBe in its AC vs 6WBe direct fire and it gets a bonus to reloading from its prow armament (so like the Emp/Obi/Desp its prow armament can contribute to its carrier status). On the other hand the Emperor doesn't qualify even though it has 24WBe in its AC vs a total of 22WBe direct fire (including off-side) and the prow sensors because it doesn't satisfy the first metric.

So why these 2 metrics? Well, the first one is a judgement of optimisation. If you could have put more launch bays on the ship but didn't then it's not a 'pure' carrier. This makes sense even if it's used purely in a carrier role because you could get a "more pure" carrier by refitting the ship, and if something can be made "more pure" then it wasn't pure to begin with. The second metric is a judgement of role. It is hard to argue that a ship counts as a "pure carrier" when half or more of its strength lies in its guns. So I think that both these metrics are reasonable in judging what constitutes a "pure carrier".

While it hasn't really been much of an issue so far there is also a third metric that comes into play regarding whether a given "pure carrier" is objectionable. That is the "fleet carrier" metric. In other words, does the ship have at least 4AC? CVLs and CVEs really aren't all that objectionable given that AC increases in strength supra-linearly the more that a given ship can launch. You could say that another metric would be the overall points/AC a ship can give, but this is the main objection to pure carriers in the first place, so hardly needs to be stated.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 28, 2011, 12:06:10 PM
The Jovian just doesn't belong in the list. The fact that it is currently the most restricted ship in the game and that still isn't enough should tell you something. The Defiant, Enforcer and Dominion make far more sense in a bakka context.

But even without them, you still have the Mars, so the ordnance is not really any weaker than a standard list. And even without THEM, low/no AC can work. Offensively, you only need a couple of escort salvos to completely blow away a CAP (bakka should definitely have a falchion) and leave a target wide open to the rest of the fleet's torps, and defensively T2 AV5+ is nothing to be sniffed at, doing no more damage than a return volley of torpedos would. At long range you still have a chance to intercept waves with direct fire weaponry, and at short range you wouldn't really have a chance to intercept enemy ordnance anyway.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 28, 2011, 12:54:21 PM
Ordnance limitation in Bakka:

i) re-instante run out on a double when reloading AC (not torps).

or

ii) maximum number of markers to be used (eg three times the lb value).


I agree on Jovian out, Defiant in.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 28, 2011, 01:15:55 PM
I myself don't mind the Jovian, so long as Bakka is cut off from regular IN reserves and vice versa as well as the 0-1 limitation. I know that most of the time it'll be an automatic inclusion, but I could imagine a single Mars refit to this configuration in a time of need. I like the ship but it's really just like a house rule though, and not something that should be abused. In fact, the entire BFB is sort of like a house rule fleet list. It has 7 new ships and a special rule. That makes it radically different from other lists. Really should have a EHR tag on it, rather than being made official.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 28, 2011, 04:57:25 PM

I agree on Jovian out, Defiant in.


Hmm.. While I'm always up for new ways to slip extra defiants into my armageddon list (since I could then take 2 per regular and one as a reserve as long as I took a SC) somehow that still doesn't seem right.  The Voss ships are supposed, after all, to be new and rare and a peculiarity to Segmentum Solar, according to their fluff in Armada, which now conflicts with their fluff in this FAQ.  

Gee... wouldn't that mean you can't take them in Bakka for the same reasons to can't take a Jovian elsewhere?  Convenient how people embrace fluff with one hand and push it away with the other.  


Nate: let me try this idea for a suggestion:

Bakka:
FDT Rule (Or FDS to reduce pointless bickering)
Can take SM or Admech as reserves

Ships:
Gothic
Tyrant
Dominator
Grand Cruisers - Excorcist
Lunar
Mars (Reduced to normal price but limited to one)
Vicky
Vanquisher
Armageddon
Overlord
Dauntless
Siluria
Enforcer (2 per 500)
Dominus Astra (0-1)
Mercury
Existing frigs + Falchion - Havoc


Calixis:
Can take Rogue Traders or Inquisition as Reserves

Ships:
Lunar
Gothic
Tyrant
Dictator
Mars
Jovian
Grand Cruisers
Emperor
Nemesis/Majestic (0-1 + some other sort of restriction)
Dauntless
Enforcer
Tempest (Technically a sword variant but would work as a Falchion with a LB instead of a torp and the option to purchase aboats)
Sword
Firestorm
Havoc
Preator (?)
Cobra


Thoughts?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 28, 2011, 06:31:33 PM
Calixis is rather similar to my Tartanus write up. I wouldn't do something in the Koronus expanse or Calixis, as control of the fluff isnt exactly anyone's here.

I think it doesn't make sense that the Voss' Cls are anywhere other than solar, other than in rare circumstance. For some reason the HA/Gw likes tossing them into every other fleet list.

Getting people to accept the 'Nemesis/Majestic' as a ship would be harder than the Jovian. As current, there are no ships with more than 8 launch capacity. Tell me, what do you think would happen if there was a cheap (less than 500pts) 12 Lb carrier within IN?

Just because some author wrote it in the fluff somewhere doesn't mean that he was thinking about BFG or even all elements of the 40k background for that matter. It was just something cool they thought up. I mean, the Soul Drinkers ride around on a [party?] hulk that is  the largest ever? And its named the brokenback......

Some things are inherently cool and well founded ideas. Such as the Tempest and the Ignus. Both work well with BFG. It's too bad that they wrote the Tempest is supposedly 'just made around Koronus', however there are things worth ignoring ;).


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 28, 2011, 09:05:10 PM
Calixis is rather similar to my Tartanus write up. I wouldn't do something in the Koronus expanse or Calixis, as control of the fluff isnt exactly anyone's here.

I think it doesn't make sense that the Voss' Cls are anywhere other than solar, other than in rare circumstance. For some reason the HA/Gw likes tossing them into every other fleet list.

Getting people to accept the 'Nemesis/Majestic' as a ship would be harder than the Jovian. As current, there are no ships with more than 8 launch capacity. Tell me, what do you think would happen if there was a cheap (less than 500pts) 12 Lb carrier within IN?

Just because some author wrote it in the fluff somewhere doesn't mean that he was thinking about BFG or even all elements of the 40k background for that matter. It was just something cool they thought up. I mean, the Soul Drinkers ride around on a [party?] hulk that is  the largest ever? And its named the brokenback......

Some things are inherently cool and well founded ideas. Such as the Tempest and the Ignus. Both work well with BFG. It's too bad that they wrote the Tempest is supposedly 'just made around Koronus', however there are things worth ignoring ;).

If there was, I think what would happen first would be that D'Art, Sig, and Horizon would have to go to the emergency room for the embolisms they would suffer at the thought of all that AC on the loose in BFG.

If Calixis is out, make it Ixnaid or Mandragora.  They're both Calixis neighboring sectors and as far as I know has never been used for anything, since Ixnaid and Scarus both have pretty much always been a part of Segmentum Obscurus.

That said, you have a point.  That's why I suggested that it has some sort of special limitation so that it wouldn't dominate.  I was considering the idea that if it was taken by a fleet below a full 4k points, the admiral had to be on board, and all other ships took a -2 ld penalty and could not gain a bonus to ld for enemy ships on SO to represent the number of competent junior officers drawn off to command the Nemesis' attack wings.

The Jovian really is fine.  You can't take them in the sort of numbers that you can Styx, though if you feel really uncomfortable with them, a hard limit of no more then 1 per 1500points or a fraction thereof would probably be limiting without being absurdly so.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 28, 2011, 09:55:51 PM
If there was, I think what would happen first would be that D'Art, Sig, and Horizon would have to go to the emergency room for the embolisms they would suffer at the thought of all that AC on the loose in BFG.

I couldn't give a rats arse how much AC is on the loose. I have many many carriers in my fleets. I have 3 Despoilers a Styx and 4 Devs in my Chaos fleet. I have a Tau fleet. My IN opponent has 3 Emperors and several Mars and Dictators. I don't think AC is overpowered nor do I care if I come up against an all AC fleet.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 28, 2011, 10:11:08 PM
I'm jealous of your points size game to field 3 Emperors.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 28, 2011, 10:32:04 PM
If there was, I think what would happen first would be that D'Art, Sig, and Horizon would have to go to the emergency room for the embolisms they would suffer at the thought of all that AC on the loose in BFG.

The Jovian really is fine.  You can't take them in the sort of numbers that you can Styx, though if you feel really uncomfortable with them, a hard limit of no more then 1 per 1500points or a fraction thereof would probably be limiting without being absurdly so.

How sad. You still don't get the point. As with Sig, I don't mind AC. What I do mind is faction balance. IN already have a lot going for them without having to have access to a ship which can give MORE AC. That is what we are objecting to. IN is the torp and NC fleet. To allow them a ship which is like the Styx is now trespassing on the territory of Chaos which is supposed to be the AC heavy fleet among the two.

The Jovian is fine on paper. The Jovian though makes it easy for IN to get an extra 2 AC on the table for cheap. Which is why it as well as the Nemesis/Majestic should never be allowed in IN fleets. It doesn't matter if it is restricted compared to the Styx. Most games are fought in the 1,500 points area anyway so it still means 1 Jovian and 1 Mars/Emperor. One still has access to the Jovian easily. It's an autoinclude for sure.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 28, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
If there was, I think what would happen first would be that D'Art, Sig, and Horizon would have to go to the emergency room for the embolisms they would suffer at the thought of all that AC on the loose in BFG.

I couldn't give a rats arse how much AC is on the loose. I have many many carriers in my fleets. I have 3 Despoilers a Styx and 4 Devs in my Chaos fleet. I have a Tau fleet. My IN opponent has 3 Emperors and several Mars and Dictators. I don't think AC is overpowered nor do I care if I come up against an all AC fleet.

Sig, back on page 25 you were demanding the Jovian be nerfed to hell because it let IN get 14ac for all of 15 points less.  Never mind that the Emperor that you got for those 15 points is vastly superior to the Jovian.  

D'Art, I hate to point this out to you, but IN has had a way to get an extra 2 LBs (of resilient AC, no less) for cheap ever since Armada came out.  If that's your concern, you're a tad late.

(and this ignores the new Rogue Trader list entirely giving you 2 LBs as many times as you like for 60 points each.)

As far as the Nemesis goes, again, if you had bothered to consider the ramification of my proposed built in nerf, I think that you'd only see one very, very rarely.  Most players would shy away from a ship that inflicts -2ld on your entire fleet other then itself and denies them the ld boost from enemies on SO.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 28, 2011, 11:17:57 PM
Quote
Most games are fought in the 1,500 points area anyway so it still means 1 Jovian and 1 Mars/Emperor.
did you catch the update on the list? The emperor requires Rath to be taken so it's nearly 500 points right there now. You still need another 4 cruisers to take both a Jovian and a mars. I guess you could do siluria's to still have over 500 points left needed to get both the jovian and mars, but you'd be pretty strung out in the end.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 28, 2011, 11:35:44 PM
BaronI, you're not understanding how bad escort carriers are. Technically any fleet can make use of Escort carriers, but they are an extremely poor option. Like you wouldn't believe.

They should cost 45-50 points for what they do. I might be able to see 60 if they didn't have the -1Ld.

The thing is that they have to be in BTB to mass their ordinance in waves. This is the only viable way to use them. Meaning that they die easier with the BM rules. They don't go fast and can't turn. So they are kept behind your lines (Which is very small in a RT list, especially if you are running a ton of 60pt escorts), so their wbs are wasted. They will usually be closing with your enemy, as they are very slow, and need to keep up with the fleet in order to be safe(ish). Their speed in itself makes them quite useless in a RT fleet, as everything besides other transports is at least spd 20. And it can't AAF because it has to reload to be effective, even then its AAF is reduced because it is on a transport hull.

In the end the value of launch bays (and to a lesser effect other weapons) is different depending upon the hull that it is on. 2 launch bays on an escort/cl aren't half as valuable as 4 on a cruiser. The cruiser is better at resisting being crippled, or destroyed. Also with combined waves generally being better, the value of more AC on one hull is compounded.

Also the RT list basically says that any fleet (besides Nids and Necrons) can by proxy have any number of these as allies. Due to the fact that they count as 'transports' (given a flaw in itself.)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 29, 2011, 12:13:24 AM
Sig, back on page 25 you were demanding the Jovian be nerfed to hell because it let IN get 14ac for all of 15 points less.  Never mind that the Emperor that you got for those 15 points is vastly superior to the Jovian.  

I didn't demand a nerf. The ship is fine as is. And the point is not one about cost, but rather fleet composition. The 15 pt difference is minuscule normally, but here it allows a fleet otherwise unavailable, if used as a reserve. Tau can get 24 AC in a 750 pt fleet. I don't care about AC in terms of numbers and I don't think that any of these ships mentioned (Emp, Dictator, Defiant, Jovian, Styx, Dev, Explorer) are unbalanced beyond the specific issues that have already been discussed in the flawed ships thread.

The current typical doctrine of the IN is to shy away from dedicated carriers. Chaos has access to the INs previous attempt at a dedicated carrier (the Styx) simply because of age. Ie, this is how they did it back then, they don't do it that way now, the renegades have the old stock. Therefore Chaos should be more able to bring this sort of AC more easily than the IN. It should be highly unusual for the IN to be able to outstrip the carriers of Chaos, since they've shied away from them.

You bring up specific examples from fluff of how this ship was converted to do that, or how this one battlefleet has a slightly different take on things, blah blah blah, but how we should be representing fleets in BFG is by the most typical. You could argue that variance is also typical, and I would agree. So this variance should be represented by a selection of unique or rare vessels or upgrades or options or refits. The point being that since they're unusual then they should be represented as such rather than allowed unrestricted. It may be theoretically possible for some admiral to form a fleet of Majestics and Jovians, but how likely is it? It might be true that the IN have some strange backwater battlefleet which has a completely different feel to the norm, but if you put out a list of all the IN battlefleets in the galaxy on a board and threw a dart at it blindfolded, what are the chances of hitting that list? For the most part it should simply be acknowledged that yes, there are exceptions somewhere in the IN, but we're just using mainstream elements to represent the feel. You want something else make some UHR and play it. That represents the "rare" element fairly well I should think (the more liberal opponents that allow it representing the more liberally viewed sector authorities that allowed divergence from the norm).

I don't mind making a set of standardised "official" house rules. A pool of ships or rules or refits that specifically require opponents permission to use. For example, the Nemesis or Ark Majestic could have its stats made, balanced, ratified, etc and then be put into this category. So players everywhere will have the same notion of what a Majestic class is, but its use will depend upon the opponent and therefore it won't be an automatic inclusion for all IN fleets. So, in other words, rare.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 12:54:20 AM
Also the RT list basically says that any fleet (besides Nids and Necrons) can by proxy have any number of these as allies. Due to the fact that they count as 'transports' (given a flaw in itself.)

Ah, Plax, you miss the obvious: First, I was actually reffering to the Strike Cruiser.  Though clever planning (and abusing some of the rules) can use SCs to create Tau-like storms of Thawks, it wasn't what I had in mind. 


The current typical doctrine of the IN is to shy away from dedicated carriers. Chaos has access to the INs previous attempt at a dedicated carrier (the Styx) simply because of age. Ie, this is how they did it back then, they don't do it that way now, the renegades have the old stock. Therefore Chaos should be more able to bring this sort of AC more easily than the IN. It should be highly unusual for the IN to be able to outstrip the carriers of Chaos, since they've shied away from them.

You bring up specific examples from fluff of how this ship was converted to do that, or how this one battlefleet has a slightly different take on things, blah blah blah, but how we should be representing fleets in BFG is by the most typical. You could argue that variance is also typical, and I would agree. So this variance should be represented by a selection of unique or rare vessels or upgrades or options or refits. The point being that since they're unusual then they should be represented as such rather than allowed unrestricted. It may be theoretically possible for some admiral to form a fleet of Majestics and Jovians, but how likely is it? It might be true that the IN have some strange backwater battlefleet which has a completely different feel to the norm, but if you put out a list of all the IN battlefleets in the galaxy on a board and threw a dart at it blindfolded, what are the chances of hitting that list? For the most part it should simply be acknowledged that yes, there are exceptions somewhere in the IN, but we're just using mainstream elements to represent the feel. You want something else make some UHR and play it. That represents the "rare" element fairly well I should think (the more liberal opponents that allow it representing the more liberally viewed sector authorities that allowed divergence from the norm).

I don't mind making a set of standardised "official" house rules. A pool of ships or rules or refits that specifically require opponents permission to use. For example, the Nemesis or Ark Majestic could have its stats made, balanced, ratified, etc and then be put into this category. So players everywhere will have the same notion of what a Majestic class is, but its use will depend upon the opponent and therefore it won't be an automatic inclusion for all IN fleets. So, in other words, rare.

Again, here's the thing Sig, you assume that the three lists we have are 'typical' (Gothic, Armageddon, and Bakka) however, all three follow very different strategies.  Armageddon favors the Torpedo and Lance and eschews NC.  Bakka eschews AC for guns.  Battlefleet Gothic, being the game's namesake, gives a list that leaves out quite a few ship classes named in it's own bluebook fluff, in favor of presenting a generic list that has little to do with the actual battlefleet's roster, but rather is a sampling of all the ships that took part in the Gothic war, including those that came in from other sectors.  For example, where is the Relentless class cruiser?

Hell, from what we know of Segmentum Obscurus, it's not unknown for IN to still be using Chaos ships, since 'modern' IN ships are actually pretty new.  The most common, baseline, current IN cruiser, compared to it's battleships, frigates, and grand cruisers, still have that 'new ship' smell.  Hell, the ships ofthe Gothic ecotr, given how short a time beforehand that the hulls we have dates for went into production, would have been, by the measure of such things, Brand spanking new.  Considering that the Mars is the very oldest of the 'Modern' cruisers and BCs, and is a hybrid carrier, I find it odd that there are not more carrier variants out there, since it predates the Gaerox Incident by three or four millenia. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 29, 2011, 01:05:58 AM
Sig, if you'd like I can document this 'Ships compendium 2.0'.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 29, 2011, 01:16:22 AM
Again, here's the thing Sig, you assume that the three lists we have are 'typical' (Gothic, Armageddon, and Bakka) however, all three follow very different strategies.  Armageddon favors the Torpedo and Lance and eschews NC.  Bakka eschews AC for guns.  Battlefleet Gothic, being the game's namesake, gives a list that leaves out quite a few ship classes named in it's own bluebook fluff, in favor of presenting a generic list that has little to do with the actual battlefleet's roster, but rather is a sampling of all the ships that took part in the Gothic war, including those that came in from other sectors.  For example, where is the Relentless class cruiser?

No, I assume that the Gothic list is fairly typical. The Armageddon list is fairly typical of Navy doctrine too. It uses Lunar type hulls commonly and torpedoes and has no odd ships that break the feel (super carriers and whatnot). So it's still in line. The inclusion of SM ships does nothing to alter the feel of IN, btw. So using the Armageddon list as an argument to show that you can already get a tonne of AC in an Imperial list and therefore IN should have Jovians and Majestics out the wazoo is worthless. The Bakka list is not typical. The FDT rule is terribad for a start, and this alone is enough to warrant quarantining the list. Apart from this it has 7 new ships. Seven. That's a massive list of new ships. The Jovian by itself is enough to destroy the feel of the Imperial Navy in any normal list. With Bakka not having easy access to carriers and there being a limit on it then it's fine for this list (though it's strange that they eschew AC and yet make a Styx knock-off).

Bakka messes a little with the feel of the IN, and this seems to me an example of a non-standard battlefleet. Hence my suggestion for labelling the entire list as UHR. Gothic and Armageddon both fall in line with the feel of the IN, so they're fine.

Quote
Hell, from what we know of Segmentum Obscurus, it's not unknown for IN to still be using Chaos ships, since 'modern' IN ships are actually pretty new.

For which we have the Bastion list. It also does not ruin the feel of the IN.

Quote
Considering that the Mars is the very oldest of the 'Modern' cruisers and BCs, and is a hybrid carrier, I find it odd that there are not more carrier variants out there. 

I don't.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 01:30:51 AM
You know, something silly just occurred to me.  

Bakka was not part of the Imperium during the dates given for the Gaerox Incident (or the building of the Despoiler Class).  

Bakka was only reclaimed for the Imperium in M37, following the death of Cardinel Bucharis after having succeeded from the Imperium during the Plague of Unbelief.    On the flip side, there's no record of Gareox having done so.

So.... wouldn't that mean now that the Fleet at Bakka were the Heretics under Bucharis (since they did attack the space wolves as well) and Gareox the loyal imperials now?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 29, 2011, 01:38:10 AM
Sig, if you'd like I can document this 'Ships compendium 2.0'.

Sure, why not. For this sort of project I would imagine full community involvement, including the HAs. I should think that as a UHR ruleset that they'd be more free in their ability to provide opinions. I would imagine that this document would span the spectrum of least probable to fairly likely as well. So perhaps we should also come up with a rating system of some kind to be used as a guideline for prospective groups to be able to judge more easily whether to include the ship. This would allow us to price ships according to their inherent worth rather than what they provide to a list.

For example, looking at a 16AC Despoiler variant super-carrier we could price that according to the value of 16 AC in a fleet adjusted by the extra value of being able to launch a single wave of 16 bombers (equivalent to a squadron of 2 Emps in btb contact). We would not consider what having access to this type of ship would allow a Chaos list to do or how combined with this this and this ship that'll mean it's possible to get X amount of AC at price Y. Instead, we'd simply rate it in the most far fetched category of ships, recommend no more than 1 ever and no other anomalies in the fleet (so no other UHR ships) or maybe even no other upgrades allowed (no CSM rules!) and even with all those limitations, it's an "allow at own risk", ultra rare type thing.

At the other end of the scale you could include the Dominion, say, and merely recommend with allowing liberal access to it.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 02:10:49 AM

No, I assume that the Gothic list is fairly typical. The Armageddon list is fairly typical of Navy doctrine too. It uses Lunar type hulls commonly and torpedoes and has no odd ships that break the feel (super carriers and whatnot). So it's still in line. The inclusion of SM ships does nothing to alter the feel of IN, btw. So using the Armageddon list as an argument to show that you can already get a tonne of AC in an Imperial list and therefore IN should have Jovians and Majestics out the wazoo is worthless. The Bakka list is not typical. The FDT rule is terribad for a start, and this alone is enough to warrant quarantining the list. Apart from this it has 7 new ships. Seven. That's a massive list of new ships. The Jovian by itself is enough to destroy the feel of the Imperial Navy in any normal list. With Bakka not having easy access to carriers and there being a limit on it then it's fine for this list (though it's strange that they eschew AC and yet make a Styx knock-off).

Except that, as I said, the Gothic list is a mishmash of ships from other sectors created for game purposes rather then representing what the battlefleet actually has on hand.  It's like saying that selection of famous ships from the Normandy Invasion fleet represents a typical countries Navy. 

Further, I don't see you calling for the removal of Admech, which has used FDT for years.  Your basic assertion that Armageddon is OK but Bakka is broken hinges on the idea that 'light cruisers with nothing but LBs, GOOD, battle cruisers with nothing but LBs, BAD.'


Bakka messes a little with the feel of the IN, and this seems to me an example of a non-standard battlefleet. Hence my suggestion for labelling the entire list as UHR. Gothic and Armageddon both fall in line with the feel of the IN, so they're fine.

Still not clear on this 'feel' buisness, and I'll explain why: Most of the time, when someone has said to me in the context of TT gaming that something doesn't 'feel' right they really mean 'because it breaks my favorite strategy with/against them' and/or 'I have to revise my list to remain competitive'.  Maybe it's because I write reviews of gaming systems/supplements, but I've heard this same phrase over and over when rules revisions have happened to a number of systems, and after questioning the speaker closely, this is what they really meant, the majority of the time.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 29, 2011, 02:24:53 AM
D'Art, I hate to point this out to you, but IN has had a way to get an extra 2 LBs (of resilient AC, no less) for cheap ever since Armada came out.  If that's your concern, you're a tad late.

Not on one ship. And as far as Armada goes, it should stay at that limit. I never liked it then either. Which is why I prefer the SC goes down to Str 1 TH.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 02:33:45 AM
D'Art, I hate to point this out to you, but IN has had a way to get an extra 2 LBs (of resilient AC, no less) for cheap ever since Armada came out.  If that's your concern, you're a tad late.

Not on one ship. And as far as Armada goes, it should stay at that limit. I never liked it then either. Which is why I prefer the SC goes down to Str 1 TH.

.... maybe I'm missing something, but Lots of LBs with lots of hitpoints and high armor is good because it's weaker, but lots of lbs with about 1/4th fewer hitpoints and weaker armor is bad because it's too strong?  

Particularly considering that the latter costs more and has requirements the former lacks?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 29, 2011, 02:39:38 AM
.... maybe I'm missing something, but Lots of LBs with lots of hitpoints and high armor is good because it's weaker, but lots of lbs with few hitpoints and weaker armor is bad because it's too strong?  

What are you talking about?

I don't like the Jovian because it breaks from IN doctrine as well as game balance.

I don't like the SC having more LBs than an LC should be able to carry and still have weapons in the same hardpoint.

I am wary of BF:Armada because it really gives IN a lot of options and flexibility by allowing access to SM ships and a 1:1 ratio for BC:Regular Cruisers. This even while it removed access to WB heavy ships like the Overlord and Dominator.

I also think IN has gotten more than its fair share of variety to the point that they don't need it, games-wise. It's time to focus on the other races. This means Chaos, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau, Nids, Necrons and SM. Bakka can go to the dust bin for now until it's really needed.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 02:47:39 AM
.... maybe I'm missing something, but Lots of LBs with lots of hitpoints and high armor is good because it's weaker, but lots of lbs with few hitpoints and weaker armor is bad because it's too strong?  

What are you talking about?

I don't like the Jovian because it breaks from IN doctrine as well as game balance.

I don't like the SC having more LBs than an LC should be able to carry and still have weapons in the same hardpoint.

I am wary of BF:Armada because it really gives IN a lot of options and flexibility by allowing access to SM ships and a 1:1 ratio for BC:Regular Cruisers. This even while it removed access to WB heavy ships like the Overlord and Dominator.

Ok, you don't like Jovian because it breaks balance.  But, using the Armageddon list, I can get a Defiant, for 130, and a SC for 160 (with the +1 shield), and have better AC AND overall performance, and more HP.  I'm not seeing how Jovian breaks balance compared to this.



Tau has gotten two whole different fleets so far.  Chaos is getting a slew of new battleships (but no Light Cruisers...  >:( ) Eldar could use some new ships, I grant, and so could dark eldar, but it's probably not going to happen since GW wants us to focus on minis they actually sell or sell most of.  Tyranids have swiss army knife ships in general.  Necron... meh.  They could use some new ship minis but probably not happening for the same reasons that DE arn't.  Space marines really scored, I grant, getting both the upgrades and ships in this AND IA 10. 

Orks have been a bit gypped, they only got three new ships, but they also got some new rules to make them work better.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 29, 2011, 03:04:57 AM
Ok, you don't like Jovian because it breaks balance.  But, using the Armageddon list, I can get a Defiant, for 130, and a SC for 160 (with the +1 shield), and have better AC AND overall performance, and more HP.  I'm not seeing how Jovian breaks balance compared to this.

And did you miss the part where I said I am wary about Armada and never liked the flexibility it gave IN in that regard? Aside from which, do you really see people fielding Defiants? SCs yes but Defiants?

Comparing the Jovian to the SC+Defiant:

Jovian 260 points
Armor 6+/5+
Hits 8
Spd 20 cm
Shields 2
Turrets 3
Turns 45'
Armament Str 6 LBs, Str 2 60 cm dorsal lances.

SC 160 points
Armor 6+
Hits 6
Spd 25 cm
Shields 2
Turrets 2
Turns 90'
Armament Str 2 LBs, FP3 30 cm BCs, FP8 total 30 cm WBs.

Defiant 120 was it?
Armor 5+
Hits 6
Spd 20 cm
Shields 1
Turrets 2
Turns 90'
Armament Str 2 LBs, Str 2 30 cm prow lances.

So Jovian still has more actual LBs than the SC+Defiant combo for less points even if you don't take the shield upgrade and which the SC can counter to a degree bec of its resilient THs. The SC+Defiant Combo does have more HP but not by much and by focusing on the Defiant, one can help reduce the odds.

And again this only happens because of the SC's odd setup of having Str 2 TH squadrons when it should really only have 1. If it does go down to 1 then the LB availability is rebalanced.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 29, 2011, 03:09:32 AM
Eh. The HA never commented on any of my 'House BFG rule revision' threads. Although a few things suggest that they read them.

I doubt that they would involve themselves in anything else (at least while they're producing faq2010 stuff.) As building rules is quite time consuming, and like Nate said; defending your opinion is time consuming as well. And likely doing that would be a conflict of interest in a way.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 03:18:49 AM

And did you miss the part where I said I am wary about Armada and never liked the flexibility it gave IN in that regard? Aside from which, do you really see people fielding Defiants? SCs yes but Defiants?


So, it's not about actual game balance, but what you WANT actual game balance to be.

Now that you don't have to take an Endeavor to get one, I expect to see more Defiant around.  
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 29, 2011, 03:28:16 AM
So, it's not about actual game balance, but what you WANT actual game balance to be.

Now that you don't have to take an Endeavor to get one, I expect to see more Defiant around.  

Nope, it's what the original game designers wanted the game to be. Again, Chaos is supposed to be the AC heavy fleet. IN has torps and NC. Eldar are the highly mobile race (which probably was a mistake in execution) and Orks were...well they have their own problems.

But mainly the reason why the Jovian was rejected before was because precisely it gave IN easy access to AC.

And really, Defiants aren't taken because the Endeavor was a mandatory requirement. People take Endeavors and Endurances more than they take Defiants.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 03:39:31 AM

Nope, it's what the original game designers wanted the game to be. Again, Chaos is supposed to be the AC heavy fleet. IN has torps and NC. Eldar are the highly mobile race (which probably was a mistake in execution) and Orks were...well they have their own problems.

But mainly the reason why the Jovian was rejected before was because precisely it gave IN easy access to AC.

And really, Defiants aren't taken because the Endeavor was a mandatory requirement. People take Endeavors and Endurances more than they take Defiants.

Really?  Then why did the Jovian get published in the VERY NEXT PUBLICATION after Blue Book (along with introducing Tyranids)? If Andy, who created both IIRC, had not wanted it, why publish it as soon as he could afterward?  I suspect it was a ship that had been cut to save space.


And... on the second part, didn't I just say exactly that???
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 29, 2011, 03:55:12 AM
Just because it is published, doesn't mean it becomes official. Really there is a difference between the two. And for years the Jovian has been rejected precisely because of what it brings to the IN. The fact that Armada came out and it wasn't in there should give you a clue. You should be getting this by now.

Even now, it's proposed to be allowed in a list which restricts it (not enough) and with that you should realize, it is not a ship that IN should be getting. Sig has pointed it out already. It's an AC heavy ship in a fleet list which supposed to be has minimal AC. The Mars or Dictator, hell even the Defiant should have been enough for this list if the fleet list is supposed to be gun heavy.

If we take the stuff from the existing lists, the options should be the Oberon, Ret and Apoc, Vengeance and Avenger. Exorcist available if the Oberon is not available. Armageddon, Overlord and Mars. Surround them with Lunars, Gothics, Tyrants, Endeavors, Endurances and Defiants and improve the Direct Weapon's ability to hit ordnance and there you have Bakka.

I don't know why the non-standard ships have been used. I don't really see the IN needing any of them so it's looking more a case of someone wants to insert them in. If that's the case, then junk Bakka.

As to the second part, I'll help make things clearer for you: people do not take the Defiants because majority thinks they SUCK.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 04:35:00 AM
Just because it is published, doesn't mean it becomes official. Really there is a difference between the two. And for years the Jovian has been rejected precisely because of what it brings to the IN. The fact that Armada came out and it wasn't in there should give you a clue. You should be getting this by now.

Even now, it's proposed to be allowed in a list which restricts it (not enough) and with that you should realize, it is not a ship that IN should be getting. Sig has pointed it out already. It's an AC heavy ship in a fleet list which supposed to be has minimal AC. The Mars or Dictator, hell even the Defiant should have been enough for this list if the fleet list is supposed to be gun heavy.

If we take the stuff from the existing lists, the options should be the Oberon, Ret and Apoc, Vengeance and Avenger. Exorcist available if the Oberon is not available. Armageddon, Overlord and Mars. Surround them with Lunars, Gothics, Tyrants, Endeavors, Endurances and Defiants and improve the Direct Weapon's ability to hit ordnance and there you have Bakka.

I don't know why the non-standard ships have been used. I don't really see the IN needing any of them so it's looking more a case of someone wants to insert them in. If that's the case, then junk Bakka.

As to the second part, I'll help make things clearer for you: people do not take the Defiants because majority thinks they SUCK.

D'Art, congratulations, you've successfully created a list no one will ever play because it is, somehow, even LESS interesting then Vanilla BFG.   Seriously, D'Art, this idea is so hoary it's positively Lovecraftian.

This one can be made without even needing a new list using Gothic and the reserve rules except for adding a special rule and possibly a battleship selection for under 2k points.

Now, if anyone would like to play a list NOT unearthed from a cyclopian tomb in an unnamed city in the desert, we can at least TRY OUT what the HA is pushing rather then bitching about these new fangled coal powered contraptions.  (What next?  Smokeless lanterns?)

As fr as non-standard ships go, some of us have been using them for years already, and found most of them to suck a lot less then might appear at first glance, due to something called 'tactics' rather then depending on list choice to win it for us.

Oh, and, by the way, The majority of people also think that the government captured aliens and a flying saucer at Roswell, NM in the 50's, and that Elvis is still alive.


Engage Rant Mode:

Seriously, and D'Art just tipped over my apple cart again, all I hear out of you people is 'CHANGE SCARES US!'  'NEW SHIPS ARE SCARY!'  'WE DON"T WANT ANYTHING NEW.'

Assuming that you are the correct gender, for the love of GOD GROW A PAIR!  

Let me try and spell this out because some people are not getting this.

GROW OR DIE.

Either we grow the game, and get GW to take a second look at it, or the game dies.  It's an unpleasant fact, but bluntly, a fanbase can only really keep a game going so long (see D&D 1st ed), until it's eventually just a handful of aging fatbeards sitting around talking about how much better things were before.  

Right now, we have a chance most other gaming communities DON'T GET.  

Thanks to FFG making the RT RPG, we ACTUALLY might be able to turn this around if someone at GW realizes there might be some interest in this.  They've already shown some signs of coming around to this mode of thought with IA 10.  

But if we STAY THE SAME we're sunk.  Hell, the fluff in our game doesn't even match up with the rest of the 40k fanbase anymore.  And, much as some of you might despise them, our hobby needs their support, as THEY'RE the ones that GW is pandering to.  

Our existing ships and fleets and etc HAVE NOT DONE THIS.  

Rather then sitting here trying to make it stay the same, what we SHOULD be doing is trying to find ways to improve it.  If the HA thinks that bringing in non-standard ships will do it, I say: Go For It.  Let's try it out.  Who gives a flying rat's ass if it changes the flavor of IN if it funnels players from other 40k based games into our camp!?!  The 'feel' of IN has not save us thus far, and I'm quite happy to see someone's sacred cow go to the chopping block if it brings in more players.

/rant
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 29, 2011, 06:03:53 AM
TL/DR. :)

BI, you really need to understand that the community is not against new ships or content. They are against things that don't fit the feel of the existing fleets. As the HA have stated before and probably will again, not to mention the admiral and Sig, there are certain themes that the various fleets were built around and that determine the type of ships we place in them. Some ships, like the Jovian, violate those themes for one reason or another and require special treatment (in this case, the jovian is only allowed by reserve in Bakka and can't be used in any other IN fleet list) so they don't alter the fleets from their intended function.

For IN that means you shouldn't be making a 25cm battleship with 90` turns or dedicated carriers as the core of your list. If you want to do that, you need plausible reasoning for the ship as well as plausible capability to create such a vessel. In the former example, the Imperium is declining in technical knowhow and such things are beyond their capabilities to produce. In the latter, it's been stated over and over that the IN mindset is that of a big gun fleet rather than a carrier fleet. This isn't to say they aren't capable of producing dedicated carriers or haven't experimented with them, just they would rather bigger guns than more bombers and thus a craft that forgoes nearly all gunnery for carrier capability should be decidedly rare as with the Jovian.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 29, 2011, 06:12:43 AM
Except that, as I said, the Gothic list is a mishmash of ships from other sectors created for game purposes rather then representing what the battlefleet actually has on hand.  It's like saying that selection of famous ships from the Normandy Invasion fleet represents a typical countries Navy.  

So? This has nothing to do with feel. The list is full of ubiquitous ships, therefore provides a very general feel. If you made a fleet list incorporating every single IN ship that is currently official then it would still 'feel' right. All those ships are fine for IN.

Quote
Further, I don't see you calling for the removal of Admech, which has used FDT for years.  Your basic assertion that Armageddon is OK but Bakka is broken hinges on the idea that 'light cruisers with nothing but LBs, GOOD, battle cruisers with nothing but LBs, BAD.'

I hated the FDT when Bakka first came out in BFG mag. It was a stupid idea then. Still a stupid idea now. As it happens I don't think it should be used on AdMech ships either. It hasn't been an issue though. AM ships have more turrets and it's a random roll, not something manipulable. It's a throw away rule. It simply didn't matter. BF Bakka uses it extensively and it is highly manipulable and if made official will impact on all IN lists through reserves. That will put us in the position of having a really crap rule being common as muck. So it'll always be staring us in the face.

As for your interpretation of my assertions, you are completely wrong. How do you come up with that? Currently there are no pure carriers in any Imperial Navy list, big or small. All of them fail at least 1 of the 2 metrics. Yes, dedicated CVLs or CVEs are less powerful than dedicated CVAs or CVBs (BVs?) and so this certainly does become a consideration of whether a particular proposed design is objectionable, even if a relatively small one. That has nothing to do with what makes Armageddon fine and Bakka crap though.



Quote
Still not clear on this 'feel' buisness, and I'll explain why: Most of the time, when someone has said to me in the context of TT gaming that something doesn't 'feel' right they really mean 'because it breaks my favorite strategy with/against them' and/or 'I have to revise my list to remain competitive'.  Maybe it's because I write reviews of gaming systems/supplements, but I've heard this same phrase over and over when rules revisions have happened to a number of systems, and after questioning the speaker closely, this is what they really meant, the majority of the time.

Pah! I have no problems adjusting my tactics to new circumstances. Nor do I care about being "forced" to alter my list. I have enough ships to cover most contingencies. The feel of the IN in play is much like a phalanx. Chaos is much like light horse archers (Parthians for example). That is one aspect of feel, how the ships play. Another aspect is alignment to ideology or doctrine. For example, if I introduced a 12 hit, 6+ all-round armour , 4 shield/turret battleship with 20cm speed and resilient AC what race would you be thinking? If I proposed the above ship for Elder I would be violating the feel of the fleet, regardless of whether the ship were internally balanced.

Now, since IN have eschewed the fleet carrier idea and have instead focused on main guns with only AC support, whereas Chaos have not and Chaos have lighter, cheaper, ships and focus on hitting from afar then the IN should not be able to out-AC Chaos point for point. If you allow a Jovian as a reserve then you act contrary to the 'no pure carriers' feel (all their current carriers fail at least 1of the 2 metrics) as well as allowing the IN to out-AC Chaos in 750 pt battles.

Similarly the Mercury is contrary to IN feel, as it's too fast, outpacing the formation.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 29, 2011, 06:12:58 AM
D'Art, congratulations, you've successfully created a list no one will ever play because it is, somehow, even LESS interesting then Vanilla BFG.   Seriously, D'Art, this idea is so hoary it's positively Lovecraftian.

This one can be made without even needing a new list using Gothic and the reserve rules except for adding a special rule and possibly a battleship selection for under 2k points.

Which begs the question: why do you need another fleet list when there are already THREE in existence? Do you really need more? Especially when there are OTHER races which need to have new lists introduced?

Now, if anyone would like to play a list NOT unearthed from a cyclopian tomb in an unnamed city in the desert, we can at least TRY OUT what the HA is pushing rather then bitching about these new fangled coal powered contraptions.  (What next?  Smokeless lanterns?)

As fr as non-standard ships go, some of us have been using them for years already, and found most of them to suck a lot less then might appear at first glance, due to something called 'tactics' rather then depending on list choice to win it for us.

People have already made their comment. Again, do you really need the new ship designs?

Engage Rant Mode:

Seriously, and D'Art just tipped over my apple cart again, all I hear out of you people is 'CHANGE SCARES US!'  'NEW SHIPS ARE SCARY!'  'WE DON"T WANT ANYTHING NEW.'

Assuming that you are the correct gender, for the love of GOD GROW A PAIR!

Let me try and spell this out because some people are not getting this.

GROW OR DIE.

Either we grow the game, and get GW to take a second look at it, or the game dies.  It's an unpleasant fact, but bluntly, a fanbase can only really keep a game going so long (see D&D 1st ed), until it's eventually just a handful of aging fatbeards sitting around talking about how much better things were before.  

Right now, we have a chance most other gaming communities DON'T GET.  

Thanks to FFG making the RT RPG, we ACTUALLY might be able to turn this around if someone at GW realizes there might be some interest in this.  They've already shown some signs of coming around to this mode of thought with IA 10.  

But if we STAY THE SAME we're sunk.  Hell, the fluff in our game doesn't even match up with the rest of the 40k fanbase anymore.  And, much as some of you might despise them, our hobby needs their support, as THEY'RE the ones that GW is pandering to.  

Our existing ships and fleets and etc HAVE NOT DONE THIS.  

Rather then sitting here trying to make it stay the same, what we SHOULD be doing is trying to find ways to improve it.  If the HA thinks that bringing in non-standard ships will do it, I say: Go For It.  Let's try it out.  Who gives a flying rat's ass if it changes the flavor of IN if it funnels players from other 40k based games into our camp!?!  The 'feel' of IN has not save us thus far, and I'm quite happy to see someone's sacred cow go to the chopping block if it brings in more players.

/rant

And again, your penchant for being obtuse misses the point again. I definitely get what you want to happen. However, I do not think another IN list is the way to go about it.

I am not saying change should not be incorporated. I am saying there are other races out there other than IN which need more lists than IN RIGHT NOW.

Yes. Grow. Grow the other races. Add more ships to their lineup. Add more unique (but not broken) rules. At this point in time, IN is already well developed without having to add another list in there. Unlike Dark Eldar or Necron or Nids. These other races need to be brought up in their fleet list varieties. That is what is needed to grow this game. Not another IN fleet list which in and of itself is conflicted. It wants a list with minimal ordnance and yet has access to ships which have the most LBs. That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

IN has 3 lists already, 4 if you include the AM. Inquisition is coming up next. Compare this to 2 for Chaos, 2 for Orks, 2 for Eldar, 2 (technically) for Tau, 1 for SM, 1 for DE, 1 for Nids, 1 for Necron. The sheer number of variety in both ships and fleet lists for IN compared to the other races is already far ahead compared to the other races that I do not think another one is beneficial for the game.

The new IN ships are ok. But does IN REALLY REALLY REALLY need them? Answer me that in the affirmative. Prove to me that IN needs this change in order to help the game "grow". Does it really? All I see is it helps IN grow. But what about the others? I could create two or three more IN lists each with their own flavor and own ship designs but heck I would rather grow the other races first.

This coming from an IN player.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 29, 2011, 06:15:26 AM
Sig, what about the idea that range isn't related to power, but accuracy?  

I feel the Jovian is a cool ship, just in something besides the Bakka fleet.

I think only one new B-ship class is needed, save the other for another segmentum.

The Mercury is just wierd.

Love the Havoc, Viper, and, um...that other one that was good.

Edit:  As to d'arts post, I agree that while even more alternate IN fleet lists are cool, and its neat to flesh out all the Segmentums, other races much more desperately need the attention.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 29, 2011, 06:31:57 AM
Sig, what about the idea that range isn't related to power, but accuracy? 

Nope, range is definitely related to power. However, if you have crap accuracy your effective range could drop. IJN battleships had bigger guns than their American counterparts for the most part, but the yanks did better because of more accurate radar. Improving yank accuracy would do little to improve their range, whereas improving Jap accuracy would. They had the more powerful guns, so better potential range.

Apart from notions of how one would justify the IN already having powerful enough weaponry to shoot far but just crappy electronics (easiest thing to upgrade), it still doesn't fly here. Because to get accuracy on this scale you would need to have power regardless of how top notch your electronics are. To be shooting at a bomber in the middle of its attack runs while it's avoiding defensive flak and possibly about to go into the friendly's shadow you would have to be talking in the seconds for your shot to arrive, not minutes. That means that at a maximum of 15,000 kms we're talking roughly the 1.3% C that BI brought up in his ME2 quote. That's a hell of a lot of power, and it's going to damage whatever it hits, even if it's just some frozen peas into metres thick armour.

Quote
I feel the Jovian is a cool ship, just in something besides the Bakka fleet.

I would actually only allow it in the Bakka fleet. Sure it doesn't make sense given the givens, but it has no chance of unbalancing things if left here. Similarly, if the FDT just gets restricted to Bakka (though it should be binned/altered) then at least that won't impact on other (ie, real) lists.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 29, 2011, 07:01:10 AM
D'art. Although I do agree with you. Necrons, Dark Eldar, and even orks need new ship designs. To add some variety to the game. Which is why I adopted any reasonable conversion for DE and Necrons for my ruleset.

With IN/Chaos, yes they do have enough things. Adding in new fleetlists isn't trouble though, they just add to the game. Naturally every new IN/Chaos ship should be written into a new fleetlist, which should be balanced in themselves and have their own character.

There is no reason not to include the new ships, other than they don't need them. Honestly, even developing and making lists like these legal should boost GW's sales in the BFG department. Even we can choke down a few things for that.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 29, 2011, 07:18:12 AM
Plaxor, there's already 3 fleet lists with with ships that have almost all types of weapons loadout one can think of. These ships means people will buy the game if people really want to get into it. At this point in time, I feel what's needed is for GW to really support the game. But as long as they think it's not worth supporting, they won't.

For cruisers, there's
1. the Lunar having a mix and match of WBs and Lances.
2. the Gothic with pure lances.
3. Tyrant and Dominator with pure WBs.
4. Dictator with WB and LB.

The only thing missing is an all LB cruiser which as pointed out is a deliberate decision.

The above cruisers have their equivalent in BCs with the exception of the Gothic.

These are the core ships one needs in IN. What more do you need to make the cruisers to maek the IN list? Why do you need the Jovian when there is a deliberate choice to limit the IN access to AC?

The Jovian will at best just add one ship to the above lineup. Will it really boost the sales for BFG or grow the game? With the advent of magnets, one doesn't even need to buy multiple battleship chassis or Vengeance chassis.

The LC chassis are the problematic ones since there is almost no chassis one can use other than the Dauntless or Admech LC.

At best, you just have another list to use for IN. Grow the game? I seriously doubt it.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 29, 2011, 07:39:32 AM
No, I don't mean the Jovian specifically. Honestly that ship could never see the light of day and it would have no affect on me.

By building a whole new fleet lists that lacks most of the currently available vessels, and swaps them out for different 'new' ones they can have their own inherent character flaws and whatnot. Kinda like playing a whole new race, or a different marine codex. It isn't that much different, but it gives people something more different or unique to play with.

Each IN list has its own unique character, given sometimes not applied well enough but we could say this:
Gothic: Standard
Bastions: Access to older ships
Armageddon: More battlecruisers, and SM allies
Bakka: [more turret defense], access to Admech allies

Even my ideas have their own 'theme':
Tartanus: Escort/CL basis, more carrier options/assault boats.

You could argue that the chaos lists have their own theme;
Gothic: Traitors, non-sm with set leadership
13th: CSM, daemonships

However, my proposed ideas for this are quite different:
Daemoship fleet seperate, with 13th only able to take a daemonship ally.
Maelstrom fleet based off cls/escorts (mostly for the fluff of the tartanus sector/balance between the two fluff fleets/random peoples desire for cls, and a chaos fleet that would support them most effectively)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 08:23:35 AM
TL/DR. :)

BI, you really need to understand that the community is not against new ships or content. They are against things that don't fit the feel of the existing fleets. As the HA have stated before and probably will again, not to mention the admiral and Sig, there are certain themes that the various fleets were built around and that determine the type of ships we place in them. Some ships, like the Jovian, violate those themes for one reason or another and require special treatment (in this case, the jovian is only allowed by reserve in Bakka and can't be used in any other IN fleet list) so they don't alter the fleets from their intended function.

For IN that means you shouldn't be making a 25cm battleship with 90` turns or dedicated carriers as the core of your list. If you want to do that, you need plausible reasoning for the ship as well as plausible capability to create such a vessel. In the former example, the Imperium is declining in technical knowhow and such things are beyond their capabilities to produce. In the latter, it's been stated over and over that the IN mindset is that of a big gun fleet rather than a carrier fleet. This isn't to say they aren't capable of producing dedicated carriers or haven't experimented with them, just they would rather bigger guns than more bombers and thus a craft that forgoes nearly all gunnery for carrier capability should be decidedly rare as with the Jovian.

*sigh*
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.  In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well.  The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier.  From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.  

The simple reason for this tendency may be the need to counter the large number of carriers that the ruinous powers seem to possess, particularly as, at least in fluff, there are capitol class 'pure carriers' in that region who's slow extinction would be a strong motivator for a stopgap such as modifying a Mars into a Jovian.

In the areas outside the tendency toward big guns as symbolic of Imperial Authority could, in theory, continue unabated, as they are quite effective against orks, etc.  This is why the arrival of the Tyranids has been so difficult for the Imperium to stop, navally, as AC are quite effective against them, but millenia of fallout from the Gareox Incident (which is none too clear now that Bakka was not part of the Imperium at that time) has left the 'southern' segmentums vulnerable.

As far as technology goes: While the command and control functions of a carrier are more advanced then other ships, the simple fact is that they're actually much simpler to operate and maintain then a 'big gun' battleship.  If the Imperium's technological base was truly in the sort of downslide that is indicated, the relative simplicity of a carrier to maintain and operate would make it more attractive, not less, considering that anything with a spaceworthy hull can be made into a carrier.  (See escort carriers)




Nope, range is definitely related to power. However, if you have crap accuracy your effective range could drop. IJN battleships had bigger guns than their American counterparts for the most part, but the yanks did better because of more accurate radar. Improving yank accuracy would do little to improve their range, whereas improving Jap accuracy would. They had the more powerful guns, so better potential range.

Apart from notions of how one would justify the IN already having powerful enough weaponry to shoot far but just crappy electronics (easiest thing to upgrade), it still doesn't fly here. Because to get accuracy on this scale you would need to have power regardless of how top notch your electronics are. To be shooting at a bomber in the middle of its attack runs while it's avoiding defensive flak and possibly about to go into the friendly's shadow you would have to be talking in the seconds for your shot to arrive, not minutes. That means that at a maximum of 15,000 kms we're talking roughly the 1.3% C that BI brought up in his ME2 quote. That's a hell of a lot of power, and it's going to damage whatever it hits, even if it's just some frozen peas into metres thick armour.

Except in space, range is not reflective of power at all, power dictates relative velocity instead.  To hit even the largest ships at the ranges involved would require accurate targeting, as it would be impossible to generate enough fire to 'cloud' a target through volume of fire at these ranges.  (This is why the gunnery table is a lie.  The targeting cogitator on any given ship would either hit or miss, as they would all be tied to the same sensor data and motion prediction.  At the ranges represented, human fire control would be far too inaccurate to even come close to a target.  How orks and necrons do it, I have no idea, though I suspect they're both very different.  Eldar can see the future, so motion prediction is no problem.  Tau get around it through advanced sensors and self guided missiles, as well as the railguns projectiles moving at a significant fraction of C.)

I would suggest that the FDT is a rapid cycling laser system with advanced motion prediction.  The ToT at 15,000 km would be within parameters.  




And again, your penchant for being obtuse misses the point again. I definitely get what you want to happen. However, I do not think another IN list is the way to go about it.

I am not saying change should not be incorporated. I am saying there are other races out there other than IN which need more lists than IN RIGHT NOW.

Yes. Grow. Grow the other races. Add more ships to their lineup. Add more unique (but not broken) rules. At this point in time, IN is already well developed without having to add another list in there. Unlike Dark Eldar or Necron or Nids. These other races need to be brought up in their fleet list varieties. That is what is needed to grow this game. Not another IN fleet list which in and of itself is conflicted. It wants a list with minimal ordnance and yet has access to ships which have the most LBs. That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

IN has 3 lists already, 4 if you include the AM. Inquisition is coming up next. Compare this to 2 for Chaos, 2 for Orks, 2 for Eldar, 2 (technically) for Tau, 1 for SM, 1 for DE, 1 for Nids, 1 for Necron. The sheer number of variety in both ships and fleet lists for IN compared to the other races is already far ahead compared to the other races that I do not think another one is beneficial for the game.

The new IN ships are ok. But does IN REALLY REALLY REALLY need them? Answer me that in the affirmative. Prove to me that IN needs this change in order to help the game "grow". Does it really? All I see is it helps IN grow. But what about the others? I could create two or three more IN lists each with their own flavor and own ship designs but heck I would rather grow the other races first.

This coming from an IN player.


Actually there's 3 lists for SM now (have not seen new ones in IA 10), 4 for IN, 3 for orks (counting clanz lists as 1), 2 for eldar, 2(3?) for tau, 1 for DE, 1 for nids, 1 for necrons.  

Lists that need new/more ships by order of priority:

DE (no brainer, need both ships and lists, possibly cabal fleets???)
Eldar
Orks
Tau


Nids would be better to get more biomorphs then whoile new ships, as they're more or less swiss army knife ships.  Maybe specialized one for certain fleets?  Levianthan, etc.

Necrons... necrons don't have a lot of variety in any list in any system.  The fact that they, unlike everyone else, really are almost absolutely uniform means there would not be a lot of variation in their ships either.

Personal opinion:

As I said before, I would see them release a new list with at least three new ships in it per year for each race.  It's not likely to happen though.  

GW laid out rules, and, I hate to say it, IN, SM, Tau, Orks and Chaos are what they're pushing and they all have to be made with existing kits.  This is the stumbling block.  IN we can make new ships easily, as all the possible combinations of the original kit are not used, so I don't blaim the HA for using IN, which will probably be one of their easier sells, to try and load up new ships.  A lot of IN ships were cut not, as some people have suggested, due to lack of quality, but due to the fact that content was cut to tidy up production costs.

This is due to most books being printed in groups of pages who's name escapes me at the moment.  Printers will charge based on how many of these groups there are.  If a group is 15 pages, and the text is 16 pages, it's more cost effective for the publisher to cut one page then to try and fill the remaining pages.  (for those that are cynical like me, GW's actual cost per book for Armada would have been between 5-10 dollars per copy at the time they made it, based on an old price guide I have laying around.)  

Jovian being published right away after bluebook makes it look to me like something that got cut for space by GW rather then something the designers decided to toss.  In BB, each IN ship is more or less mirrored by a chaos equivalent, with a few exceptions.  The exceptions were more then likely cut content to reduce printing costs.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 29, 2011, 09:12:22 AM
*sigh*
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.

And you would be wrong. The original BFG has always been a Jutland in space combat. Also it is not only feel. IN have always had expensive carriers, even the Emperor which needs 330 points at least to be able to field one. That's what the designers designed the game around. To counter the large number of carriers, IN have access to torps and the NC. One may think that it is not balanced but somehow it actually worked then and up to now.

If you want to consider the WWII carrier feel, you have to look at the Tau with their carrier and torp focused armament.

Actually there's 3 lists for SM now (have not seen new ones in IA 10), 4 for IN, 3 for orks (counting clanz lists as 1), 2 for eldar, 2(3?) for tau, 1 for DE, 1 for nids, 1 for necrons.  

Fine, so others have a few more. However, there are still some which needs additions. I think these needs to be focused on much more than IN which already have 3 lists+Admech+the upcoming Inquisitor and I think I am still missing 1 or 2.

Even if it were true that IN are the most readily available, what about Chaos? Chaos should have just as much variety if we are talking about availability in the market. Unfortunately, for the other races, until they get around to releasing plastic sprues (which essentially means, GW or SG showing support), they will be left out in the cold. However, doesn't mean we can't design new ships for them in the meantime.

And I would prefer to see new IN lists which evolve because the other races' lists have also evolved to answer the existing innovations of IN and even Chaos lists. That way, growth can then happen instead of another IN list popping up with ideas which are at odds with what the fleet should be like or with weapons and ships which people don't really like even if they are balanced and are just inserted "just because".

Bakka feels just like that: a fleet list where ships published before could be chucked in to make official even if the vessel rules run contrary to IN game design and adding a weapon system which frankly the game can do without.

Frankly, I'd rather Bakka be made after the other races have been brought up to par with IN then figure out what to really add in and subtract out then choose which ships really need to be added in.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 29, 2011, 10:31:39 AM
I'm certainly not against change:

I like the Viper, Havoc and Siluria. The Victory's Weapon configuration is fine, it just needs a points break to account for its less-than-retribution firepower and even more conflicted role. The Vanquisher layout is again fine, it just needs 5cm extra speed to make it good at its role, and a points break to make it a viable alternative to the Retribution as a linebreaker.

That's 5/7 new ships I'm absolutely fine with and happy to see included.

The Mercury leaves me a bit wtf - it wouldn't make a sensible choice, due to not outgunning an Overlord and going up like a bomb when destroyed, but it wouldn't break anything to include it - arguably the very fact that it has 5cm speed is also a massive drawback - it has a wider turning circle than the rest of the fleet (due to 12.5cm between turns), and will outpace them when it's required that the fleet go slowly. I can certainly see the class as a relic of an experiment into faster ships that the IN eventually concluded: actually, all this extra expense/liability isn't worth it. It's unusual, but it doesn't break things.

The Jovian DOES break things:
Firstly, it's against the fluff of battlefleet bakka to include "attack carriers" - The Jovian is most certainly an attack carrier - it has the vast majority of its power is in its AC (1 other WBe per AC). Neither the Defiant (3 other WBe per AC) nor the Emperor (2.625 other WBe per AC)have such a large proportion of their power in AC. Those other carriers either have enough big guns to avoid the label "attack carrier", or don't provide enough AC for more than an escort role. Even if the Jovian were to be included, it shouldn't be in the bakka list.
Secondly, even though it's not as complete a package as the Styx in the chaos list, it provides the IN with AC in powerful wave sizes at a points efficiency far in excess of the Emperor. If you want to include offensive AC, the Jovian would be an auto-include.
Thirdly: Whilst IN might not have AC Superiority, it definitely has ORDNANCE superiority with its torpedos. Allowing IN to go on a par with chaos in AC as well would make it nearly impossible to defend against. The IN can do perfectly well without AC superiority, but other lists would struggle.

And as far as FDTs go:
It's still a horrible rule, and it's good that AM only have it as a random upgrade. If bakka are supposed to be stronger against AC, why not a universal +1 turret, or a left columns shift when direct-firing at Ordnance?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 05:13:10 PM
And you would be wrong. The original BFG has always been a Jutland in space combat. Also it is not only feel. IN have always had expensive carriers, even the Emperor which needs 330 points at least to be able to field one. That's what the designers designed the game around. To counter the large number of carriers, IN have access to torps and the NC. One may think that it is not balanced but somehow it actually worked then and up to now.

If you want to consider the WWII carrier feel, you have to look at the Tau with their carrier and torp focused armament.

The Tau is actually more akin to modern carrier combat, with dedicated firecontrol ships and long range guided missile as well as carriers being more or less unlimited.  

And, again, no, Jutland was very much different from the way this game is played.  One, while I'm sure Hipper would loved to have been able to teleport genetically enhanced killing machines aboard the Iron Duke, I don't recall that happening.  Two, everyone was on the same technological level.  While if this game was IN vs IN at all times, you might have a point, most of the time it's Tsushima style fleet tactics vs WWII style fleet tactics vs Peloponnesian war style fleet tactics, vs War of 1812 style fleet tactics vs modern fleet tactics against the saucermen (necrons).

And, if it was meant to Jutland in space, there would have been no AC at all, except as scout ships.  However, initially, we got the v1 AC rules, which made most battles Midway in space, except then people abused it to the point it became necessary to nerf it.  

Further, you're forgetting that the ordinance game has changed.  All torps are now a single str 6 counter regardless of actual str.  This means that your torp waves of the past arn't there anymore and Chaos, in particular, is going to just move out of the way and keep rolling bombers and aboats rather then fighters to eliminate torps unless you've bought the guided torps upgrade.  


Fine, so others have a few more. However, there are still some which needs additions. I think these needs to be focused on much more than IN which already have 3 lists+Admech+the upcoming Inquisitor and I think I am still missing 1 or 2.

Even if it were true that IN are the most readily available, what about Chaos? Chaos should have just as much variety if we are talking about availability in the market. Unfortunately, for the other races, until they get around to releasing plastic sprues (which essentially means, GW or SG showing support), they will be left out in the cold. However, doesn't mean we can't design new ships for them in the meantime.

And I would prefer to see new IN lists which evolve because the other races' lists have also evolved to answer the existing innovations of IN and even Chaos lists. That way, growth can then happen instead of another IN list popping up with ideas which are at odds with what the fleet should be like or with weapons and ships which people don't really like even if they are balanced and are just inserted "just because".

Bakka feels just like that: a fleet list where ships published before could be chucked in to make official even if the vessel rules run contrary to IN game design and adding a weapon system which frankly the game can do without.

Frankly, I'd rather Bakka be made after the other races have been brought up to par with IN then figure out what to really add in and subtract out then choose which ships really need to be added in.

I'd love Chaos to get light cruisers.  Probably not gonna happen though.

While I'm perfectly willing to admit that other races SHOULD be first, we have to deal with the way GW has set this out for us.  I have no doubt that GW will be happy to allow the HA to do that, once they've gotten all the fleets GW  WANTS them working on worked on.  From your response to this, you're obviously forgetting the blood bowl debacle where GW held the rules update hostage to get them to remove stats for characters that GW didn't make (among other things).


The Mercury leaves me a bit wtf - it wouldn't make a sensible choice, due to not outgunning an Overlord and going up like a bomb when destroyed, but it wouldn't break anything to include it - arguably the very fact that it has 5cm speed is also a massive drawback - it has a wider turning circle than the rest of the fleet (due to 12.5cm between turns), and will outpace them when it's required that the fleet go slowly. I can certainly see the class as a relic of an experiment into faster ships that the IN eventually concluded: actually, all this extra expense/liability isn't worth it. It's unusual, but it doesn't break things.

The Jovian DOES break things:
Firstly, it's against the fluff of battlefleet bakka to include "attack carriers" - The Jovian is most certainly an attack carrier - it has the vast majority of its power is in its AC (1 other WBe per AC). Neither the Defiant (3 other WBe per AC) nor the Emperor (2.625 other WBe per AC)have such a large proportion of their power in AC. Those other carriers either have enough big guns to avoid the label "attack carrier", or don't provide enough AC for more than an escort role. Even if the Jovian were to be included, it shouldn't be in the bakka list.
Secondly, even though it's not as complete a package as the Styx in the chaos list, it provides the IN with AC in powerful wave sizes at a points efficiency far in excess of the Emperor. If you want to include offensive AC, the Jovian would be an auto-include.
Thirdly: Whilst IN might not have AC Superiority, it definitely has ORDNANCE superiority with its torpedos. Allowing IN to go on a par with chaos in AC as well would make it nearly impossible to defend against. The IN can do perfectly well without AC superiority, but other lists would struggle.

And as far as FDTs go:
It's still a horrible rule, and it's good that AM only have it as a random upgrade. If bakka are supposed to be stronger against AC, why not a universal +1 turret, or a left columns shift when direct-firing at Ordnance?

The Mercury is a fun ship that either works really well with your strategy or blows up in your face.  I enjoy it.  That's really all I have to say on it.

The Jovian, I do agree, is an odd fit for Bakka.  I think that the fluff where it's embraced out of necessity (the fleet having just been annihilated at Circe) makes some sense, as BFB was reduced down to, IIRC, about a dozen ships that managed to fight their way free and escape, and lack of attack craft played a key role in their defeat.  Their 'only' carrier had just bought it, so I can see where as a stop gap something like the Jovian might be made since they now had absolutely no carriers at all of any type left.  

Personally, rather then the odd rule about reserves, I would simply have it so that you can either take the Dominus Astra or the Jovian, since the destruction of one caused Bakka to acquire the other.  

As far as the possibility of other IN getting it as a reserve ship, again, you're forgetting that against chaos, this new str 6 counter buisness, IN is definitely nerfed there now at range, particularly against chaos and Necrons.  IN's 'ordinance superiority' is now largely a thing of the past outside 40 cm.  

FDT: Giving a universal +1 turrets would make it broken due to turret massing.   A left shift would have to be two or three columns to be as effective as turrets.  Making them hit ord on a +4 would also be largely broken, due to the range at which it could be done allowing you to eliminate ships on cap, which would be wildly unbalanced compared to everyone else.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 29, 2011, 05:49:42 PM
Quote
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.  In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well.  The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier.  From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.   

The LIST construction may change but the FEEL does not. Now we know your group tends to play with a whole lot of non standard rules and ships anyway which DOES change the feel. So if you could put all of that out of mind and look at what we have in the rule books, you can see that it's set up so that IN ends up with a weaker fleet if they take primarily carriers. (dictators are 220 and defiants are limited to 1 per 500 points) This is indisputable FACT regardless of what fluff you pull from outside sources or how you may FEEL about it.

Newer offering from FFG quite frankly DO NOT MATTER when it comes to the set themes that guide the overall creation of each fleet. Those were set in stone when the game was made and repeatedly adhered to by HA (with some prodding) and players alike in the creation of ships that fit within the framework laid out for us. Anything outside of those themes can safely be assumed as one of or highly experimental or ancient vessels.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 29, 2011, 06:59:37 PM
*sigh*
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.  In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well.  The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier.  

You cannot say that feel is purely personal. Otherwise I could say that I feel that Eldar should have high hits and armour and slow speed therefore they should have that. Feel isn't how you think they should be, it is a response to how play. So 'these' are the rules, what 'feel' do they inspire. Of course, you can argue that the feel that the current ruleset inspires is incorrect, ie, that it should be some other way. So when people say that the Jovian violates the current IN feel they are perfectly right and correct. It does. You can take issue with whether that is a correct interpretation of the IN. I think that, for the most part, it is. Certainly there are a number of vessels in the Imperial Navy that run contrary to this feel, and therefore so do the fleets that comprise them. This isn't the norm though. That is to say, if you took a snapshot of the IN in its entirety and summed up the general themes you'd find that carriers aren't their most efficient choice.

Quote
From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.

Escort carriers are almost purely defensive vessels. It seems that a gun lobby under pressure to build carriers from the argument of necessary defence or to escort torpedoes would do just this. That is, the Tempest seems an alternative to a dedicated attack carrier, so is quite consistent with the big gun lobby.

Quote
Except in space, range is not reflective of power at all, power dictates relative velocity instead.

Except we are not talking about distance in space. We're talking about distance over time in space, which means when we're talking 'range' what we mean is velocity. Therefore range is directly related to power.

Quote
I would suggest that the FDT is a rapid cycling laser system with advanced motion prediction.  The ToT at 15,000 km would be within parameters.  

But here again we come back to power. For those lasers to remain damaging enough at those ranges to take out the bombers (we're not talking simple projectiles now, those lasers would have to cut through the bombers) it would require rather enormous levels of power. Most likely the turrets would be quite large too. So we're looking at some loss of main gunnery due to power/space requirements and also most likely some loss of close fire capability since they're larger turrets and likely wouldn't track so well as normal turrets. Unless of course, the FDTs were added on top of the normal turrets, simply displacing some main guns.

Lastly, I would be wondering at the mechanic that allows these guns to simply function as a turret on the defending ship. For example, why would you fire them when the ship is actively being attacked and the AC is at its most manoeuvrable and most hidden, rather than when they're on their way in? Also, why should they reduce bomber attack runs (assuming they do)? It's not likely that the bombers will be able to jink away from laser fire, it's not as though there would be flak to try to avoid. Either the bombers would be hit or not.

This concept of secondary weaponry being able to extend their effective range to main gun levels with much greater accuracy and efficiency than main guns and no loss of other performance whatsoever is untenable. It certainly could be done by shifting resources, such that it is being performed by main guns. And it makes more sense to shoot these anti-ordnance guns in the shooting phase where the AC is flying on the way in, rather than when they're in the attack.

Quote
Jovian being published right away after bluebook makes it look to me like something that got cut for space by GW rather then something the designers decided to toss.  In BB, each IN ship is more or less mirrored by a chaos equivalent, with a few exceptions.  The exceptions were more then likely cut content to reduce printing costs.

If the Jovian was cut from the BBB I doubt it would be due to production costs. I imagine it far more likely because the designers were uncertain on it. Justifiably so. The fact that it was published so soon after the BBB was released and yet had never become official in all the time since, even though newer ships have, says to me that there is something objectionable about the ship.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 07:19:18 PM
Quote
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.  In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well.  The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier.  From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.  

The LIST construction may change but the FEEL does not. Now we know your group tends to play with a whole lot of non standard rules and ships anyway which DOES change the feel. So if you could put all of that out of mind and look at what we have in the rule books, you can see that it's set up so that IN ends up with a weaker fleet if they take primarily carriers. (dictators are 220 and defiants are limited to 1 per 500 points) This is indisputable FACT regardless of what fluff you pull from outside sources or how you may FEEL about it.

Actually, I put 'all that' out of my mind a lot, notice that I have NOT been strongly championing the Mercury, a ship which I use frequently in non-standard games, other then to say I like it and find it a fun ship (and think it needs a forward str 6 torp option).  Looking ONLY at approved rules, you are wrong, and the reason is FAQ2010 and it's changes to torpedoes.  IN depends heavily on torps as an AC counter, and with the new changes, there's no need for AC to counter them against IN except at close range.  You can no longer blanket an area with torps by having squadrons or other ships combine salvos, as the entire salvo is still a single str 3 marker regardless of str.  This means that Chaos, in particular, with it's fast ships and strong long range game will be able to focus more ac against ships rather then for purposes of defending against torps.

Newer offering from FFG quite frankly DO NOT MATTER when it comes to the set themes that guide the overall creation of each fleet. Those were set in stone when the game was made and repeatedly adhered to by HA (with some prodding) and players alike in the creation of ships that fit within the framework laid out for us. Anything outside of those themes can safely be assumed as one of or highly experimental or ancient vessels.

Yes, they do, as we saw with the changes to the Rogue Trader list.  According to GW, FFG is canon now and, bluntly,if we want stuff approved we have to at leat pay lipservice to GW's decrees.

If themes were set in stone at game creation, Space Marines would still be prisoners that were converted as punishment, and the admech would be working hand in hand with the squats.


Escort carriers are almost purely defensive vessels. It seems that a gun lobby under pressure to build carriers from the argument of necessary defence or to escort torpedoes would do just this. That is, the Tempest seems an alternative to a dedicated attack carrier, so is quite consistent with the big gun lobby.

Not true, as examples of Emperor, Dictator, and just about every carrier but Defiant have also turned up (and it specifically can take aboats which are an offensive weapon).  You aren't going to have 'all' of these with a dedicated 'big gun' fleet.  As to why this would be, I draw your attention to the Angevin Crusade's primary adversary, the Yu'vath, and their primary space weapon, the unmanned Void Wasp, which is absurdly fast (think 30-35cm), slightly smaller then a destroyer, fires with a keel mount in all directions, ignores shields, and seems to come in big swarms (sound familiar?).  Since Battlefleet Calixis was made of the surviving ships of Angevin's Crusade, there's going to be a high percentage of carriers because fleets with carriers would have been more successful against them then those without.  

(along with the 'Fenksworld Calamity' where radical inquisitors sabotaged the Apocalypse Class battleship Tempest's Child and used it destroy over 20 other warships and demolish quite a bit everything else in it's path.  One would imagine that this would have dealt a heavy blow to any big gun lobby in the newly founded sector fleet)


But here again we come back to power. For those lasers to remain damaging enough at those ranges to take out the bombers (we're not talking simple projectiles now, those lasers would have to cut through the bombers) it would require rather enormous levels of power. Most likely the turrets would be quite large too. So we're looking at some loss of main gunnery due to power/space requirements and also most likely some loss of close fire capability since they're larger turrets and likely wouldn't track so well as normal turrets. Unless of course, the FDTs were added on top of the normal turrets, simply displacing some main guns.

Incorrect.  A laser system can be made sufficiently powerful to fire on and destroy another target in space using modern technology.  The Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser, despite being diffused by Earths atmosphere was able to destroy a target slightly larger then a car at 432km, which was traveling at orbital velocities.  In a vacuum, with proper targeting equipment, this range could be increased by a factor of 20, easily, due to the reduction in blooming.  

Picture of it: man for scale

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Slbd_front.jpg)

The laser beam itself is only 14 x 14 cm, bit is capable of easily burning through most modern heat and radiation shielding.  It can produce a megawatt beam for over 70 seconds.  More then enough to chop bombers in half, and is fast enough tracking that even close in targets can be easily burned through or chopped up.

Lastly, I would be wondering at the mechanic that allows these guns to simply function as a turret on the defending ship. For example, why would you fire them when the ship is actively being attacked and the AC is at its most manoeuvrable and most hidden, rather than when they're on their way in? Also, why should they reduce bomber attack runs (assuming they do)? It's not likely that the bombers will be able to jink away from laser fire, it's not as though there would be flak to try to avoid. Either the bombers would be hit or not.

This concept of secondary weaponry being able to extend their effective range to main gun levels with much greater accuracy and efficiency than main guns and no loss of other performance whatsoever is untenable. It certainly could be done by shifting resources, such that it is being performed by main guns. And it makes more sense to shoot these anti-ordnance guns in the shooting phase where the AC is flying on the way in, rather than when they're in the attack.

With that sort of range, I admit, it's not clear to me either, but then, there's a whole lot of similar plot holes in BFG (why don't ships ever come up underneath a target where it has no guns? is a big one) that perplex me.



I would suggest it has to do with beam duration.  To burn through a ships hull would require it to fire for a prolonged period.  To burn through a bomber the size of a 747 would require vastly less time, particularly since it's a bomber loaded with explosives.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 29, 2011, 09:45:34 PM
And, again, no, Jutland was very much different from the way this game is played.  One, while I'm sure Hipper would loved to have been able to teleport genetically enhanced killing machines aboard the Iron Duke, I don't recall that happening.  Two, everyone was on the same technological level.  While if this game was IN vs IN at all times, you might have a point, most of the time it's Tsushima style fleet tactics vs WWII style fleet tactics vs Peloponnesian war style fleet tactics, vs War of 1812 style fleet tactics vs modern fleet tactics against the saucermen (necrons).

And, if it was meant to Jutland in space, there would have been no AC at all, except as scout ships.  However, initially, we got the v1 AC rules, which made most battles Midway in space, except then people abused it to the point it became necessary to nerf it.  

Further, you're forgetting that the ordinance game has changed.  All torps are now a single str 6 counter regardless of actual str.  This means that your torp waves of the past arn't there anymore and Chaos, in particular, is going to just move out of the way and keep rolling bombers and aboats rather then fighters to eliminate torps unless you've bought the guided torps upgrade.  

And again, you would be wrong. The game designers have already said it was Jutland in space. Ordnance was an addition but the designers never wanted it to be the center of the game. The designers wanted duels ala Jutland or the old 18th-19th century type battles.

Even with the change to the torps, if you have enough ships, you can still launch a wall as long as you don't squadron. Chaos may have an easier time avoiding but as long as you can keep rolling torps turn after turn, you can still force an opponent's direction. Mix it up with some NC ships and the opponent has to choose between moving out of the torps way or getting hit by a lucky NC shot.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 29, 2011, 09:46:56 PM
Actually, there is no time when you HAVE to launch combined salvos. If you are squadroned and in base contact then it's an option.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 29, 2011, 10:15:57 PM
Quote
IN depends heavily on torps as an AC counter, and with the new changes, there's no need for AC to counter them against IN except at close range.  You can no longer blanket an area with torps by having squadrons or other ships combine salvos, as the entire salvo is still a single str 3 marker regardless of str.  This means that Chaos, in particular, with it's fast ships and strong long range game will be able to focus more ac against ships rather then for purposes of defending against torps.

This means jack squat since it has nothing to do with anything I said. I said IN was a weaker AC fleet. I didn't even mention torpedoes in that. You can still blanket an area with torps too, just you can't combine the salvo if you want to blanket anything. So what if Chaos ordnance got stronger because of the torpedo change, that not what we are talking about.

Quote
Yes, they do, as we saw with the changes to the Rogue Trader list.  According to GW, FFG is canon now and, bluntly,if we want stuff approved we have to at leat pay lipservice to GW's decrees

When FFG explicitly states that the entire Imperial Navy hates big guns and focuses on carriers or some other major shift in doctrine, we will have an issue. Since it doesn't, anything that is mentioned has to be reconciled with the framework we have. That makes ANYTHING FFG comes up with an anomaly when used in IN battlefleets. You can't use single instances or rare occurrence to upturn the entire doctrine of the fleet.

Quote
(along with the 'Fenksworld Calamity' where radical inquisitors sabotaged the Apocalypse Class battleship Tempest's Child and used it destroy over 20 other warships and demolish quite a bit everything else in it's path.  One would imagine that this would have dealt a heavy blow to any big gun lobby in the newly founded sector fleet)

Actually this would serve to enhance the big gun lobby. The fact it caused so much carnage is actually a strong point in favor of more big guns. They can point to it and say look how much damage this ONE ship caused. We need more of those!
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on January 29, 2011, 10:18:47 PM
extra turrets instead of FDT's would not break bakka. considering FDT's allow for turret massing (but better) within 15cm.

as nate hasn't been here for hmmm, 5-10 pages of talk. I highly doubt that we'll have any impact on the officialness of whatever comes from bakka. and whether we think its the right direction to go or not.... its happening.

the best thing we can do is to throw in with plax and make the 'official' house rule lists and ships that we believe are needed. neh?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 29, 2011, 10:25:38 PM
I honestly would be fine with a turret bump and allowing ships in BTB to have any massed turrets behave in all respect like the turrets on the ship itself. That should show the increased capabilities of the turrets without having to justify them shooting outside of BTB.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 29, 2011, 11:29:07 PM
Quote
IN depends heavily on torps as an AC counter, and with the new changes, there's no need for AC to counter them against IN except at close range.  You can no longer blanket an area with torps by having squadrons or other ships combine salvos, as the entire salvo is still a single str 3 marker regardless of str.  This means that Chaos, in particular, with it's fast ships and strong long range game will be able to focus more ac against ships rather then for purposes of defending against torps.

This means jack squat since it has nothing to do with anything I said. I said IN was a weaker AC fleet. I didn't even mention torpedoes in that. You can still blanket an area with torps too, just you can't combine the salvo if you want to blanket anything. So what if Chaos ordnance got stronger because of the torpedo change, that not what we are talking about.

The reasons given were 'feel' and balance.  While, imho, 'feel' is personal, balance is not.  The torp alteration changes the balance between IN torps and Chaos AC.  Which, I might point out, has been frequently brought up in this discussion as why IN has torps and Chaos has AC and that they're supposed to balance each other.  My point is that if IN is supposed to be balanced against Chaos with torps vs AC, this balance has been upset already and that increasing IN AC would help correct this.

When FFG explicitly states that the entire Imperial Navy hates big guns and focuses on carriers or some other major shift in doctrine, we will have an issue. Since it doesn't, anything that is mentioned has to be reconciled with the framework we have. That makes ANYTHING FFG comes up with an anomaly when used in IN battlefleets. You can't use single instances or rare occurrence to upturn the entire doctrine of the fleet.

Again, no fluff anywhere states that IN is uniform.  In fact, most fluff states that IN varies tremendously from location to location.  Armageddon is fairly close to the Segmentum Obscuras boarder with Segmentum Solar and differs from Gothic in (gasp) having a variety of unusual ships including a 'pure carrier', and at the same time, does not have some ships that appear in the gothic sector.   Bakka is at the opposite end of the galaxy from Cypra Mundi.

I would suggest that there is the possibility that they are very different indeed.




Quote
(along with the 'Fenksworld Calamity' where radical inquisitors sabotaged the Apocalypse Class battleship Tempest's Child and used it destroy over 20 other warships and demolish quite a bit everything else in it's path.  One would imagine that this would have dealt a heavy blow to any big gun lobby in the newly founded sector fleet)

Actually this would serve to enhance the big gun lobby. The fact it caused so much carnage is actually a strong point in favor of more big guns. They can point to it and say look how much damage this ONE ship caused. We need more of those!

...I could see your point if it had done it by shooting rather than by ramming and then exploding...  crippling an entire front of an Imperial Crusade in the process...

(also, pointing and saying requires a pulse.  The Inq slaughtered the officers on board, so...)



I honestly would be fine with a turret bump and allowing ships in BTB to have any massed turrets behave in all respect like the turrets on the ship itself. That should show the increased capabilities of the turrets without having to justify them shooting outside of BTB.

Since Horizon thinks I'm mad to use even numbers in my squadrons, we'll use odds.  Three swords, with 3 turrets each are in btb contact with Dominus Astra.  This means that the Emp now has 8 turrets.

FDT takes the turret off one ship and puts it on another.  Adding turrets and then allowing massing allows ALL of them to boost at the same time.  
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 30, 2011, 12:30:10 AM
Quote
My point is that if IN is supposed to be balanced against Chaos with torps vs AC, this balance has been upset already and that increasing IN AC would help correct this.
Feel isn't personal. It's the overarching theme of each fleet. It's what defines the fleet as different. IN is torpedoes, 6+ prows, and NC with expensive carriers to encourage more guns and torpedoes. Chaos is cheap carriers, speed and range. Having a dedicated carrier available at will to all IN fleet lists is breaking the feel. Having an experimental dedicated carrier limited to a single ship that must be taken as reserve and can't be taken in any other fleet list is fine because it shows that it doesn't fit with the typical theme of the fleet.


Quote
Again, no fluff anywhere states that IN is uniform.  In fact, most fluff states that IN varies tremendously from location to location.  Armageddon is fairly close to the Segmentum Obscuras boarder with Segmentum Solar and differs from Gothic in (gasp) having a variety of unusual ships including a 'pure carrier', and at the same time, does not have some ships that appear in the gothic sector.   Bakka is at the opposite end of the galaxy from Cypra Mundi.

I would suggest that there is the possibility that they are very different indeed.
I say that is incorrect. While the external appearance may (and does) change from sector to sector, the classes remain the same. Every fleet list available points to a particular core set of ship classes available across the Imperium and in service with almost all fleets. Even bakka has the mars, lunar, gothic, tyrant, sword, and cobra. What that shows is a rather impressive uniformity in ship classes across the imperium. Since those ships form the bulk of the fleets, you will see a fairly standard tactical doctrine and capabilities with minor flavoring by the classes or variations that are atypical like the Oberon or overlord.

The massive variation that Armada speaks about is more likely in the composition using the standard classes. So you may see some sector fleets who rely more on light cruisers and escorts because they tend toward anti-piracy operations while other may have fewer escorts and more heavy ships because they hold key points of entry like around the cadian gate. The thing is, despite that "massive" variety, the ships involve don't differ much if any. That means you won't see things like dedicated carriers often even if you are in the backwater ragtag fleet sector.

Quote
...I could see your point if it had done it by shooting rather than by ramming and then exploding...  crippling an entire front of an Imperial Crusade in the process...

(also, pointing and saying requires a pulse.  The Inq slaughtered the officers on board, so...)

I'm getting annoyed with you posting bits of fluff but not the complete picture. Had you said the damage was from exploding in the first place, it wouldn't even affect either side. What you gave lets us draw other conclusions. In any event, since it was from ramming and exploding, this has even LESS effect on the big gun lobby because ANY battleship could cause the same regardless of if it had guns or launch bays and unless the INQ took down the entire naval hierarchy, there will always be someone who can point fingers.



Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 30, 2011, 01:45:01 AM
Quote
My point is that if IN is supposed to be balanced against Chaos with torps vs AC, this balance has been upset already and that increasing IN AC would help correct this.
Feel isn't personal. It's the overarching theme of each fleet. It's what defines the fleet as different. IN is torpedoes, 6+ prows, and NC with expensive carriers to encourage more guns and torpedoes. Chaos is cheap carriers, speed and range. Having a dedicated carrier available at will to all IN fleet lists is breaking the feel. Having an experimental dedicated carrier limited to a single ship that must be taken as reserve and can't be taken in any other fleet list is fine because it shows that it doesn't fit with the typical theme of the fleet.

If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps?  By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.

I say that is incorrect. While the external appearance may (and does) change from sector to sector, the classes remain the same. Every fleet list available points to a particular core set of ship classes available across the Imperium and in service with almost all fleets. Even bakka has the mars, lunar, gothic, tyrant, sword, and cobra. What that shows is a rather impressive uniformity in ship classes across the imperium. Since those ships form the bulk of the fleets, you will see a fairly standard tactical doctrine and capabilities with minor flavoring by the classes or variations that are atypical like the Oberon or overlord.

The massive variation that Armada speaks about is more likely in the composition using the standard classes. So you may see some sector fleets who rely more on light cruisers and escorts because they tend toward anti-piracy operations while other may have fewer escorts and more heavy ships because they hold key points of entry like around the cadian gate. The thing is, despite that "massive" variety, the ships involve don't differ much if any. That means you won't see things like dedicated carriers often even if you are in the backwater ragtag fleet sector.

Actually, the only ships that appear to be ubiquitous are the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, and Mars (and, interestingly enough, all of them, are variants on the Mars hull, the oldest 'modern' IN hull.  Personally, I suspect that this is due to them being dispersed far and wide during the reconquest following the Age of Apostasy).  Armageddon has to take Sword and Cobra as Space Marine vessels, implying that the Battlefleet does not use these vessels (preferring the Falchion which can serve as either/or).

Ships that are only in a handful of sectors or even a single sector: Falchion, Ignis, Tempest, Oberon, Armageddon, Apocalypse, Vanquisher, Victory, Viper, Defiant, Endeavour, Endurance, Exorcist, Vengeance, Avenger, Siluria and Havoc. 

I would suggest that there is quite a bit of difference in fleet strategy between sectors, considering that the only ship configurations they have in common are three ships that are useful no matter what your fleet strategy is, and the Tyrant that was produced at least once by every yard in the Imperium before it was found their actual performance was far less then expected.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 30, 2011, 04:08:54 AM
Quote
If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps?  By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.

Really, this is your argument? Bringing up one ship? So what! The presence of one ship doesn't change the OVERARCHING theme of the chaos fleet. Ever wonder why it is that the slower grand cruisers rarely appear in chaos lists? They don't fit the theme. Stop splitting hairs.

Quote
Actually, the only ships that appear to be ubiquitous are the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, and Mars (and, interestingly enough, all of them, are variants on the Mars hull, the oldest 'modern' IN hull.  Personally, I suspect that this is due to them being dispersed far and wide during the reconquest following the Age of Apostasy).  Armageddon has to take Sword and Cobra as Space Marine vessels, implying that the Battlefleet does not use these vessels (preferring the Falchion which can serve as either/or).

My mistake on the escorts. Funny that these ships make up the core of the fleets and by extension the core of their capabilities and tactics. That should tell you that there might be a few changes here or there but overall an IN fleet on one side of the galaxy will act similar to an IN fleet on the other side.

Now enough of this silliness. You've managed to generate pages of useless dialog on something that really has no bearing on the list under discussion. Simply put, BFG (the original and armada) is THE FINAL word on how Imperial fleets operate because it is first of all the most extensive and secondly the entire point of the game is about fleet operations which other sources only touch briefly. Anything you find in any book, be it 40k, black library, or FFG, contrary to what we have in BFG on this point quite simply is an anomaly and CANNOT EVER be use as a valid point to suggest the doctrines common to the Imperial fleet.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 30, 2011, 05:36:39 AM
Quote
If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps?  By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.

Really, this is your argument? Bringing up one ship? So what! The presence of one ship doesn't change the OVERARCHING theme of the chaos fleet. Ever wonder why it is that the slower grand cruisers rarely appear in chaos lists? They don't fit the theme. Stop splitting hairs.

It's the same reason for the GCs within IN. They don't have the prow armor or torps, and therefore don't fit into the theme very well. It's ok for the emperor, as it is a carrier, and is able to stay back easier hiding your most expensive fleet commander ship.

extra turrets instead of FDT's would not break bakka. considering FDT's allow for turret massing (but better) within 15cm.

as nate hasn't been here for hmmm, 5-10 pages of talk. I highly doubt that we'll have any impact on the officialness of whatever comes from bakka. and whether we think its the right direction to go or not.... its happening.

the best thing we can do is to throw in with plax and make the 'official' house rule lists and ships that we believe are needed. neh?

Thanks for the support Valhallan. Although most of them already have, and its just detail work for me now. Besides, I wouldn't say don't try to manipulate Nate, every discussion is useful for me. More commentary is always helpful :).

On another note I've actually come to the conclusion that having the Vanquisher be a sort of light battleship is actually kinda cool. So long as it costs no more than 290 pts.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on January 30, 2011, 06:08:11 AM
your welcome!

and speaking of detail work. if nate is reading this: the fleet list for bakka says that the Endurance(lance) is unlimited... isn't this supposed to be the Endeavor(guns)?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 30, 2011, 06:20:21 AM
Quote
If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps?  By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.

Really, this is your argument? Bringing up one ship? So what! The presence of one ship doesn't change the OVERARCHING theme of the chaos fleet. Ever wonder why it is that the slower grand cruisers rarely appear in chaos lists? They don't fit the theme. Stop splitting hairs.

Quote
Actually, the only ships that appear to be ubiquitous are the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, and Mars (and, interestingly enough, all of them, are variants on the Mars hull, the oldest 'modern' IN hull.  Personally, I suspect that this is due to them being dispersed far and wide during the reconquest following the Age of Apostasy).  Armageddon has to take Sword and Cobra as Space Marine vessels, implying that the Battlefleet does not use these vessels (preferring the Falchion which can serve as either/or).

My mistake on the escorts. Funny that these ships make up the core of the fleets and by extension the core of their capabilities and tactics. That should tell you that there might be a few changes here or there but overall an IN fleet on one side of the galaxy will act similar to an IN fleet on the other side.

Now enough of this silliness. You've managed to generate pages of useless dialog on something that really has no bearing on the list under discussion. Simply put, BFG (the original and armada) is THE FINAL word on how Imperial fleets operate because it is first of all the most extensive and secondly the entire point of the game is about fleet operations which other sources only touch briefly. Anything you find in any book, be it 40k, black library, or FFG, contrary to what we have in BFG on this point quite simply is an anomaly and CANNOT EVER be use as a valid point to suggest the doctrines common to the Imperial fleet.


So, dialog on why fleets might have different ships has no bearing on on the fact that Bakka has a bunch of non-typical ships???  

Explanations of how the FDT might work have no bearing on a discussion of why the FDT can't work?  

A single ship doesn't change the way a fleet feels, unless it's the Jovian?

And, and this is my personal favorite, that if IN has four ships more or less in common across the Imperium, they all have to follow the same combat doctrines.  That's like saying that the Steel legion and the Catachans both have the sentinel, las gun, heavy bolter, and frag grenade in common, so they obviously fight their battles the same way.  

Bluntly: Just about any fleet would have Mars, Gothic, Lunar, and Tyrant, even if they were mainly carrier based.  The Lunar is excellent for long range armed patrols where the Dauntless might not be enough, due to it's versatile selection of armament.  It's also why it appeals to Rogue traders and the Ministorum, who both use decommissioned Lunars as privately owned flagships.  The Mars for similar reasons, as a flagship for a cruiser squadron, it's probably got whatever you happen to need at a given moment, whether it's AC or guns or a NC blast.  

Gothics, like Lunars, make excellent flagships for escort squadrons (according to BB fluff) and again, anyplace that you'd want to give a patrol more punch then a Dauntless (or you plain don't have the Daunt) a Gothic is a good option.  

Tyrant's being everywhere is explained in Blue book.  The admech told the Navy that this would be the greatest thing since sliced salt grox and built a ton of them in M39 before it was determined that it wasn't what they thought they were getting.  It's also why they are turning up on the civilian market already in m41, despite being a very new class of ship.  Without the range upgrades, they're not worth the cost of maintaining them.  

As far as being definitive, I'll reserve my opinion on that until Battlefleet Koronus comes out in the next month or so.  It's hyped as the most in depth examination of IN to date, but I'm not sure I'm buying that.  
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 30, 2011, 08:17:37 AM
Quote
So, dialog on why fleets might have different ships has no bearing on on the fact that Bakka has a bunch of non-typical ships???  

no, dialog on how what is explained in BFG and disputing what the designers (as reiterated by HA) have said are the themes for fleets has no bearing on the Bakka fleet especially seeing the fluff for Bakka specifically states it's going for a big gun fleet. At this point, Nate effectively said that nothing is changing outside of broken stats so going tit for tat about the possibility of fleets existing as part of the IN using all carriers or all escorts or all whatever is useless debate not to mentioned flawed in your insistence that the BFG rules and mechanics account for nothing more than something to be overruled by whatever partial bit of fluff strikes your fancy. The fact that we have three separate IN lists and bakka and they all are centered around the same core capital ships and that all of these IN fleets play effectively the same way on the board should be some indication that you aren't going to be finding that many, if any fleets that operate contrary to the BFG naval doctrine. For all intents and purposes you play IN the same way (armageddon is a special mixed list, but playing it IN only in this case) with a slight bit of difference here and there. Gothic tends toward more NC with the Dominator. Armageddon tends toward light ships backed up by longer ranged lances and batteries. Bastion can do either with a light salting of grand cruisers. Bakka seems to be trying to hit NC with even less AC.

Quote
Explanations of how the FDT might work have no bearing on a discussion of why the FDT can't work?  
This is somewhat more valid but why are you trying to explain magitech? there is no merit in it and has no effect on the rules. It's useless discussion. The goal here is something that makes up for the low AC in the list. While FDT in their current state is an attempt at that it's a rather half hearted attempt. They are easy to avoid and pricey to add when you could just use those points on mars or reserve in another carrier. Blathering on about X flak system or mechanics of projectiles in space or if a system could track and hit such small targets at range isn't helping write good rules.

Quote
A single ship doesn't change the way a fleet feels, unless it's the Jovian?
That single ship doesn't fill an intended hole in the list and is actually a little bit of a downgrade to take so no it doesn't. The jovian is more problematic because it's got little arms outside of the launch bays. I think it will be alright for the most part though it might need another caveat that it can only be taken in games larger than 1k or 1.5k due to it's rarity and to keep it from showing up in low point games or as a regular in normal games. Limiting it to reserves and the bakka list only does help out considerably.

Quote
And, and this is my personal favorite, that if IN has four ships more or less in common across the Imperium, they all have to follow the same combat doctrines.  That's like saying that the Steel legion and the Catachans both have the sentinel, las gun, heavy bolter, and frag grenade in common, so they obviously fight their battles the same way.  

Apples to oranges. There are far fewer ways to employ a capital ship effectively than a heavy bolter or a lasgun. So, yes, if your fleet has the same type vessels in it it's probably going to perform or be used in a similar way. Form very much determines function here. You forget that three of those ships represent 3/5 of the line cruisers. You really think that when 3/5 of the line ships your fleet is built around are the same there's going to be a huge change in the tactics or composition?

Quote
As far as being definitive, I'll reserve my opinion on that until Battlefleet Koronus comes out in the next month or so.  It's hyped as the most in depth examination of IN to date, but I'm not sure I'm buying that.

It's dealing with a single battlefleet and from the tidbits they've released, it doesn't say much different than BFG. I really wouldn't put stock in marketing tags; they're designed to make you think it's the most awesome thing ever.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 30, 2011, 05:46:58 PM
Bastion can do either with a light salting of grand cruisers.

I don't notice the Reserve fleets rule making the Hades or Murder or Carnage slow and short ranged with +6 prows.  As far as fluff for Bakka, I agree that it's an odd choice for that list, and suggested, if you may recall, that the HA use a limited number of dictators in Bakka and create a new list that included the Jovian that was more AC oriented.  This would both preserve the fluff and allow them to include Jovian as an official ship.

This is somewhat more valid but why are you trying to explain magitech? there is no merit in it and has no effect on the rules. It's useless discussion. The goal here is something that makes up for the low AC in the list. While FDT in their current state is an attempt at that it's a rather half hearted attempt. They are easy to avoid and pricey to add when you could just use those points on mars or reserve in another carrier. Blathering on about X flak system or mechanics of projectiles in space or if a system could track and hit such small targets at range isn't helping write good rules.

Most of the objections to the rule were not that the rule was broken, but that it didn't make sense that turrets could do that.  Sigoroth had several valid points on this, assuming that the turrets were projectile based.  Personally I agree that Bakka should not have to pay for the upgrade, but the actual mechanic of it is fine.

That single ship doesn't fill an intended hole in the list and is actually a little bit of a downgrade to take so no it doesn't.

*points to it's str 6 torp launcher* It's doesn't fill an intended hole?  I'll grant it's slower speed is a downside, but no other chaos cruiser, regular, heavy, or grand, has that.

Apples to oranges. There are far fewer ways to employ a capital ship effectively than a heavy bolter or a lasgun. So, yes, if your fleet has the same type vessels in it it's probably going to perform or be used in a similar way. Form very much determines function here. You forget that three of those ships represent 3/5 of the line cruisers. You really think that when 3/5 of the line ships your fleet is built around are the same there's going to be a huge change in the tactics or composition?

Yeah, if it was 60% I might see your point, but Mars, Lunar, Tyrant, and Gothic only constitute 25% of known IN cruisers.  The US Navy and the British Navy during the Napoleonic Wars had 25% of their ships in common, and very different strategies on how to use them.


It's dealing with a single battlefleet and from the tidbits they've released, it doesn't say much different than BFG. I really wouldn't put stock in marketing tags; they're designed to make you think it's the most awesome thing ever.

I'm aware of that.  I write game reviews, so I cast a somewhat jaded eye on marketing in general.  And don't dismiss it because it only has a single battlefleet in it.  So does Blue Book, and everyone treats it as if it were the whole of IN. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 30, 2011, 08:08:46 PM
Quote
I don't notice the Reserve fleets rule making the Hades or Murder or Carnage slow and short ranged with +6 prows.
Yet another senseless half point. I'm guessing you are attempting to use this as proof for something. Not that it matters because no one takes any of the reserve chaos vessels regularly since they have that huge downside if they try special orders.

Quote
*points to it's str 6 torp launcher* It's doesn't fill an intended hole?  I'll grant it's slower speed is a downside, but no other chaos cruiser, regular, heavy, or grand, has that.

No dice. Chaos isn't the NO torpedo fleet, but it isn't one of their real strengths like with IN. There are several builds that grant chaos access to them. Heck, you can take a pack of infidels if you want backed up with a planet killer not to mention every chaos battleship has the option for torpedoes.

Quote
Yeah, if it was 60% I might see your point, but Mars, Lunar, Tyrant, and Gothic only constitute 25% of known IN cruisers.
What are you doing adding in grand cruisers, battle cruisers, and light cruisers to come up with that? None of those form the core of the fleet and none of those are listed as being extremely numerous.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 30, 2011, 09:09:37 PM
Yet another senseless half point. I'm guessing you are attempting to use this as proof for something. Not that it matters because no one takes any of the reserve chaos vessels regularly since they have that huge downside if they try special orders.

750 pts
3x daunt, 1 hades, 3x Cobra. 

Actually works pretty well, even on a 6x4 table. Works better with a Mercury but I get an extra two rerolls this way.

No dice. Chaos isn't the NO torpedo fleet, but it isn't one of their real strengths like with IN. There are several builds that grant chaos access to them. Heck, you can take a pack of infidels if you want backed up with a planet killer not to mention every chaos battleship has the option for torpedoes.

Let me turn that around then, and point out that IN isn't a NO AC list and that several IN ships have them.  I grant that Jovian is a poor choice for Bakka but I do feel it should be made official for some of the lists where it would make more sense.  Insisting that IN would never make such a ship anywhere because they're all driven toward big guns does not hold water.

What are you doing adding in grand cruisers, battle cruisers, and light cruisers to come up with that? None of those form the core of the fleet and none of those are listed as being extremely numerous.

They all count as cruisers.  And, IIRC, light cruisers outnumber regular cruisers by a significant margin, given their long range patrol and recon roles. 

Let me try some quick math for you: According to Bluebook, there are 600 odd Lunar's, the most common class, in Segmentum Obscuras.  There are approx 28k sectors in the Imperium, I believe someone mentioned.  Now, admittedly, they probably aren't divided evenly between segmentums, but purposes of mathematical simplicity, let's say they are. 

This means that 600 Lunars are divided among 5600 possible sector fleets in Segmentum Obscuras.  Only 11% of Imperial Sector fleets in this Segmentum have a lunar class, assuming they're distributed evenly.

So, what do the rest of them use?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 30, 2011, 09:18:29 PM
I wonder if GW employs a math and science team :)

I do hope the Jovian sees a list, just not Bakka.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 30, 2011, 09:43:25 PM
Quote
Actually works pretty well, even on a 6x4 table. Works better with a Mercury but I get an extra two rerolls this way.p/quote]
If it works so well, why aren't people taking them all the time? Because they are crippled by the SO rules that make them unreliable. This is especially true in your example since the Hades HAS to RO to be useful. Again, a useless discussion that has no relevance to the list at hand.


Quote
They all count as cruisers
Invalid. Battlecruisers are limited, grand cruisers are reserve fleets, and it is never mentioned that light cruisers are more prolific except in cases of attrition.  That points to the core of the fleets being a majority of line cruisers with some light cruisers. Really, why are we even talking about this?

Quote
So, what do the rest of them use?
Again a useless discussion since we don't have such information. Of course, seeing that the blue book also says a sector battlefleet tends toward 50-75 ships, you have to assume that there are far more than 600 lunars if you are going to have the numbers work at all and maintain that the lunar is the most numerous cruiser even if we figure that 95% of those ships are escorts.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 30, 2011, 10:02:04 PM
Yes, the reserves special rule in Bastions is interesting. However it doesn't make any real sense, and is too much of a negative.

Reason why in 'flawed ships' bastions fleet the reserve vessels simply have -1 ld, as their crews are either novice, or just don't know how to use the ancient technology.

I thought I read somewhere that there were ~20 lunars in battlefleet gothic. Which would make them much more numerous than any other line cruiser. (as I think every other one besides the dominator had no more than 5 or 6, dominator with 1)

That's besides any point. I'm going to start tallying everyones opinion of things in this fleet so that it's easier to read for nate/more convincing.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 30, 2011, 10:52:57 PM
If it works so well, why aren't people taking them all the time? Because they are crippled by the SO rules that make them unreliable. This is especially true in your example since the Hades HAS to RO to be useful. Again, a useless discussion that has no relevance to the list at hand.

Why would the Hades have to RO?  The Cobra squadron are the ones that would have to RO, and the 'unreliable' rule doesn't mean much for escorts. (when was the last time you had a crippled escort?)

Quote
So, what do the rest of them use?
Again a useless discussion since we don't have such information. Of course, seeing that the blue book also says a sector battlefleet tends toward 50-75 ships, you have to assume that there are far more than 600 lunars if you are going to have the numbers work at all and maintain that the lunar is the most numerous cruiser even if we figure that 95% of those ships are escorts.
[/quote]

Blue Book says there are six hundred, then there are six hundred.  After all, to suggest otherwise would invite in all sorts of Black Library/FFG fluff and god knows, we don't want that. 

Of course, at 11% it really could be the most common type of cruiser, with other types of local cruiser making up the bulk of IN.  Every forgeworld seems to have it's own ideas of what a warship should be (such as the Secutor class light cruiser peculiar to the Calixis Sector and the 'Voss Triumvate').


I thought I read somewhere that there were ~20 lunars in battlefleet gothic. Which would make them much more numerous than any other line cruiser. (as I think every other one besides the dominator had no more than 5 or 6, dominator with 1)

According to BB 20 Lunars took part in the Gothic War.  Not 20 Lunar's were part of Battlfleet Gothic.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 30, 2011, 11:14:55 PM
Quote
Why would the Hades have to RO?  The Cobra squadron are the ones that would have to RO, and the 'unreliable' rule doesn't mean much for escorts. (when was the last time you had a crippled escort?)

My mistake, for some reason I was thinking Styx when I posted. I guess you could just never use SO with the Hades, but that seems a bit obtuse when you'd have similar options available and when you'd probably need some AC. Besides, when was the last time you saw any of the chaos ships show up in an IN list outside of theoryhammer with any regularity?

Quote
Blue Book says there are six hundred, then there are six hundred.  After all, to suggest otherwise would invite in all sorts of Black Library/FFG fluff and god knows, we don't want that. 

Except that's not what the bluebook says. It says OVER 600 which could be anything from 601-8,000 or beyond. Of course without firm numbers this is all speculation but to reconcile the size of the typical sector fleet with with the lunar being most common and not resorting to the entire fleet being made up of escorts, there have to be quite a few more lunars than just 601. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 30, 2011, 11:47:10 PM
Except that's not what the bluebook says. It says OVER 600 which could be anything from 601-8,000 or beyond. Of course without firm numbers this is all speculation but to reconcile the size of the typical sector fleet with with the lunar being most common and not resorting to the entire fleet being made up of escorts, there have to be quite a few more lunars than just 601.  

Eh, it still implies less then 700.  Compare this with the issue that it took the Segmentum five thousand years to put together 500 Murder class cruisers, the Lunar's predecessor as most common Cruiser.  Given that the advantage of the Lunar is that it's easier to build and maintain then the Murder, the fact that they've been able to replace their stock and increase their number by 100 in half the time seems about right.


Besides, when was the last time you saw any of the chaos ships show up in an IN list outside of theoryhammer with any regularity?

(http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2010/5/3/102252_md-Battlefleet%20Gothic%2C%20Grand%20Cruiser%2C%20Imperial%20Navy%2C%20Repulsive.jpg)

Oh, I dunno, I could swear I've seen one around an IN fleet someplace...
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 30, 2011, 11:59:41 PM
Quote
Eh, it still implies less then 700.
Stop being obtuse. There is no means by which you can say it implies 700 or 800 or even 650. The fact is any number over 601 that you choose is speculation. However we can speculate it's far more than 700 if you accept that a sector fleet is generally 50-75 ships and that less than 90% of those ships are escorts.

Look around, I think in the last three years I've seen exactly one list posted that someone actually bothered to take a Chaos ship via reserve. In fact, since you happen to have one, how often does that ship make it to the table as an IN ship? Far more rare than your Long Serpent I'd wager.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 12:35:52 AM
Quote
Eh, it still implies less then 700.
Stop being obtuse. There is no means by which you can say it implies 700 or 800 or even 650. The fact is any number over 601 that you choose is speculation. However we can speculate it's far more than 700 if you accept that a sector fleet is generally 50-75 ships and that less than 90% of those ships are escorts.

Look around, I think in the last three years I've seen exactly one list posted that someone actually bothered to take a Chaos ship via reserve. In fact, since you happen to have one, how often does that ship make it to the table as an IN ship? Far more rare than your Long Serpent I'd wager.

I'm not being obtuse with this.  Stop and think: It took all the years between M32 and M37 to produce almost 500 Murders (not about, not more then, 'almost' 500) the ship that Lunar replaced as the most common and the mainstay of BFO.  That's 100 a millenia. I'd say that, by way of comparison, that nearly doubling thier rate of ship production was pretty good, considering that the Imperium is actually backsliding technologically.  

To produce enough for every sector in the segmentum to have 10, it would require that 18.6 be produced every year since thier creation in m38. While I'm sure tht the Lunar really is easir to build, it would have to be 186 times easier, which I doubt.

On the second part,

Actually, I tend to leave the Mercury on the 20x40 and don't really use it much on the 6x4.   On 6x4 my IN mainstays are an Armageddon list (which I'm working on revising now that I don't have to take Endeavours to get Defiants anymore), and the Reserve fleet list with the Repulsive (which may get altered again since I had done it to sort of represent a powerful Rogue Trader's personal fleet)


EDIT: Now that I guess IA 10 has made the Cardinal official without, you know, giving any stats for it, they just put it in a fleet list....  it might not be a bad ship for Bakka since Bakka seems to have a higher percentage of faster IN ships anyway.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 31, 2011, 01:36:04 AM
Quote
To produce enough for every sector in the segmentum to have 10, it would require that 18.6 be produced every year since thier creation in m38. While I'm sure tht the Lunar really is easir to build, it would have to be 186 times easier, which I doubt.

We really have no way to tell for sure. But if you think of it in terms of the Murder requiring most of it to be crafted by hand as seems the case with nearly lost older tech in the imperium, and the possibility that the Lunar could be assembled in a more automated fashion it could conceivably be far faster to construct the Lunar. It did only take 11 years to build the lord daros. Assuming they keep that rate up and the ship is representative of the most primitive environment, that planet alone could build around 300 ships in the time since the murder was phased out.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Eldanesh on January 31, 2011, 02:02:41 AM
@Nate
First of all: thank you for your answer. It helps a little bit to know how someone comes to his conclusions.

The problem I see is, that some rules already in existence are taken as “holy” even if they are already flawed. Let's take the “long range weapons for imps” as an example.
The IN  isn't intended to have a lot of longe range weaponary. That's fine. Each race needs specific traits.
So you could make (a) long range weapons a bit more expensive or (b) give them less of them per ship.
The mistake is that they did both. They made the weapons more expensive (OK, just 5 points, buts the idea), AND gave them less Firepower per hardpoint (most obvious at overlord and Ret). Add in the fact that batteries in general lose value in high ranges (rightshift) and these ships are strucked three times, when only one ne was intendend.
You often see this mistake in 40k codices or WhfB armybooks: some unit/equipment that was too strong that in the new book  it get worse rules and becomes more expensive – an become useless in the end.
Good example are Eldar starcannons: in 3rd. Edition codex almost every heavy Eldar weapon was a starcannon - in the current rules you hardly see a single one as it not only lost 1/3 of its power (heavy3 ? heavy2), but also became insanly expensive.

The “long range IN vessels” are, to some the degree, like the current starcannon: struck to hard by the negative aspects. Without doubt a tyrant would be a more popular vessel if there 45cm guns had S6 instead of S4 (even with a slight price increase of say 5points).

The reason I say this is simple: why should you repeat this mistake with “new” ships? It's always better to compare a design with popular and “working” designs instead with “broken” ones.
Never asked why almost everybody choose an Emperor over a Retribution, even after point swap?
OK, enough about this stuff back to some critic about V1.1

Please consider the following ideas as some kind of “brainstroming”-some suggestions may be completely opposed to each other. So this never intended as “change it in every aspect as I say”, it's more a “do it this way or another butchange it as the current status is disapointing”.


Fleet Defence turrent
I think this rule requires to much bookkeeping if used (“Lunar A equipped with 1 FDT, Gothic B with two). Also this option is to expensive to consider it for more than filling point gaps. If I have the option to buy 6 ftd turret or an additional cobra I would always choose the later.

So if it should be used you should make FTDs a) compulsory and b) less expensive.

My suggestion would be that you increase the price of all ships with 2 or more turrets by 5 points. (all with only one turret get the ftd for free) an all ships are equipped with 2 FTDs (or one)

Another idea is a complete rule change: simply allow all Ships in Battlefleet Bakka to use massed turrets while 5cm away from each other...


Domius Astra
The wording in the list is abit weird (it still speaks of 0-1 Emperors while ships doesn't appears anymore in the list).
I would suggest to remove any connections toregular Emperor battleships and make the Dominus Astra a real character ship instead:

Dominus Astra 570 Points
Stats of an Emperor Battleship, LD 10, 2 rerolls, assault boats, +1 to defend against bording
2 (yes two!!) fixed refits: perhaps secondary reactors an either a targetting matrix or motion-tracking targeters (as the ship “ripped through the bioships” before getting swarmed) an some nasty rule that guarantees that if this ship is blown up, it explodes with a real big bang (like  you never roll for catastrophic damage – it is always a warp drive implosion).
Use only in games oft 1500 points or more. And if you use it you can't have another Admiral of course.

Victory
It is sill inferior compared to an Retribution, which is already a substandard ship.
If you don't want to decrease points any further or up the weapons (dorsal battterys should be S9) how about increasing the speed to 25cm? The original idea of the victory was IIRC that of a “fast battleship”? This speed can be justified with the lack of weapons. Also on a fleel-level comparision the mercury gets more interesting if there is something that can follow her...
OR you can allow CTNH – a Battleship that is able to turn twice if not under fire is a tactical advantage that can compensate the lack of sheer power. (But OK, it's hard to justifiy unless you goo deeper in the “fast battleship” explanation)

Also I still hold the opinion that the torpedo Version should not be cheaper: it is right that a  Nc upgrade from S6 torps costs 20 points, but I always had the impression that the reason for this was simply to make it less appealing to players to avoid NC-Spam.
Also the NC rules have been altered since the bluebook that uses this 20 points. Today the Novacannon isn't nearly as fearsome as the “guess weapon” it was in the original rules.

Vanquisher
Undergunned, too slow for a gunship, overpriced and not even substandard range for a Battleship.
This beast has nothing to offer, so make it at least cheaper

Mercury
an 235P Armageddon with forced NC upgrade (+20P) that  trades S6@45cm guns for S4@60cm an 5cm speed and some dangerous special rule. IMOa bad deal because on a fleet level the improved speed only has a very limited value. (the main advantage is it can CTNH while under fire).

IMO this ship should be more appealing because otherwise you'll hardly see one: the armageddon is the better Gunship in fleet context and in general the “battlecruiser”-category is used up by the Mars and the Jovian, simply because this is where the players get their ACs from.

If you don't want to change cost and/or weapon loadout, just an idea: allow it without limitations. So you don't need to have 2 regular cruisers to force one, so there is no competition with the necessary carriers. You can justify it with the “fact” that the mercury seems to be a quite common sight ( 5 mentioned ships in the text).

Jovian
Same here as for Dominus Astra: make it a real “character ship” instead a “regular” ship class.
The reason is simply: only Character ships have 0-1 limitations.
Regular classes were never limited even if there have been very few ( despoiler – 3 ships built) or even consisted only of a single ship (Acheron).

And add a S3@45cm Broadside – this will end the whining about “pure” carriers and all hardspoints are used up :D

light cruisers
I you don't do it for the whole list at least all light cruisers should get the FTD-upgrade for free.

List summary:
the entry about Assault boats can be removed as the Emperor is gone.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 02:20:44 AM
Quote
To produce enough for every sector in the segmentum to have 10, it would require that 18.6 be produced every year since thier creation in m38. While I'm sure tht the Lunar really is easir to build, it would have to be 186 times easier, which I doubt.

We really have no way to tell for sure. But if you think of it in terms of the Murder requiring most of it to be crafted by hand as seems the case with nearly lost older tech in the imperium, and the possibility that the Lunar could be assembled in a more automated fashion it could conceivably be far faster to construct the Lunar. It did only take 11 years to build the lord daros. Assuming they keep that rate up and the ship is representative of the most primitive environment, that planet alone could build around 300 ships in the time since the murder was phased out.

It takes 28 million tonnes of refined metals to produce 1 lunar, according to official numbers.  However, given it's volume, this means that it has a density slightly less then styrofoam.  In reality it would be on the order of approx 1,000,000,000,000 tonnes if it's really made of metal, though this is an estimate, and probably not wholly accurate.  

As a comparison, the planet earth produces 1,400,000,000 tonnes of steel per year.  At this rate of metal production, it would take nearly 1k years to produce a Lunar. 

I'm still not sure how they made the Lord Daros, unless the metal ores on the planet were very nearly pure.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 31, 2011, 02:36:12 AM
Quote
I'm still not sure how they made the Lord Daros, unless the metal ores on the planet were very nearly pure.
Does it really matter? They did and it took 11 years and we know that the tribesmen had to smelt the metal before sending it up. That means the Imperium could feasibly have a very high number of lunars well above 600 produced in the time span.

Now if we could put this to rest and move back on topic.

With the FDT meant to make up for the lower ordnance in bakka, I think they need to be more attractive or built into the base stats of the ships if they are to accomplish the intended purpose or people will ignore them in favor of pulling the Jovian in under reserve rules. Part of the issue with them is that they are pretty easy to avoid once they've chosen a target to protect and by the wording it seems as if the vessel they are on wouldn't be able to use the turrets in their own defense either which could make a ships with them easier targets for AC.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 31, 2011, 02:51:25 AM
I like the idea of simply giving Bakka vessels +1 turret. Simple and easy.

You could possibly increase their cost by 5 pts, but I would delete the Jovian, and say 0-1 mars.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 02:57:04 AM
Quote
I'm still not sure how they made the Lord Daros, unless the metal ores on the planet were very nearly pure.
Does it really matter? They did and it took 11 years and we know that the tribesmen had to smelt the metal before sending it up. That means the Imperium could feasibly have a very high number of lunars well above 600 produced in the time span.

Yeah, but how did they transform the raw ingot into a finished product?  And if the planet was feral, how did they build the ship there in the first place?  Feral worlds arn't exactly known for thier shipyards.  And how did savages produce that much?  Pre-industrial mining only produced a few thousand tonnes of metal per year.  Even weird supermines like the gigantic strip mines of Sephris Secondus only produce 'billions' of tonnes of ore according to fluff.


Now if we could put this to rest and move back on topic.

With the FDT meant to make up for the lower ordnance in bakka, I think they need to be more attractive or built into the base stats of the ships if they are to accomplish the intended purpose or people will ignore them in favor of pulling the Jovian in under reserve rules. Part of the issue with them is that they are pretty easy to avoid once they've chosen a target to protect and by the wording it seems as if the vessel they are on wouldn't be able to use the turrets in their own defense either which could make a ships with them easier targets for AC.

The trick is to have the ships doing the boosting shielded by the ships getting boosted.  Remember that AC have to attack the first ship they come into B2B contact with.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 31, 2011, 03:18:09 AM
+1 turret is a great idea.  No increase, just very limited carriers.  It makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 03:29:42 AM
+1 turret is a great idea.  No increase, just very limited carriers.  It makes perfect sense.

Makes sense but isn't very effective though.  It means that most cruisers will still only have three turrets.  For keeping thawks from wiping out your escorts it would be good, since you could give escorts 6 turrets at that point.  For cruisers though it means that unless you keep huddling your escorts with them in b2b contact, they're still up a creek. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 31, 2011, 04:21:04 AM
+1 turret is a great idea.  No increase, just very limited carriers.  It makes perfect sense.

Makes sense but isn't very effective though.  It means that most cruisers will still only have three turrets.  For keeping thawks from wiping out your escorts it would be good, since you could give escorts 6 turrets at that point.  For cruisers though it means that unless you keep huddling your escorts with them in b2b contact, they're still up a creek. 

And this is a problem because?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 31, 2011, 04:27:04 AM
Quote
Yeah, but how did they transform the raw ingot into a finished product?  And if the planet was feral, how did they build the ship there in the first place?  Feral worlds arn't exactly known for thier shipyards.  And how did savages produce that much?  Pre-industrial mining only produced a few thousand tonnes of metal per year.  Even weird supermines like the gigantic strip mines of Sephris Secondus only produce 'billions' of tonnes of ore according to fluff.

It isn't detailed so it could be any number of methods that are pointless to speculate on. What's important is that it took 11 years in a feral world to bet one built.

Quote
The trick is to have the ships doing the boosting shielded by the ships getting boosted.  Remember that AC have to attack the first ship they come into B2B contact with

And you better believe that as soon as that first group of AC pulls the FDT into the attack, any other group is going to try as hard as possible to make sure the first base they hit is the one that doesn't have the turrets helping.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 31, 2011, 05:02:11 AM
I like the extra turret idea. I would simply let BF Bakka buy up to +1 turret per ship at +5 pts each. +1 turret is plenty big protection against AC. And no, Bakka should not be immune to AC as BI implies. They have access to some carriers, as well as reserves. It's enough.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 31, 2011, 05:05:08 AM
Id give it for free, with extreme ordnance limits.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 31, 2011, 05:16:40 AM
Not free since one can take Bakka ships as reserves.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 05:39:50 AM
And this is a problem because?

Well, if you like seeing your cruisers blown away by AC while they use guns to chew up your escorts, it's no problem at all.

And you better believe that as soon as that first group of AC pulls the FDT into the attack, any other group is going to try as hard as possible to make sure the first base they hit is the one that doesn't have the turrets helping.

You don't have to give every turret you have to the target.  Squadron your ships in base to base contact, with frigs in b2b contact with ships like grand cruisers or battleships.  Make sure to manuver so that nearby squadrons can keep supporting fire on one another.  

This effectively gives most BBs 8 or 9 turrets, most cruisers at least 6 as long as you keep in wedge formations and don't AAF.  Keep squadrons within 15 cm of each other so the squadron on either side can support if needed.  If you're depending on FDT, the only SO's you should ever use are LO, RO, and BFI.  Move forward in wedges and you'll steam roller ord dependent fleets.

Not free since one can take Bakka ships as reserves.

I'd give them it free too.  If the whole fleet isn't using them, it gets pretty diluted as anyone who's had an admech ship with them can tell you, so as reserves they really don't have the big impact you might think they would.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on January 31, 2011, 05:44:42 AM
BI, you're not ever supposed to be immune to ordnance. If you don't like AC, then ban it from your games, don't try to make a gunfleet not have to worry about AC at all.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 31, 2011, 05:55:41 AM
And this is a problem because?

Well, if you like seeing your cruisers blown away by AC while they use guns to chew up your escorts, it's no problem at all.

Not free since one can take Bakka ships as reserves.

I'd give them it free too.  If the whole fleet isn't using them, it gets pretty diluted as anyone who's had an admech ship with them can tell you, so as reserves they really don't have the big impact you might think they would.

As Sig points out, they shouldn't be immune. Giving them +1 turret for minimal points, not free, should be enough balance. It will be a big impact. For the price of an Escort, assuming at 5 points, that's 5-6 ships that will get an additional 1 turret each. Now how can that be not a big impact?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 31, 2011, 06:29:33 AM
I like the extra turret, but I think it needs to be part of the standard profile and pointed as appropriate in order for it to be taken. Bakka is supposed to be low AC and making added turret standard helps bludgeon people in that direction.

Quote
You don't have to give every turret you have to the target.  Squadron your ships in base to base contact, with frigs in b2b contact with ships like grand cruisers or battleships.  Make sure to manuver so that nearby squadrons can keep supporting fire on one another. 
Doesn't that slightly defeat the purpose of the FDT as it currently is though? It's supposed to be helping ships within 15cm to give the effect of B2b without needing to be in base to base so you can boost your AC defenses where needed. It's a bad rule if you pay points for something you could already accomplish better with the existing turret massing rules. Limiting the turrets to one designated ship per turn means that the 15cm "range" is unnecessary since you will mass turrets anyway and at that point why are you paying for the turret anyway? It needs the restriction on a single designated ship removed if the HA keeps on with the current rule.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 06:36:33 AM
BI, you're not ever supposed to be immune to ordnance. If you don't like AC, then ban it from your games, don't try to make a gunfleet not have to worry about AC at all.

Sig, what would you suggest?  Adding turrets causes the exact same problem thanks to the turret massing rules.  Adding a bonus to WB to hit ord would be next to useless if the launching ship just closes to 20 or 30 cm, depending on what it's using.  Adding the Jovian seems to inspire fanrage the likes of which I haven't seen outside the Marvel Forums when Spiderman sold his marriage to Mephisto.  If the Mars got a bonus to fighters on CAP, again, we run into the problem if it being reserved into other fleets.  


As Sig points out, they shouldn't be immune. Giving them +1 turret for minimal points, not free, should be enough balance. It will be a big impact. For the price of an Escort, assuming at 5 points, that's 5-6 ships that will get an additional 1 turret each. Now how can that be not a big impact?

What's immunity to Bombers worth?  Give any IN cruiser +1 turret and mass turrets and it's immune.  Make it so they can't mass turrets and you end up with dead escorts.


Doesn't that slightly defeat the purpose of the FDT as it currently is though? It's supposed to be helping ships within 15cm to give the effect of B2b without needing to be in base to base so you can boost your AC defenses where needed. It's a bad rule if you pay points for something you could already accomplish better with the existing turret massing rules. Limiting the turrets to one designated ship per turn means that the 15cm "range" is unnecessary since you will mass turrets anyway and at that point why are you paying for the turret anyway? It needs the restriction on a single designated ship removed if the HA keeps on with the current rule.


Vaaish, I think you missed what I was doing.  I was massing turrets and THEN applying the bonus from FDT on top THAT that bonus.  As a very extreme example, Dominus Astra would be the target, that would be 12 turrets if it was massing with three frigs, assuming that it got the entire FDT bonus.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 31, 2011, 06:40:22 AM
As Sig points out, they shouldn't be immune. Giving them +1 turret for minimal points, not free, should be enough balance. It will be a big impact. For the price of an Escort, assuming at 5 points, that's 5-6 ships that will get an additional 1 turret each. Now how can that be not a big impact?

What's immunity to Bombers worth?  Give any IN cruiser +1 turret and mass turrets and it's immune.  Make it so they can't mass turrets and you end up with dead escorts.


Massing turrets does not make the cruiser immune. It gives them additional attacks against AC counters but when it comes to the bombers attacking the ships, it still defaults to the turrets on the target ship. That doesn't make them immune.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 31, 2011, 06:41:57 AM
^what artagnan said.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 07:02:17 AM
^what artagnan said.

I was about to say something witty, but then an idea occurred to me: You know, this fleet has nearly nothing to stop turret suppression and is also vulnerable to torp bombers, and nothing we've really discussed will do anything about that.  
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 31, 2011, 07:08:52 AM
First of all, people take torp bombers?


Torp bombers are better against higher turret entities than regular bombers, but adding a turret to every ship should still help them against these.

Turret suppression isn't that great. It only really helps against ships with 4+ turrets. Even then its only a really solid benefit against 5 and 6. Most people don't think of doing it unless they specifically intend to attack a Battleship. Which usually they wont do unless its the only ship left of their enemy.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 31, 2011, 07:19:38 AM
^what artagnan said.

I was about to say something witty, but then an idea occurred to me: You know, this fleet has nearly nothing to stop turret suppression and is also vulnerable to torp bombers, and nothing we've really discussed will do anything about that.  

And how do you figure that?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 07:33:09 AM
First of all, people take torp bombers?


Torp bombers are better against higher turret entities than regular bombers, but adding a turret to every ship should still help them against these.

Turret suppression isn't that great. It only really helps against ships with 4+ turrets. Even then its only a really solid benefit against 5 and 6. Most people don't think of doing it unless they specifically intend to attack a Battleship. Which usually they wont do unless its the only ship left of their enemy.

... there are people that don't?  Hell, every IN/SM carrier based list I've seen in the last three months that didn't revolve around thawks had torp bombers.  

I think that it would probably occur to people that a fleet who's primary defense against AC is jacking turrets up to plaid might be a good place to use turret suppression.  After all: "Each fighter in a wave of bombers actually attacking a ship will add +1 attack to the total attack runs of the wave, regardless of whether they are shot down by turrets or not. The maximum number of bonus attacks that can be added in this way cannot exceed the number of surviving bombers in the wave."

And how do you figure that?

Simple.  The usual way to prevent turret suppression is fighters on CAP.  But Bakka is so LB poor that any ships with LBs are going to have big targets painted on them.  Once you eliminate what little CAP is possible, just start sending in the clowns.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 31, 2011, 07:39:03 AM
Guess it must just be a metagame thing. Most people I know would rather have more carriers than ones with better ordinance.

Wait... did you say IN AC fleet? I've never heard of such a thing! Every IN list I've ever heard of uses them nearly only defensively.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 07:52:31 AM
Guess it must just be a metagame thing. Most people I know would rather have more carriers than ones with better ordinance.

Wait... did you say IN AC fleet? I've never heard of such a thing! Every IN list I've ever heard of uses them nearly only defensively.

Public Enemy 
(http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2010/5/3/102245_md-Battlefleet%20Gothic%2C%20Cruiser%2C%20Dictator%2C%20Imperial%20Navy.jpg)
Number 1

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on January 31, 2011, 08:34:06 AM
And how do you figure that?

Simple.  The usual way to prevent turret suppression is fighters on CAP.  But Bakka is so LB poor that any ships with LBs are going to have big targets painted on them.  Once you eliminate what little CAP is possible, just start sending in the clowns.

But you are adding turrets in and then they can assist each other by massing turrets which you just awhile ago claim makes them immune. So now that ships can get an extra turret and then also ships can lend their turrets to help shoot down the incoming ordnance, I think that ships can actively defend themselves against incoming ordnance. And while true that carriers will be a priority target, you can use positioning to protect carriers.

Now I wouldn't mind Bakka ships also getting an left column shift to hit ordnance with their WBs which was suggested or an improved 5+ to destroy ordnance instead of 6+ when using direct fire weapons.

Those two or three improvements I think should be enough to give Bakka ships the protection against ordnance that they need.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 31, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
Baron... where are you from. You have the strangest metagame/table size that I've ever heard of, and your love for Bakka is astounding.

I don't think anyone has proclaimed so much excitement for this lists existence as you. Me, certainly I think its decent, however the HA like to mimic the past way too much.... I think they should've left this in the cold earth that it came from. Built something from scratch.

Then again, I only really like the Vanquisher, the Siluria and Havoc are decent additions too, although I think that they could be made more fluffy/unique.

The Mercury is... just... too far flung from IN designs. I could see a heavy fp IN cruiser with improved thrusters (like the Ignus), but this is just... weird.... radically different from any sort of logic. I imagine the Tech-Preist that came up with the idea for it was already mad.

The Jovian. Although it's fine, Valhallan had a point in my thread... it would never compare to the exorcist (in that world) without being too uniform with standard IN designs. Baron, honestly why do you want this vessel? Is it because you like LBs? Or is it just because of the unique nature of the vessel? Or like your SM lance argument, that it adds some variety to the fleet?

I really detest the reserve rules, as they are ridiculously confusing to interpret, and destroy almost all restrictions across sector fleets. The Jovian shouldn't be a reserve in this list, as it is an active vessel. It is dumb that it has to be listed as reserves just so that people can't take it elsewhere. Retroactive approach on rules...

If you look at 'flawed ships' you can see a more sensible way to do reserves/allies. Basically if agreed by your opponent, you can spend up to 1/3 of your points on another fleet list. Working exactly the same as if you were building a fleet that was only 1/3 the size from that fleetlist.

No sense in the 'I need three of this to get that' making all-too-typical ratios. I can't believe how confusing allying/reserving in general has become with all these documents. And I just can't believe that it was made into an 'always allowed' rule by the HA. There is no disadvantage even to doing it. I would at least say that the reserve vessels can't use FC re-rolls.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 31, 2011, 09:13:03 AM
I've never seen an IN list that uses torpedo bombers.

Also, turret suppression is flat useless against T3 or less. Pure Bombers will average equal or more hits in every instance. Against T4 even waves of 8 with 5 fighters (reduced to 3 by shooting) and 3 bombers only do 4.5 attacks on average. That's not something that needs to be buffed, even in BF Bakka. Against T5, why are you even bothering with bombers?

So there's no point buffing the turret suppression mechanic - against the only targets it works against it's pitifully weak anyway.

Against all other ordnance, a flat turret boost would work.

And BaronI, why does this bother you so much? You clearly play such non-standard games already that no official list is going to change it for you.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
And BaronI, why does this bother you so much? You clearly play such non-standard games already that no official list is going to change it for you.

Two reasons.  One, playing non-standard has made my skills rusty.  With some discussion, we've abandoned the super board as of his week in favor of moving to 'standard'.  Which is good, since I've been trying to herd them in that direction for about six months now, so that we can re-enter the tourny scene.

Two, I found out our convention bans end this year!

Baron... where are you from. You have the strangest metagame/table size that I've ever heard of, and your love for Bakka is astounding.

I don't think anyone has proclaimed so much excitement for this lists existence as you. Me, certainly I think its decent, however the HA like to mimic the past way too much.... I think they should've left this in the cold earth that it came from. Built something from scratch.

Then again, I only really like the Vanquisher, the Siluria and Havoc are decent additions too, although I think that they could be made more fluffy/unique.

The Mercury is... just... too far flung from IN designs. I could see a heavy fp IN cruiser with improved thrusters (like the Ignus), but this is just... weird.... radically different from any sort of logic. I imagine the Tech-Preist that came up with the idea for it was already mad.

The Jovian. Although it's fine, Valhallan had a point in my thread... it would never compare to the exorcist (in that world) without being too uniform with standard IN designs. Baron, honestly why do you want this vessel? Is it because you like LBs? Or is it just because of the unique nature of the vessel? Or like your SM lance argument, that it adds some variety to the fleet?

I really detest the reserve rules, as they are ridiculously confusing to interpret, and destroy almost all restrictions across sector fleets. The Jovian shouldn't be a reserve in this list, as it is an active vessel. It is dumb that it has to be listed as reserves just so that people can't take it elsewhere. Retroactive approach on rules...

If you look at 'flawed ships' you can see a more sensible way to do reserves/allies. Basically if agreed by your opponent, you can spend up to 1/3 of your points on another fleet list. Working exactly the same as if you were building a fleet that was only 1/3 the size from that fleetlist.

No sense in the 'I need three of this to get that' making all-too-typical ratios. I can't believe how confusing allying/reserving in general has become with all these documents. And I just can't believe that it was made into an 'always allowed' rule by the HA. There is no disadvantage even to doing it. I would at least say that the reserve vessels can't use FC re-rolls.


Western NY/PA.

I'd like to see the Jovian because it would freshen up IN tactics.  Most successful players have been playing canned IN builds for years without a whole lot variation.  I hate to say it, but all someone has to do is get their ships out of the box and you probably have a pretty good idea of what they're going to do play wise.  

I do like the mini itself.  It's very nice looking and I think would be fun to paint.  While I do like LBs, they're not as key on the small table as they are on the large.  I would, however, like to see an AC IN list.  It's the only IN list we don't have at the moment, without adding SM ships.  

Why I'm excited about Bakka:

One, I've enjoyed that fast, shooty version of IN for years, and enjoy playing this fleet that way.  A lot of people have insisted i should play chaos instead, but it does not have the same 'feel'.  (though I will miss the Cardinal and Enforcer for balance reasons, and the Invincible for reasons of the expression on my opponents face when I CTNH, I think I can make it work as is.)

Two: There is a list.  There are names on this list.  I'm told some still play BFG and 40k at tournies and cons.  I doubt they'll remember me, the guy with the 'inferior' 'shitty' 'worthless' ships that pounded their fleets ball bags in, only to have them rob me of the prize that was rightfully mine, despite my list being 'unoffical'.  

There will be no escape this time, no going back on agreeing to rules just because they lost.  My dishonor during the 13th Black Crusade WILL be avenged!

The HA making Bakka official will make revenge all the sweeter as I crush them like bugs with the very 'worthless' fleet I wielded then!

Achem, sorry, started ranting:

Basically I had been slowly drifting away from BFG for years following being more or less robbed (and banned) at a tourney, then about two or three years ago, I saw one of those same asshats at Gencon pull a similar routine on a friend of mine in a 40k match, claiming that some of her minis were not sufficiently GW IP and she should be disqualified. (which incident led to our banning there too, though I did nothing)

The local gaming club took up Rogue Trader and asked to use my mega apoc gaming table for their games.  So we created a sort of modded BFG for them, and found it was sort of fun to play a system wide conflict rather then a brawl in a box.  

However, something kept bugging me, so I've been getting back into it more since then, going to the few groups that I've found still in the area and playing against them, and discovering that my knowledge of the rules was rusty from years of disuse, not knowing FAQs, and playing house rules during my banishment.  

Which, as some of you have seen in my occasional arguments with D'Art and sig, is a serious disadvantage, causing me to have to recheck the PDF again and again, since my book copy is old and I misremember rules on occasion.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on January 31, 2011, 01:23:04 PM
Why on and how where you robbed in the bfg tournament?
Did you throw a ship of the table?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 31, 2011, 02:16:16 PM
Quote
Vaaish, I think you missed what I was doing.  I was massing turrets and THEN applying the bonus from FDT on top THAT that bonus.  As a very extreme example, Dominus Astra would be the target, that would be 12 turrets if it was massing with three frigs, assuming that it got the entire FDT bonus.

I don't think this works quite how you were thinking. With massing you only get one turret per ship in b2b with a max of +3 turrets. I guess you could argue that FDT can be added on top of the massing but again, that kind of defeats the purpose of NOT having to be in b2b to use the turrets. If you aren't gaining much benefit over the current rules, why bother at all or why not just have them only be used in base to base?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on January 31, 2011, 03:32:05 PM
massing turrets still defaults to the profile when calculating bomber attacks. FDT's are special in that they 'move' a given turret to a ship w/in 15cm thus fdts do reduce bomber attacks.

i think this is how it goes down for bakka:
bombers = dandruff.
aboats in large waves (ie nids) cause a serious problem.
lots of torps causes issues as well.
if bakka wants to get torps off... they'd better focus on bringing as many salvos as possible, at least 1 full squadron of cobras/vipers in a 1500, probably 2.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on January 31, 2011, 04:11:43 PM
So FDTs do more damage to bombers - which certainly don't need a nerf, and not much to the actual ordnance threat they face - nid assault boats.

Honestly, is there anything right with FDTs at all?

Just give bakka a left column shift against ordnance and an optional etra turret purchase.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on January 31, 2011, 05:27:00 PM
Quote
massing turrets still defaults to the profile when calculating bomber attacks. FDT's are special in that they 'move' a given turret to a ship w/in 15cm thus fdts do reduce bomber attacks.
I realize that, I was under the impression he was putting the frigates with FDT in b2b with the battleship to gain both turret massing and the bonus to reduce bomber rolls.

Quote
Honestly, is there anything right with FDTs at all?
Not much. There seems to be too many holes in the concept when it's applied on a fleet scale rather than a one of upgrade like with admech due to the much higher book keeping and the cost to benefits.



Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on January 31, 2011, 05:34:48 PM
I think a free turret would be the way to go, with the caveat 'If taken as reserves, increase cost of capital ships by 10 and escorts by 5' or some such.  Take away Jovian and save it for another segmentum, and limit mars.  No Emperor.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on January 31, 2011, 06:46:20 PM
Why on and how where you robbed in the bfg tournament?
Did you throw a ship of the table?


Well...a ship *did* leave the table, but probably not how you're thinking...

Bakka was permitted 'with opponent consent'.  Two of them had consented without a judge present, and then said they never consented, after loosing.  Normally this wouldn't have flown, but the judge they had disqualify me was one of the players brother in law, which I didn't know at the time.  Mind you, my... rather spur of the moment response to this was probably also unsportsmanlike.  I suppose it didn't help that one of them had spent most of the first two turns telling me what a stupid player I was to play such a shitty list, then did this when he lost.

BTW: a well pinned Emp can give you two good swings to the head before breaking.  So, mini makers, always pin your battleships rather then use greenstuff and gorilla glue.  You never know when you'll need the extra strength. 



massing turrets still defaults to the profile when calculating bomber attacks. FDT's are special in that they 'move' a given turret to a ship w/in 15cm thus fdts do reduce bomber attacks.

i think this is how it goes down for bakka:
bombers = dandruff.
aboats in large waves (ie nids) cause a serious problem.
lots of torps causes issues as well.
if bakka wants to get torps off... they'd better focus on bringing as many salvos as possible, at least 1 full squadron of cobras/vipers in a 1500, probably 2.



Hmm... the aboat wave didn't occur to me.  I was thinking more about a Tau Explorer based fleet hitting it with 45 lbs worth of fighters and bombers (which would equal some serious dandruff) 

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 31, 2011, 10:49:02 PM
It really is starting to seem like we are going nowhere fast with this.

Is there anything we can -agree- on?

Aside from scrapping the list and starting over.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 31, 2011, 10:53:33 PM
It really is starting to seem like we are going nowhere fast with this.

Is there anything we can -agree- on?

Aside from scrapping the list and starting over.

Yes. That is agreeable.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on January 31, 2011, 11:29:40 PM
...sooo the only thing we can come to an agreement on is that we do -not- like this list.  Should we work on a different sector instead?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on January 31, 2011, 11:34:20 PM
zel. yes.

however. bakka is happening/happened. nate said he's done with discussion and will probably just read what we have to say...or not...
this whole bakkan debacle is well... a 'for kicks' list. i don't think of it as serious, but fun to play with some friends. no more, no less. I do believe (as above) that we as a community should just work on own versions of some other sector... or just another navy in general.

but yes.... we aren't going anywhere... so i guess... "if you were to make an imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?"
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 31, 2011, 11:35:51 PM
Vote Count.... (basically) Black means yes, orange means apathetic/other option, red means no. Tried to keep as good of track as I could, sorry if I screwed something up. Teal means 'with vengeance'.

Delete FDTs [Vaaish, Plaxor, Sigoroth, RCgothic valhallan
Vanquisher 300 (or less) pts [RCgothic, Plaxor, Sigoroth, Eldanesh
Victory 330 pts: [RCgothic, Plaxor, Vaaish, Eldanesh Valhallan
Delete Jovian: [Admiral D, Horizon, Valhallan, Zelnik, lastspartacus, Plaxor, Sigoroth, BaronI]
Add Dominion: [Plaxor, Horizon, Valhallan, RCgothic, Sigoroth, Zelnik]
Vanquisher 20cm speed: [Valhallan, Plaxor, RCgothic]
+1 Turrets (possible increased cost): [Sigoroth, Plaxor, Rcgothic, Valhallan, Zelnik]

Delete Victory: [Plaxor, Zelnik]
Vanquisher somewhere else: [Zelnik... Plaxor]
Delete Mercury: [Zelnik, Plaxor]

Add Ignus [Plaxor]

Ham Sandwich [Plaxor, Sigoroth, Horizon, Zelnik]
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on January 31, 2011, 11:38:21 PM
...sooo the only thing we can come to an agreement on is that we do -not- like this list.  Should we work on a different sector instead?

Lol yes. BaronI is the only one who really solidly likes it. I kinda like it because it would allow some official way to play my 'Tartanus fleet' which is quite similar to this one.

Tell me about Tartanus. :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 01, 2011, 12:34:27 AM
Allow me to clarify my position on your little chart, Plaxor.

Vanquisher: should not be in the list in the first place
Victory: should not exist period.
Delete Jovian: With a vengeance
Torps on Mercury: The ship should not exist. If it was going to be shoehorned, it should never have a nova cannon
add dominion: whut?
+1 turret: absolutely not. That's another admech benefit, and giving it away willy-nilly would be a fantastic way to reduce the desire to play it.

SO aside from the insane babbling of Baron I,  and the pseudo insane babbling of you plaxor ;)... Everyone here wants to create something else.


DID YOU HEAR THAT, NATE??
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on February 01, 2011, 01:01:10 AM
apathy...hehe

clarifying my vote. I'm fine with the vicky prolly will never use one though i did magnetize my BB just in case ;). vanquisher at 300 is my vote.

delete jovian add dominion.

complete apathy on anything FDT/extra turret related as long as you can't reserve from the list [ie bakka isolation]. (this will probably change as i've mentioned before, but unless someone wants to do my partial dif eq test for me its gonna take a while).

and to answer my own previous question: what imp ships to be made legal? PLAX'S IMP SHIPS DOC! (c'mon 210 dictator!) as well as the Revelation (or i think the admiral called it the dragon on the port) the gothic CB.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 01, 2011, 01:08:17 AM
All right Zelnik, but one question.... what color is 'with a vengeance'?

I get the feeling it's teal, as that is what Sig always uses. Everything he says is 'with vengeance'.

Also I agree with Valhallan. My ship doc is the best.

210 pt dictators and etc won't happen. Nate has already declared that they despise power creep, and think that making every bad ship better would ultimately end this way.

Sig came with his rebuttal, which basically said that you either make the good ships worse, or the bad ships better.

There are few ships which are honestly OP, most are just 'good'. The two considered OP were the Devestation and Hero. The ones considered fine were in the majority, then every other was brought in line with those. It's a lot easier to make the bad things better than the good things worse, as most people can agree on this system.

In fact it is what causes GW good sales when they release a new codex.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 01, 2011, 01:25:24 AM
Oh and as a thought, I'm rather surprised that the HA don't adopt this philosophy. So long as all the ships are kept balanced, and are reviewed by a lot of people, then you will increase your sales significantly, while people buy models that they always considered useless.

That is ultimately what we're looking for, to increase GWs sales to that they'll get keen to bfg and update rules/add new models.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 01, 2011, 02:29:09 AM
Possibly because there are other motives at play here.  Even if they are respected members of the community, they are still human.  This means they have their own axes to grind.

I expect that this has a lot to do with "I really want this, and so do my friends.  I have the power, I am doing it". 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 01, 2011, 02:36:22 AM
Possibly because there are other motives at play here.  Even if they are respected members of the community, they are still human.  This means they have their own axes to grind.

I expect that this has a lot to do with "I really want this, and so do my friends.  I have the power, I am doing it". 

I do think that this does exist somewhat in the HA's mind. I'm certain that Nate owns several of these 'types' of vessels. Which is why there is such a limitation in changing things. Honestly we could delete half the fluff behind this bakka list, and no one would notice. Change it to things that make sense.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 01, 2011, 02:53:51 AM
We could probably delete "bakka" and replace it with "Ham sandwich". 

Again, the utter unrelenting nature of his responses clearly suggests this is a pet project for at least ONE of the HA. I know this from experience in regards to the Diasporex Nomads list.

The only issue with such an unrelenting attitude is that this fleet really has no place, nor is there a demand for it! We could be spending our time far more constructively by trying to produce a hero ship for the Dark Eldar or making nids more appealing to new players.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on February 01, 2011, 03:30:53 AM
Easy answer.  Delete instinctive behavior clutter.  Ships outside synapse range cant attempt RO.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on February 01, 2011, 03:35:34 AM
Let me clarify on the chart as well.

Vanquisher: no opinion
Victory: no opinion
Delete Jovian: In another fleet list, its a cool ship.  Never ever in Bakka.
Torps on Mercury: A fast nova cannon ship is wierd, in an ugly sister way.  Torps, no reason not to.
+1 turret: Best solution.  Saying that makes it too similar to admech is false, for all the various reasons.
Ok, I'll list them, since I'm sure they apparently aren't obvious.  Dorsal lances.  Leadership.  Boarding.  Refits.  Nova cannons.  Specialist torpedoes.
Increased gunnery range. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 01, 2011, 03:42:38 AM
We could probably delete "bakka" and replace it with "Ham sandwich". 

That would probably be more useful/valued by the Gothic community.

Quote
Again, the utter unrelenting nature of his responses clearly suggests this is a pet project for at least ONE of the HA. I know this from experience in regards to the Diasporex Nomads list.

Is that your pet project?
Lets see... peoples pet project lists;

Horizon.... MMS
Xisor.... Demiurg
Plaxor.... Tartanus (and maelstrom fleets)

Quite a few in actuality.

Quote
The only issue with such an unrelenting attitude is that this fleet really has no place, nor is there a demand for it! We could be spending our time far more constructively by trying to produce a hero ship for the Dark Eldar or making nids more appealing to new players.

Yes, but Nate keeps saying the HA has its hands tied for a lot of things. He says they can't change armada fleets, but then they did SMs?

Dark Eldar in 'FS' (hopefully people know what that means now) have a CL and are able to upgrade their fleet commanders Torture to a GC (+2 hits, and can select an additional weapons system). Basically the closest that we could get to a GC without killing the fluff.

Nids... I think they're fine. I built a nid fleet at some point, then ebayed it... people will buy the converted models for double retail (out of gaunts and whatnot).

I've known two others who converted out a fleet. The nids are interesting enough so long as they have their upgrades. However they do get a bit OP. They are the easiest things to convert in the world.

Overall they just need a rebalance. Multiple upgrades should get more expensive as you buy them (I.e. extra spore cysts costing 10 for the first, and 15 for the second etc.)

'FS' ruleset fixes the immune to bombers problem. Which should help deal with the monstrosity.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 01, 2011, 03:55:56 AM
Yes, I was the primary writer for the book of the Void.. it was the only book to come out of the ill fated BFG project too. 

The whole cast of those responsible can be seen in the pdf itself.

I think the big difference is that I actually got it done and released ;)

Either way. Leave the comments about other fleets to their appropriate forums. 

That is a good point about the space marines. It would help if he told us the -exact- parameters of what we could, or could not change.

Also, a little impartiality would be nice too.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 01, 2011, 04:18:31 AM
You mean Chronicles?

Ah. Yes. Things like this fall apart easily. Looks good.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on February 01, 2011, 08:17:55 AM
Chronciles died. Now Maverick's email account is sending me spam...

MMS = Sigoroth + Horizon to be honest.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 01, 2011, 09:03:15 AM
Yes, but I thought you adopted it from Sig?

The owner of the 'pet' is the one who holds the key to its changes. :)

I didn't think that Chonicles was that great of an idea... I mean... it was an interesting complaint that BFG doesn't cover everywhere. However it does allow for something similar to how privateer press does releases. If you aren't familiar, they do a new book every year with a few new models for each faction.


In BFG this idealogy could be done similarly. Every year you release a 'book' focusing on a different war. Even now it is set up for it, and has done it in the past. One of my hopes is to continue this trend through 'FS'.

Here:
BBB ---> Focuses on Gothic war
Armada ---> 13th black crusade/battle for armageddon
Nemesis*---> Pirate war in tempestus
Tartanus**---> Rogue Trader war near the Ghoul Stars

*unnoficial, and won't be fully part of FS
** Not written yet, and may be called something else. Likely release will be late summer/fall.

These could be continued upon. Lets say there could be a book based around the Battle for Maccrage, with an alternate nid fleet, Bakka, and even a Ultramarine fleet.

One note that I was thinking of, was that Eldar Heroes in FS will make reserve corsair/cwe ships not count as reserves when taken in either fleet. Meaning that they wouldn't get the -1 ld, but that's for another place.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on February 01, 2011, 09:18:08 AM
All right Zelnik, but one question.... what color is 'with a vengeance'?

I get the feeling it's teal, as that is what Sig always uses. Everything he says is 'with vengeance'.

Lol (with a vengeance).

We could probably delete "bakka" and replace it with "Ham sandwich". 

Wow. I have no idea why this hadn't been thought of before. It's brilliant. Mmmm. Hammmm.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: horizon on February 01, 2011, 09:20:36 AM
Well,
Sigoroth's main idea, I made the pdf. We developed it further. After v1.3 iirc Sigoroth was less present on the net so I asked if I could take it all over (thus without discussing changes with him first as he had last say). He was cool with that.
From v1.8 on Sigoroth did keep commenting on it and all and I still value his input higher then others on it. Not because he is right persé, but it are "his" rules in a way. heheh.



Chronicles failed because of the megalomaniac personality of the project leader. In the time Reg did it the project was already lost (everyone dropped out).

The inititial idea was great. Back on port maw Maverick started the Segmentum Tempestus idea. A book dealing with the war within one sector. Lot of people worked in. Lot of work done, Vaais did main layout stuff and all. Most/everyone agreed on main story line. Alas Maverick scracthed things numerous times. Then he completely removed the project... :/
Started chronicles. I kept warning him that it was too large in scale. Focus on a sector with a few factions is much better,

Alas...


warning.
yes Ham Sanwich is cool. It has my vote as well.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 01, 2011, 09:49:52 AM
You build in pieces. Yes... Megalomania... I too understand this wanting to do more than you can handle.

Simplicity, steal other peoples work and include it in your own set of rules! Muahahahaha!

Updated the list to account for proposition 'Ham Sandwich'.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on February 01, 2011, 10:24:47 AM

Delete FDTs: Delete.
Vanquisher 300 (or less) pts: 290 with +5 speed, 280 otherwise. Either way, that's a yes.
Victory 330 pts: Yup. It has less firepower than the Retribution overall, and a more conflicted role.
Delete Jovian: Also Delete with a Vengeance.
Add Dominion: I'm actually indifferent.
Vanquisher 20cm speed: Hell yes. If that means all 45cm range, so be it.
+1 Turrets (possible increased cost): Yup.

Delete Victory: Nope.
Vanquisher somewhere else: Indifferent.
Delete Mercury: With a vengeance. +5cm speed is no compensation for its awful firepower, conflicted role and horrible firebomb rules.

Add Ignus: Indifferent.

Ham Sandwich: Come on guys, let's take this seriously. Nope.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 01, 2011, 10:28:06 AM
Lol, 'Ham Sandwich' is something to see if Nate is listening. He hasn't been around in a while.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on February 01, 2011, 11:14:50 AM
I hope the HA's don't take threads like this where we really don't like their list to heart.

Apart from pointing out some slightly vague wording, I had nothing bad to say about the new ork list at all! Seemed really awesome.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 01, 2011, 04:55:35 PM
I hope they understand that too. I love all the other lists, BUT this one.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 01, 2011, 08:23:40 PM
I like the SM, Tau, and Rogue Trader list (actually love the RTs)

Don't like this one or the chaos one....

The Ork one is just.... radically different from anything. I never liked the idea of clans affecting actual ship performance. The only thing that should be different about the clans is preference in what they purchase. I mean we don't have rules for Chaos Legions or SM chapters!

Alas, it's an all right document, just confusing and built adding expensive upgrades to an already poor fleet.

The Inquisition one is a good idea. I just think that they went too complicated with it. It makes it quite hard to play with most of the upgrades in one off games. Like Daemonhunters/witchunters in 40k, where over half the upgrades are useless unless you're playing against psykers or chaos or daemons or an army from 8 years ago....
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Valhallan on February 01, 2011, 09:51:26 PM
BF bakka will make a great fluff fleet for anyone (like me) who's gonna GM a bfg game. and maybe fun for throwaway games.

I already ate the ham sandwich, so case closed.

Battlefleet Ultramar sounds fun. ac, NC, fleet specific nids. ugly dudes in baby blue pretending they're tough...
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 01, 2011, 10:37:50 PM
So, now that Battlefleet bakka has been renamed "Battlefleet Ham Sandwich"

Let us discuss it's list.

Bread
1-2.  If only one slice of bread is present, the sandwich is "open faced"

Ham
The sandwich may have unlimited numbers of Ham, but must have at least one ham present.

Mustard
0-1.

Mayonnaise
0-1. May not be taken if mustard is present.

Vegitables.
The sandwich may have any numbers of standard sandwich aligned vegetables (Onion, lettuce, green peppers). It may have one non-sandwich aligned vegetables for every three standard pieces of vegetable.

One drink may be had with the fleet. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on February 01, 2011, 10:40:29 PM
Which was the one that had more readily accesable grand cruisers?  I thought it was Bakka but I cant see it now that they even allow any, for some reason?

What area fleets are left to be covered, and what is the 'niche' of the currents?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 01, 2011, 10:49:26 PM
Either battlefleet Hydraphur (which is where they were made) or Cypra Mundi.

I have been pushing a fleet that focuses on grand cruisers for a while. They need a boost, and it would give us a chance to make the Governor, another long lasting and well balanced ship, legit.

Also it would give us a chance to actually make the "Charybdis" class grand cruiser, so the new FW grand cruiser would have some sort of basis in the game.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Sigoroth on February 02, 2011, 01:44:42 AM
So, now that Battlefleet bakka has been renamed "Battlefleet Ham Sandwich"

Let us discuss it's list.

Bread
1-2.  If only one slice of bread is present, the sandwich is "open faced"

Ham
The sandwich may have unlimited numbers of Ham, but must have at least one ham present.

Mustard
0-1.

Mayonnaise
0-1. May not be taken if mustard is present.

Vegitables.
The sandwich may have any numbers of standard sandwich aligned vegetables (Onion, lettuce, green peppers). It may have one non-sandwich aligned vegetables for every three standard pieces of vegetable.

One drink may be had with the fleet. 

I really think the mustard/mayo exclusivity is unnecessary. I can see how they could go together and have a few fluff examples as evidence. Such as last Christmas, I had a ham sammich with mustard and mayo. So it's obviously doable in any holiday based list. I've also had mustard/mayo cheeseburgers from both Maccas and Hungry Jacks (Burger King for you yanks). So I think that's evidence that there is no inherent conflict here. Therefore I'd allow both to be taken without restriction.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 02, 2011, 02:00:01 AM
True, however the numbers of people who enjoy both of these together is such a small demographic, that there is no point in adding it to the rules. I am also obsessed with my own idea of a sandwich and have the power to make the rules.

Remember, you can always house rules your sandwich, it's all about having fun.


Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on February 02, 2011, 02:22:52 AM
Really? The Ham Police won't come knocking on your door to "confiscate" the mayo/mustard recipe?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 02, 2011, 02:25:56 AM
Games Sandwichshop supports individual players and their hunger. Any sandwich made from non-games sandwichshop products will be investigated, and the creator sued for attempting to sate their hunger with third party products.

Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on February 02, 2011, 02:33:24 AM
I guess rumors of the 14th Black Croissant with Cheesysauce led by Thespoiled Abbocado is false then?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on February 02, 2011, 02:38:43 AM
At first I thought this was sarcasm, but I can't understand what point the wit is trying to make.  Baseless humor?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on February 02, 2011, 02:46:24 AM
I dunno, I feel the unlimited amounts of ham may be OP.  It should be limited 'to any ham beyond the eighth may only be taken if 3-5 beers are also taken as part of this list.'
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 02, 2011, 03:28:31 AM
sparticus, it's hardly baseless.

In this situation, Nate is wielding his HA position like a club.  He has created a list that is only suitable for the garbage, and is utterly unwilling to change it when better ideas are presented.

It's great to work with him, but if he wants the support of us forum goers, he has to deal with the terrible truth that we don't respond well to it.  Other suggestions have been put foreword, he has ignored them (while quite artistically claiming not to have ignored them). 

There are better sector fleets to make then Bakka.  I never understood the obsession with it.

In the end, it's Ham Sandwich. 

The ham is not OP, every consumer knows that no one will bring more then three slices of ham to a sandwich, otherwise not everyone will eat it. 

As of this moment, the Bread Lord Vader rumors are untrue.

New Annoucement, the Waffle Wars continue.. a new Bread lord arises...
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on February 02, 2011, 04:26:03 AM
sparticus, it's hardly baseless.

In this situation, Nate is wielding his HA position like a club.  He has created a list that is only suitable for the garbage, and is utterly unwilling to change it when better ideas are presented.

It's great to work with him, but if he wants the support of us forum goers, he has to deal with the terrible truth that we don't respond well to it.  Other suggestions have been put foreword, he has ignored them (while quite artistically claiming not to have ignored them). 

There are better sector fleets to make then Bakka.  I never understood the obsession with it.

In the end, it's Ham Sandwich. 

The ham is not OP, every consumer knows that no one will bring more then three slices of ham to a sandwich, otherwise not everyone will eat it. 

As of this moment, the Bread Lord Vader rumors are untrue.

New Annoucement, the Waffle Wars continue.. a new Bread lord arises...


One day I hope I'm elevated to the HA.  Then I can make any list *I* want official if it looks like it will make GW more money.  (See Battlefleet Mandragora, once the lists bug are worked out, coming to a tabletop near you!).

For some reason I just picture d a HA composed of me, Horizon, and Plaxor.  Somehow, we might not ever get a list finished, but the boards would be positively aflame the whole time.

Mostly because I would get more people to buy the game by having buxom scantily clad models appear playing it in advertisements.

On the other side, I, apparently unlike everyone else, am enthused with the idea bakka being made offical.  I just wish that it was better.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on February 02, 2011, 04:34:31 AM
What is so horribly broken about Bakka?

Otherwise its all just personal opinion, it seems.  Though there are some things that could be done to improve fluff and gameplay.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 02, 2011, 04:42:17 AM
Conflicting rules and fluff that sounds like it was made by Matt Ward and C.S. Goto's love child?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on February 02, 2011, 04:59:03 AM
Conflicting rules and fluff that sounds like it was made by Matt Ward and C.S. Goto's love child?

And this is different from current BFG fluff how?  I love the Gareox Incident that happened during a period that Bakka was not part of the Imperium (and was, in fact, under the control of the heretical cardinal Bucaris) shaping Imperial navy strategy. 

Somehow the 'big gun' lobby leading a heretic fleet from Bakka to destroy the loyalists at Gareox seems like it should have been influencing in the other direction...
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 02, 2011, 05:03:03 AM
The current fluff doesn't involve multi-lasers and super-space marines.

I would say the BFG fluff is as far from C.S. Goto because the Eldar win most of their engagements (there is a single reference to the destruction of a vessel larger then an escort in the fluff)

It's far from Matt Ward because space marines do -not- win every engagement and storm craftworlds and somehow win.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 02, 2011, 06:43:30 AM
One day I hope I'm elevated to the HA.  Then I can make any list *I* want official if it looks like it will make GW more money.  (See Battlefleet Mandragora, once the lists bug are worked out, coming to a tabletop near you!).

For some reason I just picture d a HA composed of me, Horizon, and Plaxor.  Somehow, we might not ever get a list finished, but the boards would be positively aflame the whole time.

Mostly because I would get more people to buy the game by having buxom scantily clad models appear playing it in advertisements.

On the other side, I, apparently unlike everyone else, am enthused with the idea bakka being made offical.  I just wish that it was better.

Woot! Someone respects my opinion. Although probably because it is my philosophy that building fleets should be LESS COMPLICATED and the game should be made MORE APPEALING TO NEW PLAYERS.

I actually came up with an idea to form a group called the Strategic Conclave, which would essentially work out my fan-based rulebook, run net campaigns, release a 'book' every year.

Got shot down by Admiral D, but eh, I'm basically doing that. Not in name.... at least yet....
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 02, 2011, 06:52:49 AM

I really think the mustard/mayo exclusivity is unnecessary. I can see how they could go together and have a few fluff examples as evidence. Such as last Christmas, I had a ham sammich with mustard and mayo. So it's obviously doable in any holiday based list. I've also had mustard/mayo cheeseburgers from both Maccas and Hungry Jacks (Burger King for you yanks). So I think that's evidence that there is no inherent conflict here. Therefore I'd allow both to be taken without restriction.

Dammit... I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only Yank around....
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: lastspartacus on February 02, 2011, 12:57:39 PM
If you mean northerner, then yes :)
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 02, 2011, 01:14:52 PM
If you mean northerner, then yes :)

Double Dammit!

Actually Valhallan is from Oregon. Other than that, everyone is not from... um... not southern United States. Words aren't my friend right now.

This means that I'll be eating my Ham Sandwich alone, and I'll have all the mustard and mayo I want!

I recommend this revision to 'Bread' in the sandwich list.

0-2 Breads:
Breads may be taken from the following list:
Whole Wheat
Honey Oat
7-grain
White

If bread is not taken, then the sandwich is considered low-carb, which makes it weird and unnatural. Your sandwich takes D3 diet points as it is contaminated by the ruinous powers.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Zelnik on February 02, 2011, 02:26:56 PM
thanks for your input Plaxor, I happen to live in the land of Fimblwinter. Chicago, you ain't the only yank here.

Thanks for your input, Plaxor, but at this scale, the differences in bread types tend to not be seen, and therefore, special rules regarding bread types will not be included in this sandwich.


I have taken into consideration the following rules.

If a player takes both mustard and mayo, they are considered "crazy southern folk".
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on February 02, 2011, 02:39:17 PM
FFS stop this sandwich nonsense.

If you have nothing constructive to post, wait until we get a reponse from the HA.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Vaaish on February 02, 2011, 02:40:20 PM
One glaring flaw is that the sandwich is always fated to become a servant to Nurgle. To represent this fall to the Lord of Decay, I propose that all sandwiches gain one of the following on a d6 roll: mold, slime, maggots, rotten stench. (just had to get it out of my system :))
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 02, 2011, 02:44:54 PM
Seriousness, Bakka; legal? Meh. There are more interesting things that could be done. I don't get why the HA feels the need to resurrect things from BFGm.

People substantially hate it though.... Like... it were the bane of all existence, but when you build it to be nonsensical and pointless, and make no concessions TO WHAT THE PLAYERS WANT then you've just wasted our time and yours.

Enough complaints. What say we actually write down and organize the list that we would like to see?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on February 02, 2011, 02:56:56 PM
1 step ahead of you. 

Personally I'd like to see a sensible list made using the new FW stuff.  As is the list makes it too easy to create an unstoppable juggernaut. 
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 02, 2011, 03:01:09 PM
Yes. I will try my best to incorporate these new vessels into FS.

Charlyignbitps (however the hell you say it...) should be a gc with wbs and a prow lb

The Darkling Engines will just be one of the RT 'best that money can buy' upgrades.

Vanguards will be available to SMs in some form as a CL.

I really don't know what to do with the rapturous rex. if it is some kinda massive ramilies-type thing, it probably will end up in the fortress monastery category.

Oh, the grand conveyor will just be in the super-heavy transport category. easy enough
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: BaronIveagh on February 02, 2011, 04:13:37 PM

Charlyignbitps (however the hell you say it...) should be a gc with wbs and a prow lb


Charybdis: k??r?bd?s


You know, the monster that eats Odysseus' raft in the Odyssey?
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: Plaxor on February 02, 2011, 04:17:59 PM
Yeah... I know.... I just forgot halfway through....

Nate logged on a minute ago. No doubt he was looking at what this has become, and is planning his most epic of rebuttals.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: RCgothic on February 02, 2011, 04:56:17 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if he left this thread to die. It doesn't deserve a response.
Title: Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
Post by: flybywire-E2C on February 02, 2011, 04:57:17 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if he left this thread to die. It doesn't deserve a response.

Actually I'm laughing my @$$ off and writing down ham sandwich recipies at the moment.  ;D