November 20, 2019, 09:23:54 PM

Author Topic: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?  (Read 112314 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #45 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

Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #46 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.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #47 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.


Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #48 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.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #49 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. 
-Vaaish

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #50 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!

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #51 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


« Last Edit: October 14, 2010, 03:55:48 PM by flybywire-E2C »
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #52 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.
-Vaaish

Offline Zhukov

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 258
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #53 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

I am Zukov's Klaw.

"Oh mah gawd its like a giant veil was just lifted off my face and the beautiful maiden before my eyes just turned into a hideous Ork with a giant, bloody choppa."

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #54 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. ;)



Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #55 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.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2010, 11:21:08 AM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #56 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.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #57 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?

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #58 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

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #59 on: October 15, 2010, 11:21:45 AM »
Yes should be 90'. Edited accordingly.