November 25, 2014, 09:43:15 PM

Author Topic: BFG:R Light Cruisers  (Read 5964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Talos

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 542
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #150 on: March 20, 2013, 04:11:42 PM »
@Sigoroth It doesn't have to have lances on the prow, but 2 Strength torpedo prow is iconic Voss. Anything else is stupidly un-fluffy. So 4 strength should be out the window. And dorsal? No offense, but that's foolish. Not a single IN light cruiser is designed with a dorsal mount outside of AdMech versions.

As for launch bays, 3 could work. We would just have to make a rule stating that if it loses either port or starboard it loses 2 str, or only 1, depending on what we decide. Or we could have it be a dice roll: the first time it loses a weapon component on a 4+ it keeps the "extra" lb, on a 1-3 it loses 2 LB. This point of strength is restored if the component is repaired.

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1899
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #151 on: March 20, 2013, 04:16:16 PM »

Alternativly

Cheap, like 100 pts.

2/500

base hull

2 Launch

2 Lances or 2 Torpedoes/ Weapons batteries

no Torp and lances

If thats too much of a "Why cant the otherxs take blah blah blah..." give them all the option to swap prow lances for weapons/ torps.

Ok, but with this profile, what not just throw the 2 FLR wbs on it like the other 2 CLs and just price it right? It would be a 6pts boost.

Why not just this:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1649
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #152 on: March 20, 2013, 04:57:22 PM »
Isnt that where we are right now anyway?
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1899
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #153 on: March 20, 2013, 05:08:30 PM »
Yes. We had a 10-1 vote at that point. Why is there so much disagreement now? It's weird to me!

Ok, this version you have that is 3 launch bays, would it be 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 dorsal? We can say that extra hangar's have been opened in the dorsal cavities of the ship because of limited space?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 05:17:34 PM by afterimagedan »

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 843
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #154 on: March 20, 2013, 06:08:23 PM »
Ok, this version you have that is 3 launch bays, would it be 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 dorsal? We can say that extra hangar's have been opened in the dorsal cavities of the ship because of limited space?

Ok, explain your reasoning on that and we might have an agreement.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline Jimmy Zimms

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • Beshert is Beshert
    • Loc: World Traveler
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #155 on: March 20, 2013, 06:46:37 PM »
Why not just this:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
Sounds reasonable provided we kept classic Armada style restrictions for BF Solar
"*The Endurance and Defiant are rare variants of the Endeavour, and with manufacturing and refitting capabilities at a premium during the Third Armageddon War, the forge world of Voss inevitably produced far more of the Endeavour than either of its variants. For this reason, the combined numbers of Endurance and Defiant class vessels may not exceed the number of Endeavour class light cruisers in the fleet."

This needs to be backed up with play test however.

Not sure as to all the heart ache over Ad Mech list. Each fleet has restrictions tailored to the playstyle the fleet represents. Adjust accordingly based on the decided stats. I personally think the cart is completely before the horse in the current BFG:R reboot discussions. You figure out the vessels first and then move onto the fleets based on a theme/playstyle. Most of this great project has worked that way well but has fallen over here it seems.


Ok, this version you have that is 3 launch bays, would it be 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 dorsal? We can say that extra hangar's have been opened in the dorsal cavities of the ship because of limited space?
Reasonable compromise as well but what would you suggest a cost would be? In addition the above restrictions MAY need to be adjusted in light of the higher amounts of AC. Personally I'd rather see this get put to bed with an imperfect but fun (read: flavorful) to play ship. Far too contentious issue here methinks (and this coming from an AC slut :) ).

I think it boils down to the following points:

-Baron points out that 2ac doesn't really do a LC carrier justice when compared to what an escort can do. It should be demonstrably more than a glorified Escort Carrier. There's newer canonical fluff that points out that this is true. Fair point that we should be able to agree with conceptually.

-Horizon points out that this has the potential to be abused in ways that we must be careful about. This too is true and we all should be concerned about that when we discuss things.

-Sig points out that 4ac is simply not warranted under the current rule set. I can totally see his point there.

-Someone (i can't be bothered to look it up) suggested 3ac but that's another can of worms as it breaks existing conventions, even if they don't accurately model the universe and fluff well.

-afterimagedan suggested a compromise of stating the vessel with three 1 AC LBs. Interesting concept and has merit to be discussed.

Everything bullet'ed above has merit and should be acknowledged from all parties.

The reality is that the game is an abstraction and like all abstractions has "rounding errors" :). This might just mean that "reality" has to balanced by play-ability and some concern to the elegance of the ship in actual play (read: does it slow down the gameplay too much? is it hard to keep all the rules straight? etc).

Now all that being said I think that the least onerous approach would be to keep special rules to a minimum, keep to existing conventions where possible, and attempt to match ability within existing processes as much.
I'd suggest this->
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
+1 LD for rolls to RO.

This shouldn't be unbalancing as Sig worries, we can push beardiness onto the individual fleet lists to cover horizons concerns, rightly so. Lastly Baron, this bonus should represent the better ability of the vessel to launch craft as befits an LC.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 07:15:19 PM by Jimmy Zimms »
As we Imperials say, "The Emperor [class battleship] Protects..."

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1899
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #156 on: March 20, 2013, 06:52:27 PM »
Ok, this version you have that is 3 launch bays, would it be 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 dorsal? We can say that extra hangar's have been opened in the dorsal cavities of the ship because of limited space?

Ok, explain your reasoning on that and we might have an agreement.

I didn't bring it up originally but I would imaging that with the size of the ship, they may have limited facilities for launch bays and launch capacity.  The Defiant is much smaller than the Dictator and it probably has much more restricted internal space. I think it would be reasonable to say that the Defiant has storage and make-shift launch locations on its dorsal side to fit as many launch craft as possible. It could also be said that the Defiant has that extra space in its dorsal part but the craft still leave through the port or starboard side. If one side is down, they fly out the other. If the dorsal is down, the extra 1 doesn't launch. If both port and starboard are down, no launching even if dorsal is down.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 843
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #157 on: March 20, 2013, 08:24:15 PM »

I didn't bring it up originally but I would imaging that with the size of the ship, they may have limited facilities for launch bays and launch capacity.  The Defiant is much smaller than the Dictator and it probably has much more restricted internal space. I think it would be reasonable to say that the Defiant has storage and make-shift launch locations on its dorsal side to fit as many launch craft as possible. It could also be said that the Defiant has that extra space in its dorsal part but the craft still leave through the port or starboard side. If one side is down, they fly out the other. If the dorsal is down, the extra 1 doesn't launch. If both port and starboard are down, no launching even if dorsal is down.


Actually (admittedly using crunch, but it does seem to fit with fluff) next to macrocannons, launch bays are the most space and infrastructure friendly weapon system.  Compared to, say, Endurance and Endeavor, a Defiant would actually be fairly spacious, as they lack the extensive power relays of lances and sheer size of Nova Cannons. 

Each point of Str of a launch bay allows it to hold three squadrons worth of AC, cargo boats, or planetary aircraft.

One of the reasons that I argue that IN is 'all about' AC is the way division of power works in the Imperium.  Namely that IG do not have any aircraft what so ever (as laid out following the Horus Heresy in the same documents that do that 'No SM lances' thing).  They are all operated and deployed by IN.  This means that IN would have to have enough launch bay capability to support potentially dozens of warzones in a given sector.  While a regiment could easily be supported by aircraft transported by a single ship, and entire war zone might realistically still require two or more.

When you consider how many wars IG has going at a given moment, you see why I say that IN must have more AC than is currently accepted by the BFG community.  If they did not, they could not possibly support that many operations.

-Baron points out that 2ac doesn't really do a LC carrier justice when compared to what an escort can do. It should be demonstrably more than a glorified Escort Carrier. There's newer canonical fluff that points out that this is true. Fair point that we should be able to agree with conceptually.

-Horizon points out that this has the potential to be abused in ways that we must be careful about. This too is true and we all should be concerned about that when we discuss things.

-Sig points out that 4ac is simply not warranted under the current rule set. I can totally see his point there.

-Someone (i can't be bothered to look it up) suggested 3ac but that's another can of worms as it breaks existing conventions, even if they don't accurately model the universe and fluff well.

-afterimagedan suggested a compromise of stating the vessel with three 1 AC LBs. Interesting concept and has merit to be discussed.

Everything bullet'ed above has merit and should be acknowledged from all parties.

Yes, I fully acknowledge those points though I suggest that Sig's point is somewhat overstated.

The problem with the LD bonus is that it does not deal with one of the main issues that the Defiant has to deal with, and that's AC wave size.   To be blunt, Defiant as sits is unable to do anything meaningful with AC on it's own beyond shoot down torps.

If given a choice between SCs or Dictator and a Defiant and most players will invariably pick the SC or Dictator.

Since this ship has to compete for points with the likes of hybrids like SCs and Dictators for points, and is a dedicated carrier, lets give it an advantage in being a carrier.

At 150 points for 3 lbs at 2 per 500, it's more costly for what you're getting that most equivalent ships in IN or any other fleet, but no longer comparable to the Escort Carrier for firepower. 
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 09:15:22 PM by BaronIveagh »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3577
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #158 on: March 20, 2013, 08:29:17 PM »
lolz

Good post Jimmy.

I agree with that profile
Quote
(110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R)
(if the 4wb prow is not wanted) as I stated before. Wrap it up Dan and lets forget all this 3&4 lb nonsense. ;)


Bracing and launching ordnance
In an un-sigorotish way sigoroth has been wrong about this. When braced launch capacity is halved, it is the only special order to do so.
FAQ2010 page 3 middle column
MAIN RULEBOOK page 12: Brace for Impact: ordnance: half effect


Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3577
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #159 on: March 20, 2013, 08:54:59 PM »
FFG Defiant launch bays:
I looked more into it:
In the starship weapons table there are the following entries for Jovian Launch Bays:

Jovian-pattern escort bay - hull type: light cruiser, cruiser - str.1
Jovian-pattern landing bay - hull type: cruiser - str.2

Jovian Pattern Escort Bay background: designed specifically for light cruisers to fit on the hull.

Endurance space: 58, lowered with prow torpedoes: voss pattern torp tubes = space 5, thus total space clean = 58+5 = 63

Defiant space:55, lowered with Jovian Bays: escort bays = space 4. 4+4 =8
55+8 = 63 Ding.
With the bigger landing bay it would come on 55+12 = 67 space

With all this we can assume that in Battlefleet Koronus the Defiant comes with the Jovian Escort bay.
These are str1 per side, for a total of 2.

And thus half strength of the bigger bay on Mars & Dictator. Thus FFG says the same as BFG always did:

Defiant str2
Dictator-Mars str4

:)



Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 843
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #160 on: March 20, 2013, 09:29:52 PM »
FFG Defiant launch bays:
I looked more into it:
In the starship weapons table there are the following entries for Jovian Launch Bays:

Jovian-pattern escort bay - hull type: light cruiser, cruiser - str.1
Jovian-pattern landing bay - hull type: cruiser - str.2

Jovian Pattern Escort Bay background: designed specifically for light cruisers to fit on the hull.

Endurance space: 58, lowered with prow torpedoes: voss pattern torp tubes = space 5, thus total space clean = 58+5 = 63

Defiant space:55, lowered with Jovian Bays: escort bays = space 4. 4+4 =8
55+8 = 63 Ding.
With the bigger landing bay it would come on 55+12 = 67 space

With all this we can assume that in Battlefleet Koronus the Defiant comes with the Jovian Escort bay.
These are str1 per side, for a total of 2.

And thus half strength of the bigger bay on Mars & Dictator. Thus FFG says the same as BFG always did:

Defiant str2
Dictator-Mars str4

*sigh* 

I've been trying to find where it was originally posted but...

"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."

Which makes sense as the Mars and Exorcist also are equipped with 'Jovian Pattern Launch Bays'.

Further, the 'non-removable' modules were put in place for items that would not otherwise fit, example: using the same system an Exorcist would have 92 space, and an Avenger only has 90.

In an un-sigorotish way sigoroth has been wrong about this. When braced launch capacity is halved, it is the only special order to do so.
FAQ2010 page 3 middle column
MAIN RULEBOOK page 12: Brace for Impact: ordnance: half effect

I thought I was right the first time...
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 09:45:46 PM by BaronIveagh »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3577
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #161 on: March 20, 2013, 09:51:37 PM »
In all entries it is called Jovian Launch Bays.
The list specifies Jovian Escort Bays & Jovian Landing Bays.
The list says Escort Bays are for light cruisers and cruisers.
The list says Landing bays are cruisers only.

There can't be confusion on what the Defiant has.

And ah yeah, The Gryphon, character ship is listed with Jovian Pattern Landing Bays specifically mentioned.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 843
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #162 on: March 20, 2013, 10:18:04 PM »
In all entries it is called Jovian Launch Bays.
The list specifies Jovian Escort Bays & Jovian Landing Bays.
The list says Escort Bays are for light cruisers and cruisers.
The list says Landing bays are cruisers only.

There can't be confusion on what the Defiant has.

And ah yeah, The Gryphon, character ship is listed with Jovian Pattern Landing Bays specifically mentioned.

*Shrug*

This question has been asked a lot:

Sam Stewart only gave that vague response when questioned about it, and the authors stated that the reason that the ships that got 'non removable' components got them was that they take something they could not normally have or save space.  Bobh went ahead and made his RT ship spread sheet to reflect this answer, which was all we got.

Thus Defiant only gets 3 weapon slots (2 permanently occupied by Launch bays) to Endeavors 4 and Excorcist only spends 10 space when it should spend 12.

The (fan made but FFG hosted) FAQ isn't even very helpful, as the issue is not addressed.

Edit: Double Checked: Every single ship with the 'Carrier' rule takes Lbs at reduced space.

I don't have a way to calculate the changes though for the ships with a permanent torpedo as none of them have a non-torp version to compare it to.


Additional Edit: Sent Sam Stewart a message to settle this once and for all.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 10:59:28 PM by BaronIveagh »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1899
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #163 on: March 21, 2013, 02:51:00 AM »
BFG:R Current stats:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R

Armada Stats:
110pts in Imperial Navy,
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 2 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Prow Lances F/L/R

Baron Stats:
str 4 lbs
str 4 torps
20cm with a +5 purchasable upgrade
no other weapons,
150 pts.

Jimmy Zimms stats:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
+1 LD for rolls to RO.

AndrewChristlieb Merge stats:
Cheap, like 100 pts.
2/500
2 Launch
2 Lances or 2 Torpedoes/ Weapons batteries


Any other stats I am missing that need to be on the voting post? It's time to vote on this and get it done with.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: BFG:R Light Cruisers
« Reply #164 on: March 21, 2013, 04:05:48 AM »
Actually (admittedly using crunch, but it does seem to fit with fluff) next to macrocannons, launch bays are the most space and infrastructure friendly weapon system.  Compared to, say, Endurance and Endeavor, a Defiant would actually be fairly spacious, as they lack the extensive power relays of lances and sheer size of Nova Cannons. 

Each point of Str of a launch bay allows it to hold three squadrons worth of AC, cargo boats, or planetary aircraft.

Yeah, but we're talking having enough ordnance of any given type last an entire battle, plus the extra quarters and life support necessary to accommodate the ground crew and flight staff. So I don't think that they're all that good on space.

Quote
One of the reasons that I argue that IN is 'all about' AC is the way division of power works in the Imperium.  Namely that IG do not have any aircraft what so ever (as laid out following the Horus Heresy in the same documents that do that 'No SM lances' thing).  They are all operated and deployed by IN.  This means that IN would have to have enough launch bay capability to support potentially dozens of warzones in a given sector.  While a regiment could easily be supported by aircraft transported by a single ship, and entire war zone might realistically still require two or more.

When you consider how many wars IG has going at a given moment, you see why I say that IN must have more AC than is currently accepted by the BFG community.  If they did not, they could not possibly support that many operations.

The IN have hundreds of ships per sector, sure a few of them are carriers. That doesn't mean that they are carrier centric. In fact, it would imply that their carriers are more often used for ground support rather than fleet actions. Presumably one of the reasons for the existence of the escort carrier is to provide cheap ground support for the IG, as well as for their role in escort duties.

Quote
Yes, I fully acknowledge those points though I suggest that Sig's point is somewhat overstated.

Heh, you would.

Quote
The problem with the LD bonus is that it does not deal with one of the main issues that the Defiant has to deal with, and that's AC wave size.   To be blunt, Defiant as sits is unable to do anything meaningful with AC on it's own beyond shoot down torps.

That's not the main issue with the Defiant though. The main issue with the Defiant is playability. The Defiant only needs 4 AC if it is meant to be able to operate solo or provide full air cover for an entire fleet. It's a support vessel. The IN don't need a cheaper carrier than Chaos.

Quote
If given a choice between SCs or Dictator and a Defiant and most players will invariably pick the SC or Dictator.

Yes of course, they're much better ships. They're also more expensive. You could get the (putative) Defiant for 100 pts, but you can't buy 100 pts worth of Dictator. Also, under BFG:R the SC has only 1TH, so the Defiant has air superiority.

Quote
Since this ship has to compete for points with the likes of hybrids like SCs and Dictators for points, and is a dedicated carrier, lets give it an advantage in being a carrier.

The problem is that the IN have nothing but hybrid carriers. A pure carrier is going to be far better than a hybrid and so any addition of a pure carrier is going to make all those hybrid carriers redundant. Not a good way to go. Similarly, without significant restrictions (and 2/500 isn't a restriction at all) you alter the interfleet balance too much.

You see only the strength of bays as being the reward for being a true carrier. However, the only other true carrier in the basic game (the Styx) has penalties to its strength. So that is not out of the ordinary. There are other possible benefits we can give it. We could give it a-boats, making its strength 2 wave slightly more effective against escorts when on solo ops and giving it another option in fleet engagements. We could give it +1 to reload making it, and potentially any ship in squadron with it, more reliable. We could give it +1 turret, as a lot of carriers have extra turrets. Etcetera.

(Note: I'm actually against the +1 turret now. It already has over the odds for a CL and the fact that Admech/Bakka versions get an extra turret on top and can potentially go up another 2 turrets with FDT making for a 6 turret monstrosity has convinced me it's a bad idea.)

Quote
At 150 points for 3 lbs at 2 per 500, it's more costly for what you're getting that most equivalent ships in IN or any other fleet, but no longer comparable to the Escort Carrier for firepower.

Ok, first off, ditch the 2/500 rubbish. That's not a restriction. "Oh, sorry, only 60% of your fleet can be Defiants".  That's not a restriction, it's a challenge. Put a proper restriction on it, 1/1000 pts or part thereof. Secondly it's still comparable to the Escort Carrier since it is far more than twice the size and cost and still only provides 1.5 times the AC. Two escort carriers still out AC it. This isn't an issue though, and never has been. At 2 AC for 100 pts the Defiant is still better than a CVE both in terms of 1 on 1 and point for point. What's more it's capable of being used in the line, which is where it's supposed to be. A 2 AC Defiant is perfectly viable.

Having said that I'm not, in principle, against a 3AC Defiant. It would correct the rounding error issue. What it doesn't do is split very well. You can't have 1.5 AC per side and having an asymmetrical distribution doesn't make sense. The other notion was to add a third hardpoint on the dorsal mount, so that it divides evenly. However, IN CLs don't get a dorsal mount and it'd be cluttered for an AM version. So that left the psuedo-dorsal mount, which to be honest, makes me want to gag.

So by all accounts 3AC looks to be impossible. Well, almost. I can think of a way to do it cleanly, but it does require a precedent. Instead of making it P/S launch bays we could just make it a single hardpoint bay, strength 3. Just call it Launch Bay, or midship launch bay. Any port OR starboard crit will take it off-line till repaired.