October 18, 2018, 05:08:40 AM

Author Topic: dreadnought as a hole type of ship  (Read 2425 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline harec

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 212
dreadnought as a hole type of ship
« on: June 17, 2016, 11:27:48 AM »
Hi, first of all sorry for any typo, I am writing this post with a Spanish mobile phone plus I am translating my own notes.

I am rewriting the bfg rules in Spanish in order to play with my fast growing group of players. ( I am introducing many enthusiastic people) and I want to put a small section about the dreadnought and above sizes.
After all I have already included 2 dreadnoughts in my translated fleets(Deadnot and proteus hiveship)+I will have the models soon.
I would like to put dreadnought instead of battleship in the description. So here is my proposal to see what you guys think. (We are going to test them anyway)

Dreadnought.

The dreadnought size is quite a rare one to see in the 41 millenia. Usually only system defences and space ports reach that size, and it is quite unpractical to maneuver and a maintenance  nightmare. Due to this factors only a few ships of this type still serve the emperor. Usually they are relics that fought in the great crusade. For this reason this type of vessels are venerated all along the imperium of man and influx hope in any imperial navy force.

Unfortunately this type of vessels are not so uncommon amongst the enemy's of the imperium and they are considered primary objectives in the imperial navy. Whenever there is a report of this nature in any sector It usually receive total atention from imperial autorities. The adept us mechanicus is especially kind to help in this kind of situations but usually ask as payment the right to capture the ship or the remaining hulk.

Base size.

Dreadnoughts are equiped with the most eficiente tractor beans, vectral clusters and defence systems, witch make them especially dangerous, but at the same time their energy signature is like a sun to even the least advance tracking system.
Because of that dreadnoughts must use an 80 mm base, ( You can purchase a GW one)

Special orders

Due to its monstruous size dreadnoughts cannot perform come at new headings and burn retros special order, as well if they perform a all full ahead order they will just add 2D6 to the movement speed.
As well they are in all reapects a battleship when performing a ramming action, but they are considered to be equiped with a ramming prow, if they are equiped already with one they will then add 2 automatic hits to the damage inflicted. If they are rammed by any other ship(including another dreadnought) the attacking ship will add +1 to their leather ship.

Once per battle a dreadnought can for free repeat a reload test, this is to represent the bast amunition space this type of vessels have, witch make really improbable for them to run out of ordance.

Shooting

Dreadnoughts have such a mass that they have one of the most stable firing positions of the galaxy, due to that weapon bateries consider long range at 45cm instead of 30 cm.
When receiving shoots from weapon bateries a dreadnought can never be considered abeam, instead it is considered Moving away.

Damage

Dreadnoughts suffer damage the same way of any capital ship, but when suffering catrastofic damage thy will add 2D6 to the range of any explosion resulted from the table.

Victory points

Considering their tactical and technological value a dreadnought hulk will deal 25% more victory points than usual if captured. Knowing their value dreadnought crews are specially trained to disengage when the situation may put the vessel in danger, any dreadnought attending to disengage add +1 to their leadership test. In adition the owning fleet will not leave their enemies to steal their secrets. Allied ships are allowed to shoot at their dreadnought hulks.

I colaborate with a spanish blog called profanus40k.
http://profanus40k.blogspot.com.es/

Offline Lotus

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • Loc: germany
Re: dreadnought as a hole type of ship
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2016, 01:28:14 PM »
I would go for something less rules heavy. Too many special rules could result in "oops i forgot that, sry" - situations. But i like the general concept. here are my thoughts:

Base size - makes sense. And because it is part of the model, there are no rules people have to keep in mind.

no new headings/burn retros and limited AAF:

While i understand the motivation behind this (making it even less mobile than a battleship), i don't think it is realistic. If it is possible to get a positive accelaration, it should be technically possible to get a negative accelaration, too. Both orders should be allowed, or not allowed, everything else would be a construction-related issue for each individual vessel (why should all ships of this class be equiped with additional thrusters to accelerate faster, but without retro-thruster to accelerate in the opposite direction, when the technology behind this es exactly the same?).

ramming:

if there is a damage bonus because of the ships mass, it should be caused because of the mass. More Hitpoints = more ramming damage. No need for special rules!

reload repeat:

The "double = out of ordnance" rule is outdated, so the risk of running out of ordnance should not be an issue...And a reload or something similar would make it "more easy" to reload, and that would not make sense as a general trait for a ship type. No need for special rules here.

If you are using some kind of "out of ordnance" houserule: just make this class an execption to that rule.

shooting:

This rule would only benefit weapon batteries. I would increase the weapon range instead, combined with "more weapons than a battleship" - this is the way the rules are written for the existing classes (bigger firing platform = more range). A rule which could get droped, and since range would be in the ships profile, there would be no special rule people have to remember.

Being shoot at:

I would just give the enemy weapon batteries a left collum shift. This is an easy to aply rule, and since the ship is a bigger target, no matter of abeam or moving away etc., there should be a benefit in all situations.

explosion:

Makes sense.

victory:

Disengage-Bonus doesn't make sense for me: Disengaging per roll (not by flying from the table edge) means the shut-down of all systems, so the ship can't be seen on tracking devices/scanning systems etc. -> Disengaging this way should be either the same as for all other ships, or it should be even more difficult for a dreadnought.

Making it more easy to hide this ship from enemy scanning systems would be against realism ("(...) their energy signature is like a sun to even the least advance tracking system").

Shooting the hulk doesn't make sense to me: If this ship is that valuable, why should you destroy the chance of getting it back some how? And when even the 08/15 lunar cruiser is considered a sacred vessel, wouldn't it be a sacrileg to destroy a vessel even more sacred than an imperial battleship? Mechanicus can shoot their own hulks because they are using experimental equipment, and they value their knowledge about anything else; there is no other faction at this moment which is able to shoot at their own hulks, even if denying technology could be good reason for doing so (not even necrons or eldar). I think this behavior should be reserved for mechanicus. I am sure an admiral who gives the order to destroy the hulk of a sacred imperial dreadnought should be purged for heresy after the battle. :)

+25% victory points:

Seems to be ok. I am not sure if this is needed. it would only have an effect if the ship actualy end up as a floating hulk, and the destruction alone should be worth a lot of points. it would be a rule that would be used only in rare situations, and would be forgotten easy. Maybe the +25% should be even awarded if the ship is destroyed, no matter if it would end up as a hulk. This would give the user another reason for disengaging before the ship suffers too much damage. And when a ship of this size goes down, the chance of finding large parts of the wreckage should be quite high - and even if nothing can be salvaged: It is unlikely that this ship can get replaced.


One more suggestion: Maybe something extra relating campaign games. There should be no auto-replacement for a ship like this.
---------------------------

to summarize: i would go for:

A Dreadnought uses Battleship rules, with the following exeptions:

- 80mm Base
- no burn retros or AAF special orders (making it even more clumsy that battleships)
- Dreadnoughts suffer an additional left collum shift if fired at on the gunnery table
- catastrophic damage radius is increased by 2d6
- grants +25% victory points if destroyed

- campaign only: no auto-replace in a campaign


This would mean:

The only rules the players have to remember during each turn: no burn retros or AAF, 1 collum shift if fired at
The rules the players have to remember when the ship gets destroyed: +2d6 explosion radius, +25% victory points

And thats it.

I think this ruleset should be able to represent Dreadnought-sized vessels, while the actual rules used are as simple as possible.



Edit: This ruleset would even be small enough you could just write it in the ships profile as a reminder (like the "no come to new heading" sentence in every battleship profile (excluding fast battleship class).
« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 01:35:08 PM by Lotus »

Offline harec

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: dreadnought as a hole type of ship
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2016, 01:38:34 PM »
Absolutly nothing to complain  ;), I buy your simplified proposal. ;D

I colaborate with a spanish blog called profanus40k.
http://profanus40k.blogspot.com.es/

Offline Lotus

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • Loc: germany
Re: dreadnought as a hole type of ship
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2016, 02:51:03 PM »
:)

Offline Lotus

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • Loc: germany
Re: dreadnought as a hole type of ship
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2016, 11:57:50 AM »
I just realised: No AAF = no ramming.

One way to solve this issue would be: Allowing the AAF order for the dreadnough class, but without any additional speed gain (no extra d6, just maximum movement without any dice), so this order could only used for the intend to ramm.

Another way to solve this issue would be: Just leave it as it is (fluff argument for not being able to ram: This ship class is so hard to navigate that it is juste very, very unlikely to hit anythin with a ram attack), and if a dreadnought-class ship should still be able to ram because it is somehow designed to do this, it could have the ability to use AAF (or some toned-down version of it) as a special rule for this vessel only, not for the whole class.

I would go for option 1.

Offline harec

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: dreadnought as a hole type of ship
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2016, 12:30:56 PM »
Or leave AAF but with 2D6 and prohibit come at new heading at it was originally intended ;)

I want to ram with my deadnot ::)
I colaborate with a spanish blog called profanus40k.
http://profanus40k.blogspot.com.es/

Offline Lotus

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • Loc: germany
Re: dreadnought as a hole type of ship
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2016, 04:38:15 PM »
Yes, but that would not make much sense. Maybe both should be allowed with some negativ leadership-modification (the maneuvers are possible, but more difficult to pull of).

Offline Jimmy Zimms

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
  • Beshert is Beshert
    • Loc: World Traveler
Re: dreadnought as a hole type of ship
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2016, 08:15:01 PM »
perhaps giving it "areas" for damage similar to the Ramillies might be interesting to do because as you say, this is akin to a mobile starfort.
As we Imperials say, "The Emperor [class battleship] Protects..."