Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Experimental Rules Feedback => Topic started by: Mogwai_with_Mohawk on March 03, 2013, 03:12:42 PM
-
Following up my post here:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5207.0 (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5207.0)
I would like to address some issues that have caught my attention.
Now before I start my rant ;) some notes:
1) I like to play imperial fleets, but at the time they were discussed here I was busy writing my diploma-thesis.
And I have only just begun to catch up to you. So this is not really up to date but the best I could do to join the conversation. :-[
2) I really appreciate the work you are doing here but some thins don't really seem right with the imperial fleet. However everything I say here is based only on comparing point costs of imperial and chaos vessels!!!
Now on topic:
Point costs of some imperial ships are just to high. An issue known to some, denied by others and even addressed in the warprift magazine 29 page 14 - for means of entertainment and easy access:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPb21NWUdZUjF1VWs/edit (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPb21NWUdZUjF1VWs/edit)
or here:
http://www.file-upload.net/download-7280556/warprift29.pdf.html (http://www.file-upload.net/download-7280556/warprift29.pdf.html)
To clarify where my issue seems to be keep these two things in mind:
1)
The imperial prow armour upgrade from 5+ to 6+ - just the upgrade!!! - costs: 30 points. That is equal to adding 2 shields, or 3 hitpoints. Simply imagine the same cruiser with a 6+ prow, in comparison to a version with 4 shields, or 11 hitpoints. Now imagine broadside firing and you have a worst case scenario for the 6+ prow, but that is not the thing I want to change!
2)
To keep things shorter: I think the S6 Torpedo volley is also to expensive at 20 points but that is not the issue I want to argue about so:
What bugs me is that some ships are still just to expensive - as calculated by my excel sheet. Even if I accept the fact that some of the typical imperial equipment (e.g. 6+ prow upgrade) is expensive it turns out there is something wrong:
Lunar class in BFG:R 180 points vs. calculated costs of 170 points.
Tyrant class in BFG:R 180 points vs. calculated costs of 170 points.
Gothic class in BFG:R 180 points vs. calculated costs of 170 points.
Armageddon class in BFG:R 235 points vs. calculated costs of 220 points.
The basic issue I am having here is that 3 out 5 basic cruisers - existent in almost every
imperial fleet - are too expensive. :-\ As far as I can tell all the other ships are within
the +/- 5 points range with the exception of the apocalypse class battleship: 365 vs. 385
makes it roughly 20 points to cheap.
The next topic I would like to address is the armament of the Defiant light cruiser. S2 torpedoes and S2 WB in combination with a broadside-bay that is only 1/4 of that of the cruiser capacity? From my point of view that is just to little for anything - even in a suqadron of two costing beyond 200 points - it does not deliver enough firepower (or toughness) to decently fight an ordinary cruiser.
So my suggestion, keep the other stats but change the weapons:
Defiant variant 1:
Port launch bays S1
Starboard launch bays s1
Dorsal weapon battery S4 R30 L/F/R
for 120 points
Defiant variant 2:
Port launch bays S1
Starboard launch bays s1
Dorsal lance battery s2 R30 L/F/R
for 130 points
That's a lot of text - so thanks for reading and thanks for feedback! :)
-
Alrighty then, to start off I went to try to download your cost calculator but it wants me to download a downloader, which I'm not going to do. Seriously, screw that shit. Apart from that, if your points calculator doesn't come up with 180 pts for a Lunar then it's wrong. That is the benchmark.
Now, that accounts for the Lunar/Gothic/Tyrant disparity. If we can assume that your calculation for the Armageddon is also out by 10 pts (since the ship is a glorified Lunar after all) then that leaves 5 pts unaccounted for. Apart from it being within your own fudge margin of +/- 5 pts I think this discrepancy might be due to the range bonus. If, for example, you reverse engineered the +15cm range bonus from 30cm to 45cm on 6WB to be worth +10 pts (original Tyrant entry example) then you might have then applied this same cost to the +15cm range bonus of the lances, which are equivalent strength. However, WBs are affected by long range column shifts and lances aren't. In fact, 2 lances are worth 9~10WB at greater than 30cm range. So this range increase is worth more: 15 pts, not 10.
So the cost of an Armageddon is 180(Base Lunar) + 30(CB/Dorsal Lances) + 10(WB Range) +15(Lance Range) = 235 pts. Of course, the fact that the range upgrades are automatically taken and are not optional does make it less valuable, but while 235 pts is on the high side it is still viable.
You also have the Apocalypse as being too cheap. I doubt your calculations take into account the downside of firing over 30cm range (ie, losing a shield and speed for next turn) and I also suspect that your calculations over-value the Nova Cannon. The NC is worth no more than 9 torpedoes. The option to take NCs (such as on Lunars, Armageddons and Tyrants) is overpriced. Deliberately so.
That just leaves the Defiant. This vessel was MUCH debated over. Some of the issues that arose were: 1) identical prow to the other variants should result in identical weaponry; 2) light cruisers should not, except by unusual circumstance, be given dorsal weaponry; 3) the IN should not get a better AC/point ratio than they already have available, and; 4) consideration of the role the Defiant fulfils (line-support defensive carrier settled on).
I still hold that the most elegant solution was to simply delete the vessel. However, given the limits of role, precedent, list balance and the other class examples I'm reasonably satisfied with the result. I do have an issue with the price though. The Endeavour and Endurance should be only 120 pts and the Defiant should really be only 100 pts. I could see 110 pts if it had a 3rd turret though. Oh, and there's a typo in the current Defiant entry in the BFG:R document. It clearly should say prow WBs, not dorsal.
-
Fixed, Sig. Notice anything else, let me know.
-
The Imperial prow is 25pts in my estimations.
-
Hey there everyone. ;D
First of all:
Alright then, to start off I went to try to download your cost calculator but it wants me to download a downloader, which I'm not going to do.
A download manager? I just checked it and I don't need one. Any workaround/ preferred filehoster? - I will gladly reupload it and sry for the inconvenience!
Apart from that, if your points calculator doesn't come up with 180 pts for a Lunar then it's wrong. That is the benchmark.
There are some known issues with the calculator, to shortly re-summarize them:
- Escorts - have never been considered so it only works for some and should be used with them.
- Grand Cruiser - rather strange broadside arrays that don't always fit.
- Rounding - everything in this game is rounded so there is a chance of the +/- 5 points abbreviation.
- Weapon synergies/ good combinations - I work with raw point and do not account for good/bad feeling.
Apart from that: the calculator works actually quite good with the imperial ships and most chaos ships with a few exceptions: e.g. the chaos battleships seems to be off point costs - brethren argued about that based on the calculator.
The problem is the only "exclusive imperial" equipment I could change to match the points of a lunar class would be the prow. Raising it from 30 to 35 points, with the downside that this makes other ships too expensive again and the prow really arguable (it is only the upgrade from 5+ to 6+).
Furthermore the same issue applies to other point values: like the different range upgrade costs for WB and LB. I have to say a rather interesting approach that I haven't considered yet. Sadly some quick checks in the calc. only tell me that this doesn't seem to be a general rule - for some it seems ok while other ship start going berserk on their point values (from bad to worse).
Long story made short: changing point costs of one thing has an effect on a lot of other ships. Although basically I would say: yes not every ship costs exactly what is should due to Weapon synergies/ good combinations, but I still don't see a reason for some of the imperial cruisers (and in succession to the lunar the Armageddon) to be overpriced?
You also have the Apocalypse as being too cheap. I doubt your calculations take into account the downside of firing over 30cm range (ie, losing a shield and speed for next turn) and I also suspect that your calculations over-value the Nova Cannon.
@ Apocalypse: I did actually account for the downside - but as there are no comparable costs it was a guess. If you make this downside valuable enough the apocalypse is back in action. (There are three fields in the calc just for including such extra point changes - but everytime a ship has its own special rule it is guessing time. :-\)
@ Nova cannon: well it works perfect for the dominator & the mars, leaving the apocalypse which would be alright if the downside is priced more generous as stated above.
@ Defiant:
- I do not really care where exactly the weapons are seated or what the model looks like. That has never been in issue in Armada, FAQ2010 or the old BFG:R :o - they all included the actually useful defiant variant, ignoring the look of the model.
- I do not worry about the point costs. (Yep I know it can get expensive there.) But a good ship doesn't come cheap - in the same way it makes no sense to strip it to far down.
- And for the endeavour/ endurance the weaponry works just fine in combination with their broadsides. The defiant however seems to be auto-crippled. It can do a bit of everything - that's nice - but does everything pretty bad. A simple S4 R30 WB would do the trick (no torpedoes). Right now however a single dictator (I won't even mention the devastation) is better than two defiants (if you include the point costs that is).
Just like you said: either remove them, or try to reconfigure the old one (I would prefer that), or for that matter: could somebody explain me where a defiant is expected to work right now? ???
-
The Armada (original) defiant was a big piece of crap.
The BFG:R version (your friend can point you) makes it useable.
-
My bad - I stand corrected: the old BFG:R already used this new layout.
Was a shot in the dark as I haven't really used it when we went for the BFG:R rule-set. Although I could have sworn I drooped it out of my lists for another reason ...
Well back on topic: my problem is I just don't see its performance anymore. I am really happy with the endeavour and was happy with the "old defiant" but this one ...
- 2 bays is nothing special for these costs
- 2 WB - if it is alone it can't even kill a single escort with that
- 2 Torpdeos - that is only a 1/3 of the cruiser types + if there is one weapon the imperial fleet has more than enough of it would be torpedoes ;)
- even a squadron of two has a hard time standing its ground against a (cheaper) cruiser that says "business"
All in all - nice all around - but not really good at any of this.
So why not spend some more points and make it really usefull again in giving it more focus on just one or two weapon categories?
Take the dauntless with it's excellent 3 prow lances, good in one particular thing and totally worth it even if it was more expensive.
-
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xHYdOJkJU4QlpaWnUxemxjRDQ/edit?usp=sharing
Try this one, you have to be careful with that other download site as it has a lot of spam "download" buttons.
Im not a fan of giving the base weapons 0 cost (6 30cm batteries and 2 30cm lances, its also odd that if I select 3 30cm lances the price drops 5 pts.
-
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xHYdOJkJU4QlpaWnUxemxjRDQ/edit?usp=sharing
Try this one, you have to be careful with that other download site as it has a lot of spam "download" buttons.
Thx for the feedback - If the complains keep coming I will resettle the downloads ;)
Im not a fan of giving the base weapons 0 cost (6 30cm batteries and 2 30cm lances, its also odd that if I select 3 30cm lances the price drops 5 pts.
Next up: the base weapon costs - or "slots" like I call them - are a bit tricky. Imagine I had to figure it all out. The feeling I had while doing so must be like stepping on a lego while dropping a soap in a prison shower :-\ .
Here is the thing: a "slot" includes: some form of basic firepower and the prices for them (2 things!). So when you select the number of "slots" it will automatically add the points for the weapons and already implies some form of armament is present.
Small example:
Lets take a Cruiser - basically 2 slots:
-> Step 1: select the option for 2 slots -> the points change
-> Step 2: select the firepower of a S12 R30 WB (2x times WB slots) -> the points stay the same
Why? Simply: because the selection of 2 slots (in step 1) already included the price for some form of basic armament. All you did in step 2 is specifying what exactly but not adding more guns.
In other words: selecting the precise number of weapons is actually not always needed!
Where it is needed however is the situation when a battery it is underloaded/ (overloaded)*, has more range, or a combination of both.
E.g. You select a single slot but then only enter a S4 R30 WB -> means the "slot" is underloaded -> you regain some of the points that were spend while selecting the number of slots.
The problem you encountered with the 3 lances is basically the same: it is assumed that you use 2 slots and one slot is underloaded and therefore you regain some points.
Now I know what you are thinking next: but how do I see if a slot is under- / overloaded? - the answer is quite simple: I don't, but normally it is always a underloaded slot *. It is a basic rule of construction ever ship follows (chaos and imperium), with the exception of some grand cruisers and other strange vessels like the planet killer.
So if you wish to create a totally new ship from scratch with the calculator: stick to vessels of the same type for orientation and always add enough "slots" to make them underloaded*.
In hindsight I guess I should have pointed that out somewhere* ;D
-
Weird approach ;D
On the Defiant, BFG:R:
On the plus side:
-15pts
+ armoured prow
+ 45 -> 90 degrees
On the negative:
-> 2 lances => 2 weapon batteries is essentially -4 batteries.
I opted for 4 prow batteries though.
-
Weird approach ;D
Ja I know - I was hoping for something more simple too but I just dismantled it and thats what I found ;). Anyhow decided to merge "slot costs" in a future version for better usability.
I also though about the rest of the changes you just mentioned. Not really sure if it should stay that good (6+ Prow and 90° trun). And - ja - I would also choose the 4WB version - 2 lances always seemed to be a bit too good.
Just gave it a "quick check" (it is past midnight here so I will better double check tomorrow ;D):
Fully calculated + all the values as writen in the pdf. + S4 R30 WB L/F/R + 2x1 bay - I get 120 points.
Any opinions on that?
-
Yup, the Defiants a turd :(. With 4 weapons and 2 launch its a turd. With 2 lances and 2 launch its a turd. With 2 weapons and 2 torps and 2 launch its a turd. Give it 4 weapons and 2 torps and 2 launch and 6+ armor and 90* turns and make it 120pts, then it might compare to the Dictator, maybe, if you squint, and munch on some funky mushrooms.
Edit: nope still a turd.
-
A download manager? I just checked it and I don't need one. Any workaround/ preferred filehoster? - I will gladly reupload it and sry for the inconvenience!
Throw it up on a google doc site and I'll check it out.
There are some known issues with the calculator, to shortly re-summarize them:
- Escorts - have never been considered so it only works for some and should be used with them.
- Grand Cruiser - rather strange broadside arrays that don't always fit.
- Rounding - everything in this game is rounded so there is a chance of the +/- 5 points abbreviation.
- Weapon synergies/ good combinations - I work with raw point and do not account for good/bad feeling.
First and foremost, make sure any points-calculation method you attempt comes up with a 180pt Lunar. If that puts other ships out of whack, then those ships and/or your method should be scrutinised, not the Lunar. The Lunar is the benchmark.
Regarding the Apocalypse, I'll have to have a look at your calcs.
@ Defiant:
- I do not really care where exactly the weapons are seated or what the model looks like. That has never been in issue in Armada, FAQ2010 or the old BFG:R :o - they all included the actually useful defiant variant, ignoring the look of the model.
- I do not worry about the point costs. (Yep I know it can get expensive there.) But a good ship doesn't come cheap - in the same way it makes no sense to strip it to far down.
- And for the endeavour/ endurance the weaponry works just fine in combination with their broadsides. The defiant however seems to be auto-crippled. It can do a bit of everything - that's nice - but does everything pretty bad. A simple S4 R30 WB would do the trick (no torpedoes). Right now however a single dictator (I won't even mention the devastation) is better than two defiants (if you include the point costs that is).
Just like you said: either remove them, or try to reconfigure the old one (I would prefer that), or for that matter: could somebody explain me where a defiant is expected to work right now? ???
Ok, back into this one. As I said, this ship had a LOT of discussion. In a 102 page thread it probably took up like 10 pages worth. There are several key issues. Its fluff says it has sod all guns. So throwing more guns on it isn't all that appropriate anyway. Mind you, its fluff says it has decent carrying capacity, but we run into problems if we try to give it more capacity. At 4 AC the IN AC/point ratio gets too good. We can't give it 3 AC because it has to be an even number so it can be divided between port and starboard launch bays (dorsal launch bays are unprecedented and unrepresented in this class vessel). So it's stuck on 2 launch bays.
The obvious fix then is to up the prow weaponry. However, it has an identical prow to the other 2 variants and its fluff doesn't support either lances or a large weapon battery armament. So this seems to fix the prow to be the same as the other 2 ships (more on this later). A suggestions was a dorsal mounted gun (lance) but again, more guns doesn't fit the fluff for this ship, and it's a bad precedent to give an IN CL a dorsal mount (if a light cruiser can get it, why can't an attack cruiser?).
One of the concerns brought up at the time of the discussion, and raised again by you, was that this ship really couldn't do much on its own. By themselves 2WBs are fairly useless. Two torpedoes aren't all that fantastic either and 2AC is really only any good for defensive purposes. So it's fairly clear it can't do much by itself. However, this raised the issue of its role. This ship is a light carrier of the line. It's not meant to be used by itself. It's purely a support ship. Consider it in a squadron with a Dictator. It can add its WBs to those of the Dictator for a bit more punch, it can add its torps and AC for more punch also or it can use them to clear enemy torps/AC to allow the Dictator to go on the offensive. This is the role for this ship. If you wanted a carrier to chase down escorts then you'd build it based on the Dauntless hull, with it's greater speed and prow guns/torps that sort of ship would be much more formidable in that role. However, with only a soft 5+ nose such a ship would not fair so well in the line.
Therefore it's not necessary for the Defiant to actually be a good solo ship, we can safely leave it weak. Then all that would remain would be to get the cost right. To do that let's compare it to the Dictator. Let's assume that a ships defensive qualities make up 50% of its cost and that it's offensive qualities make up the other half. So the Defiant has 75% hits, 50% shields, 67% turrets of the Dictator. Let's round this being two thirds value, though it is actually slightly less than this (+8% hits is not worth -17% shields). So 2/3 of 105 (half a Dictator) gives us 70 pts. Ok, now looking at the weaponry we see that the Defiant has 33% of the total firepower of the Dictator. Which is 35 pts worth (33% of 105) which gives us 105 pts in total. The Defiant has a better turn rate of course, but without that it's not actually worth its 105 pts so let's leave it at 105.
However, even with its extra turn rate it's still a lemon at 105 pts. I would've dropped it down to 100. Again we run into problems. At 100 pts it gives a better AC/point ratio than the Dictator (same at 105 pts) and it gives a cheaper option to the IN for satisfying CB and BB requirements. I, myself, am fine with both of these and would happily see it at 100 pts.
Alternatively we could do something else to make the ship a bit better and therefore justify a slightly higher price tag. You could, for one, give it another turret. This would allow it to use its ordnance is a more offensive manner, or at least allow it to be used to defend other ships more freely.
Another option that I recommended was that, since it has only half strength launch bays, the extra room in them could have been used for storage of extra marines (regular, not SM) and craft to allow this ship to launch a-boats. I felt this to be a reasonable compromise and give a decent point of difference and reason to take the craft. However it was pointed out by others that it is unprecedented for the IN to get a-boats at a sub-BB level and that to do so would be to encroach somewhat on Chaos's territory. Both of which are true.
I said I'd get back to the prow weapons and here is my idea. I suggested that the Defiant should get 4 torps instead of 2 torps and 2WBs. Modelling the difference is easy enough, all you'd need do is drill a couple more holes in the prow and clip off the top gun. This makes the ship slightly more powerful and much more focused and hence, usable. But there are still a couple of problems. One, if the Defiant can, why wouldn't the Endeavour or Endurance? Surely they'd benefit just as much from the extra firepower. Of course, maybe they want the extra WBs because they're primarily gunships and the loss of firepower is simply an effect of trying to put LFR guns on an armoured prow (so only 2WB instead of 3WB, which is the equivalent value of the 2 lost torps). This isn't a very convincing argument though. The extra 2 torps would simply be better than the extra 2WBs.
The other problem is that, though the Defiant wouldn't mind the loss of the guns from a fluff standpoint, it's also pretty clear that it's primarily a carrier. With this version half its firepower would be in the torps. That means it's not "primarily" a carrier.
So my opinion on the matter is that it should be either:
2WB+2T+2AC & 2trt @ 100 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 3trt @ 105 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 2trt & a-boats @ 105 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 3trt & a-boats @ 110 pts
(any one of these as basic profile, or the top one with the turret/a-boats as options)
OR
4T + 2AC & 2trt @ 110 pts
I think the 1st option is the best as far as breaking the least number of precedents. I am fine with any of the above though.
-
Just a short update - kinda in a hurry here:
I uploaded the calc on google docs - have fun :) :
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPOG1YMDB5X1NIVTA/edit?pli=1
-
So long as the AC-point ratio stays below the Emperor it should be fine in an IN list and 100 points wouldnt be bad at all but the problem we ran into with the voting was that it had the 6+ prow and 90* turns which drove the price up to 120-125 for the Endurance/Endeavour and 110-115 for the Defiant (from what I recall from those votes) and we opted to price higher. These still need to be play tested tho!!! especially the Defiant.
-
First and foremost, make sure any points-calculation method you attempt comes up with a 180pt Lunar. If that puts other ships out of whack, then those ships and/or your method should be scrutinised, not the Lunar. The Lunar is the benchmark.
The only way to bring the lunar within the 180 +/- 5 points range with my calculator would be raising the costs for the prow upgrade (5+ -> 6+) form 30 to 35 points. (The lunar would then be 175 according to my calc.)
This would indeed fit with every imperial cruiser, light cruiser & Battleship ;) (considering the +/- 5 points range) with only one exception:
The Armaggeddon would now be calculated as: 225 points vs. The 235 points set in Bfg:R -> still 5 points overpriced (mind the +/-5 points)
(If the lunar was to meet the 180 points exactly with the calc. it would be more of a deal.)
So far: fair and square :). But I personally would not continue playing imperial fleet because a point cost of 35 points just to boost the front armor from 5+ to 6+ is just ... Overpriced - to say it nice. For comparison: a hit costs 10 points, a shield 15 and a turret 5. Imagine you had extra 35 points to spend would you then really choose to reinforce the prow compared to lets say: 1 shield & 2 hits.
I personally still think the cruisers are the ones that are "overprices" - not much: just 5 points. Because they where introduced and nearly unchanged (except Tyrant) since the introduction of the game. However several years later a lot in the game has changed - available ships, their prices and fleets out there - my calc btw is based on armada & FAQ2010 ...
@ Defiant
This ship is a light carrier of the line. It's not meant to be used by itself. It's purely a support ship. Consider it in a squadron with a Dictator.
I considered the squardoning with a Dictator myself ;D but that means two things:
-> need for base to base to make it effective -> with the drawbacks this brings (1 hit two of your shields are down :( )
-> 90° turn can not be fully exploided
Therefore I personally always preferred the defiant in a squadron with other light cruisers:
-> deliver fire support (in the pre BFG:R version with 2 lances !!!)
-> ordnance as pure defensive weaponry (just spamming fighters)
This way it was very useful as you have a versatile light cruiser that can support the mobile element of your fleet.
Alternatively we could do something else to make the ship a bit better and therefore justify a slightly higher price tag. (...) another turret (...) launch a-boats (...)
The important thing: I like your thoughts ;D. Basically I have the same intention: give it something to make it work again - the change of weaponry is just my approach but a nice addon could also make it reasonable again!
2WB+2T+2AC & 2trt @ 100 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 3trt @ 105 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 2trt & a-boats @ 105 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 3trt & a-boats @ 110 pts
(any one of these as basic profile, or the top one with the turret/a-boats as options)
OR
4T + 2AC & 2trt @ 110 pts
I like the last version most - but I see we are getting at a draw here. By the way: the point costs you suggest look really low? I mean it is also possible to make it work by dropping the points but I think 2 of them should not really be cheaper than a dictator?
Yup, the Defiants a turd :(.
fluff standpoint
I don't think fluff should never be a reason for rules. But if this is really the issue here: why not simply reintroduce an older ship like the "Enforcer class system patrol cruiser".
-> Based on the dauntless profile (take the "old" defiant from armada for comparison)
-> Would allow for more freedom in creating a different ship!
-
Hi,
What Sigoroth means: as long as your calculations for the lunar do not result in 180 points your calculations are wrong.
The lunar is the core, the benchmark of bfg.
-
Hi,
What Sigoroth means: as long as your calculations for the lunar do not result in 180 points your calculations are wrong.
The lunar is the core, the benchmark of bfg.
Horizon, maybe I'm forgetting something obvious, but... since when?
-
Since BFG exists?
-
The lunar is the core, the benchmark of bfg.
I know, I know :).
But thx to the calculations I once did I have: 11 matches vs. 4 mismatches for imperial ships
And the 4 mismatches are all connected: lunar, tyrant, gothic - basically all the same ship - and the Armageddon as a upgraded lunar. The matches on the other hand are from various classes LC - BS.
Furthermore please mind: I use the same point costs for stuff on every ship. So if the lunar is indeed 180 points there must be a hidden mechanism that made this particular "ship-basis" more expensive, or every over imperial ship cheaper :-\.
My guess: in the original game - where the 180 were set - the lunar performed very well compared to the possible enemies out there, so they gave it a bit more. A similar explanation would be good weapon synergies (within squadrons) - but considering e.g. today's necron ships I fail to see the awesome over-performance of a lunar class to justify additional(!) points. ;)
Last thing: Chaos ships: very, very complicated in comparison - my notes here say for various ships from cruiser to battleships.
- 4 too cheap
- 5 matches
- 3 too expensive
All done with the exact same calculator. The variation with chaos(!!!) however is easy to explain: Their battleships are weird :o (that was a personal opinion, but seriously they have a clear tendency towards being unique :-\), and the not-so-uniform weaponry made me guess far more often. Anyhow seeing that even they are spread out around the values I calculated: tells me it is not totally wrong. (Btw. The last time I checked you where pushing around the point costs of chaos BS in the direction I would have suggested which is rather funny from my point of view ;D)
-
What is wrong with the Lunar vs Necrons?
-
Just wanted to point out that the lunar is not that good it would justify 5-10 additional points, just because of its existence.
Necrons were just mentioned for means of comparison to point out how rather plain and simple a lunar is for that matter - still a solid ship though. No opinion about necrons intended - but their tools are just more shiny and their tricks more ample ;D
-
The original point values came from play testing and not a formula tho. After about 14 years of playing with the Lunar (first ship!) i still feel its 180 fits right in.
-
Hi Mogwai,
I truly think you are undervaluing some parts. Since the prow should indeed never cost more then 30pts max (a Tau PD costs 25pts).
-
The original point values came from play testing and not a formula tho. After about 14 years of playing with the Lunar (first ship!) i still feel its 180 fits right in.
Didn't knew that - I always thought the original ships where calculated - but some of the ships that were created after that were based on guessing. Are there any sources of information on these ancient times :) ?
After about 14 years of playing with the Lunar (first ship!) i still feel its 180 fits right in.
Well you see: based on the feeling that something is not right I started calculating to really see if something's is wrong.
Hi Mogwai,
I truly think you are undervaluing some parts. Since the prow should indeed never cost more then 30pts max.
Exactly my thinking: if an imperial prow is valued as 35 points something is wrong. However I do not know which other part it should be. The ships that drop out of line are the "basic cruiser types" and the armageddon which I think is simply a lunar that got stuff and points tossed at it.
They just have the stuff used in other ships (which turn out to fit the given points) and no particular upgrades - in comparison to lets say: if those 4 ships had like a unique type of weapon ... of if they all where battleships with a weird, unique, long-range weapon loadouts ;).
So changing something on them means changes for every other ship.
-
Hey,
Andrew is right, the original team just started with a point value, iirc it was 150pts for the Lunar & Murder and started working from there through playtest and all.
Now the Lunar ended up at 180pts, and almost every other ship since then, by rules committee or fan creation (at least most that I know use the Lunar), has used the Lunar as the ship to start of from.
That means the Lunar is the SOL position for BFG ship point values.
Changing every other ship is no problem thus.
In your sheet I notice that you do not count values for the weapon batteries/lances on the Lunar calculations, or am I missing something.
For our easy convenience: could you list here how the Lunar point parts are calculated by you, so:
hull = x pts
shield =x pts
6 wb lft = x pts
2 lance lft = x pts
etc
-
Hey horizon :),
similar to what you said I broke chaos and imperial ships down to a common "basic cruiser layout" at some point (it is kinda like a common origin):
- 8 hits, 2 shields, 2 turrets, 5+ armor all around, 20 cm & 45 turn,
- with two basic weapon batteries (2LB or 2 6 WB**) on each broadside
- this includes some stuff for free (e.g. armor, basic weapons, a 45° turn)
for a total of: 120 points.
For the lunar this could be split up into:
hits: 80 pts.
Shields: 30 pts.
Turrets: 10 pts.
Turn: 0 pts. (afaik 45° is the baseline granted to every ship for free)
speed 0 pts. (afaik 20 cm is again a baseline, eg: 15 cm would mean: -5 pts. and 25cm: +5 pts.)
prow: 30 pts (from 5+ -> 6+)
torp: 20 pts.
2x slots: 0 pts. (including slot1: 6WB & slot 2: 2LB)*
Total: 170 pts
(*basic weaponry that is fit into the slot and the first two are for free: Light cruiser e.g. regain some points in this. For comparison mounting another weapon slot, e.g. on a battleship would cost additional 20 points)
Just for comparison the murder:
hits: 80 pts.
Shields: 30 pts.
Turrets: 10 pts.
turn: 0 pts. (afaik 45° is the baseline granted to every ship for free)
speed 5 pts. ( 20cm to 25cm: +5 pts.)
Chaos: 5 pts. (for their boarding bonus)
prow lances: 25 pts.
2x slots: 0 pts. (including the basic weaponry of 12 WB for free that gets modified in the following:)
2x Range upgrades: +20 pts.
1x underload: -5 pts ( S10 WB is split: 1 full slot with S6 and 1 slot underloaded with only a S4 WB)
Total: 170 pts
Looking at it chances are there is something wrong with the "slot system" I extracted out of this all. However I am constantly pushing around numbers with the effect that adjusting one thing on this side changes some ships on the other end ...
**edited
-
By your method:
Up the basic profile from 120 to 130.
The speed bonus (chaos) is less then 5 (keep in mind that a slower IN ship has a tighter turning circle).
The boarding bonus (chaos) is less then 5 (imo).
-
By your method:
Up the basic profile from 120 to 130.
However I am constantly pushing around numbers with the effect that adjusting one thing on this side changes some ships on the other end ...
I could try for a raise to 125 points, 130 would throw everything into disarray. I will check that right away.
The speed bonus (chaos) is less then 5 (keep in mind that a slower IN ship has a tighter turning circle).
The boarding bonus (chaos) is less then 5 (imo).
These are the rounding abbreviations I am talking about ;D. However there seems to be a certain (preset) minimum of 5 points for certain things, e.g. special rules. Btw. the additional points for speed are not chaos specific but purely speed reliant.
-
Ok so two lances fixed fire arc 30cm= 20pts.
Torpedoes are 2/1 with lances (per the Dauntless and Despoiler varients) which would mean 6 torps=3 lances=30pts. You have them @20.
-
Ok so two lances fixed fire arc 30cm= 20pts.
Torpedoes are 2/1 with lances (per the Dauntless and Despoiler varients) which would mean 6 torps=3 lances=30pts. You have them @20.
Sry been busy pushing around numbers ... So what do we have here?
Can not really follow you right away where you got the numbers, but lets see.
You took a look at the dauntless I guess by now ...
First of: Lances (front only) are based on guessing -> the only imperial ships with weapons like that are the dauntless. However light cruisers and grand cruisers are always a bad choise as a reference ;D -> so I figured their price through chaos ships -> which is always worse as chaos is not so uniform -> I guessed
Regarding the prices:
2 LB R60 L/F/R = 30 pts.
2 LB R45 L/F/R = 25 pts.
2 LB R30 L/F/R = 20 pts.
2 LB R60 F = 25 pts.
2 LB R45 F = 20 pts.
2 LB R30 F = 15 pts.
Torpedoes S6 = 20 pts.
So yes it doesn't really work out for the dauntless: S6 T = 20 pts. vs. S3 LB 25 pts.
Like I said: a guess ;). There are no pricetags so I did my best based on other information - and yes the 25 are a rounded value (from 22.5) hence the omnipresent call for abbreviations.
All in all it seems to me - by now - I should only round at the end and include the prices for slots directly ... but that won't effect many ships -> most of them only have 1 value that needs to be rounded at. Meaning: I doesn't matter when I round ...
-
The Despoiler BB can swap its 4 30cm Front arc lances for 8 Torpedoes and the Dauntless can swap its 3 30cm Front arc lances for 6 Torpedoes if you have valued the lances as 2 for 20 (10 each ::)) then a str 6 torpedo salvo must be 30pts, no guessing required and i believe that fixes the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, Armageddon correct?
-
Raising the point costs of torpedoes would put other ships in a bad spot. E.g. the Dictator, Overlord, Dominator ... and I guess some more.
Better solution would be to cheapen the costs of frontal lances. Let me just test a few things .. a possible sollution is: making frontal lances a bit cheaper. E.g. 5 pts. for a pair on each range:
2 LB R60 F = 25 pts. 20 pts.
2 LB R45 F = 20 pts. 15 pts.
2 LB R30 F = 15 pts. 10 pts.
Would be beneficial for some chaos ships but on a first look without much trouble, considering a small abreviation. Even the dauntless would better suit my calc. ... hm have to check this in depth be right back with some values.
So I just checked it - dropping 5 points per pair of lances doesn't really do the trick either.
Hades: stated as 200 vs. a freshly calculated 195
Murder: stated as 170 vs. 165
(without the drop the calculator would have got them just right ... )
Despoiler:
- stated as 400 (in the orig. Game) vs. a calculated 390 (including the 5 point drop - still pretty close)
- stated as 390 (in the old BFG:R) vs. 350*
(* This tells me I should check how the process on the chaos BS is coming along ;D)
Anyhow:
Dropping the points for the lances would be alright, as it is still within +/- 5 pts abbreviation. The exception to this would be the dauntless: with 5 pints less I get: 95, so 100 should still be alright. On the other hand increasing the point costs of the torpedoes will turn the whole imperial fleet up side down - surely some of them will drop out on the other end then.
The more I think about it the more I get the impression that there seem to be forced double standards when it comes to price costs ??? ...
P.s. Now that I think about it lowering the point costs of the front lances does't really help solving the original problem I adressed - so: nice to look at but not really helpfull I guess ;D.
-
Murder. Tyrant.
170. 190.
-10 range -10 range
-10 turret -10 turrets
-30 shields -30 shields
-80 hits -80 hits
-15 weapons -15 weapons
-20 lances -15 torpedoes
-5 speed -25 6+
-5 premium for range
Lunar/Gothic. Dictator
180 210
-10 turrets. -15 turrets
-30 shields. -30 shields
-80 hits. -80 hits
-20 weapons -10 weapons
-15 torpedoes. -15 torpedoes
-25 6+. -25 6+
-30 Launch
-5 synergy
Dominator
190
-10 turrets
-30 shields
-80 hits
-20 weapons
-25 nova (without torpedo option)
-25 6+
Dauntless
110
-5 turret
-15 shield
-60 hits
-5 weapons
-15 lances
-5 speed
-5 +1D6AAF
Well there went my lunch break. This is based off of the Murder vs Tyrant BFG-R pricing and obviously a bit on the fly so i havent had the chance to do more chaos just the basic IN cruisers. I dont like how high the hull goes as that pulls away from the weapons but it sounds legit so far.
-
Well there went my lunch break.
Nooo! Seriously no matter how much I argue here it is not worth sacrificing your lunch break! That was not my intention :-\.
On topic:
- I like it, thx especially because it circumvents the slot system which was annoying ...
- As far as I can tell the difference is: I gave away some broadside weapons for free, while this system make you pay for everything - but everything (front/broadside weapons & upgrade) is cheaper -> my guess: this makes more sense.
I dont like how high the hull goes as that pulls away from the weapons but it sounds legit so far.
Jup know what you mean - never bothered my while giving away some weapons for free - like I used to do. But if you calculate "hard" everything else must be pretty cheap which looks rather strange - btw. I totally agree on the costs for basics (hits, schields, turrets ...)
But - sry to say :P - I would need some explanation here and there:
- Cost for "range" & "premium for range"
E.g.:
- Tyrant (I assume the best one for ranged fire known to me) has a S6 R45 WB & a S4 R30 WB and pays 15 pts
- Murder has a S10 R45 WB and pays 10 points
-> Shouldn't the tyrant be cheaper when it comes to range upgrades?
- Are there any criteria for weapon synergies? (neutral question for further investigation)
- No additional costs for "chaos bonus" - I know it is not much but a bonus is a bonus? (Or do I miss a downside somewhere?)
- "Still something not 100% correct" Just a small example - based on what you posted - but you seemed to be in a bit of a hurry, or hungry (! Beware the lunch break ! ;)) so maybe it's not a thing at all ...
*** all points listed are based on the previous post ***
Armageddon:
- 8 hits: 80
- 2 tur: 10
- 2 shi: 30
- Prow: 25
- Weap: 20
- range: 10
- torp: 15
- LB 45 (???? really high for a LB S2 R60 L/F/R compared to LB S2 R60 F for 20 points)*
-> 235
(* Price is needed or the Armageddon won't match the 235 points)
Hades
- 8 hits: 80
- 2 tur: 10
- 2 shi: 30
- weap: 15
- range: 10
- LB F: 20
- LB 45 (*based on the price the Armageddon pays for a LB S2 R 60 L/F/R)
-> 210 (vs. the listed 200!)
So either they pay different prices for the LB*, or there are hidden weapon synergies, or something else. Not sure but it does not yet end up ...
Anyhow - I really like the info and the input of raw price costs! (Although it is all closely related my costs a second opinion is always nice). Hopefully all my questions can be answered so I can use this to rework my calculator and maybe expand to Orks, Tau and SM!!!! ;D
P.s. I won't be around internet till Sunday so take your time to answer - so long, have fun!
-
Heya,
my lunch break went to shuizzles as well. ;)
I went with the following, by all, not finished nor done, but I got great results... untill I added launch bays...
1 wb @ 30cm = 1,67pts
1 torp = 3,33pts
1 lance @30cm = 5pts
1wb@45 = 2
1 lance @ 45 = 7,5
1wb@60 = 2,25
1 lance @60 = 10
Nova Cannon = 30
(you cannot round)
1 hitpoints = 10pts
1 shield = 10pts
1 turret = 5pts
prow delflector
speed I didn't factor (as 20cm vs 25cm both have pros and cons), turns neither as I went for 45* only
Here is a link to my document.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuaXA8fc5AQ8dGU3SnV3MGRxVjUyQ2RscXd4VkNlOGc&usp=sharing
as you can see gun cruisers go perfect.
Problems arise if I add carriers.
Going by the old token:
1 lance = 3 wb = 1,5 torpedo = 1 launch bay
would punt the Launch bay at the Lance value of 5 per point of strength, but that just goes into the fog.
The solution would be to take another approach, which does result in downgrading the values for hull, shield & turrets. Firstmost hull points should come down then.
tomorrow.... another lunch.
-
Ok, about to work out then dinner but first the Tyrant BFG-R is 190 with 10wb@45cm or 180 with 12wb@30cm. It should be 185pts with the range (its +10 for the range but -5 for the downgrade from 6 to 4) however it pays a "premium" for having something unusual, in this case having 45cm ranged weapons on an IN cruiser.
More later.
-
Ok, about to work out then dinner but first the Tyrant BFG-R is 190 with 10wb@45cm or 180 with 12wb@30cm. It should be 185pts with the range (its +10 for the range but -5 for the downgrade from 6 to 4) however it pays a "premium" for having something unusual, in this case having 45cm ranged weapons on an IN cruiser.
More later.
No, it pays +10 pts for upgrading the range of 6 WBs by 15cm. This already includes the "premium" cost. The other 6WB@30cm get swapped straight to 4WB@45cm for no cost.
-
Lol... Funny? Or did you forget thats not actually how it works? The last time i checked a Tyrant with 4wb@45 & 6wb@30 doesnt cost 180.
-
P.s. I won't be around internet till Sunday so take your time to answer - so long, have fun!
And I am back ...
Well hello there ladies and gentleman,
you seem to be skipping a lot of meals lately - better not make that a habit ;).
Ok after 2 hours of thinking about comments I decided for something different. The opinions here vary greatly: so I suggest we try to go for common ground and move on from there?
Things - I guess - we all agree on so far:
- 1 hit = 10 pts.
- 1 turret = 5 pts.
Thing that should not be that hard to argue on:
- Shield costs: horizon argued with 10 pts. the rest seem to agree on 15 pts. So from where did you get the impression of 10 pts when the upgrade options list 15 pts. ?
Things that have to be clarified!
- Prow upgrade (so far ranges form 10 - 30 pts)
- Weapon costs
- upgrade costs **
- Firing arcs - to include or not include? *
- Speed&Turn - to include or not include? *
*
This game is all about maneuvering and firing. Not taking these things into consideration seems like a no-go to me. Although not everything should be judged that sharply like I originally planed: horizon has a point saying 20cm or 25 cm equals out. However 15cm vs 25 should have an impact.
**
I would stick with: upgrading 6WB (L&R) or 2LB (L&R) costs 10 points, as a baseline for further thoughts. Reducing the strength of a WB from 6 to 4 drops this price to 5 points in total. But feel free to argue with me about it ;).
And now that I am writing this I start to realize that this is probably not going to work. Some ships simply do not fit in every system (including mine ::)) ... damn it ... I will try to set up something else ...
P.S.
Ok I am right now setting up tables. They include the value of every Strength/ Range combination for the different types of lances and weapon batteries. It is a bit of work so give me some more time. Once it is done however we have a common base for further discussions ;).
One thing that caught my attention though is: how much for range upgrades at which stage?
- Upgrading a S6 WB (S6 L + S6 R) -> 10 pts.
- Upgrading a S9 WB (S9 L + S9 R) -> ????
- Upgrading a S12 WB (S12 L + S12 R) -> 20 pts.
Theoretically it is above S6 and I would automatically apply +20. Also possible is a middle value like +15 ...
(And yes some of you will already not agree to the basic mechanism I depict here: but I think increasing the range of a S12 weapon battery is indeed more expensive then just boosting a lone S6 battery.)
-
Lol... Funny? Or did you forget thats not actually how it works? The last time i checked a Tyrant with 4wb@45 & 6wb@30 doesnt cost 180.
Yes, it does. The BBB Tyrant is overpriced. The base cost is brought down to 180 pts. The range upgrade costs the same as before, 10 pts, so the range-upgraded Tyrant costs 190 pts instead of 195 pts. However, since the mixed range Tyrant is super-shit and there's a need for a 12WB@30cm 180 pt torp boat (and no need whatsoever for a mixed range piece of shit) then the base Tyrant gets its 4WB@45cm swapped for 6WB@30cm for no cost.
-
Pure ignorance but thats why we love you :).
-
So hello there everyone,
I created the promised weapon chart.
Please note:
- No rounding included.
- High-lighted some common combinations in green to better get around.
- Nut sure about the L/F/R weapons ...
- No Nova cannon yet ...
- Nothing of this has yet been compared to actual ships!!!
- It is a try to find common ground on weapon costs.
Please give me some comments to know what I am up to here ;)
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPVC0tTzRnUGRiRjg/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPVC0tTzRnUGRiRjg/edit?usp=sharing)
Edit: damn it ... ok I uploaded it twice and still there are some things not correct - note the S5 torpedoe volley is not the "wold-famous" one I wanted to highlight but infact the S6 below. But I guess you are smart enough to find your way around there anyhow ;D
-
Hey, for arcs:
a str2 dorsal lance @ 60cm firing LFR = 30pts.
-
Hey, for arcs:
a str2 dorsal lance @ 60cm firing LFR = 30pts.
Damn it ... I know you are right (I have the same costs in my original calc) but it won't work out.
Wait a second ... let me check this.
Ja: you are 100% correct :). It is the original value I had in the calc but I misinterpreted the current discussion. Anyhow: what I would need now is the price for just a S2 R30 LB :-\:
My guess would be the following: the LFR Lances are identical to the L/R ones regarding the price. And of course this has to be transferred to the LFR WB table ... which would mean that the L/F/R tables can simply be replaced by the L/R ones in general ...
new version:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPS3h5Q2RlM3l1R0E/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPS3h5Q2RlM3l1R0E/edit?usp=sharing)
Anyone opposing this?
-
Pure ignorance but thats why we love you :).
Is this directed at me? If so, what are you talking about? If the Tyrant had 6WB@30cm swapped for 4WB@45cm in BFG:R it would still cost 180 pts, not 185 pts. In other words, the original profile Tyrant comes down from 185 pts to 180 pts in BFG:R (and is then fixed to be a useful ship). The range upgraded version (10WB@45cm) is still 10 pts more than the base model, regardless of whether we're talking the 30cm range or the original mixed range profile.
So upgrading 6WB from 30cm to 45cm range costs 10 pts.
-
Right let me help you out here Sig.
180 (base price with 12@30)
-5 (drop from 6 to 4 on one hard point)
+5 (range increase from 30 to 45cm)
180 (6wb@30/4wb@45cm)
So Im not sure what your arguing about here...
-
About the remaining 6wb, the cost 10pts to go to 45cm.
-
+5 (range increase from 30 to 45cm)
Range increase should be 10 pts ?!
About the remaining 6wb, the cost 10pts to go to 45cm.
Ja that is what I am talking about ;)
On topic:
Including:
- this weapon table:
- https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPR3c2WTRNbEc0c0E/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPR3c2WTRNbEc0c0E/edit?usp=sharing)
- hit: 10 pts
- shield: 15 pts
- turret: 5 pts
- Speed: 20-25: 0 pts
- Speed: 30: 5 pts
- Speed: 15: -5 pts
- Turn 45°: 0 pts
- Turn 90°: 5 pts
- Chaos/Defiant (&Variants) boarding bonus: 2,5 pts
- Improved Thrusters: 5 pts
- Assault Boats: 5 pts
- Boarding Torpedoes: 5 pts
Excluding:
- weapon synergies and
- special rules (marked in orange in the table)
I get the following values for the selected ships (I tried to avoid those with to many special rules):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPOEtZdlpFU3JFYmM/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPOEtZdlpFU3JFYmM/edit?usp=sharing)
- @ Lunar "Benchmark" - ja it is 180 pts. But still a lot of the rest is not working out ...
- Also: I hid some spelling mistakes in there - yes they are on purpose to keep up the tension! ::)
And now: Feedback please! ;D
-
Right let me help you out here Sig.
180 (base price with 12@30)
-5 (drop from 6 to 4 on one hard point)
+5 (range increase from 30 to 45cm)
180 (6wb@30/4wb@45cm)
So Im not sure what your arguing about here...
Oy! Ok since no one seems to undertand :/.
You drop one hard point from 6wb to 4wb. -5
You then boost those 4wb to 45cm range. +5
That leaves you with a ship with 6wb@30cm and 4wb@45cm that costs 180pts.
Of course to get all of the weapons to 45cm you have to pay the extra 10 pts but thats a given as its a priced option I was just trying to quantify part of the switch to 10 from 12wb that you dont see.
-
You drop one hard point from 6wb to 4wb. -5
You then boost those 4wb to 45cm range. +5
Ah now I get the problem. Well: yes and no.
I did this rather "dynamic" approach like you suggested in a more accurate way here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPR3c2WTRNbEc0c0E/edit?pli=1
(Simply take a look at the top-left table for WB)
But also used the "non-dynamic" approach for a while.
Truth is: by now I don't know how it is really done. (First Strength then Range/ the other way around and when to round?) The only thing that is for sure is: at one point it is summed up and at another it is rounded ;).
-
Hey, for arcs:
a str2 dorsal lance @ 60cm firing LFR = 30pts.
Not quite. A str 2 dorsal lance @ 60cm firing LFR = 30pts when also taken with a CB upgrade.
-
Is there anything that mounts two lfr 60cm lances other than a CB? And where does that put a Battleship with 3, 45pts? Admech pricing was figured at 15 pts for one in BFGR so that seems correct.
-
Is there anything that mounts two lfr 60cm lances other than a CB? And where does that put a Battleship with 3, 45pts? Admech pricing was figured at 15 pts for one in BFGR so that seems correct.
This isn't the point. The difference between a Murder and a Hades is that the Hades costs 30 pts more, has 2L@60cmLFR and has stricter composition limitations. So adding 2L@60cmLFR for 30 pts and no other change is inaccurate.
-
So are you saying the 2 lfr 60cm lances should be more than 30 points and offset by a "heavy cruiser restriction" modifier?
-
Which brings up the question how much such an upgrade would cost? And how much of these 30 points are for what?
Also this would mean that certain weapons - namely the good LFR ones - that are present on these ships do become rather cheap compared to plain LR or F ones ... a disturbance in the force if you will ;D.
Furthermore a lot of ship already differ from calculated points - no matter which rules you use - and sadly it won't get any better with changes like that ...
P.S. Furthermore there is also the possibility that those limitations with bigger ships - "you need to take two ships of that to get that bigger ship" - are meant to limit the presence of to many good ships with those good weapons. So no extra cost but a simple mechanism to prevent e.g. 3 battleships within 1000 pts.
-
This isn't the point. The difference between a Murder and a Hades is that the Hades costs 30 pts more, has 2L@60cmLFR and has stricter composition limitations. So adding 2L@60cmLFR for 30 pts and no other change is inaccurate.
Sorry, if I drop it in too harsh... but that's just crap.
Following that logic every ship with a restriction should get a price reduction.
...like Imperial Light Cruisers for expample.
...or Grand Cruisers and Battleships besides Battle Cruisers.
...not to forget this nasty limit on ships with a Nova Cannon.
How many ships in IN or Chaos fleets does that leave that are "priced right" in your eyes?
Those ship restrictions are not there as a punishment, but merely as a way to prevent a spam of "goodys".
-
This isn't the point. The difference between a Murder and a Hades is that the Hades costs 30 pts more, has 2L@60cmLFR and has stricter composition limitations. So adding 2L@60cmLFR for 30 pts and no other change is inaccurate.
Sorry, if I drop it in too harsh... but that's just crap.
Following that logic every ship with a restriction should get a price reduction.
...like Imperial Light Cruisers for expample.
...or Grand Cruisers and Battleships besides Battle Cruisers.
...not to forget this nasty limit on ships with a Nova Cannon.
How many ships in IN or Chaos fleets does that leave that are "priced right" in your eyes?
Those ship restrictions are not there as a punishment, but merely as a way to prevent a spam of "goodys".
If they're "goodys" (spelt "goodies" btw), then they're obviously better point for point than the non-restricted vessels.
-
@ Brethren: hey there!
@ Sigoroth: I do not think there are hidden "point changes". As I said: calculations also do not indicate something here but feel free to come up with suggestions * :)
From my point of view however it is simple: better ships (with those better weapons) are limited through fleet composition rules.
Shifting point costs would then either balance this mechanism out, or charge them double: depending if we are talking about extra costs, or point re-gain. Both approaches however would work against the idea of basic fleet composition rules.
The only exception to this would be that they are already included (in existing ships) which would result in rather cheap prices for those rather effective weapons ???.
* As posted before:
I am willing to accept any reasonable explanation - based on composition rules or different ideas - why points differ. So far however: neither does my original calculator support this nor the newly patched-together approach - based on the suggestions made in this forum:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5208.msg42108#msg42108 (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5208.msg42108#msg42108)
-
If they're "goodys" (spelt "goodies" btw), then they're obviously better point for point than the non-restricted vessels.
Sorry. "Goodies". My bad.
I could more likely go with Battle/Heavy Cruisers being charged extra for having dorsal weaponry at all, besides paying for the weapons mounted there.
-
I could more likely go with Battle/Heavy Cruisers being charged extra for having dorsal weaponry at all, besides paying for the weapons mounted there.
Yes and no - pretty clear statement from my side ;D
I do actually support the general idea of extra costs for "better" weapon with the L/F/R characteristic. In the current state they are rather the same as L/R-only weapons. But that brings up 2 Problems:
1 Even basic chaos cruisers have these weapons prow mounted. Do not really think this should be extra charged although it is effectively the same advantage. Like you hinted at breth: extra costs only for dorsal mounts ...
2 In my original calc. some broadside weaponry was given for free: so L/R was effectively cheaper than L/F/R mounts. However neither did this really work out nor the proposed changes made here in the forum ...
-
I could more likely go with Battle/Heavy Cruisers being charged extra for having dorsal weaponry at all, besides paying for the weapons mounted there.
Yes and no - pretty clear statement from my side ;D
I do actually support the general idea of extra costs for "better" weapon with the L/F/R characteristic. In the current state they are rather the same as L/R-only weapons. But that brings up 2 Problems:
1 Even basic chaos cruisers have these weapons prow mounted. Do not really think this should be extra charged although it is effectively the same advantage. Like you hinted at breth: extra costs only for dorsal mounts ...
2 In my original calc. some broadside weaponry was given for free: so L/R was effectively cheaper than L/F/R mounts. However neither did this really work out nor the proposed changes made here in the forum ...
There is a problem with your terms. You use the LFR term to mean Left, Front OR Right and yet use the LR term to mean Left AND Right. This makes it seem as if LFR weapons are better. They are not. Multi-arc weapons are better than single arc weapons. A LFR weapon is better than a LR weapon but not better than a L+R weapon.
Regarding composition restrictions and points breaks, well I think that there is generally truth that a more restricted vessel is worth more than its cost, or at least it should be. Of course, sometimes a restriction may be put into place for reasons other than external (i.e., objective) balance but rather for a reason of internal balance (e.g., we don't want IN to have access to a crapload of cheap CVLs).
Specifically regarding the dorsal lance mount that CBs get, I think it's reasonably clear that they're worth more than 30 pts. A Murder is a piece of garbage and a Hades is actually pretty good. Of course, many find the Murder reasonable for its cost, but I think that most people find the Hades better, point for point. If the Hades was a basic cruiser I suspect we'd see a lot more of them than Murders in peoples' fleets.
Similarly, even though the Armageddon is priced at the high end of its acceptable range, paying full price for compulsory and suboptimal broadside range upgrades, it's still a reasonable ship and competitive option. This is presumably due to the inherent value of the dorsal weaponry.
-
@ Sigoroth
Ok I had just finished a huge wall of text but then I noticed the "hidden" point in your post:
Dorsal weapons should be more expensive but the ships containing them are cheaper due to limitations in composition. (E.g. an Armageddon gets 2 S60 Lances -> points ++ but is limited -> points --.) And it all sorta evens out at the end of the day.
Which brings up the question why you say that LR weapons are better but want to increase the points of LFR ones? I personally see those LFR weapons as better, or at least equal (see below) and the composition rules a simple mechanism to limit these "better weapons" on the battlefield. (LFR are mainly found on those ships affected by composition rules - same with better ranges, bigger broadsides ...)
There is a problem with your terms. You use the LFR term to mean Left, Front OR Right and yet use the LR term to mean Left AND Right. This makes it seem as if LFR weapons are better. They are not. Multi-arc weapons are better than single arc weapons. A LFR weapon is better than a LR weapon but not better than a L+R weapon.
1)
Out of interest: are there any L or R weapons out there? Just to clarify: when I say LR I mean L weapons and R weapons e.g. a Lunar has a S6 LR WB -> that is a S6 WB on the left side and a S6 on the right side -> capable of firing at two ships at the same time.
2)
And yes I think LFR they are better beacuse:
"LR weaponry can only be better" - if the following requirement are met:
- desired enemy ships/targets are to the left and right
- within range
- after you maneuvered your ship
Certainly a valid reasoning in bigger battles - with enough ships something worthwhile will be on the other side. LFR weapons on the other side:
- have greater range (in general)
- have a greater firing arc - firing upfront is an advantage
In short: they cover a bigger area and are easier to use in combination with other weaponry.
E.g. take the Armageddon caught in a typical situation: circling another cruiser firing one broadside. Now the dorsal lances are free to support the firing broadside, or work with the torpedoes, or can be used to support the fight of another ship. The other broadside weaponry can only hope that something will eventually show up while the ship navigates to keep the enemy within the exact opposite side.
I hardly ever need both broadsides (closing on the enemy fleet: even neither broadsides) but the two S60 lances can always *1 be applied - far more easily and much more purposeful. At the same time it is also correct that LR weapons are nice when the battle is big enough and enemy ships are present everywhere. I however mostly play 1000-1500 pt. battles - therefore my rating ;) !
Personal thoughts on this: on
A possible solution - I already presented to brethren - would be different base costs and different upgrade costs based on thoughts like this: LR weapons have the most guns on paper, but LFR can make the best out of range due to the firing-arc and F-only is prone to become not usable at all.
The basic R30 weapon would therefore be ranked as (from cheapest - to expensive):
F < LFR < LR
The upgrade costs however would would be sorted like this (from cheapest - to expensive):
F < LR < LFR
The whole system would be nice and better account for the different strenghts and weaknesses - but change a lot of price tags! Considering the problem to find common ground on anything I totally ignore it. So far I am not even sure if anybody here is interested in an accurate calculator that would allow for adjustments :P
Personal thoughts on this: off
All in all: I would not suggest point shifts for composition (or extra weapon mounts) - especially at this point. It is just way to complicated for the moment - remember announcing it is one thing but it has to be calculated corectly at some point. Right now however even basic point shifts within similar ships are unpopular. Like you said:
Similarly, even though the Armageddon is priced at the high end of its acceptable range, paying full price for compulsory and suboptimal broadside range upgrades, it's still a reasonable ship and competitive option.
Reasonable ship and competitive: yes. But to expensive compared to all its direct competitors: Overlord, Hades, Acheron - excluding the Mercury (never calculated with this because of the special rule that has to be quessed ::) )
*1 within range of course
-
@Mogwai
Yes there are LR only weapons (see Necrons) so when referring to broadside weaponry please use the L+R format.
On LFR vs L+R weaponry, LFR is not better. Consider: replace all IN broadsides with LFR versions at the same range. So a Lunar will have 6WB@30cmLFR and 2L@30cmLFR. These ships would not be competitive, they would fail hard. Broadside weapons get +100% firepower over single arc weaponry with certain downsides. These are:
- Cannot focus extra firepower on single target.
- Second target must be in opposite arc.
A natural consequence of which is that the second target is usually not of an appealing aspect. A good rule of thumb is that broadside weapons are worth 50% more than single arc weapons.
The advantages of LFR weaponry are:
- Easier to get a firing solution on the target.
- Can fire while presenting a defensive aspect (as opposed to F firing weaponry).
- Can be combined with more limited arc firepower.
Of these advantages we can see that the last only really applies to enhance the broadside firepower anyway, so there is no advantage in this over typical broadsides. The 2nd benefit is only a benefit over locked forward weaponry, having no extra advantage over broadsides. The 1st benefit is the only real benefit over broadsides, allowing for shooting on the way in (so an extra shot or two) and/or allowing for LO instead of having to turn. Broadsides however get that extra firepower.
So if we were to say that LFR weaponry is worth +50% more than single arc weaponry then we're saying that they're worth roughly the same as broadsides, though, to be honest I'd prefer broadsides (consider if the Carnage replaced its prow 6WB@60cmLFR with 6WB@60cmL+R).
As to the actual value of those dorsal lances we can see from the Murder/Hades example and from the Lunar/Armageddon extrapolation that they're worth 30 pts plus a composition restriction. I think that the difference between a Murder and a Hades is greater than a straight 30 pts and similarly the difference between an Armageddon and a 205 pt range upgraded Lunar is also greater than 30 pts. The fact that the Armageddon pays the full 25 pts for unnecessary range upgrades is what hurts its performance. If the Armageddon had 30cm broadsides and cost 210 pts it would be a great ship. As it is it's passable, even with the forced range purchase.
As to the cost of the Armageddon, it was originally introduced in a BFG magazine at 235 pts. When Armada was released and it was made official it got an inexplicable price bump to 245 pts. It took a long time (2010 FAQ) and a lot of badgering (mainly by me) for its price to come back down to 235 pts. Yes, 235 pts is the high point of its acceptable range, paying as it does a premium upgrade price for its range, but it is playable at that price, mainly because of the bargain that 2L@60cmLFR is.
-
Yes there are LR only weapons (see Necrons) so when referring to broadside weaponry please use the L+R format.
Necrons - did not think of them ... and haven't proxied them in a while ;D. Thx for the info.
On LFR vs L+R weaponry, LFR is not better.
Depends ... I mean I get your point and it is a valid one. But I tend to play smaller games 1000 -1500 pts. Which means there simply aren't enough targets to make it worthwhile. LFR weapons on the other hand - especially with their bigger range - prove much more useful there. Now of course If you play a 2500 points game there surely are enough designated targets on every broadside to make them worthwhile and deliver twice the punch.
To get to and end with it for now: I would like a better separation just like you - whatever that means ;). For the moment however I would be happy for a common and simple basis as already started here:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5208.msg42108#msg42108
Discussing further details seems kinda pointless right now. Surely interesting for future version but as it seems even a basic formula is not very popular. Kinda surprising to me as I think that would be quite useful ???.
@ Armageddon:
Do not get me wrong! It is not the price of the Armageddon. Right now I think that would be 230, but hey 5 points more would not be worth talking about. It is in fact the price of other ships of similar/ identical classification, as they are all cheaper than they should. So while the Armageddon "wastes" a few points the rest "saves" them. Same issue with some other ships: depending on fleet size it can mean an unjustified bonus for one side - "bringing 1000 points and "a reroll for free to" a 1000 points battle so to say" ::).