August 05, 2024, 11:25:42 PM

Author Topic: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions  (Read 176012 times)

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #375 on: November 22, 2010, 04:07:16 AM »
Problem with 60cm for the Oberon would be the fact it'll turn into the best IN battleship by a large margin.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #376 on: November 22, 2010, 06:29:56 AM »
Problem with 60cm for the Oberon would be the fact it'll turn into the best IN battleship by a large margin.

Better than the Emperor? I thought you were of the opinion that AC was overpowered ... Besides, this is simply a clear indication that the Retribution is crap. The Oberon has efficient broadsides. It has terrible dorsal weaponry, no prow armour, weak prow WBs instead of torps and is slow. The Retribution should be able to surpass it as a gunship. The fact that it doesn't just means the Ret is crap.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #377 on: November 22, 2010, 06:52:29 AM »
Because it'll be cheaper then the Emperor.
Same dorsal (10 @ 60cm)
Broadside 6wb + 2l in addition @60cm.
That dorsal is slightly better then 3 lances (despoiler, retribution), better then Desolator (6wb).

So it'll become the best gunnery BB with addition of ordnance.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #378 on: November 22, 2010, 08:22:26 AM »
Because it'll be cheaper then the Emperor.
Same dorsal (10 @ 60cm)
Broadside 6wb + 2l in addition @60cm.
That dorsal is slightly better then 3 lances (despoiler, retribution), better then Desolator (6wb).

So it'll become the best gunnery BB with addition of ordnance.

Well, the dorsal is actually only 5WB@60cmLFR, which is weaker than the Desolator. In fact, it's the weakest dorsal armament in either Chaos or the IN. The very least it should get is 60cm range. The prow weaponry is a match for it, and there's the +1 Ld there and certainly 9 torpedoes are worth more than 5WB@60cmLFR (though the +1Ld is quite valuable, we're only talking weapon strengths here).

However, since you seem to be ignoring ordnance for the purposes of finding the best 'gunship' for the IN, we'll take the Emp/Ober prow and dorsal weapons as one strength 10 weapon. You said that it's better than 3 lances. Er, no, it's not. If you're at close range, sure, if only just. But this is not a ship likely to get to close range. At long range I would say that 10WBs slightly edge 2 lances. At least, it's my preference anyway. But 3 lances? Forget the WBs, the lances are stronger.

So, if we're just taking guns into account, at 60cm the (fixed) Oberon could put out 16WB + 2L while the (cheaper) Ret could put out 12WB + 3L. At long range 1 lance is worth at least 4.5WB, therefore the Ret comes out on top in terms of guns, is faster, has prow armour and is cheaper. The Oberon has +1 LD. Therefore title of best 'gunship' goes to Retribution. Now, if we're going to take ordnance into the equation, I posit that the Oberons 4AC with +1 LD for reloads is better than the Rets +9 torps, in utility at least. So I'd prefer the Oberon. If you're of the opinion that torps are better then no doubt you'd prefer the Ret.

Still, since we're talking AC now, the Emperor comes into the equation with its 8 AC. If you believe the AC to be OP then the Emperor is even more OP than the Oberon. So the Oberon wouldn't be the best of all. In fact, I have no idea why the Oberon's ranges were downgraded in the first place. When the ship was first introduced no one thought it was OP. No one thought it was stronger than the Emperor. People might have preferred it to the Ret, but the Ret was 365 pts at the time and the Oberon was 335 pts. Now with the Ret being 345 pts it is certainly much more competitive against the Emperor and the (slightly weaker, significantly less favoured) Oberon.

What the original Oberon did, and what the Emperor still does, was allow an efficient long range platform. Both ships you sat in your back line, abeam to the enemy, pumping out ordnance and supporting the fleet with long range fire. If you did this with the Retribution you would be wasting your prow armour, your extra speed and your torpedoes as well as the off-side firepower (which was stronger than the Emperor's). Therefore to get the most out of the Ret you closed with the enemy. Of course, doing so meant you wasted the range on your broadsides.

This is why I don't like the Ret. It wants to close, therefore doesn't need the extra range, therefore didn't need to sacrifice broadside firepower to get the range. Firepower 18 at 45cm (1.5 x an Armageddon) would have been a great fit. Since the Oberon has practically the same long range fire as the Ret but not near so many redundant features when it chooses to act as a long range fire platform then I prefer it. The AC is always handy.

However, the Oberon is not nearly as efficient as the Emperor. It is a carrier but would prefer to LO, getting more from doing so than the Emperor and getting less from reloading than the Emperor. Also, the Oberon has increased off-side firepower compared to the Emperor, which is all but useless, unless the enemy is foolish enough to make a concerted effort to surround it. The larger possible AC wave of the Emperor makes its AC more than twice as good as that of the Oberon too. The Emperor really is the more deadly ship. The Oberon is just for those that want a gun platform that isn't as tremendously conflicted as the Retribution and which still helps to contribute to AC numbers. The Oberon should never have been nerfed. The Emperor is by far and away the most powerful IN battleship.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 08:24:56 AM by Sigoroth »

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #379 on: November 24, 2010, 03:12:31 AM »
Was the Oberon ever cheaper?  I somehow remember 315 points. 
If it stayed as it currently is, and was 320, that would be awesome.

A question on the Admech.  I just noticed that the omnissiah's victory is a member of the 'ark mechanicus' class battleship, but a character vessel.
How exactly does a normal ark mechanicus differ from the OV?

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #380 on: November 24, 2010, 03:30:40 AM »
Was the Oberon ever cheaper?  I somehow remember 315 points. 
If it stayed as it currently is, and was 320, that would be awesome.

The Oberon was an Emperor clone with 4 AC replaced by 2L@60cmL+R for 10 pts less. Otherwise identical. So it was always 335 pts. When the Ret and Emperor swapped points the Oberon got nerfed to stay at 335 pts rather than increase by 20 pts like the Emperor.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #381 on: November 24, 2010, 12:41:16 PM »
Was the Oberon ever cheaper?  I somehow remember 315 points. 
If it stayed as it currently is, and was 320, that would be awesome.

A question on the Admech.  I just noticed that the omnissiah's victory is a member of the 'ark mechanicus' class battleship, but a character vessel.
How exactly does a normal ark mechanicus differ from the OV?

An Ark Mechanicus is their version of a Venerable battle barge and is not a class per se. They are all rock-hard, and they are invariably different from each other, with the "Omnissiah's Victory" being one example.

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

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #382 on: November 24, 2010, 09:19:25 PM »
Noted, so there is not currently any other vessel that bears the Ark status besides the OV we can take, noted.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #383 on: December 01, 2010, 12:57:13 AM »
I kind of struck upon something while I was working the night shift the other day.

This is another alternate proposal to how AC work.  It will be more than the HA wish to do because a real update seems to go against whatever their MO is.  But bear with me, for theory and sake of local play.

Not discussing price changes in carriers, though this will almost surely cause them to not need to be as pricey.  I find its best to argue out the actual rules before points costing is discussed.  I will along with the rules, the logic that led to them.

Turrets roll to shoot down ordnance, they roll their dice and then they are mostly done.

Bombers are certainly nowhere near the size of 200 foot long torpedoes packed with ship-killing explosives.  There is no way they could do exponentially more damage.  They do however benefit from seeking out the weakest armor, and through this can sometimes achieve more precise strikes at weak points.  Bombers roll 2d6 against the weakest armor of a ship.

Fighters protect the bombers on their attack runs, and run interception/diversion as needed.  If there is not at least one remaining fighter marker in a wave to divert enemy fire after turrets have been rolled, bombers only roll 1d6 on their attack runs.  Markers that have the option to act as fighters must have their role in the attack run declared before turrets are rolled.

Fighter bombers act as both fighters and bombers.  When attacking a ship, markers with the fighter-bomber rule roll 1d6 against weakest ship armor, but do not have their roll reduced by lack of dedicated fighter markers.

Assault boats work as normal.  Surviving fighters in a wave with assault boats, -1 if bombers are also in same wave, may give a +1 bonus to the hit and run roll of the assault boat at a 1:1 ratio, as they cover the advance to the most optimal boarding location.

It always bothered me that bombers could do more damage than torpedoes could, to massive city sized ships covered in armor.
I feel these rules brings AC down to a good attack option with its own advantages and disadvantages.  It also saves minutes in the game by eliminating a dice mechanic.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #384 on: December 01, 2010, 02:32:39 AM »
Depending on the number of turrets, bombers and torps, I can definitely see bombers doing more damage than torps. When one is considering a bomber marker, it's not only representing one bomber but a squadron of them meaning 8-12 craft per squadron.  More craft means more numbers of attacks. So I don't see a problem there.

The problem with AC in BFG is that there is no attrition. There should really be attrition in the games instead of AC being launched turn after turn with no loss in efficiency until the ship is crippled or the launch bay gets a crit. How to represent the attrition is a bit tricky though as problems will crop up.

First, of course, the issue on how the rule should be set up. I'd make it that a fighter marker hitting a bomber or AB marker means that marker is lost for the game. Fighters attacking another fighter marker they roll D6 and who wins survives with the loser losing the marker for the duration of the game. When turrets hit the bombers or AB, the bombers or AB roll a D6. on a 4+ they live to fight another day. And probably some more mechanics but those would be the basic.

Second would be the decision on how many squadrons a carrier can carry per type. Before there was talk about twice the LB capacity per type. So for total LB of 4 that means 8 total markers. For IN that means 4 fighters and 4 bombers. For Chaos, it will be trickier as they now have to figure out which markers they want to take: fighters, bombers or assault boats for the 8 markers they can have for a 4LB ship.

What would be the effects on the game? Mainly, there will be issues on managing the counters as one has to note down which squadron has been destroyed or not.

Next, fighters will now be forced to escort the bombers or protect them to prevent the bomber marker from being lost for the duration of the game.

It will be difficult to make but I think the AC rules should be going that route.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #385 on: December 01, 2010, 03:11:46 AM »
You are right about there being more than one bomber, though 4 or 5 seems to be the right number for a squadron. Their combined mass may come close to equaling a torpedo.

Difficult should be a key word that perhaps your route isnt the overall best.  It really comes down to preferring realism or simplicity more, I think.

Other than that, no complaints?


Edit:  Just realized I posted this in NOT the ordnance thread.  so sorry. >-<
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 06:24:07 AM by lastspartacus »

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #386 on: December 01, 2010, 06:47:27 AM »
Why are you complicating the hit and run rolls? The roll is for the disembarking strike force shooting stuff up inside the ship where fighters would have no effect not for the AB's contact point on the ship. Any AB that make it through the turret fire can be assumed to have penetrated the hull relatively close to their targets or at least close enough that a surviving fighter isn't having any more affect on the situation since the AB is now past the ships defenses. 
-Vaaish

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #387 on: December 01, 2010, 08:35:18 AM »
In my post, I explained that fighter support would be allowing a more optimal boarding location.  Its included so that fighters have a use in ship actions, because in the fluff they would be supporting the bombers/boats.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #388 on: December 01, 2010, 05:54:43 PM »
Fighters shouldn't have any affect on such thing. It's an unnecessary complication that removes the specialization of races like Marines by letting anyone with fighters snag the +1. There is also no reason that fighters would have any affect on the fighting going on inside a ship. It's not like the AB are wandering around looking for a place to park. They know where they want to go and ram through the hull, having a fighter present wouldn't make a lick of difference where they are pointing the nose of the AB.
-Vaaish

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions
« Reply #389 on: December 01, 2010, 08:56:44 PM »
Well, marines would be getting a +2.  Its situational, because it means you chose to have fighters over more boats, and it also only applies to one boat per everysurviving fighter marker.  I know the fighters don't have anything to do with what goes on inside the ship, the reasoning is that with escort they are able to find more favorable areas to land closer to their targets that are better protected by turrets.

But if its seen as OP then of course its open for discussion.