If you could make a Chaos ship legal, which one(s) would it be?

[Vaaish]

Nate:

The chaos battle barge Vengeful Spirit says that loyalists may take it as a VBB or any of the options it has. This directly contradicts the Space marine pdf that says you may not choose any of the upgrades on vessels you choose as the VBB.

The rest of the BB options seem alright being slight variants of the Desolator or Despoiler but the Khorne BB seems to the get the short end of the stick with it's weapons range it feels like it could work in a largely slaughter fleet.

Haven't fully looked over the smaller cruisers yet.

[Caine-HoA]

Wow, i must say i was surprised that chaos will get 3 new ships, they already have a lot and others fleets didnt really get new ones.

[flybywire-E2C]

Wow, i must say i was surprised that chaos will get 3 new ships, they already have a lot and others fleets didnt really get new ones.

Hi Caine! All in good time, my friend! Tau just got a whole crapload of new ships courtesy of Forgeworld! Chaos only gets a few, as did Space Marines with the VBB and strike cruiser variants. The rest of the fleets didn't get any yet. Give us time- we're working on it.

Right now the Imperials (rightfully) have the largest variety of any fleet out there so there isn't a lot of rush to give them even more, but they will be revisited as well, but we can only polish up one project at a time.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

Nate:

The chaos battle barge Vengeful Spirit says that loyalists may take it as a VBB or any of the options it has. This directly contradicts the Space marine pdf that says you may not choose any of the upgrades on vessels you choose as the VBB.

Good catch! Thanks, I will fix this.

The rest of the BB options seem alright being slight variants of the Desolator or Despoiler but the Khorne BB seems to the get the short end of the stick with it's weapons range it feels like it could work in a largely slaughter fleet.

Haven't fully looked over the smaller cruisers yet.

Ray was worried about this as well, and I haven’t seen his last feedback about this yet. He recommended 45cm weapons with correspondingly smaller WB firepower, but ALL the fluff about Khorne in general and Angron in particular highlights his disdain for ranged starship combat and the World Eaters’ urgency to close as rapidly as possible to deliver massed firepower at extremely close range followed immediately with as many boarding actions and teleport attacks as they could. With this in mind, it seems logical that Angron’s personal battle barge would be optimized for this, even if many of his other battle barges carried a more traditional weapons suite. Think about the Sedditio Oppimiere’s current profile, circa M30. 

In any case, this is still a draft so like the Tau, there will probably be a few tweaks and other changes (like what Vaaish pointed out in a previous post) before we staple this shut.

-   Nate

[Caine-HoA]

Well i dont see the new "FW Tau" as new ships (as they already existed) but at least the two cruisers got variants so that could be seen as new ones.

Furthermore i dont really have a problem with it i was simply surprised.

[Vaaish]

Nate, on the Conqueror... Perhaps give it extra speed on AAF like the slaughter? That might be enough of a boost to make it an interesting ship but with the extremely short range for a BB and slow maneuvering it seems a little meh to try boarding with it.

Cerberus: why is is so expensive? The Repulsive with more powerful and less complicated weapons arcs is cheaper by 5 points even with the extra range on the lances. It just doesn't seem like it's all that worthy of the cost for what you get.

Hecate and inferno. Both of these seem similar but conflicted. Why is the heavy cruiser getting shorter ranged weapons yet costs much more than the Inferno that has slightly less firepower. I wouldn't think that those two lances are really that costly.

[Sigoroth]

Yes, it was purposely ignored. Chaos Warmasters do NOT have the ability to scratchbuild ships, though admittedly they are more likely to be rolling around with extremely rare, one-off pre-heresy (and even pre-Imperial!) vessels than the Imperium is. That being said, I think we came up with a pretty cool explanation for the Hecate.

You're begging the question here.

p1 - This ship has to be an Imperial ship because Chaos don't have the capability of scratch-building a ship.

p2 - This ship can't be a Devastation refit because its a scratch-built Imperial ship.

Circular.


There is no reason as far as I can see why the original fluff can't be kept. This ship should be a Dev refit. You say that Chaos can't scratch-build ships. Sure, but they can refit them. In fact, one would expect that since they can't make their own classes of ship they'd do more refitting than the Imperium does, out of necessity. Being that they're Chaos, and not so rigid as the Imperium, one would expect them to do more refits anyway.

Agreed, the Hecate is pre-Murder/Hades  as written. I disagree completely on up-gunning a Devastation as a solution set, but what we did instead makes sense and actually effects only small but significant changes from the current Hecate profile to reflect its Styx lineage rather than a Hades knock-off.

Yes, this profile is a lot more like a Styx than a Hades, which is much better as far as I'm concerned. However, I still see no reason why the original fluff can't be maintained. I mean, what you've come up with is ok, but I much prefer the notion that Chaos Warmasters were pro-active just this once and "created" a ship. Of course, by "created" here I don't mean built from the ground up, rather just converted an existing ship, but "created" a class of ship by doing so.

So I'd really like to see the fluff go back to how it was, even if no change was made to the stat-line. In this case the ship wouldn't be a refit Dev, it'd be a refit Inferno (more on this name to come).

Be nice, Sig. Just because I don’t know my arse from my elbow doesn’t mean I want someone to spout off to everyone about it! That being said, I like Massacre over Annihilation only because it doesn’t fill the mouth as much to say it. In the end, neither of these were selected for the first draft, which can be seen here:

Hey, I was being nice! I put in the little smiley face thingy. That's nice. It's like smiling when you punch someone in the face, to soften the blow. 

Anyway, I do agree with LS that the class name should be an adjective one might use for the result of a battle, such as Murder, Slaughter, Carnage and Devastation. So the "Inferno" is a really poor name for this class. It's a decent name in and of itself, just not in this context.

Yes, Massacre would certainly fit the bill in this regard. However, it's another 'M' name. We already have one; Murder. Annihilation would give a different letter, meaning we'd have A, C, D, M & S classes, which makes it easier when talking squadrons such as CCC, MMH, AAD, etc. Oh, and Annihilation is not too many syllables. It has the same number as Devastation. Massacre is certainly better than Inferno, but Annihilation is best (and Massacre is just a little dull for my tastes).

Oh, by the way, I really like how you included the rejected names as famous ships. Pretty cool. Now all you gotta do is change the class name to Annihilation and add Inferno to the famous ships. 

[Sigoroth]

Ok, so I've done the naming and fluff post, so that's out of the way. I'd like to comment on the actual profiles now. Ok, first off, I do prefer this Hecate profile to the previous one, but taken in conjunction with the "Inferno" and the rest of the fleet there are still some problems.

If you were to take a Styx over a Hecate you would be dropping 6WB@45cmL+R broadsides to pick up 2AC. For this you pay an extra 30 pts. Very very pricey. Now, compare the "Inferno" to a Carnage. If you were to take the Inferno over the Carnage you would be giving up 6WB@45cmL+R, same as in the previous comparison, but this time you would gain 4 AC (twice as much) and only be paying +10 pts (one third the increase) and you'd be getting an extra turret as well.

Sure, the Styx pays a premium for being able to have more than 4 AC, but paying 3 times as much for half the bonus AC is surely a bit much, not to mention the extra turret on top. Ok, some of that is surely that the Styx is overpriced. However, I also think that the current Inferno is probably a touch strong too.

I liked Lastspartacus's original profile better. So instead of being at Carnage level technology it's reduced to Murder level tech. So bring all the guns down from 60cm range to 45cm range. Drop its turrets value down to 2 as well. Bring it down to 180 pts. So then, compared to a Carnage it loses 10WB in the 60cm range band and 6WBs at 45cm or less in exchange for its 4 AC. A much better trade, keeping both viable.

Compared to a Dev this profile would be a little weak. The Dev has roughly equivalent firepower at 45cm and slightly more at 30cm and an extra turret. If this was all it got then I'd be happy with the 10 pts difference. However, the Dev can reach out to 60cm, which makes it clearly superior. It should be remembered though that the Dev is an overpowered ship, and new ship classes shouldn't be made overpowered just to compete with it. In fact, I think that a great balance for the Dev would be to drop its broadside lances down to 45cm range, which would make the profile LS proposed competitive, balance the Dev a good deal and make the broadside lances of the Acheron less "sucky".

Then I would drop the broadside firepower of the Hecate down to 4WBs, to reflect it being a refitted Inferno (Annihilation!). So, compared to the Anni, er, Inferno, it'd get +15cm prow range, +1 turret and +dorsal lances. It'd still be costly at +60pts (+50 should be the maximum for all this) but at least it makes the Styx slightly better in that it only gives up 4WB@45cmL+R for 2AC at +30pts rather than giving up 6WB@45cmL+R.

Right, that's them done. Now the Cerberus (great name choice, where'd you come up with that?   ). Ok profile, though if it were up to me I'd drop all ranges to 30cm. Just that bit of extra character. In this case the Slaughter would be simply redirecting energy from engines to power the dorsal lances. A simple upgrade that would require very little in the way of refitting to accomplish. Of course, that's the route you've taken in the fluff too, just that this ship gets a lot of range and firepower for the loss of speed. I don't know, this trade-off might be viable, I just think that the speed for 30cm dorsal lances would definitely be viable.

Regardless of whether or not range gets dropped, there is a massive problem with this ship. Its cost. Would you take 2 Cerberus or 3 Slaughter? At 245 pts it would cost 490 pts for 2 Cerberus vs 495 pts for 3 Slaughter. So that's 8 extra hit points, 2 more shields, +5cm speed, +1d6cm on AAF, +8WB focusable fire at 30cm and +22WB total fire at 30cm. On the other hand the 2 Cerberus get +15cm range on half their guns and cost 5 points less. I know which combination I'd take.

If you start with a Slaughter (165 pts), add dorsal lances (30 pts + 5 pts fudge), and upgrade the broadside weapon batteries ranges (+10 pts +5 pts fudge) you come to 215 pts at absolute maximum. That is fudging twice AND ignoring the loss of speed AND ignoring that the dorsal lances are only 45cm range instead of 60cm. This ship is way way waaaaaaaaaaaay too expensive. Way.

So, a summary of recommended changes:

Inferno: Name changed to Annihilation(!). Ranges dropped to 45cm, turrets dropped to 2, price dropped to 180 pts.

Devastation: lance range dropped to 45cm. (Not a part of this document, but I feel it's necessary and at the very least ships should be balanced against a 45cm broadside Dev rather than against a 60cm one, so it should be kept in mind when considering costs and capabilities of other ships.)

Hecate: broadside WBs dropped to str 4. Fluff restored to Chaos upgrade (refitted Annihilation).

Cerberus: Cost dropped massively. No more than 215 pts, more like 210 pts. And that's still a conservative estimate.

[Sigoroth]

Oh, by the way, in the Cerberus fluff you often refer to it as the Charon. One of these I believe is supposed to refer to a Cerberus class ship named Charon (italicised), but the rest of the time it's a mistake that needs to be edited. Also, in the same bit of fluff there appears the word dissatisfactory. This should be unsatisfactory.

In the Hecate fluff (which I think should be returned to the original anyway) there's a spelling mistake ... orbital docs of Belis Corona. Should obviously be "docks".

[flybywire-E2C]

Oh, by the way, in the Cerberus fluff you often refer to it as the Charon. One of these I believe is supposed to refer to a Cerberus class ship named Charon (italicised), but the rest of the time it's a mistake that needs to be edited. Also, in the same bit of fluff there appears the word dissatisfactory. This should be unsatisfactory.

In the Hecate fluff (which I think should be returned to the original anyway) there's a spelling mistake ... orbital docs of Belis Corona. Should obviously be "docks".

The Charon gaffes were because this was almost the Charon, but Cerberus just sounds cooler.

As for orbital docs at Belis Corona, that's not a typo. You should have seen them- all female, really cute, some of them even knew a thing or two about medicine. No wonder those docs got raided!

(Just kidding - fixed!) 

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

There's a lot of stuff here, more than I have time to reply to in the manner it deserves so let me get back to you all on the rest of this tomorrow.

- Nate

[Sigoroth]

There's a lot of stuff here, more than I have time to reply to in the manner it deserves so let me get back to you all on the rest of this tomorrow.

- Nate

No worries, I also limited my purview of comments to just the Cerberus, Hecate and "Inferno". These are the ships I've recently thought about the most and so were the easiest to study and comment on. I'll have a look at the rest of the document a bit later.

[lastspartacus]

Love the ideas, Nate, just one suggestion.  I know work has already gone into this, but VBB's are said to be potentially any ship.
What if Slaanesh' VBB was a fast and incredibly hard hitting heavy cruiser?  What if khorne or black legion or thousand sons had a grand cruiser VBB, rather than having to be confined to 2 battleship chassis?  It always did irk me that chaos, known for its random variety, had fewer battleship options than impies, but thats another story.

[Sigoroth]

Wages of Sin - right, it's a Desolator, reduced ranges, added launch bays. So assuming a 20 pt reduction for the range and a 60 pt increase for the bays we have 340 pts. Then you add 95 pts worth of fleet options (MoS 25pts, CL 25pts, CSM crew 35 pts, Termies 10 pts). So 435 pts all up. You've got it at 430 pts. OK.

Couple of problems here. Firstly, that's a lot of upgrades we're forced to buy. If I were to take CSM crew I wouldn't take a Chaos Lord. I'd likely take CSM crew for this ship, but the option of not having to would be nice. Therefore I'd not value the CSM crew at 35 pts (it's pricey enough as an option). I'd also not take the termies. Hell, I wouldn't take the Mark of Slaanesh unless it was on a Daemonship (which I'd also not likely take). So a whole heap of expensive and/or unnecessary upgrades, all of which combine to make this a lemon.

Also, it says that it has to be the flagship. How are you going to put the Warmaster aboard this ship when it comes with a Chaos Lord?

I'd ditch the Chaos Lord, value the CSM crew at 30 pts, MoS at 20 pts and Termies at 0 pts, for a grand total of 390 pts.

By the way, I really hate the new Chaos oppositional powers. I hated it when they brought it out in one of the 3rd (4th?) ed 40k Chaos codices and I hate it now. Khorne and Tzeentch are traditional rivals, and it makes sense that Slaanesh and Nurgle would be enemies (Nurgle is fugly). Slaaneshi love battle, for the pleasure it derives, and Khorne live for it. Nurgle is all about decay and entropy and Tzeentch is the Lord of Change. So Khorne/Slaanesh are natural allies as are Tzeentch/Nurgle.

[Sigoroth]

Conqueror - I have a modelling problem here. I do not like the assumption of the 1 lance 4 WB hardpoint that people assume from the Slaughter picture. We see the same hardpoint being used by the Devastation to represent pure lances. We see the Acheron simply using turrets plugged into the hull. The Acheron however is an oddball. We see the same thing happening on the Desolator. The Desolator is likewise odd. By "odd" in these contexts I am referring to the fact that these ships have less powerful weaponry than their broadside armament would imply. Therefore I discount these ships as precedents.

Either the Slaughter picture is wrong or the Dev picture is wrong. If we say that the Dev is the wrong picture then we can represent the lances on that ship by plugging them directly into the hull and the deck that comes on the sprue can be a hybrid lance/WB deck, as per the Slaughter picture. The problem with this is that this makes the Dev look crap and the Slaughter look so-so. Also, it makes the Acheron/Desolator even more odd in that they are inefficient whereas the Dev (armed in exactly the same manner) is perfectly efficient.

Otherwise we can assume that the Slaughter picture is wrong so the Chaos ship sprue comes with a launch bay, a WB deck and a lance deck (just like the imperials). In this case the Slaughter would be armed with a WB deck and a lance deck and the Dev would be armed with a launch bay and a lance deck. When we do this they both end up looking good and separates the oddball ships into their own little realm.

So, long story short, I don't buy the lance/WB combined hardpoint. I'm sure that others don't as well. Therefore I don't like the idea of this ship using 3 of these decks.

As for balance, I would again drop the Lord. I could not see paying more than 350 pts for this ship. Compared to a normal Desolator: +30cm broadside range is worth around 30~40 pts, the 3 lances at 30cm range is worth something similar. The range/firepower trade-off on the dorsal weaponry is roughly equal and I'd say around 50 pts for the CSM crew, MoK and termies.