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

[flybywire-E2C]

We got some final play-testing done today with some friends in Jacksonvile, FL. If we make the Inferno legal at all, this is the profile we will be giving it.

Inferno Cruiser: 190 points
Cruiser/8, 25cm, turns 45deg, Armor 5+, Shields:2, Turrets:3

port LB's: 2
stbd LB's: 2
port WB's: 4x45cm
stbd WB's: 4x45cm
prow lances: 2x60cm (front)

Essentially, this is a Murder that trades launch bays for batteries. Before someone states the profile is skewered and not powerful enough, this has the same profile as the Murder (including the lance broadside variant), trading its broadside lances for launch bays and an extra turret for +20 points. Essentially, thsi is a cruiser optimized for a prow on approach (follow Murders around) instead of a stand-off beam-on formation (support Carnages), which the Devastations do far better than closing. This gives it a purpose in the fleet as something sufficiently different that it's worth the trouble of even making a separate ship entry at all.

This cruiser is not as powerful as a Devastation for the same point cost. This is intentional, as the Devastation is under-priced but is not being changed this go-around.

- Nate

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

So why would people take this over the Dev if you're not changing the Dev?

Here's the thing. Sure it might look like it will function like a Murder but I won't be putting this ship in my Murder squadrons anytime soon for sure as it will wasted since I can't be RO-ing when my Murders are LO-ing. And if I am not squadroning it, what is it supposed to be doing? This ship will compete with the Dev and I would pick the Dev anytime. Because the Dev is a stand off vessel. Launching AC and picking off targets of opportunity with its 60 cm lances and will show an abeam profile, much better than the Inferno's prow on approach.

Also just throwing this out there but using Smotherman, it's still undercosted by 20 using the above profile.

[Sigoroth]

Aaaaaaaaaand this profile loses all the attraction the ship had in the first place. Murder equivalent technology (so 45cm guns) not a Murder clone. Replace prow weaponry with 6 WBs at 45cm LFR, drop the turrets down to 2, the price down to 180 and the Devs lances down to 45cm.

If you're worried about that one introductory scenario for beginners then put in a condition "no carriers" (ie, nothing with 4+ AC). Hell, the points limit should be changed anyway, since Corsair Eldar can't even field a Shadow in it.

[BaronIveagh]

As another murder/Dex user, I also agree, this is a ship that wouldn't make it into my fleet list if I can choose the dev over it. 

[lastspartacus]

Lol.  Thats all I can say bout that

[RCgothic]

In both the Imperial and Chaos threads, it seems we would all universally prefer fixes to existing ships than having new ones.

[Sigoroth]

Well, to be honest, I do feel that Chaos needs some more heavy cruisers. The 3 they have just aren't that great. Sure, the Acheron is balanced, but its profile bugs me a little, and it's an ugly model. The Styx is overpriced, so I don't like it (though its design is quite good) and the Hades, while reasonably priced and fairly powerful is based upon the Murder, which I dislike.

I very much like the 3 non-Murder Chaos cruisers and it annoys me a little that we've got a CB version of the crappy one, an ugly and crappy (but balanced) CB and a good but overpriced CB. So my preference for CBs is my Charon design (Carnage CB), followed by the Cerberus and Hecate in that order.

Fixing the Dev would help with external balance (make the Dictator not quite so sucky) and also internal balance (Styx becomes slightly better for its cost, Inferno becomes a viable addition if its profile is tweaked) and it would also help to make the Archeron's broadside lances not quite so dismal. This last point combined with the fact that I'd prefer not to mess up people's fleet lists is why I'd go for the range drop rather than a points increase.

[lastspartacus]

Or just stick the Dev up to 200 points, sounds about right.

[Zelnik]

Hey, I like how the acheron looks...

I fail to see the use of the inferno, and its position in the game. Mostly because I cannot for the life of me see why you would take it over the acheron.

[fracas]

not sure why anyone would take the inferno over the devastation

[flybywire-E2C]

In both the Imperial and Chaos threads, it seems we would all universally prefer fixes to existing ships than having new ones.

Quite frankly, as per our guidance, these kinds of fixes (changing profiles instead of just costs) will be shot down. All our work will be for nothing if GW won't post it to the SG Resources page.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

As another murder/Dex user, I also agree, this is a ship that wouldn't make it into my fleet list if I can choose the dev over it. 

That's your choice, buut we'll leave it in as an option because it's not inherently broken this way. Here's the other reasons we can't make more significant changes.

- The Devastation is inherently better than an Acheron. That means in order to change the Devastation's price, we have to change the Acheron's price because by design cruisers can't be more expensive than heavy cruisers. That's why we ALSO can't make the Acheron cheaper.

- On this go-around, we can't make any significant changes to the basic profiles if we ever want this to get put on the Resources page, which is why so many of our fixes are of the "pay 'x' points for  'y' improvement" variety. We can only fix what is genuinely broken, not merely sloppy. The Devastation makes the water a bit muddy, but the Orks and Eldar have items that are actually broken so those are what we are reserving our silver bullets for.

- Nate

[RCgothic]

So if you can't make the fixes required in FAQ2010 without FAQ2010 getting shot down, don't make the changes in FAQ2010!

You can then attempt the changes to profiles/prices that are actually required in documents that won't jeopardise an entire project. Just point us at a GW SG Mailbox and we'll bombard them with letters until they relent.

I mean, we're not just going "woot! buff everything!" Devestation and Emperor needing points increases being cases in point.These are changes that would genuinely benefit the game, and if GW can't see that then they are idiots. (note that any letters would refrain from use of the word "idiot")

[lastspartacus]

+1

Whats the point of talking about fixing what needs fixing if you can't get your balls behind it?

General and metaphorical of course, not pointed at anyone.

[Sigoroth]

OK, well, I would suggest balancing any new ships against a 45cm broadside Dev. So, just don't worry if they're overshadowed by the current Dev. Then I would include an "Optional House Rule" in the FAQ, bring the Devs range down to 45cm. Work on getting it official later.