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

[Sigoroth]

So first things first, the Acheron was considered "advanced" technology a LONG time ago. In "present times", it's not so much advanced, but reliable enough for enough Warmasters that Chaos as a whole have built more of them.

Yeah, but we're on the technological down slope, so it should be more advanced now compared to then.

The Inferno is either too strong, or the Dev is too weak. But a 10 WB broadside at 60cm or 2 Lances at 60 cm seems to be a no brainer? Make the WB's 45cm range (or decrease the strength some) and you now have to make an interesting choice between the Dev and the Inferno.

This is the first I've heard someone suggest the Inferno is up to par with the Dev, let alone surpasses it. The Dev slightly edges the Inferno at equal ranges. I'd drop both to 45cm range (for internal & external balance reasons, and for greater differentiation re: Styx/Acheron). Then I'd drop the turrets of the Inferno by 1 and its cost by 10 pts. Gives a point of difference between the ships and I think helps to make the Inferno slightly better in the comparison.

staggered fire.  on vessels with large guns with high energy needs, you can't fire all the weapons without overloading your reactor. It's very similar to Tau railguns, they can't fire them all at the same time, and must 'cascade' their fire.

I never had a problem seeing it that way.. don't know why more people accept it.

Yeah, but it does the same as the Dev using twice the space.

The Hecate and Inferno i still resist. These ships are clashing in position with the Dev and Styx. I have the feeling that they were added on the basis of "make every bit combo count"

The original fluff for the Hecate was quite decent and provided a clear reason for the ships inclusion. A need was filled in its making. This is one reason I want the fluff to go back to the original.

To my mind this ship would have been an upgraded Dev. This is what fit the fluff best. However, this was pre-Inferno, and if that ship becomes official then the Hecate could either be an upgraded Dev or Inferno. If the Inferno gets the arse I think the Hecate should be based on the Dev, rather than stay the same.

As for the Inferno, it was included because the profile was pretty cool.

I just really don't understand the absent hardpoint on the Acheron as an 'advanced' ship.  Definitly not for 190 points.

As to the Dev, I would MUCH rather see it increase in points, because I would happily pay it.  It going to 45cm would make it much less synergistic in the dev-dev-styx carrier support squadrons that are so fun to run.  200 will be fine.

I can't help but feel that this lack of synergy is in fact what would help balance the Dev internally as well as externally. It would make the Styx better for its points by comparison (which it sorely needs) and it would make the Acheron's lack of broadside firepower more justifiable.

Cerberus is anti fun, because it looks nothing like the Slaughter.  I agree, 30cm and 30cm weapons, or I'll have a darth against it like most folks do when lances in marine armies are mentioned.

Not sure in what sense you mean looks, perhaps you mean it in the sense others would say 'feel'. I myself would be perfectly fine with 30cm range. I don't mind the lack of speed. However, if that range was 30cm all round, including the dorsal lances, then I couldn't see paying more than 185 pts for it. That is absolute high price too, btw. Adding 60cm dorsal lances for no other change would be 195 pts. Dropping those down to 30cm lances and dropping the speed is worth more than 10 pts.

[Zelnik]

Fluff can be awesome, but we need to be also concerned with the mechanics of the game.  I don't see the need for another set of carriers when chaos has a great pair already (yes, i LIKE the styx, you can burn me at the stake if you like).

I don't know how i feel about the Cerberus being more expensive then a vanilla repulsive.

[Sigoroth]

Fluff can be awesome, but we need to be also concerned with the mechanics of the game.  I don't see the need for another set of carriers when chaos has a great pair already (yes, i LIKE the styx, you can burn me at the stake if you like).

I don't know how i feel about the Cerberus being more expensive then a vanilla repulsive.

Well you can like the Styx if you want. That doesn't make it balanced though. It is overpriced for what you get. Consider 2 Styx. For an extra 20 pts you could get 3 Devs. While the Styx give you a little more firepower at 60cm range (roughly 3WB worth, at long range), the 3 Dev combo gives you +50% hits and shields and at 30cm or less +50% firepower and when using broadsides another +75% firepower.

The massive survivability boost and mid to late game direct firepower boost (54WBe vs 24WBe) is worth considerably more than the extra 20 pts you'd pay. Certainly the Dev is overpowered, but even if you were to boost its cost to 200 then the +60 pts you'd pay is still better. If the ranges were lowered on the Dev then they're still better to be honest, but now the dual Styx would actually get a clear niche advantage (range). By design the Styx is fine, it's just not balanced.

Still, even if it were balanced this isn't really a reason not to add ships. For example, a lance version of the Dictator is often proposed (I know I've proposed it). It just adds to the variety of the game. As for the fact that 2 out of 3 of the designs are carriers, well I think it's because there's an inherent bias against new gunships. Strange given that so many people say that this game is supposed to be ruled by gunships, not carriers.

For example, the Cerberus really is not worth even 200 pts as it currently stands, and I can see further possible nerfs that could really bring that price right down. Yet it's costed at 245 with resistance to it being brought even as low as 215, let alone the other 20 pts it needs to come down.


@Nate

Oh, and I'm not sure that I get this concept that CBs can't cost less than CAs. A Dominator is as expensive as an Acheron. A range upgraded Tyrant is more so and is even on a par with a Hades if given the power ram, as is a Lunar with NC. A NC upgraded Tyrant is more expensive than the Acheron or Hades. Worse than all that, a base Dictator with no upgrades whatsoever is significantly more expensive than either an Acheron or a Hades.

I know I'm comparing IN to Chaos, but they originate from the same race have very similar hulls (hits, shields, turrets, base armour, turns, weapon hardpoints, CAs/CBs, fleet composition rules, etc). I'm just saying that I can't see this rule as being an immutable one. I can see a cheap gunship retrofitted with more guns costing less points than a CV. A Slaughter that trades speed for a few extra short range guns for example.

[horizon]

I like and use the Styx too. But I do agree a change is needed to the Devestation to make the Styx more credible in the whole arsenal.
Though one aspect is sometimes overlooked: the str6 batteries on the Devestation is often never used as carriers never want to be that close. So in essence wasted points a lot of times. The batteries on the Styx are always useful, alongside the lances, as both are 60cm and LFR. So at all times in use. In a cruiser clash style scenario (fleet engagement) the LFR may be less into play but in an Escalating Engagement very useful.

[Zelnik]

why not reduce the cost of the styx? it's not like it isn't known that it's a costly monstrosity.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Actually, I think both should happen. Reduction in range of broadside lances on the Dev and I still think it should go up to 200 and reduction in Styx cost to 250.

[lastspartacus]

I'd really miss the 60cm range on the Dev, I really would.  But for sure 200 devs and 250 styx's sound real tight. 

Actually, I wouldn't be terribly opposed to 200 and 45cm for the Dev.

Although, while that sounds balanced, it IS chaos, whose fleet specialty is cheap and good ships.  Dunno if the Dev would still be a steal like the others if it was double-nerfed like that.

[lastspartacus]

@ Horizon.  Do you read anything in my posts besides 'Acheron'?  My complaints are mainly aesthetic over balanced.
And 'most firepower at 45cm' is a somewhat faulty statement.  Yes, lances are generally worth 3 batteries, but the Acheron wont be putting many hits on anything, so its a deceptive title.

@Nate.

The Cerberus is unfun and doesnt feel a thing like the Slaughter.  We want shorter range and faster speed.

Have you or any of the others considered a character VBB in the actual spirit of a VBB, that is, not having to be on one of 2 battleship chassis?

@Sig, I definitly feel that while carriers should be a credible force, they are too powerful currently in some fleets.
Adding more classes doesn't solve the problem though, the answer lies in balancing what is currently available.  Definitely wish more than a third of the new class releases were gunships!

[Sigoroth]

@Zel & Ad'A

You're right, the Styx should come down in price. As Ad'A says, 250 pts is the sweet spot for it. However, if you consider the notion of paying a premium for the extra AC in a cruiser chassis then 260 would do, particularly if the Devs range came down. Speaking of which, I really don't think that the cost should go up if the Devs range gets nerfed, particularly if the Styx comes down to even 260 pts.

The range on the Dev has been both its greatest strength and most incongruent feature. It has been a cheap carrier with great reach on its supplementary weaponry. Without it, it's just a cheap carrier.

Consider if the Devs range was dropped and the Styx came down in price, to even just 260 pts (still overpriced, but not nearly so much and we can justify by saying they pay a 'premium' for the extra AC). Then 3 Styx would cost 780 pts. For 760 pts you could buy 4 Devs. 3 x 6 AC = 18 AC. 4 x 4 AC = 16 AC. Ah hah! Now not only does the Styx/Dev comparison net you less survivability than currently (only +33% rather than +50%) but you actually come out worse in the AC totals, rather than parity.

While the 4 Devs would have +33% focusable firepower at 30cm and an extra 67% offside firepower (for a potential +100% total!), the Styx would have the advantage at 45cm (roughly +9WBe or +25%) and clearly dominate at 60cm. In fact, in the 45-60cm range band the Styx combination gains as much firepower over the Dev combination as the latter does in the 30cm band with enemies in both broadsides.

So for 20 pts more this combination gives the advantage in AC and firepower while the Devs give the advantage in survivability and, potentially, in leadership. This last point is only really valid if you're considering squadrons of course, but in which case an extra ship means an extra Ld roll which will increase your average Ld.

If the Styx were 250 pts and the same comparison made it would be 10 pts cheaper than the Dev combination. This seems about right to me given the increase in survivability, leadership and potential firepower of the Devs, but the 'premium' argument comes in and an extra 30 pts for such a difference in roles isn't too much.

@Horizon

I think the Devs WBs are used more often than you'd think. Yes, as a carrier you can sit back at range and support from afar. Much like a Mars or Styx. But also, as a carrier, there is some benefit to shotgunning your AC and you might want to function up close. Much like a Dictator. Of course, in the past the Dev has had the 60cm lances and probably has a preference for sitting back. However, in many of my games I have found my opponents closing with my Devs to engage them at knife fighting range. I've often been glad of those extra 6WBs.

Similarly, in the few occasions that I have played a Styx I have had cause to lament the lack of broadside weaponry. Of course, I like the design of the Styx, it's quite efficient and I would never consider running it in close to the enemy. However it has often been the case that my opponent has managed to close to a point with the Styx that if it had broadside weaponry I could have manoeuvred to take advantage of this. The same has also occurred when playing against them (my Chaos opponent has a greater fondness for them than I).

@LS

Yes, I myself proposed 3 designs, all of them CBs. One of the was a Hecate carrier. This was proposed because I liked the fluff and the name of the ship and because I wanted an alternative to the horrendously overpriced Styx. It was based upon the Dev.

The other 2 designs were both gunships. One was the Cerberus, though my version was much weaker than the current design, and I deliberately overpriced it considerably (195 pts) so that people wouldn't think it beardy and to maybe inspire an argument for a decrease in price or increase in stats. It was originally 30cm range all round, 25cm speed and broadside WBs dropped to str 6.

The other was the Charon, my personal favourite. This was a CB based on a Carnage for +30 pts. However, instead of 2 60cm dorsal lances it was given 6WBs at 60cm instead. Certainly weaker than the 2 lances that a Murder gains to become a Hades but for the same price. I thought there could be no objection based on balance (except perhaps an argument to bring down the cost), but Nate found a fluff objection instead. Oh well.

[horizon]

@ Horizon.  Do you read anything in my posts besides 'Acheron'?  My complaints are mainly aesthetic over balanced.
And 'most firepower at 45cm' is a somewhat faulty statement.  Yes, lances are generally worth 3 batteries, but the Acheron wont be putting many hits on anything, so its a deceptive title.

No, I was triggered by "Acheron" and "Too weak (or was it not enough?) for a heavy cruiser".

It has most fp at 45cm, take it or leave it. Lances are worth more then 3wb @45cm (around 4.5 at 60cm). Sig told me.

[Sigoroth]

Heh, yeah, look up the old Carnage vs Murder debate if you can find it. The Acheron is actually quite a heavy hitter in the 45cm band. The Hades/Styx/Carnage win out at 60cm (Dev/Murder pull a draw) and the Slaughter slaughters all at 30cm the Acheron holds the title of most focusable firepower on a CB hull or smaller in the 45cm band.

Of course, if you're looking above CB level then the Repulsive wins out, and if you're considering multiple arcs such as prow + 1 broadside then the Hades wins out, but the Acheron is quite cheap, has good defence against AC and does not need to be closing beyond getting to 45cm range, unlike the Hades, which has to have some targets in its fore arc.

This combination of good mid-range focusable firepower, little "wasted" offside fire, cost and defensive capabilities makes the Acheron a great raid style cruiser. Ie, it doesn't get in and mix it up, it deliberately keeps itself out of 30cm range (thus further increasing its survivability) and snipes away.

Given its cost, defensive capabilities, fact it sits back and its lack of total firepower this means that there is very little incentive for the opponent to even shoot at it. It is a very low priority target. A Carnage getting too close or a Slaughter approaching optimum range or a carrier group or the soft nose of a Hades are all far more tempting targets. This basically gives it carte blanche to act as it pleases. Circling the enemy, going on LO, whatever.

[horizon]

Precisly.

---
On the Styx coming down to 250pts. Is that a solution? I think not. Perhaps internal in the Chaos fleet but externally it will be to cheap.

Compared to a Mars:
Styx has +2AC (the unique factor)
Styx has +1 turret (the Mars oddness)
Styx has more range on weapon batteries which are otherwise identical aside of the Mars offside gunnery.
Both have same amount of lances & range.
Mars has prow armour (negated by AC & Lances).
Mars has a Nova Cannon.

Now would this be worth -20pts for the Styx then? Soley to the blue book the Prow Armour has worth, since Armada the worth has declined a little.

I think the Styx should be really in the band of 260-275. None cheaper.

[Sigoroth]

Well the IN are shafted with their CVs. Both the Mars and Dictator are overpiced. This is, I believe, a comparison of internal balance. There is almost no desire to include a CV in an Imperial fleet. This then is another reason why the Emperor is so good, because the alternative options are so bad.

Sure, you could nerf the Dev into the ground and leave the Styx as the tremendous waste of points that it is, thus balancing IN/Chaos CVs. But then no one would take them anyway and what would be the point of including CVs in these lists?

The Dictator should come down by 10 points, in addition to the Dev dropping its range. The Mars should come down by 15-20 pts I'd suggest. Maybe a little less if given a 3rd turret.

Still, the Styx should not be penalised because the IN CV options are so crappy. All that does is spread the crappiness.

[Vaaish]

Well I don't think that it's just that the other options are so bad in the IN fleet, it's just that they require different ships to work effectively. While the Empy is the cheapest route to 8AC in and IN fleet at 365 points, you could forgo the Empy and take a retribution along with two dictators roughly the same cost as the Empy and two other cruisers. Or you could take an Oberon and a dictator plus another cruiser again for roughly the same cost as the Empy and two cruisers. Obviously you'd need a third cruiser to make it legal, but the point is with each combination you are getting 8ac and a close parity on long range firepower for roughly the same cost although the empy still takes the most efficient slot.

The mars is a much trickier prospect. 270-285 points is hard to work in to match the 8ac the empy provides. In fact, I'd almost say the thing is only useful in a lower point game where you need a flagship but can't afford the points to take a full battleship and even then I'd probably say the Exorcist would be a better choice. Basically I find the mars to look good on paper and possibly work alright here or there for fun but there are better options around.

[Sigoroth]

So the Mars is either OK in very niche situations and so can't be compared to a fixed Styx or, by virtue of the fact that it's not OK in most situations it is unbalanced.