August 05, 2024, 03:23:34 PM

Author Topic: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?  (Read 171140 times)

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #150 on: October 29, 2010, 10:06:19 PM »
It needs torps, simply to make RO worth it.  Right now it has to choose 'do I want to invest in pathetic ordnance or pathetic shooting?'

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #151 on: October 29, 2010, 10:21:45 PM »
No it does not. It's not supposed to be a gunline support. It's supposed to be AC support. With this Defiant, you almost always have to go with AC. I'm open to it getting Str 6 torps though as an option. Not this FP wimpy WBs and Str wimpy torps because they insist on wanting 2 types of weapons on the prow.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #152 on: October 30, 2010, 07:32:39 AM »
Well, then I guess forgetting it exists is an option too :)

I havn't really said it before, but I really do like the proposal for how to fix the other two.

But, Nate, I still havnt heard whats OP about prow armor and 90 turns compared to 45.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #153 on: November 03, 2010, 07:43:11 AM »
Seeing as how my new Imperial Light Cruisers got destroyed by the post, I've thought of another reason why the Endurance and Defiant should be point restricted rather than tied to the Endeavour.

Models of this ship type are freaking rare, and yet to field a Defiant or Endurance you must have two. To field both a Defiant and an Endurance at once means you must have four. That's incredibly unlikely when the only official kit is for Ad Mech, who have no restriction, or a garage-kit that only a select few will ever hear about.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 08:40:21 AM by RCgothic »

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #154 on: November 03, 2010, 11:01:50 AM »
If its impossible to add anything to the sides of the Defiant, why not give it a fluffy answer:

The Defiant is a luxury ship for pilots, boasting twice the room and facilities most military vessels have for a similar amount of craft.
'Defiants do not need to RO to replinish their ordnance'
or 'Defiants automatically pass RO'
or at the very least 'Defiants gain +1 LD for RO 

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #155 on: November 03, 2010, 11:36:31 AM »
That is a good idea. Or rather "The Defiant's launch bays never have to reload", just in case it gets torps (which i still think it needs.) S4 Torps, S2 Dorsal Lances, and that rule would really help the Defiant.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #156 on: November 03, 2010, 07:56:25 PM »
If it gains the unique ability to replenish attack craft without RO, I think I would like it fine at 120 points.
I forgot to add a caveat I thought was needed 'Defiants do not need to RO to replenish attack craft, automatically replenishing at the start of your turn, unless the Defiant is under BFI'

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #157 on: November 03, 2010, 08:23:06 PM »
This feels like a bad idea to me. I can't think of anything that is capable of launching ordnance without RO, even nids who by any stretch should be the race that doesn't need to RO aren't able to pull off that trick so why would a light cruiser be able to do it? +1 to RO rolls is an interesting idea and such things do have precedent with Ork rules, the Empy, etc. In the end, even with added special rules, I just don't see much point in taking the defiant since it would likely squadron with another ship anyway and that ship would still need to RO.
-Vaaish

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #158 on: November 03, 2010, 08:54:44 PM »
Well, I figure for nids the special order means its a deliberate action of the mind of the hiveship to reload its ordnance.
The idea behind the Dauntless is that, with an immense facility to craft ratio, the function takes place as easily as reloading a direct fire weapon, that is, can function independantly of the rest of the ship.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #159 on: November 03, 2010, 09:52:56 PM »
The defiant has 3 major problems:

#1. It's just plain undergunned by 5-10WBe, even counting it's AC, compared to its other variants. It can focus what it does have better, but that doesn't cover the whole gap.
#2. It's barely worth risking a RO order on for just 2 AC. Any RO check for it will almost always come last, after all other SO, and without RO it's worse than 1/4 of a gothic.
#3. It's tied to another non-AC physically rare LC, when all you wanted to do was fill an AC niche.

A fix has to address all three. #3 can be done by tying to points. #2 Can be done with more torps, or a special rule as just suggested. #1 is just a straight bump in firepower.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 10:00:31 PM by RCgothic »

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #160 on: November 03, 2010, 10:57:28 PM »
Again, do not compare gunships with carriers. Just because one thinks one ship is undergunned compared to another does not mean the undergunned (or so one thinks) ship cannot win. The Defiant can easily take out the other two Endeavor variants one on one as long as it does not come close and just stays away until the target Endeavor/Endurance is crippled. Even the Dauntless can be given a run for its money by a crafty Defiant user.

Do not even just convert one weapon type to another type because you have no hard and fast rules for doing so and because each weapon type performs differently from one another.

If anything, I think its time to drop the 1 Endeavor required for each variant. Having that requirement is the one which makes the Defiant expensive so I am all for removing it and thereby solve the #3 problem.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 11:03:25 PM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #161 on: November 04, 2010, 12:12:59 AM »
I'm assuming by saying that you dont mean to say thats all that needs doing to the Defiant.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #162 on: November 04, 2010, 02:45:51 AM »
Of course not. Giving it the 6+ prow armor and picking only one weapon system but maximizing it should be fine, either Str 6 (most likely scenario) torps or FP6 WBs or Str 3 Front only lances although Str 2 LFR lances is also fine.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #163 on: November 04, 2010, 06:46:15 AM »
:/

Special rules are definatelly not the path I'd like to see taken.

I still advocate my variant. :)

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #164 on: November 04, 2010, 09:24:34 AM »
I advocate it as well, but with S4 torps if that's what the other variants get.

Admiral, I think you over-rate carriers.

On a 6x4' board, starting at opposite long edges, with the Endeavour Closing and Defiant Abeam, the defiant, doing everything it can to evade the Endeavour, will get off 3 AC waves before the Endeavour gets into weapons range, doing 6 attack runs. The Endeavour is free to go on Lock-on to try and swat the waves, and free to brace if it fails, as it isn't doing anything else. Assuming the AC don't get swatted, it will do 4 attack runs against a braced ship, and 2 against an un-braced one (because the Endeavour will imminently be in firing range and would rather Lock On.) The Endeavour takes 1.33 hits average before entering weapons range.

Thereafter, the Defiant's lances will only damage the Endeavour's hull in 1/4 of shooting phases. The Endeavour will do 0.6 hits with its torps, (1.3 hits if S4), and then 0.3 hull hits (1.3 if locked on). The Defiant cannot brace, as it depends on its AC, and it cannot lock on, as it depends on its AC.

In the following turn, the Endeavour closes to close range, and from then on it's all going the Endeavour's way. As soon as it's crippled, S1 AC pose no real threat, (being shot down 75% of the time by 2 turrets) and S1 lances won't ever get past 1 shield. The Endeavour, with S4 WBs, can still pose a threat, even when crippled.