August 05, 2024, 07:20:24 PM

Author Topic: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?  (Read 171191 times)

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #405 on: January 27, 2011, 07:00:56 AM »
^truth.

baron: just see the wildly excepted mms, plax's [fan] revisions, and distant darkness. plenty of nice unofficial change happens - bgf is a specialist game after all
hmm. FDT's shredded an enemy carrier fleet in a small fight... didn't expect that.
No reserve jovian solves everyone's problems, whether you like bakka or not. swapping with the dominion would be frakkin sweet cuz its my favorite IN carrier.
Bakka still really needs dauntless and defiant/enforer regardless.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #406 on: January 27, 2011, 07:07:24 AM »
I think I'll swap Jovian for dominion in my list. People seem to like that much better.

Edit: funny coincidence the dominion's fluff says that they are used in ultima most often. That is convenient.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 07:30:42 AM by Plaxor »

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #407 on: January 27, 2011, 07:42:11 AM »
The idea that shooting is favored assumes that fleet strategy is uniform across the entire Imperium.  Considering the variation from one area to another and the variety of threats it faces, this is unlikely, and further, even a single sector can change over time.  Consider that despite Bakka detesting AC, they adopted the Jovian, a pure carrier, due to their abysmal performance against the tyranids in Ultramar.  It is not very far fetched to suggest that in some areas AC carriers are more common then they are in the Gothic, Armageddon, or Bakka sectors, particularly when AC ships seem to be preferred for anti-pirate details.

Not when the Despoilers are still fresh in everyone's minds. IN would still be very, very wary about a new almost, purely LB ship because of what happened with the Despoilers.

As it is, carriers are still available in the IN fleet anyway and it should suffice. I'd love to have one as well as the Nemesis but it really breaks the character of IN. If it is limited totally to Bakka, I might concede but it should really be only 1 ship. Otherwise, a couple of Enforcers and you easily get 12 LBs for cheap and that would break the feel of having only few carriers in Bakka.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #408 on: January 27, 2011, 07:59:01 AM »
I like the fact that you added more vanquishers, but you have some typos in the rules. Notably the cannot ctnh part which says that only the vae victus can't do this.

Why is the vanquishers spd 15? Shouldnt it be 20 like in the bfgm? Also the ship desperately needs more firepower or needs to cost about 290 points. It's worse than a desolator. Should be cheaper, especially as how in the fluff no one liked it anyways.

The IN deserve another bb with 20cm speed. It's something to give it that isn't dorsal weaponry. It will make it slightly more appealing.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #409 on: January 27, 2011, 08:14:42 AM »
Oh and the carrier restriction just means that every list will have a Jovian in it. You have to think about what normal semi competitive players would make of the list. This is why I think that the vanquisher should have the optional prow lb. As it is written in the fluff that they had these. People can convert them
If they like, although i don't really have any ideas of how I would do it yet. This would prevent the static list error that this is going to become. One flaw with many game systems, particularly gws, is that lists/armies become static builds. Players need at least one carrier. If they only have one option and 0-1 on them you will almost always see it in the list.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #410 on: January 27, 2011, 09:35:34 AM »
What battleships does bakka have, and what are their price/role?

Emperor: 565pts Stand Off/Fleet Carrier
Retribution: 345pts Fast Stand Off/Linebreaker
Victory: 345pts Fast Stand Off/Artillery/Linebreaker
Vanquisher: 320pts Cheap Linebreaker

For its role, the Vanquisher needs 20cm speed more than the Victory does. It's also has 3L, 3Torps fewer and 2/3 of its broadside has 15cm less range. That's worth FAR more than a 25pt discount. It should be around 280pts, 290pts with 20cm speed. (There could even be an aguement for it having 25cm speed due to its reduced armament.)

The Victory needs a price break compared to the Retribution, as it's a more conflicted design (and that's saying something, because the Retribution really isn't strong either.) I'd call it 335 maximum, and I think the benefits of 15cm speed and thus 7.5cm half speed on this ship would balance the inabilty to turn under fire.
I'd make the torps a free swap rather than -10pts, and here's why: The NC is objectively equal to 6T+10pts (if even that), and would be a straight swap for 9Torps. Even if you don't agree with that, you must concede that options command a premium - if you want a NC on a ship that's usually torps, you have to pay for it. In this case you want torps on a ship with a NC, so it's the torps that command the premium, and should therefore be more expensive, PARTICULARLY as it makes the role less conflicted - point prow at enemy and use speed to full advantage whilst clearing way with torps.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 09:44:32 AM by RCgothic »

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #411 on: January 27, 2011, 10:04:50 AM »
As for the Jovian: It is a fleet carrier in a sector list that despises fleet carriers. Why oh why is it included? It's overcosted at 260pts because it has no prow weapons, and 3AC per side should be a straight swap for WBe12 per side. So it's not worth what you pay for it.

But it will be taken anyway, because the Mars is more expensive for fewer AC and the Emperor is Ludicrous Cost (but good). So increasing the cost to make it less desireable breaks it further in a not-worth-the-points way, whilst decreasing its points to waht it's truly worth would just make it auto-include (which it pretty much is anyway, as the most efficient way of including AC.

Everyone recognises that at least some AC are necessary for a torp fleet to clear CAP with, but the bakka list so far has completely missed the obvious: The Enforcer and Defiant. These ships are completely overshadowed by their larger brethren in the other lists, but would make perfect sense in a bakka list:

1. They aren't offensive carriers, as 2 AC scarecely scratch even a T2 target. Spamming them might gain you defensive superiority, but would be a very inefficient way of gaining attack power compared to an all dictator list from one of the other sectors.
2. They aren't fleet carriers, but light/escort carriers, which bakka isn't specifically against.
3. They'd be exactly what a bakka list needs from a "gameplay insists you have at least some carriers, if only to escort your torp waves in" point of view.
4. They make ideal anti-pirate patrol cruisers, alongside the other LCs that bakka's philosophy favours.

So drop the Jovian, and let's have the Defiant and Enforcer. They make far more sense.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #412 on: January 27, 2011, 10:41:57 AM »
Second RCs thoughts, couldn't have said it better myself.

Ships should be priced according to what they can do, not by what they are. So it's a battleship, that doesn't mean it should be priced so high just for battleshippy feel. It has the firepower of an armaggeddon, and the hits of a retribution. Slower speed sure. Lets take the average of the two points values, 290. With 20cm speed this is perfect. Not my favorite option, I'd prefer more out of a battleship. +4 wbs a side somehow at the least you can even show it in your picture with only one lance bay but double sided, (meaning there are lances on top and bottom) and two weapons bays.

I love the vanquisher and will almost always run one. I'm trying to convert out a kar-duniash type version for my IN now. It would be disappOInting for it to be like the Styx was, way overpriced for what it does.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #413 on: January 27, 2011, 10:53:49 AM »
@Sig:

Actually turrets are more akin to Hydra batteries or the Vulcan Megabolters you would see on a battle titan.  However, I'll point out: ships within 15cm are close enough to share LD so this would imply that they have some means of high speed, real time communication inside that range.  If this is true, then FDT makes perfect sense, working together similar to modern ships sharing targeting data. and CIWS.

Er, no it doesn't. It makes no sense whatsoever. Even the weapons you describe would not be able to fire at those ranges. Also their ability to predict the location of manoeuvring bombers from so far away so far in advance is ludicrous. That's not even taking into account the cover the ship itself would provide. Oh, and the fact that this is all being accomplished by secondary weaponry with no loss of primary weapon power. Ludicrous concept.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #414 on: January 27, 2011, 10:59:56 AM »
Nate, whoever told you not to ask us was right.

In your case, certainly.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 775
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #415 on: January 27, 2011, 12:40:16 PM »
Okay now that I have had time to look over the list...


The Mercury is now far better then it was, however, I don't see anyone ever taking it over a Mars or a Jovian.  The costs are starting to skyrocket here, and people will still try to nab that golden number of LC8

I still loathe the Jovian, and agree, the Defiant should be in it's place.

The sole reason why I don't like fleet defense turrets (IF we insist on ignoring sig, which i don't think we should do in the first place), is because they have been established as rare by the admech list. Why does one fleet with a bunch of old rusted tubs get technology the admech has problems replicating on a large scale?

With the new astronomical cost of the Emperor, i am finding it less harmful to the fleet. It's still going to be selected most of the time, but hell, at least it is a huge target.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #416 on: January 27, 2011, 12:54:50 PM »
The only direct-fire weapons capable of targeting AC from such range are going to be causing blast markers and therefore harm to the defended ships - clouds of shrapnel big enough to hit manouevring targets at 15,000 km are going to form blast markers if frozen snotings do! (ork clanz pdf).

The only possible weapon I can think of that could cause a kill at 15,000km without saturating an area of space are guided missiles, which the IN isn't big on. There's no need for them - just drop them.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #417 on: January 27, 2011, 04:34:17 PM »
The only possible weapon I can think of that could cause a kill at 15,000km without saturating an area of space are guided missiles, which the IN isn't big on. There's no need for them - just drop them.

According to revised fluff from FFG, IN cruisers can be fitted with guided missiles, which are slightly longer range then macrocannons.  It is not, however, common.  At least in the Calixis Sector.


Er, no it doesn't. It makes no sense whatsoever. Even the weapons you describe would not be able to fire at those ranges. Also their ability to predict the location of manoeuvring bombers from so far away so far in advance is ludicrous. That's not even taking into account the cover the ship itself would provide. Oh, and the fact that this is all being accomplished by secondary weaponry with no loss of primary weapon power. Ludicrous concept.

Sigoroth, this is space.  Projectiles don't lose power until they hit something.  Just about every projectile weapon is range = infinite.  As everyone likes to say about orks, fill a volume of space with munitions and you'll hit something.  

"Gunnery Chief: This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferris slug, feel the weight. Every five seconds, the main gun of an everest class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3% of light-speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kiloton bomb. That is three times the yield of the city-buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth. That means- Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's first law?
Serviceman Burnside: Sir! An object in motion stays in motion, sir!
Gunnery Chief: No credit for partial answers, maggot!
Serviceman Burnside: Sir! Unless acted on by an outside force, sir!
Gunnery Chief: Damn straight! I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going til it hits something. That can be a ship. Or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you are ruining someones day, somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your targets. That is why you wait for the computer to give you a damn firing solution. That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not "eyeball it". This is a weapon of mass destruction. You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!
Serviceman Chung: Sir, yes sir! " - Mass Effect 2

As far as the ship providing cover, I remind you that, at least in this game, most of the time ships don't even provide over from other ships firing their main weapons at a target on the other side.  Cover is (mostly)a a non-entity in this game unless you're a planet or something similarly large


Not when the Despoilers are still fresh in everyone's minds. IN would still be very, very wary about a new almost, purely LB ship because of what happened with the Despoilers.

Why would the Despoiler be fresh in anyone's mind?  According to the fluff for the Gaerox Incident, the Inquisition covered the entire thing up afterwards, so only the members of high command at Bakka and the Inquisition would know what went on.  (which is why the more or less lack of AC is considered an aberration by IN standards) What little fluff we have to go on for other sectors occasionally mentions pure carriers in the employ of IN.  

I think I'll swap Jovian for dominion in my list. People seem to like that much better.

Of course they like it.  It's an Armageddon with 4 lbs for +15 points.  That's a hell of a weapon upgrade.



Then to think Sig and I developed MMS. Talk about changing. ;)
Or where we started about a 90* Protector years ago.

I did not ask for a restriction. I asked for a removal. Insert the Dominion from the Book of Nemesis. :)

I'll admit, I had to ask an eldar player what MMS was, since no one I know uses it.  If what he said about it was true, I feel for you.  His reaction was right up there with Sigoroth's views on SM lances.

Dominion is ridiculously powerful.  If it was brought into this list, and not restricted to 1 per fleet, the list would probably immediately replace Armageddon as the most common competitive IN list.  Combine it with Gothics and a Vicky and we'll see a new dawn for the Torp Beamer build.

And aside: Mercury is better, now, but still could use that torp swap.  
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 04:48:41 PM by BaronIveagh »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #418 on: January 27, 2011, 05:11:51 PM »
And, as has been stated, if a pile of frozen snotlings can form a blast marker, the sufficient shrapnel/flak to take down a bomber at long range is also going to cause problems for the ship you're trying to protect. The only way you could comfortably pick off bombers from such range is with guided missiles, which wouldn't function as turrets in other respects and aren't exactly common in teh Imperium.

I would far, far rather the FDT idea gets binned. If even the ad mech can't reliably produce the tech, it shouldn't be in a fleet-wide deployment.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #419 on: January 27, 2011, 05:32:53 PM »
If FDT are binned, it needs to be replaced by some other mechanic or the low/no AC IN fleet concept can't work.
-Vaaish