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

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Admiral, I think you over-rate carriers.

I think you underrate them. There's a reason why carriers are generally more expensive than their gunship counterparts.

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.

And why would I let the Endeavor get close to even attack me? The Defiant will be staying away.

Sure try to swat the wave with 2 dice. Shoot them down. As long as you keep shooting them, you're not shooting at the Defiant. And if your LO WB shots fail, which is quite likely, then the bombers swarm over the Endeavor. 50-50 chance to kill both counters. Chances are I will still get 1 counter in. 1 counter which will net 2-3 attacks. If 2 bombers attack then that;s 4-6 attacks in on average rolls.

All I have to do is stay away.

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.

Which is why the Defiant will be staying away as much as possible hiding behind celestial phenomena (you do play with them right?) and just bide its time until the Endeavor is crippled. Once it's crippled, it can still either stay away or finally decide to swing around and engage the Endeavor.

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.

Again, why would I let the Endeavor get into range? I sure as hell would not. Not when I have the AC range advantage. The Endeavor has to go on AAF to try and catch up. Even then, the Defiant can just do the run around. All it has to do is keep the range open and go for abeam profiles at best and away setting at worst to minimize the WB threat. Sure go ahead and try to catch the Defiant played by a player making use of the table, terrain and maneuver space.

[RCgothic]

Carriers are only more expensive than their counterparts when they get the full 4AC per 2WBs. IN is also deliberately overcharged for its carriers, more than other races. AC Power also scales with size of wave. 2 Carriers launching waves of 2 are less powerful than a carrier launching waves of 4. Carriers were also priced with the ability to build up enormors waves of attack craft, which has since been nerfed. All of this makes the defiant less powerful than it should be - it's 130pts, it should be able to defeat the other Voss, but it can't.

Which brings us back to the duel:

On a 6ft board, it will take the Endeavour 7 turns to bring any part of the board within weapons range - without AAF, thanks for pointing that out (5 turns). The Defiant has no choice but to let the Endeavour get in range. The Defiant is already as far away as it can get, so the Endeavour merely needs to plot an intercept course - even if it attempts to hide behind celestial phenomenon, the Endeavour can just intercept it on the other side. Sure, on an infinite board, the Defiant could run away and cripple the Defiant before it has a chance to catch up, but that's just not the case.

I see you also massively overestimate the power of AC. 2 Bombers at (D6-2) average 1.5 attacks each, but 1/2 the time 1 will be dead and 1/4 of the time both will be, giving an average 1.5 attacks total. (0.5 hits per wave) Better to send 1 fighter and get 2.5 attacks for 75% of the time, giving 2 attacks average (0.67hits). But then the Endeavour can shoot them down with torps, and then you're looking at 0.375 attacks from the remaining bomber. (0.125hits). That's also not including brace saves, and the Endeavour can happily swap from AAF or LO to BFI if neccessary - it doesn't need its firepower until it reaches weapons range.

This is far less than your supposed 2-3 attacks per bomber (which is a natural 4 and a natural 5 - not average rolls), it's more like 1 attack per marker if you make use of fighter suppression, otherwise it's 0.75.

And shooting the waves will reduce this average further. The Defiant is out of range for the majority of the journey, so it's no great loss of firepower. Considering that the Defiant will only get three attack runs before the Endeavour catches up, and it struggles to do half a hit per attack run,

[Vaaish]

The admirals position on this has been my experience as well. More often than not, once I've achieved AC superiority I can just whittle away at the remaining ships. Generally my opponents disengage at that point rather than slowly get wasted. The defiant can escape if it wants to, all you have to do is figure out the intercept point and AAF as you reach it to throw off the Endeavours targeting solution.

[lastspartacus]

Agreed ordnance are powerful.  But in 2's, not so much.

At least give the thing auto RO.

[horizon]

As said: no special rulings.

Okay, admiral d'artagnan.

A break down why this is not good:

Defiant
hits 6
turns 90
shields 1
turrets 2
armour 6+/5+

prow batteries str.2 LFR 30cm
prow torpedoes str.3 F 30cm.
port/starboard launch bay str.2 (fighter/bomber)
dorsal battery str.2 LFR 30cm

Still weaker gunnery then the Endeavour/Endurance. Weaker firepower then your str.3 lance proposal, even less then the 2 lances.

Cost it at 120pts and keep it per current restriction.

Given the Voss (fluff) design logic there is no logic for the prow lances.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Horizon, the problem is you're still insisting on having 2 prow weapons vs my preference for one. If prow weapons were more focused on one type of weapon system, you wouldn't have to have those puny WB and torp strengths and would not need to have dorsal weaponry included and I would prefer to keep dorsal weaponry on IN and Chaos ships limited to BCs. and HCs.

You design philosophy objection is even flawed with your design. 2 prow weapons on a ship with 6+ armor? This is much more flawed than the lances. Secondly, the design of the Voss is based on an all 5+ design. The 6+ is just how we think the design should have to make it worth taking. If we keep to the existing 5+ I will agree it can take 2 weapon system. If it goes to 6+, then I would say it should only take 1, WBs, lances or torps.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Carriers are only more expensive than their counterparts when they get the full 4AC per 2WBs. IN is also deliberately overcharged for its carriers, more than other races. AC Power also scales with size of wave. 2 Carriers launching waves of 2 are less powerful than a carrier launching waves of 4. Carriers were also priced with the ability to build up enormors waves of attack craft, which has since been nerfed. All of this makes the defiant less powerful than it should be - it's 130pts, it should be able to defeat the other Voss, but it can't.

No they are not. Look at all the races and you will see carriers are generally more expensive than pure gunships regardless of strength. At the cost it is at now, yes it can defeat the other Voss LCs one on one.

Which brings us back to the duel:

On a 6ft board, it will take the Endeavour 7 turns to bring any part of the board within weapons range - without AAF, thanks for pointing that out (5 turns). The Defiant has no choice but to let the Endeavour get in range. The Defiant is already as far away as it can get, so the Endeavour merely needs to plot an intercept course - even if it attempts to hide behind celestial phenomenon, the Endeavour can just intercept it on the other side. Sure, on an infinite board, the Defiant could run away and cripple the Defiant before it has a chance to catch up, but that's just not the case.

Ah so the Defiant will just sit there. No wonder you think the Endeavor will catch up. Sorry but I tend to move my ships around. You move this way I move the other way. You move there, I counter move. And generally, it will be moving away from your approaching Endeavor.

If you prefer to let your Defiant be literally a sitting target, well sorry but that's not me. Even 3 turns of bombing runs will mess up an Endeavors day.

I see you also massively overestimate the power of AC. 2 Bombers at (D6-2) average 1.5 attacks each, but 1/2 the time 1 will be dead and 1/4 of the time both will be, giving an average 1.5 attacks total. (0.5 hits per wave) Better to send 1 fighter and get 2.5 attacks for 75% of the time, giving 2 attacks average (0.67hits). But then the Endeavour can shoot them down with torps, and then you're looking at 0.375 attacks from the remaining bomber. (0.125hits). That's also not including brace saves, and the Endeavour can happily swap from AAF or LO to BFI if neccessary - it doesn't need its firepower until it reaches weapons range.

Why should I send 2 bombers out? I'd just take the risk of getting more attacks in and trying to bomb you out anyway because as you point out, the torps can just take the fighter away. Even with those stats, you are focusing on the pessimistic results and ignoring the optimistic. Sure 1/2 the time 1 will be dead and 1/4 the time both will be but then there's the opposite end of the spectrum where  both are alive and will roll well to get a lot of attack runs.

Yes, you can choose between those orders, fine, and the Defiant can just keep staying away and launching bombers to its heart's content.

This is far less than your supposed 2-3 attacks per bomber (which is a natural 4 and a natural 5 - not average rolls), it's more like 1 attack per marker if you make use of fighter suppression, otherwise it's 0.75.

And shooting the waves will reduce this average further. The Defiant is out of range for the majority of the journey, so it's no great loss of firepower. Considering that the Defiant will only get three attack runs before the Endeavour catches up, and it struggles to do half a hit per attack run,

Sure keep on doing that. If you LO trying to shoot down the bombers, you're not being maneuverable are you? So now my Defiant gets the maneuver room it needs to further stay away. Really you are underestimating AC. And trust me, I am not underestimating gunships which is why I will make max use of the table to stay away from the Endeavor as much as I can. a 6x4 table is huge real estate for a 1 vs 1 battle. You can probably cover a foot and a half per arc which means even on the short side of the table, the Defiant will still have a half a foot either long edge to maneuver out of the the closing Endeavor's clutches if it's coming up the middle.

[horizon]

Horizon, the problem is you're still insisting on having 2 prow weapons vs my preference for one. If prow weapons were more focused on one type of weapon system, you wouldn't have to have those puny WB and torp strengths and would not need to have dorsal weaponry included and I would prefer to keep dorsal weaponry on IN and Chaos ships limited to BCs. and HCs.

You design philosophy objection is even flawed with your design. 2 prow weapons on a ship with 6+ armor? This is much more flawed than the lances. Secondly, the design of the Voss is based on an all 5+ design. The 6+ is just how we think the design should have to make it worth taking. If we keep to the existing 5+ I will agree it can take 2 weapon system. If it goes to 6+, then I would say it should only take 1, WBs, lances or torps.

Then you disagree with the Endeavour & Endurance as well. Both have 2 prow weapons both even with the proposed 6+ armour.
So you are saying they need changes too?

I just say the Defiant should be like its sister ships.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.

[lastspartacus]

The hardpoints are just split in variety, they dont equal more power, Admiral.
Even the cheaper Dauntless carries cruiser level prow with the torp variant.  The Voss patterns just lose a couple torps for weapons batteries.
Put the weapon batteries on the dorsal, like the strike cruiser, if it makes you queezy.  Id prefer that actually, as it helps balance criticals, and it also makes sense that forgeworld light cruisers could have some small dorsal weaponry.

[horizon]

Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.

Now I think you're doing apples and oranges.

[RCgothic]

Definitely, now that I've had time to think about it. If a light cruiser can do that then hey can I have my 2 prow weapons on my regular cruisers? I'd love to have some WBs added to my Lunars prow along with torps or Str 2 LFR lances on my Gothic along with the torps. And yeah, Str 2 LFR lances on my Dictator as well. Mini-Oberon anyone? And the Armageddon too at 45 cm and this might actually make the Overlord and Tyrants more playable.

That's a ridiculous position. I suppose you'd like to pop back in time and tell the admiralty that Nelson class battleships can't have all-prow main weapons, because other battleships of their size and armour don't? The power and location of weapons hardpoints is defined by the class and subtype of vessel, not its battlefield designation.

The attached file is a battle simulation, HA's Proposed Endeavour vs HA's proposed Defiant. Endeavour starts on the on the left, Defiant on the right. Defiant gets first turn:

Defiant heads north, launches 2 bombers (trading power for immunity to torps)
Endeavour goes on AAF, covers 64cm in 2 turns. Gets intercepted in 4th Ordnance Phase, fails to brace, shoots down one bomber, takes 2 attacks, but no hits.
Defiant launches again, and now has a choice - try and do a U-turn, or try and escape along the top border.
Endeavour turns north to intercept, and goes AAF. After turning west, Defiant also goes AAF, in an attempt to take advantage of the Endeavour slightly overextending itself.
Endeavour is intercepted by AC a second time. Its turrets fail to down a bomber, they get 4 attack runs, and score 1 hit. Endeavour comes to new heading, and positions itself on the tail of the Defiant.
Defiant launches again, now in nearly shotgun range, but Endeavour's turrets shoot down the entire wave.
Endeavour fires back with 4 torps, 1 shot down, 1 hit.

Endeavour is now in a perfect position, able to fire a full broadside at Defiant, with no lances in return because the defiant moves on. In addition, the Endeavour can fire torps into the Defiant's path, which are twice as damaging as Defiant's bombers, forcing it to retain fighters on CAP - stripping it of any offensive ability. If Defiant turns to bring its lances to bear, its lances only have a 1/4 chance of getting past the shields, and invite a Lock On from Endeavour. It can't get away, because blast markers in contact slow it down.

Defiant is rapidly crippled, boarded, and captured. The End.

This scenario is not significantly changed with 5+ Prows, 90' turns, the Defiant doing U-turn instead, or Celestial Phenomena.

[lastspartacus]

Really wish Flybywire would come back and comment

[RCgothic]

Me too! It's been a bit of an HA free zone around her the last week and a bit. Could do with some input.

[Vaaish]

RC, I don't think your conclusion is accurate after the point the plotted positions end. After that point, the defiant can go AAF to increase the distance between and if the endeavour follows it can't reload torpedoes if it doesn't, the defiant will only face the s2 battery fire on the prow and be forced to intercept the torpedo wave or the endeavor will need to turn away to bring the broadsides to bear if the defiant can't pull enough speed with the AAF to get out of weapons range.

Of course, I'd argue that the defiant should try to control the point where both pass to AAF past while forcing the endeavour to CTNH or burn retros. In any event, most any SO will work to reduce the firepower as they pass and limit the damage to the defiant. To be honest, such debates really aren't practical since one side will always point out what they would have done to ensure the desired outcome

Final note, you aren't assuming standard table size or any celestial phenomena?