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

[RCgothic]

It's a 6ft by 4ft table, with the ships starting a maximum distance apart. Celestial Phenomenon don't change much, because if you're in weapons range anyway, you just follow the ship around, and if you aren't, then it's a rare phenomenon you can't intercept on the other side of.

Note that the Defiant DID force CTNH, and the Endeavour still got into firing position. After that, the Defiant can AAF all it likes once the Endeavour is in pursuit - but the Endeavour can just do the same and nothing will change. 2WB is better than none, and the odd blast marker will mean the Endeavour steadily gains. The Defiant can't attack, because it needs its cap, and eventually, they'll come to a corner, where the pursuer will be able to plot a shorter course and again get into optimum firing position.

The Defiant is even weaker in a fleet situation, where it is forced to stand and fight to support the other 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.

Now I think you're doing apples and oranges.

Why would it be apples and oranges?
1. We all want the Voss LCs to get 6+ prow.
2. IN 6+ prow ships only have one weapon.
3. If the Voss LCs get the 6+ prow, then they should also have only one weapon.
4. If a mere LC can get 2 weapons and still have a 6+ prow then I want my regular cruisers to get another weapon other than prow torps.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

Who cares about real life battleships? What's important is what's available in the game. The proposal was to give the Voss LCs 6+ prow which I agree is needed. However, I also believe if that happens, the number of weapon systems on the prow should be downgraded to 1 because if one could have two prow weapons, wouldn't the regular cruisers have them instead of a mere LC? So while yes, it is a ridiculous proposition, it is more ridiculous to maintain it on an LC if the 6+ prow was approved.

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.

Wow how nice it is to see a battle report with no distances involved and I don't even know what the celestial phenomena is even with your last reply to Vaaish. Really, your bias against the Defiant is showing. Play the Defiant smartly.

[RCgothic]

Look at the illustration provided then.  

"All Imperial Ships with 6+ prow have only 1 prow weapon."

So what? The Voss ships are differently engineered. That's an entirely arbitrary and ridiculous restriction, because they require their multiple prow weapons to function.

[flybywire-E2C]

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.

Sorry, I've been out of town last week. Bob and I both were on separate business trips, and we wrapped it up by meeting at his home town for a few days to play, drink coffee and hash out rules. A half-hour of talking over coffee with books spread out around you beats two weeks of e-mail tag hands down.

Actually, this exchange about the Voss CL's is doing just fine without our input. It's the arguments for or against something that help us decide which way is the right way to go and which way isn't. Now, the Voss CL's are fundamentally different from the Mars-pattern vessels, which were incorporated by Cypra Mundi beginning about M37 when it was determined their own-pattern warships relied on ancient technology that was difficult to maintain, subject to warp taint in a lot of circumstances and in sum were no longer viable. This doesn't mean they weren't in use at all- many of these vessels remained in service right up to the 12th Black Crusade, when a disproportonately large number (though not all by far) went renegade, bringing up the possibility that they were flawed and hastening their decommissioning in favor of the newer Mars-pattern designs. 

From a model profile standpoint, the Voss is simply too different in layout and mission profile to say it compares to the Mars-type cruiser hulls. Having 6+ armor does not in and of itself demand that the ships have only one weapon system.  Letting these ships take 6+ armor as an option (as opposed to a fundamental requirement on the larger ships) in itself refletcs the fundamental difference in design. Voss is purposely and by intention as different from Mars-pattern ships as Chaos ships are, keeping in mind that until relatively recently, Chaos ships were (and in some cases still ARE!) Imperial ships.

I've read the arguments about the Defiant, I've seen the clever graphics, and I really admire the passion the players here exhibit concerning their positions. As with everything else, we are NOT going to make everyone happy. The tweaks incorporated into the Voss CL's were the easiest way to make them useful and congruent without going back to the drawing board or breaking what's in Armada. Despite the vociferous arguments going back and forth, I haven't seen or heard anything  to make me believe what we did to these ships doesn't appear to fix 90% of their problems, keeping in mind we are never going to achieve 100% with anything we do to this game system.

Set fluff aside, put down your calculators, put your models on the table and HAVE FUN!!

- Nate

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Look at the illustration provided then.  

"All Imperial Ships with 6+ prow have only 1 prow weapon."

So what? The Voss ships are differently engineered. That's an entirely arbitrary and ridiculous restriction, because they require their multiple prow weapons to function.

That's because they had 5+ prows then. If they get 6+ prows, they should get only one. Sorry but regular cruiser sized ships should have more space to insert multiple weapons than smaller sized ones on the prow.

It's not a problem with the illustration. It's the bias you have that the Defiant has no way of winning against the Defiant.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

From a model profile standpoint, the Voss is simply too different in layout and mission profile to say it compares to the Mars-type cruiser hulls. Having 6+ armor does not in and of itself demand that the ships have only one weapon system.  Letting these ships take 6+ armor as an option (as opposed to a fundamental requirement on the larger ships) in itself refletcs the fundamental difference in design. Voss is purposely and by intention as different from Mars-pattern ships as Chaos ships are, keeping in mind that until relatively recently, Chaos ships were (and in some cases still ARE!) Imperial ships.

- Nate

Even if there are differences in the design, I seriously doubt you can put 2 prow weapons on a 6+ prow ship. The Dauntless even looks like it has a bigger prow than the Endeavors.

Even for the sake of argument that you can put 2 prow weapons on a 6+ prow ship, what you are doing is limiting the effectiveness of the prow weapon by keepiing the Str low. In which case, I would prefer it keep one prow weapon if I can just bump up the Str to regular levels like 6 torps instead of 2 or WB 5. As it is, FP2 WB plus Str 2 torps are puny. I

f you don't like to redesign then introduce this as an option. I know what I would choose given the options.

[horizon]

Orks 6+ prows two weapon systems.
Marines 6+ allround, two weapon systems.

So...

Voss is different. Can have 2 small prow weapons. 1 big or 2 small (special order conflicting ones).

[lastspartacus]

I don't see why the weapon batteries just cant go on the dorsal.  Spreads things out nicely for crits, and just makes alot more sense.  And theres more precedent for it.


Nate, please explain to the need for 45* turns if a 6+ prow.  I don't understand the need to nerf the turning ability.

[flybywire-E2C]

I don't see why the weapon batteries just cant go on the dorsal.  Spreads things out nicely for crits, and just makes alot more sense.  And theres more precedent for it.


Nate, please explain to the need for 45* turns if a 6+ prow.  I don't understand the need to nerf the turning ability.

Voss cruisers don't have the engine power of a Dauntless. if you beef up the prow, the extra armor makes it clumsier to turn. That's why it's an option.

Speaking of Dauntless, no they are in no way getting changed period. I'm just saying. 

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

Now that the Voss is for the most part sorted, here's a new argument: should the Vengeance GC variants (both Chaos and Imps) get 6 prow torps as an option?

If taken, it will be expensive, and it abrogates the free prow crit. However, it can then take an exterminatus weapon for the same cost if desired.

As the Vengeance GC's don't have a 6+ prow (and are NOT getting them), no they CANNOT have a Nova Cannon!!

Well, there it is. Thoughts?

- Nate

[lastspartacus]

I don't mean in a technical sense, I mean what imbalanced them when you tested 6+ armor and 90* that caused you to think it wouldnt be practical.  Cuz I dont see it.

[Valhallan]

it would make a lot of sense if they had torps - as it is, GC's are sweetest because their cheap (relative).

[Vaaish]

Carrying over from the Chaos thread, I don't mind seeing the vengeance and her cousins get the option for a prow weapon, but I do not want to see it standard and I do not want to see a price increase on the base model. I very much like them as they stand and I've never felt that they needed the prow weapons with their 5+ armor and heavy broadside offerings. In fact I rarely leave home without two Vengeance in my fleet and I'm planning on adding an exorcist sometime soon.

[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.

I haven't seen or heard anything  to make me believe what we did to these ships doesn't appear to fix 90% of their problems, keeping in mind we are never going to achieve 100% with anything we do to this game system.

Can you confirm what the changes are? 6+ Prow option and S4 Torps(except Defiant)?

I do agree that fixes 100% of any problems with Endeavour and 90% of the problems with Endurance, but it does next to nothing for Defiant, which was always the worst of the options, which still has the following problems:

#1. It can't be used as an easy stop gap for a lack of AC unless the fleet already includes an Endeavour - extremely high opportunity cost.
#2. Very little incentive to risk a RO order on it for only 2AC.
#3. Very weak compared to the other variants.

Endurance shares #1, but it's not so much a problem as it's a gunship. Why can the restriction not be points-tied instead?

Secondly, As you are going to have to re-write all the profiles anyway to insert the 6+ prow option, why not also give the Defiant S4 Torps whilst you're at it and make it similar to its brethren? OK, that could be construed as slightly too strong, but it is currently 10pts more, and we have also been advocating  a drop to S4WBs.

Why is this not an option? Particularly points restriction, rather than ship restriction?