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

[lastspartacus]

One little thing to maybe consider is giving the Endurance a small buff and switching the prow batteries with one lance.  Never liked its low damage output, or had any intentions of ever taking one over the endevour, so at least it could have some armor punching capability.

[Sigoroth]

i like this but rather have it as an option to the ret rather than a completely different ship
for instance:
instead of 60cm batteries, refit allows the ret to increase its firepower but at the cost of reduced maximum range

or allow the ret to take a targetting matrix ala the mars

Woosh!

[flybywire-E2C]

One little thing to maybe consider is giving the Endurance a small buff and switching the prow batteries with one lance.  Never liked its low damage output, or had any intentions of ever taking one over the endevour, so at least it could have some armor punching capability.

The AM version of the Endurance lets you do exactly that in the current online rules.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

Okay, proposal:
Since Nate has made clear that stats as been cannot be changed (why? bugger! They should!) I propose the following battleship for the Imperial Navy.

A new design to replace to poor performing Retribution :


Revolution Class Battleship
345 points

12 hits
6+/5+ armour
speed 20cm
turns 45*
turrets 4
shields 4

port weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - L
starboard weapons battery strength 18 @ 45cm - R
dorsal lance battery strenght 3 @ 60cm - LFR
prow torpedoes strength 9 @ 30cm speed

As a model the Retribution model is perfect.

<grin>

If you like big guns, I like Bob DeAngelis's idea even better:

Empress Battleship (what he called it)

12 hits
5+ armour
speed 15cm
turns 45*
turrets 5
shields 4

port weapons battery strength 12 @ 45cm - L
starboard weapons battery strength 12 @ 45cm - R
dorsal weapons battery strength 5@ 60cm - LFR
prow weapons battery strength 5@ 60cm - LFR

It's ancient, slow, clunky... and kills ANYTHING!   

You ask me, its as fluff-true an Imperial battleship as there ever was. BTW- Revolution sounds to Chaos-y. The very word evokes images of Commisars looking for someone to shoot at.

- Nate

[horizon]

Jee Nate! Talk about missing the point...

http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1979.0

We (a lot) want the Retribution like I propose in the Revolution design.
Thus we want a Retribution NOT with 60cm str12 batteries but with 45cm str18 batteries.

[RCgothic]

Indeed! Completely missed the point. Not a fan at all. It's slow and weak on the prow, preventing it closing, and doesn't even outgun a Retribution. (3L at 60cm worth more than 10WB at 45) On the Beam, it isn't even a match for an Oberon, even without considering the AC. The Empress would be utterly obsolete and I'd expect it to cost sub 300pts.

What you've proposed is a cheap escort-BB that probably has to sit with the Carriers, has difficulty getting into the heart of an enemy fleet, and wouldn't know what to do when it got there.

What we want is a Retribution with FP18@45cm Broadsides and 3 Dorsal Lances, a BB that can charge in with the cruisers and brutalise everything around it. Return it to 365pts, we don't care. But it has to have more menace.

[flybywire-E2C]

If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.

That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/

CL's are NOT getting a 60cm lance. However, the AdMech rules do have a screw-up that IS getting fixed in the FAQ. According to the AM rules, the Endeavor/Endurance can trade their prow torps for a single 30cm L/F/R lance. That is rubbish, is not WYSIWYG to the model and does NOT match what we wrote. Here's what should have happened:

AdMech Voss CL's (ALL of them) can purchase one 30cm L/F/R dorsal lance for +10 points.

Speaking of the Voss CL's, I figure I should warn everyone now. the Voss CL's have been discussed at length, and to be honest they have been the biggest hang-up for why the FAQ has been taking so long (once again, right is more important than fast). The consensus is that rather than effect major changes to the profiles of these ships that may have unintended consequences later on, the profiles themselves will remain unchanged.

Boo! Hiss!  Yes, I get it.

Can they be better? Yes, but their basic profiles are not inherently broken. That being said, some of their rules ARE broken, and this is what we are fixing:

• Boarding bonus will remain unchanged.
• Endeavor/Endurance dropping in price to 110 points.
• Defiant dropping in price to 120 points.
• The Endurance/Defiant will be unhinged from the Endeavor and instead be limited to a TOTAL of two per 500 points (not two each).
• They will have the option to increase armor to 6+ for free, but if taken their turns reduce to 45deg.


Well, that's it. For those that hate it and wish a pox upon my house, so be it, and Happy Thanksgiving!   

- Nate

[horizon]

If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.

That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/

CL's are NOT getting a 60cm lance. However, the AdMech rules do have a screw-up that IS getting fixed in the FAQ. According to the AM rules, the Endeavor/Endurance can trade their prow torps for a single 30cm L/F/R lance. That is rubbish, is not WYSIWYG to the model and does NOT match what we wrote. Here's what should have happened:

AdMech Voss CL's (ALL of them) can purchase one 30cm L/F/R dorsal lance for +10 points.

Aside of the "standard" Voss CL changes I am shocked by above. Very!

Almost every AdMech player I know takes the lance instead of torps.
Everyone who does has modelled their Voss AdMech CL with a dorsal lance on top. I have.
The AdMech prow in fact: does not have torp slits like standard IN prow... (sensor array would make more sense).

140pts (130+10) for such a little bugger.... naaah. :/

A pledge to NOT FAQ this mentioned AdMech change.

This is a boo - hiss.





Personally the voss should've been seperated from the FAQ anyway.

[Sigoroth]

What possible unintended consequences could have happened from just adding a 6+ prow to them for no other change?

[Sigoroth]

There is still no explanation as to why these CLs are so slow. Either justify the sluggish speed by giving it extra armour or just give them +5cm speed. They'd be crap, but at least it would be consistent.

[RCgothic]

I have to agree with Sig. What possibly unintended consequences could there be? They get a buff and people take more of them?

Anyway, if they're holding up the FAQ, then leave them as is for now and come back later. I can always houserule them in the meantime.

[flybywire-E2C]

Jee Nate! Talk about missing the point...

http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1979.0

We (a lot) want the Retribution like I propose in the Revolution design.
Thus we want a Retribution NOT with 60cm str12 batteries but with 45cm str18 batteries.

Hi Horizon! No, I didn't miss the point. I was just ruminating on a ship I happen to like, not anything we're talking about making official.

A lot of people hate the Retribution, not because its broken, but because they want something shootier. What was broken about the Retribution was the price- there's no way it was worth the original price for what it brought to the table, and EVERYONE agreed the original Emperor price was way under-cost, which is why their costs were swapped. For what it does and its present cost, the Retribution is an excellent ship and themeful for the Imperial fleet.

Can we look at a shootier, shorter-ranged Retribution? Of course. Keep in mind that we're starting with ships that are already well play-tested like the Victory, but nothing's out of the question.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

I have to agree with Sig. What possibly unintended consequences could there be? They get a buff and people take more of them?

Anyway, if they're holding up the FAQ, then leave them as is for now and come back later. I can always houserule them in the meantime.

"getting a buff" is the biggest problem we're seeing as we go through this process. With the exception of ONLY the Devastation (which is already ridiculously under-costed), every suggestion for ships in the current rules is for some kind of profile improvement. If we take this kind of up-creep on-board, down the line the trend will be to compensate by up-creeping the ships that get left behind by the changes, and it becomes a never-ending cycle, which is the biggest problem with WH40k today.

The Voss CL's needed a tweak. We took it on board, and the Voss CL's are improved: for no profile change, they are now cheaper. Incidentally, this price change (-10 points across the board) will apply to their AdMech variants as well.

- Nate

[horizon]

"getting a buff" is the biggest problem we're seeing as we go through this process. With the exception of ONLY the Devastation (which is already ridiculously under-costed), every suggestion for ships in the current rules is for some kind of profile improvement. If we take this kind of up-creep on-board, down the line the trend will be to compensate by up-creeping the ships that get left behind by the changes, and it becomes a never-ending cycle, which is the biggest problem with WH40k today.

Hmmm.

Necron Scythe/Tombship could need a slight downscale in strength.
Corsair Eldar (when keeping current rules) : point raise for Nightshades/Hemlocks needed.
Orks need upscaling (escorts)
Marines got an upscaling (needed) draft2010
Tau FW got a design change (horizontal scaling ).
DE per current rules no adjustement needed tbh.
Chaos Devestation downscaling
Nids got a downscaling in FAQ2010 (sort of, the evolution note).





If up"creeping" is needed to make every ship a worthy choice then what is the problem?

[flybywire-E2C]

If you give AdMech light cruisers a 60cm lance I am gonna hit my head against brick.

That is out of the loop and fun for me. :/

CL's are NOT getting a 60cm lance. However, the AdMech rules do have a screw-up that IS getting fixed in the FAQ. According to the AM rules, the Endeavor/Endurance can trade their prow torps for a single 30cm L/F/R lance. That is rubbish, is not WYSIWYG to the model and does NOT match what we wrote. Here's what should have happened:

AdMech Voss CL's (ALL of them) can purchase one 30cm L/F/R dorsal lance for +10 points.

Aside of the "standard" Voss CL changes I am shocked by above. Very!

Almost every AdMech player I know takes the lance instead of torps.
Everyone who does has modelled their Voss AdMech CL with a dorsal lance on top. I have.
The AdMech prow in fact: does not have torp slits like standard IN prow... (sensor array would make more sense).

140pts (130+10) for such a little bugger.... naaah. :/

A pledge to NOT FAQ this mentioned AdMech change.

This is a boo - hiss.





Personally the voss should've been seperated from the FAQ anyway.

Keep in mind that the -10 point price change applies to AdMech vessels as well. Also, their increased base cost is NOT because of the dorsal lance option; it is for the +1 turret and Omnissiah's Gift benefit, which are rolled into their point cost before taking any additional improvements. When taken into account, that certainly does make the AdMech Endeavor worth 125 points.

Personally, I don't like it- the Voss CL's were supposed to have this as an "addition to" as opposed to a "free instead of." However, its far easier to leave well enough alone if the fans want it. Thoughts?

- Nate