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

[BaronIveagh]

Eh, like I said: make the improved stats something you have to buy with increased point cost like all the other upgrades.

[RCgothic]

• The Endurance/Defiant will be unhinged from the Endeavor and instead be limited to a TOTAL of two per 500 points (not two each).

Thanks for this, but it needs to be more tightly worded.
Is that 2 per 500pts or part thereof? Eg 4 Max Endurances in a 750pt fleet?
2 per full 500pts? 1 per full 250pts? Or 1 per part 250pts?

[Vaaish]

I'm a little annoyed that the endeavour series gets 6+ prow at the cost of 90' turns. Since you are reducing the cost of the ships, can we not get the option for 6+ prows for +10 points and retain the 90' turns?

I don't mind the Endurance and Defiant solutions.

I'm a little perplexed by the Admech change. The free lance swap fits nicely with the rest of the fleet. Since they are light cruisers, having a 60cm lance like other admech cruisers is too much, but swapping torpedoes for a 30cm lance has never felt overpowered and felt flavorful in the most advanced Imperium fleet. This does balance out with the -10 point cost reduction the CL so that taking the lance will end up costing the same as it does now and boosts the CL since they aren't giving up torpedoes to take the lance, but it makes me wonder at bothering at all. Why not just leave the admech costs as is and let the swap the lance for free?

It just feels weird to have a CL with broadside, dorsal, and 3 prow weapons

[flybywire-E2C]

I'm a little annoyed that the endeavour series gets 6+ prow at the cost of 90' turns. Since you are reducing the cost of the ships, can we not get the option for 6+ prows for +10 points and retain the 90' turns?

I don't mind the Endurance and Defiant solutions.

I know players want more from these ships, but they by intent simply were not designed to offer that to the Imperial fleet. To be honest, we wouldn't be offering any of this at all except that it fits the actual models that were produced quite well. To be honest, the only reason broadside-strong CL's need this at all is to give them a chance to close with the enemy prow on before swinging their guns around. That is the ONLY reason this is even being entertained, and the longest part of the discussion was to drop the price and change NOTHING as opposed to even offering the up-armored prow as an option at all.

I'm a little perplexed by the Admech change. The free lance swap fits nicely with the rest of the fleet. Since they are light cruisers, having a 60cm lance like other admech cruisers is too much, but swapping torpedoes for a 30cm lance has never felt overpowered and felt flavorful in the most advanced Imperium fleet. This does balance out with the -10 point cost reduction the CL so that taking the lance will end up costing the same as it does now and boosts the CL since they aren't giving up torpedoes to take the lance, but it makes me wonder at bothering at all. Why not just leave the admech costs as is and let the swap the lance for free?

It just feels weird to have a CL with broadside, dorsal, and 3 prow weapons

That's two votes against. Contrary to public opinion, the HA's are not just crafting things willy-nilly. Because this is already in print and isn't broken in and of itself, this will remain as-is if enough people want it to remain so (meaning against changing it).   <pouts>

- Nate

[horizon]

I know players want more from these ships, but they by intent simply were not designed to offer that to the Imperial fleet. To be honest, we wouldn't be offering any of this at all except that it fits the actual models that were produced quite well. To be honest, the only reason broadside-strong CL's need this at all is to give them a chance to close with the enemy prow on before swinging their guns around. That is the ONLY reason this is even being entertained, and the longest part of the discussion was to drop the price and change NOTHING as opposed to even offering the up-armored prow as an option at all.

To be honest the bold part is debatable. As you have read most view the design as light cruiser of the line.
"Of the line" means 6+ prow. Agreed. Broadside focused firepower.
"Light" means: speed and/or manoeuvrable. Thus 25cm speed and/or 90* turns.

The Dauntless is what it is per design: a light cruiser. Thus 25cm speed & 90* turns and prow focused weapons.

Per those 3 points of design the Voss should be: 6+ prow and 90* turns OR 25cm speed. Per fleet design (IN) 90* is more logical then 25cm speed.

See, per design the Voss is: 6+ prow/90* turns.

If we would have gotten a reasonable, background driven, or perhaps even a well founded 'broken' explanation we would sh*t up about it (I think ), but so far no such explanation has been brought forward (simply as it doesn't exist ).

Thanks on the AdMech.

[lastspartacus]

Well, heres more forcing my playgroup deeper into house rules to play the game the correct way.

The Voss fluff seems rather pointless the way you describe it as 'soooo rare' yet they are made to cheaply fill a cruiser gap.

But besides that, I have two questions for you, just your opinions because an unchanged voss pattern will at this point be ignored, the Imperials in my playgroup got too excited by now

1. I've asked this in about 5 posts by now.  Could you please give insight into why exactly you felt 90* turns and 6+ prows broke the ship?

2. Firstly, having range on a light cruiser would of course be possible on an admech light cruiser, with all their fancy gizmos, and fill the space of 4 torps.  But if that is OP for some reason I am missing, can you think of any other method for a good replacement of str4 torps without simply tacking on a dorsal lance?  I ask because my admech player likes his 'no torps' fleet because its operational paradigm is so far removed from a standard IN fleet, and feels quite unique.

[RCgothic]

We aren't getting S4 Torps.

[BaronIveagh]

I'm starting to wonder what hte point of FAQ2010 is if not to fix ships that are broken?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

We aren't getting S4 Torps.

Yeah. Should be getting Str 6 torps while ditching the FP2 WBs for the Voss LCs except the Defiant which should up the prow lances to Str 3.  

[lastspartacus]

I realize that, but I'm talking about in theory here.  We will not be playing crappy ships with a simple points decrease around here, that are still quite inferior to the Dauntless at same points, especially in multiples.  So I'm asking in theory, because thats how we will be playing it in my group, and I want to do it 'right' as in 'maybe not what official rules are, but as right as we can be along the lines of thought we are using'.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

If we want improvements, then I feel we should have something more solid to base things on. So I check again with Smotherman. Not the best way to check it but again useable enough.

Turns out the Endeavor should only be at 92 points, the Endurance at 110 points and the Defiant at 110 points. This does not include the +1 to Boarding Roll cost which I feel should be added only to the Endeavor and cancelled out by the limiting rule on the other 2 variants.

As it is the Endeavor and Defiant is overcosted and the Endurance slightly undercosted. If we factor in the 6+/5+ prow, Endeavor goes up to 124.5, Endurance and Defiant becomes 132.5. So I think we can all agree that the armor values be built in though Endeavor and Endurance might need a bump from 120.

Weapons wise, I don't think there's a problem with the loadout of the Endeavor and Endurance. So here's a couple of ideas:
1. We up the Defiant's prow lances to Str 3 with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 150.
2. We just make the Defiant take Str 6 torps as prow weapons and it becomes and all ordnance ship with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 145.
3. We let the Defiant take Str 2 torps in addition to the Str 2 lances as prow weapons with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 150 as well.
4. We let the Defiant have the same FP2 WBs and Str 2 torps as the other 2 variants and with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 134.5.

If we use RCGothic's suggestion and we let the Defiant the same FP2 WBs and Str 2 torps as the other 2 variants and add FP2 dorsal WBs with 6+/5+ armor, then cost goes up to 137.5. Personally, I would prefer IN regular cruisers not to have dorsal weaponry and just up the prow FP to 4.

All 4 variants I propose as well as RCGothic's proposal still wouldn't result in a ship which can be comparable to the cost and effectiveness of the Dauntless, however. Again there might be stuff the Smotherman formula is missing but it's spot on with the cost of the Dauntless. The Dauntless just hits that sweet spot.

[lastspartacus]

Admiral, I get that the Voss patterns have a different purpose than the Dauntless kind of LC, but They at least deserve a less puny frontal attack, I feel.  Str4 torps is a lovely way to go.  Even if it costs more.  Honestly I wanted the 90 turn more for sensibility than tactics, I can't see them benefiting much more with it.  Does 45 make them cheaper?

I'm using fleet master, so I'm not getting quite the same numbers.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Smotherman is much better for me.

I agree they should get a better prow weapon. Which is why I don't like this dual weapons on the prow. It's sacrificing a lot of the weapons' firepower. Stick to one weapon system and you'd get FP6@30cm WBs, Str@30cm lances or Str 6 torps.

[lastspartacus]

I'd be happy with str4 torps.  I say that because its really cool getting a str8 broadside out of the Endeavor.  At least gives it almost Dauntless like power on one broadside

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

FP6 is better than FP4 and the Str 6 torps would equal the torp variant of the Dauntless so technically, the Endeavor can match a Dauntless on a broadside basis. The only one it can't match would be the Str 3 lance but even that's debatable if it can get into 15 cm range.

The Endurance would almost have the same broadside power as the torp Dauntless as well. Str 2 lances vs FP4 WBs are not that different. Having Str 6 torp only prow weapons would again make it equal to the torp Dauntless.

The Defiant is the problem since it uses AC which are expensive in the game. Which is why I prefer the lances to be upped to 3 or use Str 6 torps to match the Dauntless' prow weapons.