Let's take the Victory for example.
Game on.
Compared to the Retribution you have
- +20 points
- -S3@60cm dorsal Firepower
- Nova Cannon instead of S9 torpdeos
If we consider the Hammer of Scaro -Variant we essentially have a Retribution with 3 points of firepower less but 10 points more expensive.
This does not make sense, especially since the Retribution is already considered underpowered/overpriced by most people. So what you call "character" is de facto a crap variant of an already crap battleship.
Why should I even consider it?
If anything the Victory should be dropped to at least 320 points if you want people even consider taking one. And, as Sig said, even at 300 points its not overpowered.
I HATE the Smotheman formula, but let’s use it for the sake of argument because that’s what everyone seems to like using when discussing how unfair the HA’s are. I’ll even stick to comparing it to a Retribution, which at 345 points is very well costed for the Imperial fleet. If this debate is going to devolve into the Retribution itself is too expensive (which it is NOT), then you can ignore this post entirely.
Let’s start with some basic caveats: Nova Cannon have been +20 points over str-6 torps since 1999. If we are going to debate this, then you can once again stop reading now and ignore this post entirely. It’s a comparison I HATE to make because it’s like comparing apples to basketballs, but we’re using the Smotherman rules here so let’s move on. If we assume a NC is +20 points over str-6 torps, then a simple extrapolation (since I refuse to slide-rule this any more deeply) is that it would be +10 points over str-9 torps or free against str-12 torps. We can of course nit-pick this further to say each torp is worth 1.5 WB’s@30cm, but like I said, I’m not going down this road and will instead simply cheat by saying “Smotherman says†a NC should cost roughly 40 points. In any case, this argument ends with a Retribution upgrading its prow torps for a NC for +10 points, giving us 355 Points.
Smotherman says a given lance is roughly worth the same amount as 3 WB’s at the same range. This makes it easy- a Retribution broadside at 12x60cm WB’s should be worth 4x60cm lances. Even-Steven. Of course, we can now argue about possible effective hits, calculate permutations of dice rolls and throw up some logarithmic tables, but I save that kind of math for my job. If I wanted to play a game needing a slide rule and calculator, I would be playing Star Fleet Battles instead of BFG. So far, we’re still at 355 Points.
Now we get to the dorsal weapons. Here the Retribution has a clear advantage. It’s 3x60cm dorsal L/F/R lances are at LEAST 1/3 again better than the Victory’s 6x60cm L/F/R WB’s which at best is worth only 2x60cm lances. Smotherman says each 60cm lance should cost about 13 points. This brings the cost down to 340 points for a Victory. Add +5 points for fudge factor, and we have a ship that is noticeably different than the Retribution, doesn’t violate fluff, and for the sake of elegance is even the same price. Using your own argument, 320 points for the Victory is not under discussion, and anything less doesn’t bear remarking upon. 345 points however isn’t too bad so let’s make it so. If someone STILL doesn’t like it, they can use something else.
The same kind of consideration has been made for the Mercury, and it’s price has been adjusted as well. However, the “Tyrant BC†isn’t such a far-off analogy. While the argument has been made that the Tyrant is overpriced, the fact is Imperial cruisers by design aren’t supposed to have 45cm weapons at all, and the +5 points (which is a pittance) pays for that premium. You don’t have to like it, but that was the design intent, and you can protest it by never using them. In any case, a Tyrant with NC’s costs 215 points. Strap on 2x60cm dorsal lances, and Smotherman says add +30 points. Even if we do nothing else, this ship now costs 245 points. Now up all the guns by +15cm, and Smotherman says the upgrade costs 1.5 points x10Wb’s, giving us 260 points. We’ll ignore the +5cm speed because it’s offset with how the ship goes pop when it dies. What do you get? That’s right- the exact price listed in v1.0, and the HA’s DIDN’T EVEN USE SMOTHERMAN TO GET THAT FIGURE!
Isn’t play-testing great?
What’s the moral of the story? The HA’s are listening. That being said, other ships don’t meld in as neatly as the Victory, though the Victory made for the easiest argument. Other ships HAVE to be looked at in the manner they play with the fleet as a whole because very few people play single-ship duels. Sadly most players just min-max their fleets and armies, which is what we actually have to consider when programming the rules. Some of the arguments have been a bit silly- one post complaining the Jovian is junk that should never be allowed in an Imperial fleet goes on in a later post to say it is overpriced. Other arguments call the Havoc crap, then complain its overpowered when we add a turret. Really?
Eldanesh, you’re right- people that want NC’s to ONLY be artillery will be miffed by the Mercury’s +5cm speed, which in actual gameplay will MAYBE give up one round of NC shooting if the Imperial player is especially sloppy AND the opponent is especially clever. In exchange you get for the points one of the shootiest ships in the game, especially when you can upgrade all 10wb’s to 60cm. If you still really hate it, the fleet list lets you take the Armageddon instead, and the FAQ lets you upgrade the Armageddon to take an NC, which ends up costing 255 points for the upgrade, only five points less than the Mercury. Let’s say for argument’s sake we wanted to remove any disparity between these two ships. Is that worth -5 points? Sure! Done.
We don't hate the list because we are insubordinate children... We hate it because it fails to live up to it's own fluff and because it is not comparable to the other imperial lists.
Zelnik, you and EVERYONE ELSE HERE are NOT insubordinate children (even you Sig!
). Your input is appreciated, and we are listening. This was only a FIRST DRAFT - we are still working it, and in the end it will be right. However, some of the demands we are seeing here are really Christmas lists. By fluff the grand cruiser is a Cypra Mundi innovation so Battlefleet Bakka on the other side of the galaxy would not be using these ships as primary fleet elements, though of course they are welcome to as reserves. Can they make up GC’s of their own? I’m sure they could, but as these have NEVER appeared ANYWHERE before, it would take too long to get the profiles balanced and right, and frankly some of the proposed GC profiles I have seen are better than most Imperial battleships!
Nate:
ok, so you don't really want to do much to change any of the profiles and you seem to want to build an all guns fleet. With the change (and rightly so) to make the emperor very expensive with Rath on board, and the need to take three other cruisers to get one of the two remaining carriers in the fleet you really aren't leaving many options to make the fleet work. The problem is you are trying to limit the access to AC but you aren't really replacing it with a viable alternative. Fleet defense turrets are alright, but limit you to helping a single ship and force you to use the same restrictions as squadroning your ships but with few real benefits. This in turn limits the number of tactics you can use if you want to get the full effect of the turrets to block AC. This doesn't really encourage their use which is one of the key pieces of flavor in the Bakka list.
I would suggest scrapping the mechanic completely (I don't care how long the rule has been around, longevity isn't a good baseline for utility) and instead make the turrets on the ships better by allowing rerolls a la Tau or letting them target both AC and torpedoes in a single turn or letting ships in base contact mass turrets but treat that massing in all ways like onboard turrets so they effect bomber attack runs as well as lending extra dice to shoot down ordnance. Any of those methods gives them a pretty good boost against ordnance and reduces the need for bringing AC of your own.
I understand the longevity argument, and I know some people don’t like them. However, FDT’s are tested and work. Getting rid of them to create a brand-new and untested mechanic will only create an entirely different set of problems, and re-hashing something from another fleet that makes that fleet unique (Tau turrets) is bad for the entire game and completely anathema. It was already decided that unique traits form each fleet would never EVER be recycled for other fleets unless absolutely unavoidable, and we won’t be starting now. This fleet list does NOT constitute “unavoidable.â€
Now, since you don't seem to want to make any changes to the profiles themselves, you need to do more adjustment the fleet list. Drop the Sword and Cobra since these two directly compete with the Havoc and Viper leaving little reason to bother with these two.
The Sword and Cobra are supposed to be the two most ubiquitous escorts in the whole galaxy so taking them out would violate fluff. Fluff aside, there isn’t any real reason to get rid of them- these are different enough from the Havoc and Viper to not create any conflict. This can be left up to player preference. Lots of people never use Tyrants because Dominators are a better deal, but that doesn’t make Tyrants junk worthy only of being removed from the game.
To further build up the idea of a big guns fleet, I'd think about scrapping the Mars and replacing it with one of the other IN battlecruisers or grand cruisers. That will force any AC to come from reserves either via the expensive Emperor, or via reserve which will likely limit you to one carrier since you would be taking six cruisers to get two carriers. With the Siluria, it would still be possible to pull in two carriers, but not what I'd call practical since you'd be sacrificing quite a bit.
Those changes should result in fewer carriers and thus less AC appearing in the list while not penalizing the player for taking less AC and making the newer ships more attractive.
Keep in mind the Mars is available as a regular fleet choice because we wanted the fleet to be AC-poor, not AC-absent! Taking out the Mars would involve restructuring this entire fleet list to prevent AC from becoming either more prevalent or nearly absent, since the number of carrier hulls available to the Imperial Navy is rather limited.
Now as far as reserves go, I think you should limit the jovian so that it can never be taken as a reserve in any other fleet list. There is only supposed to be one so it shouldn't be showing up all over the galaxy and other IN fleets will benefit from it far more than the bakka list.
Already done.
v1.1 will be out sometime later today, along with updates on the other projects we’re working on. While we are still taking input on the updated drafts that will be posted today, this will probably be the last open debate I have on the forum- we’re getting too close to having the door close on this thing, and from this point on we will only be looking at small tweaks unless something is actually broken. Once again, keep in mind that “I hate this ship†and “this rule is broken†are two different things.
