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

[horizon]

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.

Most use examples from other ships to determine point costs, backed up with smotherman for adjusting/checking.

Like 2 dorsal lances at 60cm LFR = 30pts (Murder -> Hades)
Like NC over 6 torps = 20pts
Like NC over 9 torps = 10pts.
etc

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!

You did not factor in:
that 25cm speed on an IN line cruiser is not wanted and rather a downfall. (Aside of being non fluffy), and the downside of the special rule.

@ BaronI: I did not want extra lb on the the CG's.

[flybywire-E2C]

All,

Draft Updates have been uploaded for all four of the last projects the HA’s are working on.

- Battlefleet Bakka DRAFT v1.1
Lots of changes here- too many to list.

- Inquisition DRAFT v1.6
Minor tailoring of points and questions at this stage, slightly improved GK boarding value, improved graphics and formatting.

- Ork Clanz DRAFT v1.3
Fixed and adjusted a number of confusing points, improved graphics and formatting.

- Powers of Chaos DRAFT v3.2
Fixed and clarified a number of confusing points, made some changes to the Powers of Chaos, adjusted some point values, improved graphics and formatting.

[Vaaish]

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.”

Ok, fine, then how about dropping the need for the FDT's to designated a protected ship since that makes them pretty easy to avoid? And how about incorporating one into the default profile of the Bakka ships with the option to upgrade additional turrets? Both of those would give the FDT's a bit more teeth to help offset the reduced AC and give more flavor to the list.

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.

The fluff you have in the document points to practically the entire tempestus fleet being annihilated by the nids and specifically says they tend to use older, smaller hulls. I think that leave you with more than enough leeway to say that because of the extremely high attrition or doctrine the fleet has had to pull these alternative or older hull designs out of reserve. In any event, you have precedent for leaving out the sword with the armageddon fleet where both are only available as marine RSV.

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.

I had considered that before I suggested it, but I don't think that would move the fleet to AC-absent. If anything it ensures the fleet is AC poor since you will need three cruisers to pull any carriers at all or spend a third of your points on the emperor. The metagame will ensure that some carrier is taken from reserves since few out there have the guts to try IN with no AC at all. Pulling the mars means that a NC armed carrier isn't going to be added to the NC armed BB and NC armed cruisers without some cost. It helps reign in the NC spam you folks aren't fond of and pushes players more toward a big guns fleet!


I see the new PDF went up too:

Victory: 325-335. I still think this ship is going to be OP. It's functionally the equivalent of the Apocalypse BB but trades two lances and the special critical rule for four lances that are always capable of firing 60cm with no penalty and it's as fast as a retribution. It seems extremely attractive at 335 or the more likely 325 points with torpedoes.

Vanquisher: there just isn't any reason to ever take this over a Victory class outside of a special story driven scenario. Character ship or no, it's just too close to the Victory's profile and cost.

Mercury: Still messed up. this thing really needs a reason to exist as it does. Compare it to an overlord which has equivalent firepower but none of the drawbacks this ship has. If you are going to make it blow up spectacularly because of it's battleship power systems, it needs a bit more than an extra 5cm speed to make the need for those systems believable. Give this thing battleship grade weapons and it'll be more reasonable. It really does not have any reason to blow up like it does right now. Really, look at the stats. It gains +2 batteries over an overlord battelcruiser which amounts to a single dice gained for all its battleship power generation capability. That one dice is completely negated by the Overlord's targeting array. All this ship gains for the spectacular explosive ability is +5cm speed. Congratulations, it is now a 250 point fireship.

Jovian: I'm not fond of how if breaks the IN rules, but it's effectively limited so it's not problematic. I'm sure the IN did some experimentation along the way to the modern fleet. The ignored prow critical fixes any problem the ship itself has.

[Plaxor]

One thing I've learned from my experiment is that Sigoroth is generally right. He does form his arguments and research quite well.

Reserve rules: I really don't like reserve rules, they really break the idea behind fleet lists. As Horizon said, in a Obscuras fleet you can easily take a Dominator with reserve rules, making the Gothic sector list pointless unless you want more than one or two dominators. Fleet lists should be built as a whole, with their own individual character, rather than with the possibility of contamination from any other fleet. I sincerely think that the HA should've made reserves only allowed if the opponent agrees beforehand. They don't make sense on a general basis, and the limitations aren't so limited when it comes to anything other than battleships. Also they are confusing in themselves, and could be interpreted as a person could take extra cbs or whatnot beyond limitations.

Dominator: Nate, your argument for including the Dominator in this list is that Bakka is closer to Kar Duniash? what? Rubbish. The gothic sector only had one Dominator (which makes it more like a reserve vessel in that sense) and the writers said unlimited because there was no gameplay reason to limit them. I really don't think that the dominator should be in this list, and should almost be a 'Ultima' only ship. (reserves in other fleets as normal)

The Victory: boring... just... boring... but that's not that it's unbalanced. It's just you could've had something more interesting.

The Vanquisher: I don't see any reason why you couldn't give it some dorsal wbs, you have the power to do so, and it wouldn't be gamebreaking. Not only that but it would make more sense as a battleship and stop all our 'underpowered' whining. I don't think anyone would come out and say 'well in fanatic it was so'. Changes are an adaptation, you don't have to duplicate the past.

Also the Vanquisher in the fluff is said to have had prow launch bays at one point. I would love it if you made it have the option to swap its torps and prow 6+ armor for 4 launch bays.

The Jovian: Well... I really don't think that this belongs here. It belongs in a different style of fleetlist. Much like the one that I wrote for the Tartanus sector. IN vessels trade off easy access to AC for wide use of torpedoes. In my Tartanus list, torpedoes are reduced, however there is a larger number of launch bay ships. Again this ship makes much more sense in a 'Ultima' list, as every description of battles in segmentum ultima involve carriers. Naturally it is presumable that Kar Duniash naval HQ simply prefers ships that follow the Garox Perrogative, and even are old fashioned in maintaining the Idealogy.

That said I think that the fluff on the vessel should be modified slightly. In my Tartanus list I made it make sense in the fact that the launch bays weren't added by choice, or by favor of the IN as a whole. Simply they didn't have the resources or technology available to replace the mars' damaged wbs at the time, and instead the ship was refitted with whatever they had available. The Jovian already describes the LBs as being worse tech. Again, makes sense in an 'Ultima' type list where the sector is desperate for vessels, even ones that don't make sense, to patrol their vast segmentum.

Like the Vanquisher, I don't see any reason that this vessel couldn't have a prow something. Give it prow torps, even lower than normal strength ones. The 'ignores prow criticals' is a strange band-aid to its problem. Again, I don't think anyone would cry out about 'it was so in fanatic'. Also I think the vessel should be purposefully overpriced, to make it unreasonable to take in any fleet besides Bakka.

The Siluria: This ship is not unique enough. I really think that you could shoot for 4 hits and 80 points (the cheapness to represent that it is old and useless). Then it would be something interesting to take. I wrote it into Tartanus as it is a reserve vessel that they would be desperate for. Here, it isn't something that doesn't make sense... it's just... well... not ideal.

Also Sigoroth noted that the game really doesn't have much 4+ armor. I could see reducing it to 85-90 points and making it 5+/4+, which would make it very unique. Oh, and another thought, I don't think it should have improved thrusters, as it should be crap, but cheap crap.

The Havoc: I really think that this should have either 5+/4+ or just 4+. The vessel is explicitly stated in the fluff as being a glass cannon. It barely beats out 'wolfpack raiders' for armor. This would make it unique and interesting. With this it should be 30 points, which will make it more appealing compared to the sword. Also the vessel is old, and nice to see, but I think that it at least should be part of the RT document.

And I think that it should be able to swap its prow batteries for a single torp, but that's just me. It would look like a better falchion unless you did the armor drop.

The Mercury: ....just delete it.... Another ship from the RT books is the Ignus class, which makes for a far more interesting vessel, albeit somewhat similar to this one. I wrote up some stats for it:

(cruiser stats)
Port/Starboard Wbs  14@30cm
Dorsal WBs 6@30cm
Prow Torps (in mine it's four, but could be 6)

Improved thrusters, but places a blast marker in contact with its base when declaring LO special orders. (basically just reducing its speed.

More in character with IN, and adding a unique vessel to the list.

Fleet Overall;

Well it's something to toss in I guess. Not really anything spectacular. I don't like the Idea of fleet defense turrets, and I understand that you're throwing them in to make the metagame hate ordinance more. Like Horizon said, its really sad that you, and the other HAs have your hands tied for a lot of things in the system. Like Sigoroth said, retroactive fixes can only go so far, and eventually you can only build so high on a bad system before it starts to fall apart, or you have strange things that don't work well/make sense.

[RCgothic]

I only just had a chance to read the first draft, and now there's a second! Ok, my thoughts, in order of strength:

Fleet Defence Turrets: NONONONONONONO NO! They were a teribad idea in admech when they were a random refit, and they're even worse available generally. I am in complete agreement with Sigoroth when he suggests binning these. They're conceptually horrible, even if the rules were any good (which as vaaish has pointed out, they aren't). This is why it's never a good idea to set bad precedents. At least in the ad mech list they won't be freely available to other fleet lists).

Jovian: It's simultaneously overcosted, undergunned and horrendously broken. It's not a vessel the IN should have, especially not in the Bakka fleet list! Just because something was in a magazine once doesn't mean it should ever see the light of day. Bin. There's nothing you can do to fix this ship, and I don't think you should try.

Viper/Havoc: Woo! I really like these escorts. Locking some of the FP front is a decent way to bulk up the firepower on the Havoc, though I agree it didn't really need a 2nd turret. I'd happily take a Viper any day of the

Victory: As undergunned as the Retribution! Not only that, but it takes the Retribution's flaws and amplifies them. The Retribution wants to close, to use its WBs to maximum effect, but simultaneously the 60cm range doesn't come in useful or the off-side firepower is wasted. The Victory is similar, but its broadsides don't get more effective at close range, and the NC means you want to hold back, negating the 20cm speed. Now I don't honestly mind a ship not being maximally gunned, but it should be priced taking its weakness into account. I would put it in the 325-335pt price bracket. I like the S9 Torp option - I'd take it over the NC any day.

Vanquisher: Actually less conflicted than the Victory. I could like it as a cheap BB, but it could do with 20cm speed - for which I'd happily trade the WBs 60cm range down to 45cm. Around about the 290-300pt mark would be viable.

Mercury: Why does it need BB power systems again? It doesn't have BB level weapons. It has what the Overlord should have had to begin with. In exchange for the +5cm speed (which as noted, useless in a fleet context) it becomes a flying bomb. No thanks. There's just not enough useful distinction between it and the Overlord (which with a targeting matrix it doesn't actually outgun), and I would rather the Armageddon every day of the week. I don't think it's worth 355pts either. More like 335, or perhaps a third shield for same price?

Siluria: Yeah, nice cheap LC. Cool.

Endeavour/Endurance: Bin fleet turrets. Bin them now. Kill them. Kill them with FIRE. Why is the 6+ restricted? Hate to beat a dead horse, but they need 6+/90' as well. Without the Jovian, the Defiant could usefully sneak in as a defensive AC platform without being too against the bakka paradigm (it's only 2 AC after all - not a fleet carrier by any standards).

0-12 limit on cruisers. Why? I know it's not necessarily specific to this fleet list, but all it does is needlessly limit the upper size of fleets. If you can legally take 12 Dominators or 12 Lunars, why not 24 Cruisers total (or more)?

[BaronIveagh]

@ BaronI: I did not want extra lb on the the CG's.

I know, you've repeatedly made plain you want IN free of AC in general.

Achem: As, probably the only person outside the HA on this board who's actually used one more then a handful of times, the 'Mercury' is excellent as a flagship for Fast Imperial.  While, I have lost games to the special rule doing more damage to my fleet then the enemy, just as often I've found it useful, with it's downside making it balanced.  

@Sig: Actually, Sig, it would have to have been used as a reserve ship for Battlefleet Obscurus if the fluff for Battlefleet Bakka is correct.  So, sorry, your fluff 'does not match logic or precedent and is therefor bad' as you yourself have stated in the past.  The IN has a great deal of variety between sectors let alone between segmentums so saying IN IS AGAINST X is sort of silly as it's easy to point out that IN does not follow a single doctrine any more then the Imperial Creed is a uniform faith.  While there are a few common tenants, both are molded by local conditions.    

@Nate: Maybe I'm misreading this, but making the Jovian a reserve ship and stating no one else can take it directly conflicts with the AdMech rules that state that they can take 'any' IN ship or SM ship without restriction, as long as they all come from the same fleet.  



I propose the following, since it's clear that we're about to re-enact the dispute between Battlefleet Gaerox and Battlefleet Bakka: I say we make two lists.  One IN AC heavy, and one IN gun heavy.  This heads off the chest beating and allows everyone to have the ships they like.  Does this sound reasonable?

[Plaxor]

Ship	Obscuras	Tempestus	Pacificus	Solar	Ultima
Lunar	Yes	Yes	?	Yes	Yes
Gothic	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Dictator	Yes	Yes	?	Yes	?
Tyrant	Yes	No	?	Yes	?
Dominator	No	Yes	?	No	Yes
Dauntless	Yes	Yes	?	No	Yes
End/End/Def	Yes	Yes	?	Yes	?
Armageddon	Yes	No	?	Yes	?
Mars	Yes	Yes	?	Yes	?
Overlord	Yes	Yes	?	Yes	Yes
Vengeance	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	?
Avenger	Yes	Yes	?	Yes	?
Exorcist	Yes	Yes	?	No	Yes
Retribution	Yes	No	?	Yes	?
Emperor	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Oberon	No	No	?	Yes	?
Apocalypse	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	?
Falchion	No	No	?	Yes	?
Sword	Yes	Yes	?	No	Yes
Firestorm	Yes	Yes	?	Yes	Yes
Cobra	Yes	Yes	?	No	Yes
Invincible	No	Yes	?	No	?
Nemesis	No	?	?	No	?
Victory	No	Yes	?	No	Yes
Vanquisher	no	yes	no	No	no
Furious	Yes	Yes	?	No	?
Cardinal	Yes	Yes	?	No	?
Jovian	No	Yes	?	No	Yes
Serpent	Yes	No	Yes	No	?
Orion	No	Yes	?	No	Yes
Daemon Slayer	No	Yes	?	No	Yes
Hawking	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Enforcer	No	Yes	?	No	Yes
Siluria	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Viper	No	Yes	?	No	Yes

Compilation of where ships are available from a previous thread and extensive research.

[lastspartacus]

What exactly is wrong with FDT now?

[Vaaish]

LS, outside of the oddity of the rule itself, you have to pay extra for something that's supposed to be ubiquitous to Bakka which ensures that few will be taken because their rules limit them to protecting a single designated ship per turn and you really don't gain much over the regular BTB turret massing.

[BaronIveagh]

@Plaxor: At the Segmentum level, yes, though there are classes such as the Kar-Dunish class cruiser that seem to be missing.  Also, the battleship sized fleet carrier of the Segmentum Obsucus, the Majestic Class, would be likely similar to the Nemesis, though no stats have ever been given, since it's only ever appeared in fluff.


@lastsparticus: They don't like it since there's no limit on how many turrets you can give a ship with it if enough are in range, as opposed to the limited number you can with turret massing.

[RCgothic]

That's not even remotely one of the reasons why I don't like it. It's an atrocious concept. You cannot pick out bombers from such range without using weaponry that stands a substantial chance of damaging the ship you're attempting to protect.

[horizon]

1cm = 1000km

Lets see,
AdMech makes it that a ship has 2 turrets able to assist a friendly ship within ~15cm iirc.

It are 2 turrets that can hit enemy ordnance at a distance of 15000km on a 4+.
While such a ship could direct its batteries at ordnance  a phase earlies at ordnance being away 30000km (30cm ranged vessels), 45000km (45cm) or 60000km (60cm).
Depending on strength this will vary between 1 (or even 0) and 3 dice hitting on a 6+.

A Gothic with 4 lances has 4 shots on a 6+ at 30000km. The Desolator 4 lances @ 60000km.


With all this in mind I do not object to FDT (for which ship has to pay extra) being highly accurate at 15000km.

So fluff objection can be reasonable be countered I think.


@RcG, see my reasonings above.
To add. Ships can pick out targets being in base to base contact (non squadroned) at a range of 60000km. Even a wave of bombers.

[Valhallan]

I dig it. its a sweet lil list. within time, plax, I or both or someone else will be putting together the AC heavy IN (though unofficial prolly). I do have the issue with the lack of guns to the merc, perhaps making those 4wb at 60 into 2 lances at 60 would properly suit it all. as for the 25cm speed not fitting in? run it with some escorts, or CL's

yes torps would rock some socks on the mercury, but this fleet specifically has little to no AC to guide those torps in. thus: NC. the option would be nice though.

victory is fine. 20cm is so it can turn with BM in contact to face either those LONG RANGE lances or LONG RANGE NC at targets. its a survivable long range gunship. very similar to the apoc, but -2 lances, better speed, cheaper. I've always wanted one official.

IMO dauntless should be included as well as defiant. daunt especially with the lack of the firestorm.

FDT's seem fine in theory. I'll playtest em out later.

[BaronIveagh]

That's not even remotely one of the reasons why I don't like it. It's an atrocious concept. You cannot pick out bombers from such range without using weaponry that stands a substantial chance of damaging the ship you're attempting to protect.

Actually you do it by predicting the most likely path that bombers would take, adjust for TOT and figure the probable vector.  Now fill the sky there with flak style fire.  the shards will probably have near zero effect on an object the size of a ship, but would be quite deadly to AC. 

[Sigoroth]

1cm = 1000km

Lets see,
AdMech makes it that a ship has 2 turrets able to assist a friendly ship within ~15cm iirc.

This is the same rule that we're currently discussing. FDTs appeared in the original Bakka list (which was never made official because, let's face it, the community had enough sense to say "hell no") and was (mis)appropriated into the AdMech rules.

It are 2 turrets that can hit enemy ordnance at a distance of 15000km on a 4+.
While such a ship could direct its batteries at ordnance  a phase earlies at ordnance being away 30000km (30cm ranged vessels), 45000km (45cm) or 60000km (60cm).
Depending on strength this will vary between 1 (or even 0) and 3 dice hitting on a 6+.

A Gothic with 4 lances has 4 shots on a 6+ at 30000km. The Desolator 4 lances @ 60000km.

Ok, let's look at the differences here. Yes, you can shoot at ordnance from a long way away. However, this is done with main guns. Weapon batteries attempt to saturate the area. However, the targets are small and this is very very difficult. This is represented by using the far right column which means that to get even one dice you need 3 Weapon Batteries. This is a substantial amount of firepower, and even then you have minimal chances of hitting (6+). You can also use highly accurate lances to cut a swathe through space, hoping to take out the wave. But even with their accuracy you still only hit on a 6+ and again it's a large amount of firepower. This is when they're en route. So they're pretty much just flying flat chat in a straight line, which would be the easiest possible target.

That was main guns. Now we're talking about turrets. Turrets are much shorter range. We're not talking thousands of kilometres here, we're talking a few kilometres, maybe tens of kilometres, tops. Turret guns are the sort of weaponry you'd see in WH40k. Burst cannons and whatnot. Larger, yes, but the same sort of weapon. Lascannons, multi-lasers, etc. There's no way that an anti-ordnance turret weapon is ever going to be able to fire 15,000 kms in a timely enough fashion to reach its target while it still mattered. Worse, these turrets are supposedly shooting at bombers that are dodging flak and lining up their attack runs. In other words, ships that are actively manoeuvring, not flying in a straight line. So, these turrets are able to fire at similar range to main guns but are 3 times more accurate against a harder target and can't damage the ship that is being attacked? Bullshit. If they have the power to reach that far then they've got the power to harm ships. If they're shooting at bombers around another ship then half the time they'll hit the ship they're trying to protect. Even then I see absolutely no reason why these things should hit the bombers on a 4+. Ridiculous.