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

[Sigoroth]

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.  

Right, so WBs can't do it with their much greater yield explosions, saturating a much greater area, with much more firepower when the bombers are flying a much more predictable path and yet these turrets can do it? Not to mention that half the time the bombers would likely be on the other side of the ship, and so out of LoS. Pure drivel.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny.  Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth.  OMG!  IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!!  IT'S THE END! 

The reason why the Exorcist and Retaliator should have the extra LB is because of its size. It's certainly much bigger than any cruiser chassis would be. These being pre-heresy to heresy designs as well means they are available to current fleets. The Jovian is on a modern chassis where the doctrines are more favorable to shooting rather than to AC. That is the objection to the Jovian.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

Not true Nate. If we do NOT go by Smotherman, the NC on an original NC ship like the Dominator only costs 10 points more. The Dominator is 190 points vs a Lunar and Gothic. The latter two are both 180, with the Lunar having a bay of WBs and a bay of lances while the Gothic has both bays with lances. Stands to conclude that a ship with both bays filled with WBs should cost the same as a Lunar and Gothic at 180. This means the Dominator gets the NC cheap compared to the other ships.

Smotherman again is just a tool to assist but is not the end all be all. You also have to factor in the existing in game cost interaction.

[Sigoroth]

@Nate

There have been 3 arguments presented against FDTs. The ludicrousness of the premise is one. The fact that it's widely available in this list but implied as rare in the AdMech is another. And the third is that it's unsatisfactory for the job (even if it made you immune to ordnance it would still not clear CAP to help your torps hit home). Add to that the fact that any IN fleet list will be able to pay 10-20 pts to give 1 or 2 of its Lunars or Gothics or Doms FDTs then it just becomes a terribly terribly awful addition to the game. Less is more. Drop this crappy rule, or limit it to only this crappy list. I really don't care which.

Oh, and by the way, your maths is off. Firstly, the cost of the NC option. When you said +20 pts over the 6 torps and +10 pts over the 9 torps you were right. However, that's as an option. It is well overpriced as an option, presumably to limit NC spam. However, when it's non-optional it's only worth at most, 10 pts more than 6 torps, or parity with 9 torps. So take 10 pts off for a start. Secondly, you started with a range-upgraded Tyrant as your base ship and then further upgraded the range off all 10 WBs, meaning your price of 260 included optional range upgrade (15 pts). So if you want to keep the range upgrade as +15 pts you'd need to drop the ship down to 245 for a start. Then drop it down by another 10 pts since you overvalued the NC. Then drop it down by another 5 pts because you started with an already overpriced ship. This brings us to 230 pts. Now drop it another 10 pts because of unwanted speed and the extra liability it presents to your fleet. And you get, hmm, what 220 pts? Isn't that what I said the unupgraded range Mercury should cost? I swear to god the only use for this ship would be to AAF into the heart of the enemy and blow up. A task for which torpedoes would be vastly preferable to the NC.

I wonder, are you afraid that it would be overpowered at that price? Really? A range upgraded one would be 235 pts, same as a matrix fitted Overlord. So you're getting less firepower from the Mercury at >15cm. You have to take a NC, when most people actually prefer torps (particularly for this ship!) and you're able to sit back and make full use of your range with the Overlord, without it outpacing the fleet and without fear that it's going to massively explode in your own lines. In short, even at 220 (235 upgraded) the Overlord is preferable, and I don't even like the Overlord (I'd take the Armageddon for sure). There is no way this hunk of junk is worth that much.

On to the Victory. The approximation of 1 lance to 3WB only works on 30cm weaponry. A strength 1 lance at 15cm is worth less than 3WB at 15cm. Similarly, 1 lance at 30cm is worth more than 3WB at 30cm if those WB can't get a LCS when firing at <15cm. So this approximation only really works as an average across the range bands presented. It breaks down when we extend the range further. So, when we make the Victory/Retribution comparison we should bear this in mind. It's also only worth noting this range favour to lances for the on-side weaponry; off-side weaponry will almost always be within 30cm. So focusable fire of Victory vs Retribution shows +1L to the Vic, +6WB to the Ret. Clearly in favour of the Ret, even taking the range discrepancy into account (1L=3WB<30cm, 1L=~5.5WB>30cm, so 1L@60cmLFR worth ~4-4.5WB@60cmLFR). Given that this ship now costs 10 pts less than a Ret and has the option to take a NC then it would seem to be fine.

Problem is, the Ret isn't any good. I don't see it getting the targeting matrix the Overlord got. With its weaponry getting better at closer range such that at <30cm it has +3WBe over the Victory it really is a line-breaker, for which role its range is fairly useless. The Victory on the other hand is a stand-off vessel for the same but opposite reason. In which case its range is useful, but its prow weaponry and armour aren't so useful, and its speed is also a little wasted (it could go down to 15cm like the Emp/Ober/Apoc/Vanq and still fulfill its role). So the Retribution is more efficient than the Victory, even though its conflicted design has been much lamented. Consider a Ret with 18WB@45cm for 355 pts. This is what the community would like and what we all agree is balanced. OK, so you don't want to change the Ret for various reasons. However, since you're introducing the Victory here then surely this is the benchmark it ought to be balanced against, and not the current crappy Ret.

This has mostly been an exercise in comparative ship valuation rather than any true gripe. At 335 pts (torps) the Victory isn't too bad. It's 35 pts more than a Desolator, but has the extra armour on the prow. This roughly ballpark for this upgrade normally, but it does lose the speed as well, which isn't too big a deal on a stand-off vessel, but with the 6+ prow that speed would have actually been useful. Of course, the Desolator is definitely the better ship. There isn't much between the speed/prow armour in terms of actual (ie, role) value, so the Vic is a little pricey still.

It compares unfavourably in stand-off role to a known good ship (Desolator) and compares unfavourably in a line-breaker role to an acknowledged bench mark (fixed Ret). Still, you could argue the Ret isn't fixed and the fleet can't get the Desolator. So I would just suggest upping the dorsal weapons to 9.

The Vanquisher is still just too pricey. I like the idea, but it really is not equipped to do what needs to be done. Unlike the Victory it could really maximise the prow torps and extra speed. It wants to break the line and in this role the range on the WBs is wasted. This makes it a terribly inefficient ship. It doesn't matter that it's inefficient, but at least cost it appropriately. Most of the time it won't be able to turn and the enemy will be able to dictate terms of engagement. It also has the same firepower as the Armageddon at <45cm, and slightly worse at >45cm (better off-side firepower, but less ability to manoeuvre to be able to use it). So take an Armageddon, add 4 hits, 2 shields and 2 turrets (no firepower) and then knock of 5cm speed and make it BB status (large base, crap turn radius). Let's just assume 10 pts per hit and turret and 15 pts per shield. That's a total of 325 pts. Now knock off the speed and give it BB status. Together I would call that at least 25 pts. If I had the choice between a 300 pt 15cm BB line-breaker or the same ship with 20cm movement and cruiser turn rate for 325 pts I'd take the latter. So 300 pts is probably a little high still, particularly when compared to the Desolator, but it's a nice round number.

[Sigoroth]

@Nate

A note on the whole CG/old ships thing. In WWII the RN gave their old superseded WWI ships to Australia (the cast iron flotilla) who used them successfully to supply the Rats of Tobruk, who halted Rommel's advance, at least until they were relieved by English and Indian regulars supplied by the pride of the British navy, at which point Tobruk fell to Rommel. Nevertheless, the point is that just because these old ships were laid down in England they eventually ended up on the other side of the world. There's no reason why the same sort of thing could not happen in BFG. In fact, if Bakka's fluff suggests that they rely on older ships or recommissioned vessels or spare/auxiliary vessels from other battlefleets then it would make sense that these are the sorts of resources that would be redirected from other Segmentum, rather than shiny new ships.

[BaronIveagh]

I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny.  Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth.  OMG!  IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!!  IT'S THE END!  

The reason why the Exorcist and Retaliator should have the extra LB is because of its size. It's certainly much bigger than any cruiser chassis would be. These being pre-heresy to heresy designs as well means they are available to current fleets. The Jovian is on a modern chassis where the doctrines are more favorable to shooting rather than to AC. That is the objection to the Jovian.

The idea that shooting is favored assumes that fleet strategy is uniform across the entire Imperium.  Considering the variation from one area to another and the variety of threats it faces, this is unlikely, and further, even a single sector can change over time.  Consider that despite Bakka detesting AC, they adopted the Jovian, a pure carrier, due to their abysmal performance against the tyranids in Ultramar.  It is not very far fetched to suggest that in some areas AC carriers are more common then they are in the Gothic, Armageddon, or Bakka sectors, particularly when AC ships seem to be preferred for anti-pirate details.

While some classes of ship seem fairly ubiquitous, we then have ships like the Tempest that are unique to certain regions, arising out of the particular needs of those fleets.  

I submit that we need an additional fleetlist, of AC oriented IN.  It is not even unlikely given fluff, and seems to be something that at least some people want.  

Perhaps Battlefleet Calixis?  Assuming FFG would be interested.  



Reflecting on this for a moment: Wouldn't the Tempestus fleet arriving in Ultramar be them coming in as a Reserve unit?



@Sig:

Actually turrets are more akin to Hydra batteries or the Vulcan Megabolters you would see on a battle titan.  However, I'll point out: ships within 15cm are close enough to share LD so this would imply that they have some means of high speed, real time communication inside that range.  If this is true, then FDT makes perfect sense, working together similar to modern ships sharing targeting data. and CIWS.

[Sigoroth]

I do find all the whining and hand wringing about the Jovian funny.  Particularly since the same group voted to give the Excorcist an extra LB so that it had 3 per side, but the idea of the Jovian seems ot make the same people foam at the mouth.  OMG!  IN HAS ANOTHER LAUNCH BAY!!!!  IT'S THE END! 

The reason why the Exorcist and Retaliator should have the extra LB is because of its size. It's certainly much bigger than any cruiser chassis would be. These being pre-heresy to heresy designs as well means they are available to current fleets. The Jovian is on a modern chassis where the doctrines are more favorable to shooting rather than to AC. That is the objection to the Jovian.

The idea that shooting is favored assumes that fleet strategy is uniform across the entire Imperium.  Considering the variation from one area to another and the variety of threats it faces, this is unlikely, and further, even a single sector can change over time.  Consider that despite Bakka detesting AC, they adopted the Jovian, a pure carrier, due to their abysmal performance against the tyranids in Ultramar.  It is not very far fetched to suggest that in some areas AC carriers are more common then they are in the Gothic, Armageddon, or Bakka sectors, particularly when AC ships seem to be preferred for anti-pirate details.

While some classes of ship seem fairly ubiquitous, we then have ships like the Tempest that are unique to certain regions, arising out of the particular needs of those fleets. 

I submit that we need an additional fleetlist, of AC oriented IN.  It is not even unlikely given fluff, and seems to be something that at least some people want. 

Perhaps Battlefleet Calixis?  Assuming FFG would be interested. 

Or we could just avoid those ships in BFG as not fitting the feel of the wider IN combat doctrine. I myself like the Jovian. I don't think it's balance is that far off and it is even a plausible refit as long as it is only allowed in BF Bakka and even then unique. The potential for abuse elsewhere is high and even moreso when spammable. Since it is a unique ship and is restricted to a list with no Dictators, Defiants, Exorcists or Emperors then it's fine. The nervousness about it from the community is warranted too. It's just stupid to be blasé about going counter to the established fleet doctrine willy nilly. Sure there would be a heap of ships out there that don't stack up to the "standard" IN, but compared to the number of IN ships there are this would be a tiny percentage. Given that players are generally constructing 'typical' fleets it's not unreasonable to leave these out altogether. You could, I suppose, come up with a whole slew of modified or counter-doctrine ships, but then limit their inclusion very specifically. Say, only one such special ship in any given fleet for example. Maybe further restrictions too. You might, for example, build the Nemesis fleet carrier (or the Majestic), but restrict it so that no other carriers can be taken in a fleet with either of them in it (as well as no other non-standard ships).

[BaronIveagh]

Well, first of all, I dislike that you used the term 'didn't stack up to standard IN' insinuating that they're inferior.  Bluntly, the fleet lists we have are a very tiny cross section of IN, one of which is stated to be abnormal in IN in it's large scale rejection of AC.  


Why am I blasé about it?  Because I beat Styx based Chaos fleets like red headed step children six times a week and they're a lot worse.  (We won't even mention Tau)  Would it change how some people play their fleets?  Sure.  Would it Utterly break IN so that no one ever used another BC?  No, not really.  The fact that IN would have a BC similar to the Styx actually makes a lot of balance sense, and comparatively, even the 'one per fleet' rule is needlessly limiting.  There are better ways to Spam AC with IN then to take a Jovian, the SC/Dictator Armageddon list springing instantly to mind.  Would it be better with a Jovian instead of a Mars?  Sure, but only marginally so.  (Costwise I'm only getting a small savings over using the points to buy 6lbs worth of SCs, which are much better.)


@Nate: BTW, I noticed a reference in the Havok Entry for the Preator destroyer.  Will this have stats or was this just an oversight?

[Plaxor]

It's almost puzzling to me the BaronI is so good at being on the opposite side of the consensus.

The Jovian is fine. I like the ship, its one of those things I would never run.

[Plaxor]

Sorry to Get a little off topic but sigoroth should I delete gets from my admech?

[horizon]

Sig isn't holy you know... heh heh



Sigoroth,
But they aren't turrets, they are fleet defense turrets. An upgrade. An addition. Thus they can be better. They can have their accuracy at range.

Would you be happier if they only could hit on a 6+ instead of 4+?

[Plaxor]

Yeah, he just usually has the most insight when it comes to IN/Chaos stuffs. Like you for eldar , just wait until we get around to making DE 'mms' equivalent.

Also Sigoroth is the most willing to defend his opinions, so if someone else comes to argue against something, agreeing with sigoroth is the best defense.

I didn't mind the idea of FDTs that were 15cm wbs. I like that better than current FDT rules. Although I'm not too much of a fan of them existing overall (lesser of two evils) as it is detrimental to the metagame. If someone were to spam FDTs, then potentially it could turn an ordinance list to a bunch of flying bricks.

I'm going to be playtesting a fleet of 70 Iconoclasts (at -1ld) against a 1500 point IN fleet (well I might mix in some other escorts that aren't Iconoclasts at reduced points) to see if Sigoroth's escort theory has any validity.

[BaronIveagh]

It's almost puzzling to me the BaronI is so good at being on the opposite side of the consensus.

The Jovian is fine. I like the ship, its one of those things I would never run.

Because I want to see the game grow and change.  Or because I serve as an Arch-priest to the Ruinous Power known as the Changer of Ways, depending on who on this board you talk to.  

I dislike it when people decry something as a thing which should never have been without justifying their position.  The Jovian is a perfectly good, non-broken, ship.  The fundamental reason that people don't want it is that they have a preconception of what each fleet 'must' be.  IN 'must' be big guns.  The idea of IN as AC is anathema to them, and, when they encounter it, they don't know what to do.   So they cry for the HA to limit it further.  My God, it might show up in a fleet with other carriers.  Oh noes!  

Like you never faced off against a carrier based fleet before.  

Frankly, everyone on this board has complained when the HA has proposed a change.  Sigoroth, in particular, has argued against almost all of them, as though any change would destroy him utterly.  Personally, I like a lot of their ideas.  I think we need more ships.  I'd make every ship BFGM ever printed legal and then start making new ones.  

Why?  

Because this game has been stagnant for over ten frikkin years.  The few people who still play it have been using the same strategies against the same fleets for a decade, including having the probability of any given result memorized.  

I want to see how you deal with something NEW.  Something you haven't faced a thousand times, and mathhammered fifteen times over.  Do you know why 40k is still going?  Because it gets refreshed every few years.  New units, new rules, fresh strategies.  It makes it *fun*.  Mean while, GW has taken a big dump on us longer then Dark Eldar, and when we FINALLY get something going I sit here and listen to people try and STOP it.    

Not offer new ideas.  

Not even suggest alterations to existing ones.  

They just throw in their heels and scream 'This sucks, we don't want it!  Throw this out, it's garbage!'  

As a review writer, I take each game book or modual out and play it and THEN pass judgment.  And then, even if my review is 'this sucks' (see my review of The Frozen Reaches) I actually make suggestions on how it could have been done better and what parts of it needed work.  

Not one of you has given a valid reason for this level of restriction for the Jovian.  It was fine as it was.  Now it's 'the' most restricted ship in the game, which is flatly broken.  


Nate, whoever told you not to ask us was right.

[Plaxor]

I dislike it when people decry something as a thing which should never have been without justifying their position.  The Jovian is a perfectly good, non-broken, ship.  The fundamental reason that people don't want it is that they have a preconception of what each fleet 'must' be.  IN 'must' be big guns.  The idea of IN as AC is anathema to them, and, when they encounter it, they don't know what to do.   So they cry for the HA to limit it further.  My God, it might show up in a fleet with other carriers.  Oh noes!  

It isn't. Never would be broken, the only complaint from people is that it alters the 'feel' of IN. Which it kinda does. I don't think that it should be restricted at all in this list, but I do think that reserves shouldn't be 'always allowed' type thing.

Frankly, everyone on this board has complained when the HA has proposed a change.  Sigoroth, in particular, has argued against almost all of them, as though any change would destroy him utterly.  Personally, I like a lot of their ideas.  I think we need more ships.  I'd make every ship BFGM ever printed legal and then start making new ones. 

Yep. Changes are scary. I wouldn't do every ship in BFGm, although 90% of them could be at least adapted and included. I don't see why the enforcer didn't make it into this document. It's a great idea.

Because this game has been stagnant for over ten frikkin years.  The few people who still play it have been using the same strategies against the same fleets for a decade, including having the probability of any given result memorized. 

True, which is why in 'my' ruleset I've tried to include every reasonable conversion of ships for low ship count races, such as DE and Necrons.
Hopefully I will be able to build Armada/Nemesis type updates for the ruleset yearly, with new ship classes/conversions.

Not even suggest alterations to existing ones. 

I do feel for you, the lance thing in SM is one of those. I don't think that it is necessary, or even viable, but I also don't think that any option should be absurdly overcosted. 5-10 points eq would make 90-95% of players not want the lance. Look at the nova cannon, probably 5-10 points too expensive (from a competitive standpoint) for the ships with options for it. This is enough make most players not take one unless they have to, rarely do you see someone give their tyrant/lunar a NC 'just cause'.

Not one of you has given a valid reason for this level of restriction for the Jovian.  It was fine as it was.  Now it's 'the' most restricted ship in the game, which is flatly broken. 

Like I said, it's just a feel thing. Like the lance in SM, it makes the feel of the fleet diluted. That is, and will be the only good decent reason.

It works on the Exorcist because the ship itself is an oddity within IN lists, and plays quite differently. Also most people don't use GCs, so it's no big deal. With a BC like this, it is a lot different, as it would play normally within IN, without any odd or different tactics to keep your (likely) flagship alive.

What Nate should have done before folding like superman on laundry day was ask to see your battle reports.  Proove that this would be a bad thing

I'll tell you what. I will.

Next batrep (will include at least, need to add up points);

Vanquisher
Jovian
Havocs
Siluria

[horizon]

Hi BaronI,

Because I want to see the game grow and change. Or because I serve as an Arch-priest to the Ruinous Power known as the Changer of Ways, depending on who on this board you talk to.

Growth and Change should be kept in check, because: is BFG broken as it is? No. Thus changes need to be done carefully.

I dislike it when people decry something as a thing which should never have been without justifying their position. The Jovian is a perfectly good, non-broken, ship. The fundamental reason that people don't want it is that they have a preconception of what each fleet 'must' be. IN 'must' be big guns. The idea of IN as AC is anathema to them, and, when they encounter it, they don't know what to do. So they cry for the HA to limit it further. My God, it might show up in a fleet with other carriers. Oh noes!

Noodles.   where has someone asked for a limit on the existing carrier options for the Imperial Navy? At no time anyone did! Look at the fan thread: Oberon made better, Dictator cheaper, Defiant better. Is that limiting carrier capabilities for the IN? No. It is working within the existing playfield.
Adding new ships like a Jovian can throw it off.

Frankly, everyone on this board has complained when the HA has proposed a change. Sigoroth, in particular, has argued against almost all of them, as though any change would destroy him utterly. Personally, I like a lot of their ideas. I think we need more ships. I'd make every ship BFGM ever printed legal and then start making new ones.

Urgh. Never. Not like this. As you can see I like and dislike some ships in the Bakka PDF. Making something legal should be done carefully.

Why?

Because this game has been stagnant for over ten frikkin years. The few people who still play it have been using the same strategies against the same fleets for a decade, including having the probability of any given result memorized.

as said, BFG ain't broken (aside of Eldar ). Looking at 40k/whfb growth/change is very bad.

I want to see how you deal with something NEW. Something you haven't faced a thousand times, and mathhammered fifteen times over. Do you know why 40k is still going? Because it gets refreshed every few years. New units, new rules, fresh strategies. It makes it *fun*. Mean while, GW has taken a big dump on us longer then Dark Eldar, and when we FINALLY get something going I sit here and listen to people try and STOP it.

Because there are countless tactics possible within the current parameters.

Not offer new ideas.

Not even suggest alterations to existing ones.

They just throw in their heels and scream 'This sucks, we don't want it! Throw this out, it's garbage!'

Then to think Sig and I developed MMS. Talk about changing.
Or where we started about a 90* Protector years ago.

Not one of you has given a valid reason for this level of restriction for the Jovian. It was fine as it was. Now it's 'the' most restricted ship in the game, which is flatly broken.

I did not ask for a restriction. I asked for a removal. Insert the Dominion from the Book of Nemesis.