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

[Sigoroth]

Again, here's the thing Sig, you assume that the three lists we have are 'typical' (Gothic, Armageddon, and Bakka) however, all three follow very different strategies.  Armageddon favors the Torpedo and Lance and eschews NC.  Bakka eschews AC for guns.  Battlefleet Gothic, being the game's namesake, gives a list that leaves out quite a few ship classes named in it's own bluebook fluff, in favor of presenting a generic list that has little to do with the actual battlefleet's roster, but rather is a sampling of all the ships that took part in the Gothic war, including those that came in from other sectors.  For example, where is the Relentless class cruiser?

No, I assume that the Gothic list is fairly typical. The Armageddon list is fairly typical of Navy doctrine too. It uses Lunar type hulls commonly and torpedoes and has no odd ships that break the feel (super carriers and whatnot). So it's still in line. The inclusion of SM ships does nothing to alter the feel of IN, btw. So using the Armageddon list as an argument to show that you can already get a tonne of AC in an Imperial list and therefore IN should have Jovians and Majestics out the wazoo is worthless. The Bakka list is not typical. The FDT rule is terribad for a start, and this alone is enough to warrant quarantining the list. Apart from this it has 7 new ships. Seven. That's a massive list of new ships. The Jovian by itself is enough to destroy the feel of the Imperial Navy in any normal list. With Bakka not having easy access to carriers and there being a limit on it then it's fine for this list (though it's strange that they eschew AC and yet make a Styx knock-off).

Bakka messes a little with the feel of the IN, and this seems to me an example of a non-standard battlefleet. Hence my suggestion for labelling the entire list as UHR. Gothic and Armageddon both fall in line with the feel of the IN, so they're fine.

Hell, from what we know of Segmentum Obscurus, it's not unknown for IN to still be using Chaos ships, since 'modern' IN ships are actually pretty new.

For which we have the Bastion list. It also does not ruin the feel of the IN.

Considering that the Mars is the very oldest of the 'Modern' cruisers and BCs, and is a hybrid carrier, I find it odd that there are not more carrier variants out there. 

I don't.

[BaronIveagh]

You know, something silly just occurred to me.  

Bakka was not part of the Imperium during the dates given for the Gaerox Incident (or the building of the Despoiler Class).  

Bakka was only reclaimed for the Imperium in M37, following the death of Cardinel Bucharis after having succeeded from the Imperium during the Plague of Unbelief.    On the flip side, there's no record of Gareox having done so.

So.... wouldn't that mean now that the Fleet at Bakka were the Heretics under Bucharis (since they did attack the space wolves as well) and Gareox the loyal imperials now?

[Sigoroth]

Sig, if you'd like I can document this 'Ships compendium 2.0'.

Sure, why not. For this sort of project I would imagine full community involvement, including the HAs. I should think that as a UHR ruleset that they'd be more free in their ability to provide opinions. I would imagine that this document would span the spectrum of least probable to fairly likely as well. So perhaps we should also come up with a rating system of some kind to be used as a guideline for prospective groups to be able to judge more easily whether to include the ship. This would allow us to price ships according to their inherent worth rather than what they provide to a list.

For example, looking at a 16AC Despoiler variant super-carrier we could price that according to the value of 16 AC in a fleet adjusted by the extra value of being able to launch a single wave of 16 bombers (equivalent to a squadron of 2 Emps in btb contact). We would not consider what having access to this type of ship would allow a Chaos list to do or how combined with this this and this ship that'll mean it's possible to get X amount of AC at price Y. Instead, we'd simply rate it in the most far fetched category of ships, recommend no more than 1 ever and no other anomalies in the fleet (so no other UHR ships) or maybe even no other upgrades allowed (no CSM rules!) and even with all those limitations, it's an "allow at own risk", ultra rare type thing.

At the other end of the scale you could include the Dominion, say, and merely recommend with allowing liberal access to it.

[BaronIveagh]

No, I assume that the Gothic list is fairly typical. The Armageddon list is fairly typical of Navy doctrine too. It uses Lunar type hulls commonly and torpedoes and has no odd ships that break the feel (super carriers and whatnot). So it's still in line. The inclusion of SM ships does nothing to alter the feel of IN, btw. So using the Armageddon list as an argument to show that you can already get a tonne of AC in an Imperial list and therefore IN should have Jovians and Majestics out the wazoo is worthless. The Bakka list is not typical. The FDT rule is terribad for a start, and this alone is enough to warrant quarantining the list. Apart from this it has 7 new ships. Seven. That's a massive list of new ships. The Jovian by itself is enough to destroy the feel of the Imperial Navy in any normal list. With Bakka not having easy access to carriers and there being a limit on it then it's fine for this list (though it's strange that they eschew AC and yet make a Styx knock-off).

Except that, as I said, the Gothic list is a mishmash of ships from other sectors created for game purposes rather then representing what the battlefleet actually has on hand.  It's like saying that selection of famous ships from the Normandy Invasion fleet represents a typical countries Navy. 

Further, I don't see you calling for the removal of Admech, which has used FDT for years.  Your basic assertion that Armageddon is OK but Bakka is broken hinges on the idea that 'light cruisers with nothing but LBs, GOOD, battle cruisers with nothing but LBs, BAD.'

Bakka messes a little with the feel of the IN, and this seems to me an example of a non-standard battlefleet. Hence my suggestion for labelling the entire list as UHR. Gothic and Armageddon both fall in line with the feel of the IN, so they're fine.

Still not clear on this 'feel' buisness, and I'll explain why: Most of the time, when someone has said to me in the context of TT gaming that something doesn't 'feel' right they really mean 'because it breaks my favorite strategy with/against them' and/or 'I have to revise my list to remain competitive'.  Maybe it's because I write reviews of gaming systems/supplements, but I've heard this same phrase over and over when rules revisions have happened to a number of systems, and after questioning the speaker closely, this is what they really meant, the majority of the time.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

D'Art, I hate to point this out to you, but IN has had a way to get an extra 2 LBs (of resilient AC, no less) for cheap ever since Armada came out.  If that's your concern, you're a tad late.

Not on one ship. And as far as Armada goes, it should stay at that limit. I never liked it then either. Which is why I prefer the SC goes down to Str 1 TH.

[BaronIveagh]

D'Art, I hate to point this out to you, but IN has had a way to get an extra 2 LBs (of resilient AC, no less) for cheap ever since Armada came out.  If that's your concern, you're a tad late.

Not on one ship. And as far as Armada goes, it should stay at that limit. I never liked it then either. Which is why I prefer the SC goes down to Str 1 TH.

.... maybe I'm missing something, but Lots of LBs with lots of hitpoints and high armor is good because it's weaker, but lots of lbs with about 1/4th fewer hitpoints and weaker armor is bad because it's too strong?  

Particularly considering that the latter costs more and has requirements the former lacks?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

.... maybe I'm missing something, but Lots of LBs with lots of hitpoints and high armor is good because it's weaker, but lots of lbs with few hitpoints and weaker armor is bad because it's too strong?  

What are you talking about?

I don't like the Jovian because it breaks from IN doctrine as well as game balance.

I don't like the SC having more LBs than an LC should be able to carry and still have weapons in the same hardpoint.

I am wary of BF:Armada because it really gives IN a lot of options and flexibility by allowing access to SM ships and a 1:1 ratio for BC:Regular Cruisers. This even while it removed access to WB heavy ships like the Overlord and Dominator.

I also think IN has gotten more than its fair share of variety to the point that they don't need it, games-wise. It's time to focus on the other races. This means Chaos, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau, Nids, Necrons and SM. Bakka can go to the dust bin for now until it's really needed.

[BaronIveagh]

.... maybe I'm missing something, but Lots of LBs with lots of hitpoints and high armor is good because it's weaker, but lots of lbs with few hitpoints and weaker armor is bad because it's too strong?  

What are you talking about?

I don't like the Jovian because it breaks from IN doctrine as well as game balance.

I don't like the SC having more LBs than an LC should be able to carry and still have weapons in the same hardpoint.

I am wary of BF:Armada because it really gives IN a lot of options and flexibility by allowing access to SM ships and a 1:1 ratio for BC:Regular Cruisers. This even while it removed access to WB heavy ships like the Overlord and Dominator.

Ok, you don't like Jovian because it breaks balance.  But, using the Armageddon list, I can get a Defiant, for 130, and a SC for 160 (with the +1 shield), and have better AC AND overall performance, and more HP.  I'm not seeing how Jovian breaks balance compared to this.



Tau has gotten two whole different fleets so far.  Chaos is getting a slew of new battleships (but no Light Cruisers...  ) Eldar could use some new ships, I grant, and so could dark eldar, but it's probably not going to happen since GW wants us to focus on minis they actually sell or sell most of.  Tyranids have swiss army knife ships in general.  Necron... meh.  They could use some new ship minis but probably not happening for the same reasons that DE arn't.  Space marines really scored, I grant, getting both the upgrades and ships in this AND IA 10. 

Orks have been a bit gypped, they only got three new ships, but they also got some new rules to make them work better.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Ok, you don't like Jovian because it breaks balance.  But, using the Armageddon list, I can get a Defiant, for 130, and a SC for 160 (with the +1 shield), and have better AC AND overall performance, and more HP.  I'm not seeing how Jovian breaks balance compared to this.

And did you miss the part where I said I am wary about Armada and never liked the flexibility it gave IN in that regard? Aside from which, do you really see people fielding Defiants? SCs yes but Defiants?

Comparing the Jovian to the SC+Defiant:

Jovian 260 points
Armor 6+/5+
Hits 8
Spd 20 cm
Shields 2
Turrets 3
Turns 45'
Armament Str 6 LBs, Str 2 60 cm dorsal lances.

SC 160 points
Armor 6+
Hits 6
Spd 25 cm
Shields 2
Turrets 2
Turns 90'
Armament Str 2 LBs, FP3 30 cm BCs, FP8 total 30 cm WBs.

Defiant 120 was it?
Armor 5+
Hits 6
Spd 20 cm
Shields 1
Turrets 2
Turns 90'
Armament Str 2 LBs, Str 2 30 cm prow lances.

So Jovian still has more actual LBs than the SC+Defiant combo for less points even if you don't take the shield upgrade and which the SC can counter to a degree bec of its resilient THs. The SC+Defiant Combo does have more HP but not by much and by focusing on the Defiant, one can help reduce the odds.

And again this only happens because of the SC's odd setup of having Str 2 TH squadrons when it should really only have 1. If it does go down to 1 then the LB availability is rebalanced.

[Plaxor]

Eh. The HA never commented on any of my 'House BFG rule revision' threads. Although a few things suggest that they read them.

I doubt that they would involve themselves in anything else (at least while they're producing faq2010 stuff.) As building rules is quite time consuming, and like Nate said; defending your opinion is time consuming as well. And likely doing that would be a conflict of interest in a way.

[BaronIveagh]

And did you miss the part where I said I am wary about Armada and never liked the flexibility it gave IN in that regard? Aside from which, do you really see people fielding Defiants? SCs yes but Defiants?

So, it's not about actual game balance, but what you WANT actual game balance to be.

Now that you don't have to take an Endeavor to get one, I expect to see more Defiant around.  

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

So, it's not about actual game balance, but what you WANT actual game balance to be.

Now that you don't have to take an Endeavor to get one, I expect to see more Defiant around.  

Nope, it's what the original game designers wanted the game to be. Again, Chaos is supposed to be the AC heavy fleet. IN has torps and NC. Eldar are the highly mobile race (which probably was a mistake in execution) and Orks were...well they have their own problems.

But mainly the reason why the Jovian was rejected before was because precisely it gave IN easy access to AC.

And really, Defiants aren't taken because the Endeavor was a mandatory requirement. People take Endeavors and Endurances more than they take Defiants.

[BaronIveagh]

Nope, it's what the original game designers wanted the game to be. Again, Chaos is supposed to be the AC heavy fleet. IN has torps and NC. Eldar are the highly mobile race (which probably was a mistake in execution) and Orks were...well they have their own problems.

But mainly the reason why the Jovian was rejected before was because precisely it gave IN easy access to AC.

And really, Defiants aren't taken because the Endeavor was a mandatory requirement. People take Endeavors and Endurances more than they take Defiants.

Really?  Then why did the Jovian get published in the VERY NEXT PUBLICATION after Blue Book (along with introducing Tyranids)? If Andy, who created both IIRC, had not wanted it, why publish it as soon as he could afterward?  I suspect it was a ship that had been cut to save space.


And... on the second part, didn't I just say exactly that???

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Just because it is published, doesn't mean it becomes official. Really there is a difference between the two. And for years the Jovian has been rejected precisely because of what it brings to the IN. The fact that Armada came out and it wasn't in there should give you a clue. You should be getting this by now.

Even now, it's proposed to be allowed in a list which restricts it (not enough) and with that you should realize, it is not a ship that IN should be getting. Sig has pointed it out already. It's an AC heavy ship in a fleet list which supposed to be has minimal AC. The Mars or Dictator, hell even the Defiant should have been enough for this list if the fleet list is supposed to be gun heavy.

If we take the stuff from the existing lists, the options should be the Oberon, Ret and Apoc, Vengeance and Avenger. Exorcist available if the Oberon is not available. Armageddon, Overlord and Mars. Surround them with Lunars, Gothics, Tyrants, Endeavors, Endurances and Defiants and improve the Direct Weapon's ability to hit ordnance and there you have Bakka.

I don't know why the non-standard ships have been used. I don't really see the IN needing any of them so it's looking more a case of someone wants to insert them in. If that's the case, then junk Bakka.

As to the second part, I'll help make things clearer for you: people do not take the Defiants because majority thinks they SUCK.

[BaronIveagh]

Just because it is published, doesn't mean it becomes official. Really there is a difference between the two. And for years the Jovian has been rejected precisely because of what it brings to the IN. The fact that Armada came out and it wasn't in there should give you a clue. You should be getting this by now.

Even now, it's proposed to be allowed in a list which restricts it (not enough) and with that you should realize, it is not a ship that IN should be getting. Sig has pointed it out already. It's an AC heavy ship in a fleet list which supposed to be has minimal AC. The Mars or Dictator, hell even the Defiant should have been enough for this list if the fleet list is supposed to be gun heavy.

If we take the stuff from the existing lists, the options should be the Oberon, Ret and Apoc, Vengeance and Avenger. Exorcist available if the Oberon is not available. Armageddon, Overlord and Mars. Surround them with Lunars, Gothics, Tyrants, Endeavors, Endurances and Defiants and improve the Direct Weapon's ability to hit ordnance and there you have Bakka.

I don't know why the non-standard ships have been used. I don't really see the IN needing any of them so it's looking more a case of someone wants to insert them in. If that's the case, then junk Bakka.

As to the second part, I'll help make things clearer for you: people do not take the Defiants because majority thinks they SUCK.

D'Art, congratulations, you've successfully created a list no one will ever play because it is, somehow, even LESS interesting then Vanilla BFG.   Seriously, D'Art, this idea is so hoary it's positively Lovecraftian.

This one can be made without even needing a new list using Gothic and the reserve rules except for adding a special rule and possibly a battleship selection for under 2k points.

Now, if anyone would like to play a list NOT unearthed from a cyclopian tomb in an unnamed city in the desert, we can at least TRY OUT what the HA is pushing rather then bitching about these new fangled coal powered contraptions.  (What next?  Smokeless lanterns?)

As fr as non-standard ships go, some of us have been using them for years already, and found most of them to suck a lot less then might appear at first glance, due to something called 'tactics' rather then depending on list choice to win it for us.

Oh, and, by the way, The majority of people also think that the government captured aliens and a flying saucer at Roswell, NM in the 50's, and that Elvis is still alive.


Engage Rant Mode:

Seriously, and D'Art just tipped over my apple cart again, all I hear out of you people is 'CHANGE SCARES US!'  'NEW SHIPS ARE SCARY!'  'WE DON"T WANT ANYTHING NEW.'

Assuming that you are the correct gender, for the love of GOD GROW A PAIR!  

Let me try and spell this out because some people are not getting this.

GROW OR DIE.

Either we grow the game, and get GW to take a second look at it, or the game dies.  It's an unpleasant fact, but bluntly, a fanbase can only really keep a game going so long (see D&D 1st ed), until it's eventually just a handful of aging fatbeards sitting around talking about how much better things were before.  

Right now, we have a chance most other gaming communities DON'T GET.  

Thanks to FFG making the RT RPG, we ACTUALLY might be able to turn this around if someone at GW realizes there might be some interest in this.  They've already shown some signs of coming around to this mode of thought with IA 10.  

But if we STAY THE SAME we're sunk.  Hell, the fluff in our game doesn't even match up with the rest of the 40k fanbase anymore.  And, much as some of you might despise them, our hobby needs their support, as THEY'RE the ones that GW is pandering to.  

Our existing ships and fleets and etc HAVE NOT DONE THIS.  

Rather then sitting here trying to make it stay the same, what we SHOULD be doing is trying to find ways to improve it.  If the HA thinks that bringing in non-standard ships will do it, I say: Go For It.  Let's try it out.  Who gives a flying rat's ass if it changes the flavor of IN if it funnels players from other 40k based games into our camp!?!  The 'feel' of IN has not save us thus far, and I'm quite happy to see someone's sacred cow go to the chopping block if it brings in more players.

/rant