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

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

And, again, no, Jutland was very much different from the way this game is played.  One, while I'm sure Hipper would loved to have been able to teleport genetically enhanced killing machines aboard the Iron Duke, I don't recall that happening.  Two, everyone was on the same technological level.  While if this game was IN vs IN at all times, you might have a point, most of the time it's Tsushima style fleet tactics vs WWII style fleet tactics vs Peloponnesian war style fleet tactics, vs War of 1812 style fleet tactics vs modern fleet tactics against the saucermen (necrons).

And, if it was meant to Jutland in space, there would have been no AC at all, except as scout ships.  However, initially, we got the v1 AC rules, which made most battles Midway in space, except then people abused it to the point it became necessary to nerf it.  

Further, you're forgetting that the ordinance game has changed.  All torps are now a single str 6 counter regardless of actual str.  This means that your torp waves of the past arn't there anymore and Chaos, in particular, is going to just move out of the way and keep rolling bombers and aboats rather then fighters to eliminate torps unless you've bought the guided torps upgrade.  

And again, you would be wrong. The game designers have already said it was Jutland in space. Ordnance was an addition but the designers never wanted it to be the center of the game. The designers wanted duels ala Jutland or the old 18th-19th century type battles.

Even with the change to the torps, if you have enough ships, you can still launch a wall as long as you don't squadron. Chaos may have an easier time avoiding but as long as you can keep rolling torps turn after turn, you can still force an opponent's direction. Mix it up with some NC ships and the opponent has to choose between moving out of the torps way or getting hit by a lucky NC shot.

[RCgothic]

Actually, there is no time when you HAVE to launch combined salvos. If you are squadroned and in base contact then it's an option.

[Vaaish]

IN depends heavily on torps as an AC counter, and with the new changes, there's no need for AC to counter them against IN except at close range.  You can no longer blanket an area with torps by having squadrons or other ships combine salvos, as the entire salvo is still a single str 3 marker regardless of str.  This means that Chaos, in particular, with it's fast ships and strong long range game will be able to focus more ac against ships rather then for purposes of defending against torps.

This means jack squat since it has nothing to do with anything I said. I said IN was a weaker AC fleet. I didn't even mention torpedoes in that. You can still blanket an area with torps too, just you can't combine the salvo if you want to blanket anything. So what if Chaos ordnance got stronger because of the torpedo change, that not what we are talking about.

Yes, they do, as we saw with the changes to the Rogue Trader list.  According to GW, FFG is canon now and, bluntly,if we want stuff approved we have to at leat pay lipservice to GW's decrees

When FFG explicitly states that the entire Imperial Navy hates big guns and focuses on carriers or some other major shift in doctrine, we will have an issue. Since it doesn't, anything that is mentioned has to be reconciled with the framework we have. That makes ANYTHING FFG comes up with an anomaly when used in IN battlefleets. You can't use single instances or rare occurrence to upturn the entire doctrine of the fleet.

(along with the 'Fenksworld Calamity' where radical inquisitors sabotaged the Apocalypse Class battleship Tempest's Child and used it destroy over 20 other warships and demolish quite a bit everything else in it's path.  One would imagine that this would have dealt a heavy blow to any big gun lobby in the newly founded sector fleet)

Actually this would serve to enhance the big gun lobby. The fact it caused so much carnage is actually a strong point in favor of more big guns. They can point to it and say look how much damage this ONE ship caused. We need more of those!

[Valhallan]

extra turrets instead of FDT's would not break bakka. considering FDT's allow for turret massing (but better) within 15cm.

as nate hasn't been here for hmmm, 5-10 pages of talk. I highly doubt that we'll have any impact on the officialness of whatever comes from bakka. and whether we think its the right direction to go or not.... its happening.

the best thing we can do is to throw in with plax and make the 'official' house rule lists and ships that we believe are needed. neh?

[Vaaish]

I honestly would be fine with a turret bump and allowing ships in BTB to have any massed turrets behave in all respect like the turrets on the ship itself. That should show the increased capabilities of the turrets without having to justify them shooting outside of BTB.

[BaronIveagh]

IN depends heavily on torps as an AC counter, and with the new changes, there's no need for AC to counter them against IN except at close range.  You can no longer blanket an area with torps by having squadrons or other ships combine salvos, as the entire salvo is still a single str 3 marker regardless of str.  This means that Chaos, in particular, with it's fast ships and strong long range game will be able to focus more ac against ships rather then for purposes of defending against torps.

This means jack squat since it has nothing to do with anything I said. I said IN was a weaker AC fleet. I didn't even mention torpedoes in that. You can still blanket an area with torps too, just you can't combine the salvo if you want to blanket anything. So what if Chaos ordnance got stronger because of the torpedo change, that not what we are talking about.

The reasons given were 'feel' and balance.  While, imho, 'feel' is personal, balance is not.  The torp alteration changes the balance between IN torps and Chaos AC.  Which, I might point out, has been frequently brought up in this discussion as why IN has torps and Chaos has AC and that they're supposed to balance each other.  My point is that if IN is supposed to be balanced against Chaos with torps vs AC, this balance has been upset already and that increasing IN AC would help correct this.

When FFG explicitly states that the entire Imperial Navy hates big guns and focuses on carriers or some other major shift in doctrine, we will have an issue. Since it doesn't, anything that is mentioned has to be reconciled with the framework we have. That makes ANYTHING FFG comes up with an anomaly when used in IN battlefleets. You can't use single instances or rare occurrence to upturn the entire doctrine of the fleet.

Again, no fluff anywhere states that IN is uniform.  In fact, most fluff states that IN varies tremendously from location to location.  Armageddon is fairly close to the Segmentum Obscuras boarder with Segmentum Solar and differs from Gothic in (gasp) having a variety of unusual ships including a 'pure carrier', and at the same time, does not have some ships that appear in the gothic sector.   Bakka is at the opposite end of the galaxy from Cypra Mundi.

I would suggest that there is the possibility that they are very different indeed.

(along with the 'Fenksworld Calamity' where radical inquisitors sabotaged the Apocalypse Class battleship Tempest's Child and used it destroy over 20 other warships and demolish quite a bit everything else in it's path.  One would imagine that this would have dealt a heavy blow to any big gun lobby in the newly founded sector fleet)

Actually this would serve to enhance the big gun lobby. The fact it caused so much carnage is actually a strong point in favor of more big guns. They can point to it and say look how much damage this ONE ship caused. We need more of those!

...I could see your point if it had done it by shooting rather than by ramming and then exploding...  crippling an entire front of an Imperial Crusade in the process...

(also, pointing and saying requires a pulse.  The Inq slaughtered the officers on board, so...)

I honestly would be fine with a turret bump and allowing ships in BTB to have any massed turrets behave in all respect like the turrets on the ship itself. That should show the increased capabilities of the turrets without having to justify them shooting outside of BTB.

Since Horizon thinks I'm mad to use even numbers in my squadrons, we'll use odds.  Three swords, with 3 turrets each are in btb contact with Dominus Astra.  This means that the Emp now has 8 turrets.

FDT takes the turret off one ship and puts it on another.  Adding turrets and then allowing massing allows ALL of them to boost at the same time.  

[Vaaish]

My point is that if IN is supposed to be balanced against Chaos with torps vs AC, this balance has been upset already and that increasing IN AC would help correct this.

Feel isn't personal. It's the overarching theme of each fleet. It's what defines the fleet as different. IN is torpedoes, 6+ prows, and NC with expensive carriers to encourage more guns and torpedoes. Chaos is cheap carriers, speed and range. Having a dedicated carrier available at will to all IN fleet lists is breaking the feel. Having an experimental dedicated carrier limited to a single ship that must be taken as reserve and can't be taken in any other fleet list is fine because it shows that it doesn't fit with the typical theme of the fleet.

Again, no fluff anywhere states that IN is uniform.  In fact, most fluff states that IN varies tremendously from location to location.  Armageddon is fairly close to the Segmentum Obscuras boarder with Segmentum Solar and differs from Gothic in (gasp) having a variety of unusual ships including a 'pure carrier', and at the same time, does not have some ships that appear in the gothic sector.   Bakka is at the opposite end of the galaxy from Cypra Mundi.

I would suggest that there is the possibility that they are very different indeed.

I say that is incorrect. While the external appearance may (and does) change from sector to sector, the classes remain the same. Every fleet list available points to a particular core set of ship classes available across the Imperium and in service with almost all fleets. Even bakka has the mars, lunar, gothic, tyrant, sword, and cobra. What that shows is a rather impressive uniformity in ship classes across the imperium. Since those ships form the bulk of the fleets, you will see a fairly standard tactical doctrine and capabilities with minor flavoring by the classes or variations that are atypical like the Oberon or overlord.

The massive variation that Armada speaks about is more likely in the composition using the standard classes. So you may see some sector fleets who rely more on light cruisers and escorts because they tend toward anti-piracy operations while other may have fewer escorts and more heavy ships because they hold key points of entry like around the cadian gate. The thing is, despite that "massive" variety, the ships involve don't differ much if any. That means you won't see things like dedicated carriers often even if you are in the backwater ragtag fleet sector.

...I could see your point if it had done it by shooting rather than by ramming and then exploding...  crippling an entire front of an Imperial Crusade in the process...

(also, pointing and saying requires a pulse.  The Inq slaughtered the officers on board, so...)

I'm getting annoyed with you posting bits of fluff but not the complete picture. Had you said the damage was from exploding in the first place, it wouldn't even affect either side. What you gave lets us draw other conclusions. In any event, since it was from ramming and exploding, this has even LESS effect on the big gun lobby because ANY battleship could cause the same regardless of if it had guns or launch bays and unless the INQ took down the entire naval hierarchy, there will always be someone who can point fingers.

[BaronIveagh]

My point is that if IN is supposed to be balanced against Chaos with torps vs AC, this balance has been upset already and that increasing IN AC would help correct this.

Feel isn't personal. It's the overarching theme of each fleet. It's what defines the fleet as different. IN is torpedoes, 6+ prows, and NC with expensive carriers to encourage more guns and torpedoes. Chaos is cheap carriers, speed and range. Having a dedicated carrier available at will to all IN fleet lists is breaking the feel. Having an experimental dedicated carrier limited to a single ship that must be taken as reserve and can't be taken in any other fleet list is fine because it shows that it doesn't fit with the typical theme of the fleet.

If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps?  By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.

I say that is incorrect. While the external appearance may (and does) change from sector to sector, the classes remain the same. Every fleet list available points to a particular core set of ship classes available across the Imperium and in service with almost all fleets. Even bakka has the mars, lunar, gothic, tyrant, sword, and cobra. What that shows is a rather impressive uniformity in ship classes across the imperium. Since those ships form the bulk of the fleets, you will see a fairly standard tactical doctrine and capabilities with minor flavoring by the classes or variations that are atypical like the Oberon or overlord.

The massive variation that Armada speaks about is more likely in the composition using the standard classes. So you may see some sector fleets who rely more on light cruisers and escorts because they tend toward anti-piracy operations while other may have fewer escorts and more heavy ships because they hold key points of entry like around the cadian gate. The thing is, despite that "massive" variety, the ships involve don't differ much if any. That means you won't see things like dedicated carriers often even if you are in the backwater ragtag fleet sector.

Actually, the only ships that appear to be ubiquitous are the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, and Mars (and, interestingly enough, all of them, are variants on the Mars hull, the oldest 'modern' IN hull.  Personally, I suspect that this is due to them being dispersed far and wide during the reconquest following the Age of Apostasy).  Armageddon has to take Sword and Cobra as Space Marine vessels, implying that the Battlefleet does not use these vessels (preferring the Falchion which can serve as either/or).

Ships that are only in a handful of sectors or even a single sector: Falchion, Ignis, Tempest, Oberon, Armageddon, Apocalypse, Vanquisher, Victory, Viper, Defiant, Endeavour, Endurance, Exorcist, Vengeance, Avenger, Siluria and Havoc. 

I would suggest that there is quite a bit of difference in fleet strategy between sectors, considering that the only ship configurations they have in common are three ships that are useful no matter what your fleet strategy is, and the Tyrant that was produced at least once by every yard in the Imperium before it was found their actual performance was far less then expected.

[Vaaish]

If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps?  By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.

Really, this is your argument? Bringing up one ship? So what! The presence of one ship doesn't change the OVERARCHING theme of the chaos fleet. Ever wonder why it is that the slower grand cruisers rarely appear in chaos lists? They don't fit the theme. Stop splitting hairs.

Actually, the only ships that appear to be ubiquitous are the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, and Mars (and, interestingly enough, all of them, are variants on the Mars hull, the oldest 'modern' IN hull.  Personally, I suspect that this is due to them being dispersed far and wide during the reconquest following the Age of Apostasy).  Armageddon has to take Sword and Cobra as Space Marine vessels, implying that the Battlefleet does not use these vessels (preferring the Falchion which can serve as either/or).

My mistake on the escorts. Funny that these ships make up the core of the fleets and by extension the core of their capabilities and tactics. That should tell you that there might be a few changes here or there but overall an IN fleet on one side of the galaxy will act similar to an IN fleet on the other side.

Now enough of this silliness. You've managed to generate pages of useless dialog on something that really has no bearing on the list under discussion. Simply put, BFG (the original and armada) is THE FINAL word on how Imperial fleets operate because it is first of all the most extensive and secondly the entire point of the game is about fleet operations which other sources only touch briefly. Anything you find in any book, be it 40k, black library, or FFG, contrary to what we have in BFG on this point quite simply is an anomaly and CANNOT EVER be use as a valid point to suggest the doctrines common to the Imperial fleet.

[Plaxor]

If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps?  By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.

Really, this is your argument? Bringing up one ship? So what! The presence of one ship doesn't change the OVERARCHING theme of the chaos fleet. Ever wonder why it is that the slower grand cruisers rarely appear in chaos lists? They don't fit the theme. Stop splitting hairs.

It's the same reason for the GCs within IN. They don't have the prow armor or torps, and therefore don't fit into the theme very well. It's ok for the emperor, as it is a carrier, and is able to stay back easier hiding your most expensive fleet commander ship.

extra turrets instead of FDT's would not break bakka. considering FDT's allow for turret massing (but better) within 15cm.

as nate hasn't been here for hmmm, 5-10 pages of talk. I highly doubt that we'll have any impact on the officialness of whatever comes from bakka. and whether we think its the right direction to go or not.... its happening.

the best thing we can do is to throw in with plax and make the 'official' house rule lists and ships that we believe are needed. neh?

Thanks for the support Valhallan. Although most of them already have, and its just detail work for me now. Besides, I wouldn't say don't try to manipulate Nate, every discussion is useful for me. More commentary is always helpful .

On another note I've actually come to the conclusion that having the Vanquisher be a sort of light battleship is actually kinda cool. So long as it costs no more than 290 pts.

[Valhallan]

your welcome!

and speaking of detail work. if nate is reading this: the fleet list for bakka says that the Endurance(lance) is unlimited... isn't this supposed to be the Endeavor(guns)?

[BaronIveagh]

If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps?  By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.

Really, this is your argument? Bringing up one ship? So what! The presence of one ship doesn't change the OVERARCHING theme of the chaos fleet. Ever wonder why it is that the slower grand cruisers rarely appear in chaos lists? They don't fit the theme. Stop splitting hairs.

Actually, the only ships that appear to be ubiquitous are the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, and Mars (and, interestingly enough, all of them, are variants on the Mars hull, the oldest 'modern' IN hull.  Personally, I suspect that this is due to them being dispersed far and wide during the reconquest following the Age of Apostasy).  Armageddon has to take Sword and Cobra as Space Marine vessels, implying that the Battlefleet does not use these vessels (preferring the Falchion which can serve as either/or).

My mistake on the escorts. Funny that these ships make up the core of the fleets and by extension the core of their capabilities and tactics. That should tell you that there might be a few changes here or there but overall an IN fleet on one side of the galaxy will act similar to an IN fleet on the other side.

Now enough of this silliness. You've managed to generate pages of useless dialog on something that really has no bearing on the list under discussion. Simply put, BFG (the original and armada) is THE FINAL word on how Imperial fleets operate because it is first of all the most extensive and secondly the entire point of the game is about fleet operations which other sources only touch briefly. Anything you find in any book, be it 40k, black library, or FFG, contrary to what we have in BFG on this point quite simply is an anomaly and CANNOT EVER be use as a valid point to suggest the doctrines common to the Imperial fleet.

So, dialog on why fleets might have different ships has no bearing on on the fact that Bakka has a bunch of non-typical ships???  

Explanations of how the FDT might work have no bearing on a discussion of why the FDT can't work?  

A single ship doesn't change the way a fleet feels, unless it's the Jovian?

And, and this is my personal favorite, that if IN has four ships more or less in common across the Imperium, they all have to follow the same combat doctrines.  That's like saying that the Steel legion and the Catachans both have the sentinel, las gun, heavy bolter, and frag grenade in common, so they obviously fight their battles the same way.  

Bluntly: Just about any fleet would have Mars, Gothic, Lunar, and Tyrant, even if they were mainly carrier based.  The Lunar is excellent for long range armed patrols where the Dauntless might not be enough, due to it's versatile selection of armament.  It's also why it appeals to Rogue traders and the Ministorum, who both use decommissioned Lunars as privately owned flagships.  The Mars for similar reasons, as a flagship for a cruiser squadron, it's probably got whatever you happen to need at a given moment, whether it's AC or guns or a NC blast.  

Gothics, like Lunars, make excellent flagships for escort squadrons (according to BB fluff) and again, anyplace that you'd want to give a patrol more punch then a Dauntless (or you plain don't have the Daunt) a Gothic is a good option.  

Tyrant's being everywhere is explained in Blue book.  The admech told the Navy that this would be the greatest thing since sliced salt grox and built a ton of them in M39 before it was determined that it wasn't what they thought they were getting.  It's also why they are turning up on the civilian market already in m41, despite being a very new class of ship.  Without the range upgrades, they're not worth the cost of maintaining them.  

As far as being definitive, I'll reserve my opinion on that until Battlefleet Koronus comes out in the next month or so.  It's hyped as the most in depth examination of IN to date, but I'm not sure I'm buying that.  

[Vaaish]

So, dialog on why fleets might have different ships has no bearing on on the fact that Bakka has a bunch of non-typical ships???  

no, dialog on how what is explained in BFG and disputing what the designers (as reiterated by HA) have said are the themes for fleets has no bearing on the Bakka fleet especially seeing the fluff for Bakka specifically states it's going for a big gun fleet. At this point, Nate effectively said that nothing is changing outside of broken stats so going tit for tat about the possibility of fleets existing as part of the IN using all carriers or all escorts or all whatever is useless debate not to mentioned flawed in your insistence that the BFG rules and mechanics account for nothing more than something to be overruled by whatever partial bit of fluff strikes your fancy. The fact that we have three separate IN lists and bakka and they all are centered around the same core capital ships and that all of these IN fleets play effectively the same way on the board should be some indication that you aren't going to be finding that many, if any fleets that operate contrary to the BFG naval doctrine. For all intents and purposes you play IN the same way (armageddon is a special mixed list, but playing it IN only in this case) with a slight bit of difference here and there. Gothic tends toward more NC with the Dominator. Armageddon tends toward light ships backed up by longer ranged lances and batteries. Bastion can do either with a light salting of grand cruisers. Bakka seems to be trying to hit NC with even less AC.

Explanations of how the FDT might work have no bearing on a discussion of why the FDT can't work?  

This is somewhat more valid but why are you trying to explain magitech? there is no merit in it and has no effect on the rules. It's useless discussion. The goal here is something that makes up for the low AC in the list. While FDT in their current state is an attempt at that it's a rather half hearted attempt. They are easy to avoid and pricey to add when you could just use those points on mars or reserve in another carrier. Blathering on about X flak system or mechanics of projectiles in space or if a system could track and hit such small targets at range isn't helping write good rules.

A single ship doesn't change the way a fleet feels, unless it's the Jovian?

That single ship doesn't fill an intended hole in the list and is actually a little bit of a downgrade to take so no it doesn't. The jovian is more problematic because it's got little arms outside of the launch bays. I think it will be alright for the most part though it might need another caveat that it can only be taken in games larger than 1k or 1.5k due to it's rarity and to keep it from showing up in low point games or as a regular in normal games. Limiting it to reserves and the bakka list only does help out considerably.

And, and this is my personal favorite, that if IN has four ships more or less in common across the Imperium, they all have to follow the same combat doctrines.  That's like saying that the Steel legion and the Catachans both have the sentinel, las gun, heavy bolter, and frag grenade in common, so they obviously fight their battles the same way.  

Apples to oranges. There are far fewer ways to employ a capital ship effectively than a heavy bolter or a lasgun. So, yes, if your fleet has the same type vessels in it it's probably going to perform or be used in a similar way. Form very much determines function here. You forget that three of those ships represent 3/5 of the line cruisers. You really think that when 3/5 of the line ships your fleet is built around are the same there's going to be a huge change in the tactics or composition?

As far as being definitive, I'll reserve my opinion on that until Battlefleet Koronus comes out in the next month or so.  It's hyped as the most in depth examination of IN to date, but I'm not sure I'm buying that.

It's dealing with a single battlefleet and from the tidbits they've released, it doesn't say much different than BFG. I really wouldn't put stock in marketing tags; they're designed to make you think it's the most awesome thing ever.

[BaronIveagh]

Bastion can do either with a light salting of grand cruisers.

I don't notice the Reserve fleets rule making the Hades or Murder or Carnage slow and short ranged with +6 prows.  As far as fluff for Bakka, I agree that it's an odd choice for that list, and suggested, if you may recall, that the HA use a limited number of dictators in Bakka and create a new list that included the Jovian that was more AC oriented.  This would both preserve the fluff and allow them to include Jovian as an official ship.

This is somewhat more valid but why are you trying to explain magitech? there is no merit in it and has no effect on the rules. It's useless discussion. The goal here is something that makes up for the low AC in the list. While FDT in their current state is an attempt at that it's a rather half hearted attempt. They are easy to avoid and pricey to add when you could just use those points on mars or reserve in another carrier. Blathering on about X flak system or mechanics of projectiles in space or if a system could track and hit such small targets at range isn't helping write good rules.

Most of the objections to the rule were not that the rule was broken, but that it didn't make sense that turrets could do that.  Sigoroth had several valid points on this, assuming that the turrets were projectile based.  Personally I agree that Bakka should not have to pay for the upgrade, but the actual mechanic of it is fine.

That single ship doesn't fill an intended hole in the list and is actually a little bit of a downgrade to take so no it doesn't.

*points to it's str 6 torp launcher* It's doesn't fill an intended hole?  I'll grant it's slower speed is a downside, but no other chaos cruiser, regular, heavy, or grand, has that.

Apples to oranges. There are far fewer ways to employ a capital ship effectively than a heavy bolter or a lasgun. So, yes, if your fleet has the same type vessels in it it's probably going to perform or be used in a similar way. Form very much determines function here. You forget that three of those ships represent 3/5 of the line cruisers. You really think that when 3/5 of the line ships your fleet is built around are the same there's going to be a huge change in the tactics or composition?

Yeah, if it was 60% I might see your point, but Mars, Lunar, Tyrant, and Gothic only constitute 25% of known IN cruisers.  The US Navy and the British Navy during the Napoleonic Wars had 25% of their ships in common, and very different strategies on how to use them.

It's dealing with a single battlefleet and from the tidbits they've released, it doesn't say much different than BFG. I really wouldn't put stock in marketing tags; they're designed to make you think it's the most awesome thing ever.

I'm aware of that.  I write game reviews, so I cast a somewhat jaded eye on marketing in general.  And don't dismiss it because it only has a single battlefleet in it.  So does Blue Book, and everyone treats it as if it were the whole of IN. 

[Vaaish]

I don't notice the Reserve fleets rule making the Hades or Murder or Carnage slow and short ranged with +6 prows.

Yet another senseless half point. I'm guessing you are attempting to use this as proof for something. Not that it matters because no one takes any of the reserve chaos vessels regularly since they have that huge downside if they try special orders.

*points to it's str 6 torp launcher* It's doesn't fill an intended hole?  I'll grant it's slower speed is a downside, but no other chaos cruiser, regular, heavy, or grand, has that.

No dice. Chaos isn't the NO torpedo fleet, but it isn't one of their real strengths like with IN. There are several builds that grant chaos access to them. Heck, you can take a pack of infidels if you want backed up with a planet killer not to mention every chaos battleship has the option for torpedoes.

Yeah, if it was 60% I might see your point, but Mars, Lunar, Tyrant, and Gothic only constitute 25% of known IN cruisers.

What are you doing adding in grand cruisers, battle cruisers, and light cruisers to come up with that? None of those form the core of the fleet and none of those are listed as being extremely numerous.