List of flawed ships

[Taggerung]

I really dislike the rules in the profile simply because it's cluttering and the other thing is that it got rid of all these stupid named ships. Having to use "specific" ships to use certain abilities is dumb.

For one fleet it wouldn't make sense, but now we have the same rules for Space Marines, Mega Nobz, Incubi' and what not...across all fleets so theres no referencing different rule books for different rules, it's all in the same spot now.

[Phthisis]

I agree with Tag.  Theyre mental hotkeys.  It compartmentalizes them all in my mind so I can recall the rule complex easier and not have to look them up so much.  It's just like USRs in 40k.  When you say 'fearless' or 'scouts' everyone knows exactly what you mean and you do't have to look it up so much.
I don't care if it takes you less time to write (sorry).  I just care if it keeps me from having to argue rules and keeps the game moving.

[Plaxor]

Pthisis is right, and as such is why I adopted it. I know that it is less word count, and in some ways writing things out individually is better, but in this case it makes rules complexities and gameplay faster.

Everyone knows what 'Furious Charge' is, and how it works in different situations.

The hope is that it will make rules interactions more clear cut. Now rather than saying in boarding the complexities of racial modifiers, we can have simple rules like aggressive.

[RCgothic]

Looks like I'm overruled!

I still think a lot of this feels very contrived, so let's fix that.

For a start, let's call the section Universal Special Rules, not Special Qualities.

In the ship profile, write whatever makes most grammatical sense. E.g. "This ship is Massive or This ship has Augmented Damage Control" rather than "This ship is subject to the Massive quality". Saying something has 'X' quality is less neat than just saying something has 'X'.

Names of these USRs. In particular, I think the following names should be changed:

Limited Fuel. They don't really have limited fuel. This is more a case of Inefficient Thrusters.

Improved Augers. Even in 40k, use of the word Augers is rare, so many people won't intuitively know what this means. Also (though I'm not certain), I think Auger is a drilling device whilst an Augur was a priest who interpreted the will of the gods, making the 'u' spelling more appropriate.  Use Improved Auspex or Improved Auspex Array instead, as that is more common in 40k, and the addition of 'Array' makes it immediately clear which system is being referred to.

Terminators. Nothing really wrong with this name, except that it leaves out any possibility for Nids, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Orks and Tau to use it. Perhaps Elite Boarding Parties.

Apex of Technology. So what if it's the Apex of Technology? The key quality is that the race is willing to destroy it rather than let it fall into enemy hands. Guarded Technology or similar.

Elite Cadre. Wince. Regiment Embarked.

Hunter. No escort is nimble enough to keep up with AC, and what is it about a Bombardment Cannon Shell that makes it a Hunter? Flak Shells or Flak Storm.

Bombard: Is it really necessary to spell out the rules for individual weapons systems in the USRs? Why is the Bombardment Cannon singled out for special treatment, compared to say the Pulsar or Sepulchre? It's OK to not have a special rule for everything.

[RCgothic]

Anyway, I'm up to P26 in the rules now, and saving regularly!

[Taggerung]

Elite Cadre is the same as Terminators. That was just the word he chose to replace terminators.

I think limited fuel was the only one I didn't really like, but I can see the hunter rule being changed as well.

Bombard has a special rule because orks also have bombard cannons. (It took me FOREVER to find out where those rules, when I first started playing lol)

[RCgothic]

Terminators are NOT the same as Elite Cadre.

One is 2D6 pick highest H&R attacks, whilst the other is +2 Boarding modifier and +1 to H&R attacks.

[Taggerung]

Right...I was thinking of space marine crews.

[Bryantroy2003]

I read all the way up to page 42  . Great work to every one. Even if I dont agree with your change's proposed or your view's on certain ships/races thats irrelivant to my thanks for your dilligence and hard work on this hobby I enjoy so much. Thank you for choosing to spend your time on it rather then the innumerable other pursuits you could have chosen.

[RCgothic]

I absolutely can't stand FAQ2010's treatment of torpedoes. If people want to use 20mm bases, fine, have it as an alterantive. But I want to keep my original torpedo markers thanks.

[Taggerung]

I like it 100X better than the old rules. It was broken as it was because you could just flood the field with torpedo markers that covered the table. It was a stupid way to do it before.

[RCgothic]

It's a flat out nerf to large torpedo waves which they didn't need.  Yes, a wave of 9 torps is more likely to hit a target than a wave of 6, but it's also just as easy to remove with 1 fighter marker or hit from a direct fire weapon.

Why fire a large wave with the increased risk of missing? Why do 7 torpedoes arbitrarily take up twice as much board space as 6? Why aren't AC represented by 1 base per type with some D6 for strength? Why are you forcing people to abandon the original counters the game came with?

And despite the rules change, you can cover even more of the field because small waves get bigger.

It's a horrible, horrible change. If you want your 20mm bases, fine. But write it into the rules as an option, not a compulsion.

[Plaxor]

@RC,

the 7 arbitrary value was chosen for two reasons; first, and most importantly, was peoples issues with multiple D6 on the same marker. Secondly, because every vessel up through BC doesn't have more than 6 torpedoes individually, meaning that they would have to combine to get larger salvoes anyways.

This also preserves the 'torpedo power' of larger vessels, as well as making it valuable to combine into larger salvoes. 7 is a large number to get with anything outside of a large escort squadron (which people don't like taking) or 2 squadroned cruisers (which again people don't like taking). It is a compromise which makes someone with a defined disadvantage, still maintain that advantage. So the number isn't so arbitrary.

About the AC thing, I did like the idea of multiple die on each AC marker for combined waves, however I didn't know how others felt about the whole thing.

@Tag, I'm with you, I remember on Portmaw a while back someone did an alternate torpedo size system, and I used that for a while.

@Bryantroy,

Thanks for the support, although I'm curious what you disagree with. It is worthwhile to hear as many people as possible's opinions. I tried to keep each race towards its original flavor, changing as little as possible (but perhaps adding quite a bit).

[Taggerung]

What are you guys talking about?

Torpedoes are represented now with just a 3 str marker, and one or more D6 representing the actual strength of the salvo. Is there something NOT in the torpedo section I am unaware of? Yes, this is the 2010 FAQ I am reading.

[Plaxor]

not 2010 FAQ, my rules section. Should be in there.