List of flawed ships

[Taggerung]

Oh, I don't like those rules Plaxor. I like it just being one marker, since torpedoes shouldn't take up the same space as an escort lol

[Plaxor]

Ugh.... Why God... why?

Honestly Tag, I'm with you and I like the small torp marker thing, and think it's ridiculous that it would get any larger. However it was a compromise between the side who thought that combining salvoes was worthless, and the one who hated the logic behind large waves of torps.

It doesn't really affect orks though, as they can't combine salvoes, unlike other races. Maintaining their old disadvantage of not being able to do such.


Anyways I think Horizon had something on this a while back, hopefully he'll be willing to comment.

[horizon]

FAQ2010 torp marker rule is really cool and good.

It is hardly a nerf to torpedoes. And I play kinda torp/missile heavy.

One thing though, iirc Vaaish came with good ecample but it should really be 1 d6 per marker. Thus a torp salvo up to str6 is one 2cm/str3 (2? forgot...) marker with a dice on top. A larger salvo is then 2 markers with thus 2 dice.

[Taggerung]

I play orks and Imperial navy too now. I just never thought it made any sense that a spread of 6 torpedoes would cover the same span as that of a large escort or small cruiser.


If anything I think having only one torp salvo be as large as you want would be a bonus to those fleets who could do so. I just like it for simplicity/logical sense more than anything. We just play it around here with 1 marker being however large the salvo should be since I think the biggest you can ever get is like 12 right?

[RCgothic]

FAQ2010 torp marker rule is really cool and good.

It is hardly a nerf to torpedoes. And I play kinda torp/missile heavy.

One thing though, iirc Vaaish came with good ecample but it should really be 1 d6 per marker. Thus a torp salvo up to str6 is one 2cm/str3 (2? forgot...) marker with a dice on top. A larger salvo is then 2 markers with thus 2 dice.

Cobra-sized salvoes get bigger, so you can saturate more of the board.
Regular and Combined Salvoes get smaller, which makes them easier to avoid from range, with no effect at shotgun range. Given that torpedoes were already being held onto until point blank range because they miss too frequently at long range, making them less likely to hit was something they did NOT need.

Tau are not a good example, because of their guidance systems makes it more likely to hit regardless of the marker size.

[RCgothic]

If anything I think having only one torp salvo be as large as you want would be a bonus to those fleets who could do so. I just like it for simplicity/logical sense more than anything. We just play it around here with 1 marker being however large the salvo should be since I think the biggest you can ever get is like 12 right?

The biggest you can get is 36 from 4 squadroned Retributions. You're more likely to see 24 from 4 squadroned cruisers.

Except now you aren't, because to launch such a thing you need to get into base contact, and no-one would do such a thing at close range just to remove an insignificant fraction of turret hits, whilst at long range it becomes not only ridiculously easy to neutralise, but ridiculously easy to dodge as well.

Hate Hate Hate Hate this rule. There are some things it's OK to change in the rules, but the original game markers? I have no idea what the HA's were thinking.

[Plaxor]

One thing though, iirc Vaaish came with good ecample but it should really be 1 d6 per marker. Thus a torp salvo up to str6 is one 2cm/str3 (2? forgot...) marker with a dice on top. A larger salvo is then 2 markers with thus 2 dice.

Which is what I have written right now. For every 6 torpedoes in a salvo or part you add 1 marker.

@Tag

The torpedoes don't cover the whole spread, it's just assumed that is their 'reasonable turning range' because the torps have a small amount of tracking. The assumed justification is that when there are more torpedoes, they combine their tracking abilities and are able to increase their tracking distance.

[RCgothic]

Which is actually a very real phenomenon.

When you build a radio telescope, its resolution is proportional both to the number of elements and how far apart they're spaced, so it makes sense not only that more torpedoes would have better target acquisition, but also that they'd fly in as loose a formation as possible before converging on the target.

[Bryantroy2003]

@Plax    Well I dont agree with the torp change. I am the insane person that likes to run half or more of my points in escorts, and the cobra being the most prolific among them, I love to direct my opponent with intimidating waves of ordinance.

With the change being mandatory its rather difficult to see me directing a choas or tyranid fleet any where but a few cm over to avoid it. Heck id venture far enough to say that if I were the one on the other side I wouldnt bother intercepting them because it now takes half as much effort to avoid them and puts me closer to my target by half of what it used to be. But then again its just a pet peve and nothing major since my play style is niche at best.

The second thing I am worried about is the Retribution. I like the increases in FP for the cost of Range, but please dont adjust its points. Its not going to see the field very often any way, I am the only one I know of within my group who even owns one.


On the Oberon, I dont think its range should be adjusted at all. It is reportedly a failed experiment attempting to be a jack of all trades, so dont let it be a mster of anything. And while I own one and it would benifit me a little, I still dont like it.

Oh and though the F/L/R on the firestorms would be awsome, leave it for the nova's to do that job. If you want lances that turn, get some reserves.

[RCgothic]

I own a Retribution. The new rules are awesome, and it very much deserves its price increase. An additional firepower12 is worth WAY more than 15cm of range.

The Oberon is still not a master of any trade. It has fewer AC than an Emperor, the Retribution massively outguns it close in, and the Apocalypse massively outguns it at range. The Invincible is much faster and outguns it.

The reason we gave it 60cm range is to give some incentive to take it over the Emperor. The problem the Oberon has is that it trades 4AC which are good no matter the arc for 2L@45cm per side, half of which will be wasted because you don't want to get a 5+ prow in amongst the enemy. The question you have to ask yourself is: "Will this change make it the only battleship worth taking?". The Emperor is awesome. The Retribution is now awesome. The Apocalypse is expensive, but still awesome. Even with 15cm extra range on the Lances, it doesn't compete with that lot, which is why it's the cheapest battleship. The answer is 'No, with 15cm extra range an Oberon still won't be the only battleship worth taking." Therefore it is balanced.

As for the Firestorm, it certainly wasn't the intention to give it L/F/R, only to cut its points to 35. If it does have F/L/R, then good catch!

Edit: The Firestorm does not have F/L/R in the current version of the Imperial Fleets document.

[Bryantroy2003]

Appologies about the firestorm, with what I had read in here had given me the impression that people didnt like the one arc situation and wanted it changed. And if it does drop to 35pts I dont think it will affect much tbh, those that love it will still take it, those that dont wont, and those that are undcided will take a little of it and something else probably. Or just reserve in some nova's.

Now that you point it out as a 12fp vs 15cm issue for the Ret, I agree whole heartedly, heck decrease the lances to match if you want, I hadnt been thinking of it that way.

Im still not sold on the Oberon, going in with a 5+ prow wont be your decision usually with its 15cm speed, it will be the enemy's. And eventually you will need both of those broadisdes in a fight wich puts it in a much better spot then the emperor. And its not completly dependant on its AC like the Emp is so if it fudges a reload, unlikely as it is and the re-roll fails too, again I know its not likely, it still has options. This is incentive enough for those not willing do divest to chance the entire outcome of the battle. And for those that like to play more aggresive this is their BB CV of choice to compliment the dictator's.

And if the thought of a 5+ prow stuck in with the enemy is the problem you shouldnt be thinking about it being a weakness, just even footing with the choas scum you most liekly are pasting against it with your ramming. Ever seen a BB ram something? Even orks are envious.

But ive got a question about the Overlord, is anything likely to change with this ship, or is it a backburner issue?

[RCgothic]

The Overlord is getting a targeting matrix for free, or the ability to run without one for 220pts as per FAQ2010. This gives it about the equivalent of FP10@60cm (worse at close range, better at long) for the same price as an Armageddon, which has slightly more firepower, but less range.

[Taggerung]

The Retribution only has FP 18, at 45cm. That's a 6 FP increase for a 15cm drop. I actually really like this ship, and even though I magnetized my Retribution model, it has already seen it's place as my flagship as the Lord Nelson.

[Plaxor]

@Bryan,

We've been working on this a while, and the reason for the Oberon change was us old guys liked the older profile better. Also it was less popular than the Emperor due to the mixed weapon ranges.

Most of these rebalances are to try to make every ship more represented, without players having to feel like they're handicapping themselves. Therefore making the game a bit more interesting.

The Overlord we were going to change to FP12@45cm iirc, with the option to swap for FP10@60 for free. (225 pts too) but when the HA did the 220 pt change, with the option for a targetting matrix we decided to forget about the Overlord.

These things were actually decided sometime in december/january timeframe. One of our earliest changes.

As far as the core rules go, we didn't change much to anything except ordnance, which apparently is getting uproar again.....

[Taggerung]

Nah, the more I think about it, the more I don't really care. How about just give the option to be one big salvo, if you want to break it up into 6 str waves you may do so.