List of flawed ships

[RCgothic]

Because lances take up three times the space WBs do, and the Defiant's prow is already loaded to the maximum level without people going "Why not the Endeavour/Endurance also?", and replacing the broadside hardpoints creates space in the central region, not in the prow.

I suppose I could rationalise that as extending the prow hardpoint back along the spine to create extra space in the prow hardpoint itself, but I do think that a seperate Dorsal hardpoint is more consistent with the vessel layout.

[Sigoroth]

Still talking about this ship?

Defiant class system enforcer     100 pts
Hits -  6     Speed - 20cm    Turns - 90°
Armour - 5+/6+  Shields - 1   Turrets - 2

Armament      Speed/Range  Strength   Arc
Prow WB           30cm         2      LFR
Prow Torps        30cm         2       F
P/S Launch Bays as craft       2       -

Notes: The Defiant is a refit Endeavour and has converted some of its broadside weaponry to launch bays. The rest of the space is given over to extra crew quarters and supplies to accommodate a contingent of armed soldiers. The Defiant is equipped with assault-boats as well as fighters and bombers. In addition it gets a +1 modifier in boarding actions. The Defiant is a very rare vessel. You can only include 1 per full 750 pts.

There, this ship has identical prow firepower to the other variants, has torps to help make it reload, is cheap enough to squadron with a bigger ship to ensure the reload attempt, has a point of difference from the norm in the form of a-boats giving it both a play reason to take it and a fluff justification for the low strength. [It doesn't warrant the resources of a full battle carrier but with a-boats it will be more deadly against escorts and with the extra military personnel can act as an enforcer when operating alone.] All this without adding dorsal weaponry or 3 prow lances, the former being unsupported on such a small ship and the latter causing inconsistency and balance problems since the other 2 variants don't have it and the strong prow armament competes directly with the Dauntless, which is its hallmark.

File it and forget.

[RCgothic]

I still think that version is hideously weak, even for 100pts, and I don't think it should have assault boats either. Only the IN BBs have those.

[BaronIveagh]

Enforcer isn't legal.

And does the Defiant's siblings have dorsal mounts? Does any LC for that matter have dorsal mounts? The designers could still have kept the FP2 WBs and Str 2 torps but obviously they decided to change it to something closer to a Dauntless' prow weaponry, lowering it by 1 and giving it more flexible firing arcs. Otherwise it is a Dauntless' style prow. I was actually rather surprised they didn't give it Str 2 torps. Sure it would be a more powerful prow but then it would fix your issues about it not having enough equivalent WB firepower esp if pointed correctly.

Enforcer is varyingly legal.  It's not in the official FAQ, but it's pretty rare to have someone say no to it, at least in my experience.  As I said: increase LB.  Defiant will be fine with 4lb, and this solves the problem of it being so broken as to not be used.  A limit of 1 to 500 or 1 to 750 sounds good, and despite all the AC haters screaming, it won't be a second coming of the all AC IN fleet from 1.0 that they're all saying they see in their crystal balls and puffs of green smoke.

AS far as an Aboat option, sure, if it's going to be 2 lb, aboats are fine, as it's supposed to be a specialist ship like the rest of the voss.

As far as SC -1thawk +1 shield: No.  It would absolutely cripple existing pure SM fleet lists against AC by nearly halving their LB, and they're weak enough against AC as is, unless you're also giving them all +2 turrets too.  (And never be approved by GW for fluff reasons)

[horizon]

I'd play the version Sig posted as a Defiant. Weak & Cheap for what it does. I am for it.

I am against 4LB on the ship.

[lastspartacus]

A-boats are a neat option, its got plenty of room for extra crew after all.  I still say auto-pass RO makes sense too.

[Vaaish]

I just don't see a ship that small managing 4lb much less 4lb and AB. Just too small for hanger decks and crew necessary for AB since you are now talking about housing and supporting three different AC types. I'd rather see the ship forced to choose before the battle what type of ac it has available. I think that could explain having 4lb since it would be supporting only a single craft type and wouldn't need space to support three types.

[RCgothic]

So the options are:

#1. Leave it as it is with S2 Prow Lances, with massive points drop.
#2. LB Increase to S4, possible price increase and additional restriction.
#3. Swap S2 Lances for FP2 WB and S2 Torps, with massive price drop.
#4. Add S2 Torps, possibly redistribute/change type of firepower.
#5. S3 Lances or S6 Torps forward.

[horizon]

For ease and purpose: option 3.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Enforcer is varyingly legal.  It's not in the official FAQ, but it's pretty rare to have someone say no to it, at least in my experience. 

If you have to ask for permission, then it isn't legal.

As I said: increase LB.  Defiant will be fine with 4lb, and this solves the problem of it being so broken as to not be used.  A limit of 1 to 500 or 1 to 750 sounds good, and despite all the AC haters screaming, it won't be a second coming of the all AC IN fleet from 1.0 that they're all saying they see in their crystal balls and puffs of green smoke.

No.

As far as SC -1thawk +1 shield: No.  It would absolutely cripple existing pure SM fleet lists against AC by nearly halving their LB, and they're weak enough against AC as is, unless you're also giving them all +2 turrets too.  (And never be approved by GW for fluff reasons)

No, it would not cripple the SM. Because enemy ordnance would still have to go through the remaining THs and 6+ armor. SC already has 2 turrets. BB should get 4. Even if they would lose out on the ordnance war, so what? They're not supposed to win it anyway or even equal it.

And again, I do not know where you are getting your fluff reasoning. This is BFG, not 40k. If you want your supermen, stick with 40k. In BFG, SM are ordinary in most circumstances. SM handles the planetary assault. IN handles the fleet action.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Because lances take up three times the space WBs do, and the Defiant's prow is already loaded to the maximum level without people going "Why not the Endeavour/Endurance also?", and replacing the broadside hardpoints creates space in the central region, not in the prow.

Lances take up 3 times the space? the 1:3 ratio generally refers to the strength, not necessarily the space taken up. That a Dauntless can take Str 3 lances supported by FP8 total WBs means space is managed differently from weapon strengths.

I suppose I could rationalise that as extending the prow hardpoint back along the spine to create extra space in the prow hardpoint itself, but I do think that a seperate Dorsal hardpoint is more consistent with the vessel layout.

I see no weapon on the dorsal. Do you?

[Plaxor]

Does anyone else like option three? I like it but I think that the restriction should remain at 1 per 500, pointless to take the ship en masse with sigoroths stats.

[RCgothic]

And lo, there was a dorsal hardpoint:



Admittedly this isn't a Defiant, but the turret and WB deck came to hand faster.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Sure you can stick any turret in but do you see it on any of the Endeavors pics in the Armada book? Cause really, that's the only thing that's important here.

[horizon]

DING DING DING

The AdMech Light Cruisers do have a dorsal hardpoint (single lance). Official rules and all.