List of flawed ships

[RCgothic]

Vanquisher: I remember how I managed to get it sub 300pts! Range 45cm, all weapons systems. 290pts.

Victory: What the hell are we going to do with this ship? It has the same weapons hardpoints as an Apocalypse. You can't change the type of the hardpoints or it won't be a Victory. With the reduction on the penalty the Apocalypse faces, reduced strength in exchange for reliable firing makes no sense. So that pretty much just leaves it as an inexplicably underpowered/cheap knock off Apocalypse.

What roles do we have so far for the other battleships?

Emperor: Fleet Carrier/Focussed Long Range Support.
Oberon: Carrier/Long Range Support.
Apocalypse: Long Range Support.
Retribution: Linebreaker.
Vanquisher: Cheap Linebreaker.

Where does the Victory fit in? As Counterpart to the Vanquisher: Cheap Long Range Support. Smotherman says Victory should lose 52pts for its loss of strength. That's 313pts relative to an Apocalypse. When you take into account the reduced Dorsal strength, increased speed and removal of handicapping rule, we're probably looking at 310-320pts.

Edit: One thing we could possibly do is exchange the dorsal FP6 for S3 Lances @60cm. That gives it a focus to nearly match an Apocalypse, but with less off-side firepower.

[Plaxor]

I do think that since the Victory has to be included.... that it should be cheap to prevent overlap with the apocalypse.

So basically we should strip it down to minimums.... Probably 15cm speed (like Adm.D suggested) keeping 4lances@60 each side, and 6dorsal wbs@60, as well as 6 prow torps. 5 turrets (to fit in with bakka)

310? Hmmmm....

It basically has the same firepower as the Vanquisher... but longer range. With this it would be slower... and have less off-side firepower. So it is reasonable to have it at +10-20pts over the Vanquisher.

I do agree about 45cm weapons on the Vanquisher, the ship should be crappy, but redundant. So 290 it is. Any thoughts in increasing it's WBs to 8? I know the complaint is that one segment MUST represent no more than 6, but it can represent less...

[Plaxor]

If we did go with the dorsal lances... it would be apocalyptic! but I could also see the ship as a heavy gunboat that is better than the Apoc. It has to either be significantly worse than the Apoc, or significantly better.


Looks like I'll be doing an IN update before I do rules... at least it's a hell of a lot easier to update pdfs than build them.... ugh....

Page Tags will no longer say flawed ships, but instead 'Revised'

Note on Book as a whole; Eventually all these documents will be combined into a single PDF book. With a foreword, and Unnoficial note on the cover/first page.

Contents will appear like this:

Rules
IN
Chaos
Eldar + DE + CWE
Orks
Tau
Necrons
Nids
RTs/Minor Xenos
Missions, Terrain
Campaign Rules

Fluff won't be contained here. Although I may release a 'fluff compendium' at some point, but there will be a standing reccomendation to simply read the original documents for that.

[Plaxor]

Here's the list of updates to the IN document that I intend to include.

SMs:
Blood angels doubling boarding value instead of +1.
Inclusion of 'Vanguard' light cruiser.
Return to 'old' system of purchasing VBB's (meaning pick any ship +35 points rather than actually listing them out)

IN:
Swapping out the Jovian for Dominion within Tartanus
Reduction of turret cost on various ships (like the mars)

Ignus wbs to 12.
Hydra to 4wbs@45cm, 6wbs@30cm 2 turrets 170 pts.
Tyrant to 6wbs@45cm, 4wbs@30cm
Dominator range downgrade to -20pts, all fleets have access to 4torp vers.

Vanquisher to Bakka profile, but all weapons at 45, and spd.20 290pts
Victory with 15cm spd   310 pts

Inclusion of Bakka list. Will look over to see if anyone really wants Mercury/has a good idea for it... but probably not.

Viper added
Havoc able to swap prow torp for 2wbs@30cm F.

Firedagger added to Bakka (sword with 2wbs@15cm, 2@30, shadowhunter special rules)

Tell me about the red thing. I think the best way to make a non-carrier fleet is rather than force players not to take them is to make them need them much less. Like the necrons who have lotsa turrets, and pulse generators which kill ordinance.

All Bakka ships will have +1 turret (except escorts) and +5 points.

Characters:
Admiral to 75
Solar Admiral to 100

Addition of 'Veteran Captains' to all IN fleets

Admech re-rolls named 'Transmats' instead. (for character)

Charybdis.... oh that monstrosity.....  I wish that I could see the model before writing rules for it.

[RCgothic]

The Victory needs to either be cheaper/worse than the Apocalypse to fulfil "Cheap Long Range Support", or we need to buff up its ability to focus firepower (without much increasing its off-side firepower) and make it "Heavy Focussed Long Range Support".

Cheap Long Range Support pretty much means leaving it as is, possibly with the speed reduction, and costing it in the 310-320pts range.

As for Heavy Focussed Long Range Support, the problem is that the Apocalypse is pretty much maxed out on everything, and 6L +9WB is a better focus than 7L (4 Broadside + 3 Dorsal).

Then again, if we're making the Victory into Long Range Focussed Support, what does it need prow NC/Torps for? 9 Torps are equivalent to 13.5WBe, so we could possibly cram FP12 F/L/R on the Prow, which would then go down to Av5+. The Victory would then have a focus firepower of 7L@60cm + FP12@60cm. This easily beats out the Apocalypse on focus, has roughly similar total broadside output, and minus the 6+Prow and NC. Naturally with such heavy lance firepower, it would also have to have the Apocalypse's BMs for firing over 30cm with its lances, and we still avoid people going "It has more Lances than an Apocalypse!", because actually it doesn't. (11 vs 12).

So how would this be costed? I would say that in spite of having less total firepower than an Apocalpyse, and less armour, it should actually be costed MORE, because it would get to use what it has more often. With the heaviest broadside focus in the game, it should be looking at 380-390pts, even with 5+ prow and 15cm speed. Thoughts?

As for the Firedagger, I could better comment if I knew what the shadowhunter special rules were?


As for other ships I'd like to see included, probably the Invincible Class Heavy Battlecruiser (I know it says says Fast Battleship, but Fast Battleships are actually just faster regular battleships - they don't sacrifice protection like a Battlecruiser does), although I think the profile should be revised somewhat. At the very minimum, Hits up to 12 and dorsal lances down to 3. The Broadside firepower could also go up to 15 - it's a little weak at 12. This way you get a not-quite-a-Retribution, but it has longer range and more speed, and is still a glass hammer like a heavy battlecruiser should be.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Hits up to 12 for an Invincible? Then what's the difference between it and a regular battleship? Upping the broadside firepower? Poor Retribution. I agree with lowering the dorsal lances. But the other changes will just make this into a regular battleship. Upping the hits to 10, I have no qualms. Keep the weapons as it is. It is supposed to be a fragile battleship not meant to be used in the line.

As for the Victory, just lower the speed, change the prow to a torp version and retain the remaining stats and you'd have your cheap standoff battleship. To change the prow weapons into weapon batteries definitely would make this a long range support vessel and definitely should be costed more than the Apocalypse. So forget about the changes to the prow into WBs. Lower the speed with torps instead of NCs and there you have your cheap, long range support vessel.

[RCgothic]

The difference is it only has 2 shields, suffers critical hits twice as often, and those critical hits get a +1 modifier, and so are nastier (Bulkhead collapse 6x as likely as normal). I think its turrets should also go down to 2 or 3.  Also, it has neither the Retributions broadside firepower, not its S9 Torps. Hits represent size, not toughness. The lack of toughness is reflected in the shield strength and special rules.

As for the Victory: Turning it into a long range support vessel was the POINT of adding the prow WBs, and I think gives it a more unique role than just being a shitty Apocalypse. The name "Victory" recalls the most glorious age of sail vessel ever built, not some cheap knock off of a more successful class.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The difference is it only has 2 shields, suffers critical hits twice as often, and those critical hits get a +1 modifier, and so are nastier (Bulkhead collapse 6x as likely as normal). I think its turrets should also go down to 2 or 3.  Also, it has neither the Retributions broadside firepower, not its S9 Torps. Hits represent size, not toughness. The lack of toughness is reflected in the shield strength and special rules.

At the moment it has the broadside firepower of the Retribution, even more if you consider it has Str 4 dorsal lances even if it does not have the torp strength. I still don't think upping the HP to 12 which not only represents size. It's also a measure toughness as well that a 12 HP ship needs to be dealt 6 points to cripple it and 12 points to destroy. Shields and armor represent the protection it has and is an addition to how tough a ship can be but the basis for toughness still begins with hp. Again, I would like to see it bumped to 10 but not 12. Turrets can stay the same.

Am also curious where you get the idea that the crits get a +1 modifier. From the BFG Compendium, all I see is it rolls 2 dice for crits and no modifiers are involved.

As for the Victory: Turning it into a long range support vessel was the POINT of adding the prow WBs, and I think gives it a more unique role than just being a shitty Apocalypse. The name "Victory" recalls the most glorious age of sail vessel ever built, not some cheap knock off of a more successful class.

You want the Victory to have a unique role? Just follow what Sig normally suggests. Up the dorsal firepower to 9 and you'd have a different take on the Apocalypse and then keep the torps. I'd prefer not to have a ship encroach on what is normally Chaos specialty. It helps keep the races distinct. Putting long range WBs on top of the existing dorsal WBs and supported by lances, well kinda makes things brutal. Personally IN doesn't need another expensive battleship. I wouldn't mind IN getting a battleship in the 320 point range.

While Victory recalls the most glorious age of sail vessel ever built, it certainly wasn't because it was a terror on the high seas. She became famous because of her Admiral, not because of her actions. Other ships performed far better during the battle which made her admiral famous and in other battles involving English and other nation's ships. Bon Homme Richard comes to mind as an example.

[RCgothic]

You're not starting from the standpoint that we've fixed the Retribution to have FP18 and the Apocalypse to have FP9 Dorsal. The new profiles for Victory/Invincible would be perfectly balanced from that standpoint, with the Invincible comfortably outgunned by the Retribution, and the Victory needing far more than FP9 on top to compete with the Apocalypse.

Am also curious where you get the idea that the crits get a +1 modifier. From the BFG Compendium, all I see is it rolls 2 dice for crits and no modifiers are involved.

Because if you'd actually read my proposal, you would have seen that I'd suggested it adopted the Repulse Class's special rules from my Battlefleet Urdesh thread. Those give criticals on a 5+, which has an identical average hits to 2D6, but which is much simpler, and the +1 modifier compensates for the additional 2 hits over the 10 hits you yourself would have given it. As a rough guide, it will take twice as many criticals as a regular battleship, and those criticals will be 50% more damaging in terms of hitpoints with the +1 modifier.

I really like the battlecruiser concept, but it has to be done properly, and the Invincible profile as it stands does not lend itself to this. Cruisers should run screaming at the sight of a battlecruiser. Are they really going to be afraid of a ship that has the same shields and hitpoints as them, and only barely outguns them?

Compared to the original profile, New Invincible gets:

+4 Hitpoints
-2 Turrets
+1.5WBe Total but reduced focus and more restrictive arcs. (-4.5WBe Dorsal Lance, +6WBe broadsides)
+50% damage from criticals.

The restricted arcs and reduced focus probably cancel out the marginal total firepower increase, especially when you realise the Invincible does not want to be surrounded with just 2 shields.

Smotherman puts the net value of +4 hitpoints vs -2 turrets as +10pts, which is probably cancelled out by more damaging criticals. This really isn't a big change, but it's far more targetted towards what a Battlecruiser actually IS.

[Plaxor]

Firedagger will have the 'Hunter' special rule. Which makes its weapons hit ordinance on a 4+. Yes, someone wrote up a special rules list, and I'll be adopting some of them. Most notably:

Massive: Cannot make come to new heading
Improved Thrusters: +d6 on all ahead full
Hunter:...
Improved Sensors: +1 leadership
Improved Targetting Array: (can't remember which exactly, but there are more than 1...)

Nice to see you around again Admiral D, you haven't replied in a while.

What's going on with the Invincible? I didn't intend to include that....

Victory could have Fp 5 prow wbs and 9 dorsal. Well... I guess 9 prow... but talk about the poor retribution. Although the Victory would end up being a heavy long range hitter, with slow speed and a more chaosy feel.

[Valhallan]

invincible - imo it sticks out like a sore thumb (kinda like the mercury) in an imperial fleet.

on the vicky. it occurred to me the other day that with a nova cannon... its the same model as the apoc (not everyone uses/likes voss prows), and just like the ret (flawed) its weapons are not reflected well by its hardpoints on the model. I suggest swapping out the prow most lance batteries for weapons batteries on the model and making its profile:
prow NC
star' 6 WB at 60
star' 4 L at 60
port 6 WB at 60
port 4 L at 60
dorsal 6 WB at 60.

basically a suped up vanquisher, a lance boat version of the fixed ret, and a toned down apoc.
which somehow smothermans up to 390 despite having a little less umph at long range than the apoc. 360 could be a good compromise.

ideas?

[Plaxor]

Valhallan, Ret in 'FS' has 18wbs@45cm

I do like your Vicky profile.

390 could be fine. Like I said, it should be either much more expensive than the Apoc, or much less. Remember that the Apoc has the 'shield loss' disadvantage.

[Valhallan]

sorry about above. first mention of the ret was 'flawed' (noted). second mention was ret 'revised' and not noted. yeah my profile sugguestion has WBe of 18 for the broadsides, 24 focusable at 60cm (compared to revised ret with 27 focusable at 45cm).

while your correcting some imperial issues i just skipped through the v.1.1 IN fleets revised
*you are recorrecting the vanq?
*and adding in the viper?
*tempest squadron of 4 (cost 180) can launch a wave of 4 bombers... i know escorts need higher cost/firepower ratio, but launch capacity? not too sure. i'd up them to 55 as is, OR up them to 50 and take away their bombers.
*why not make the dominator 0-1 in the gothic list? we all agree it only happened because it was the first list made. its not in character at all... what with bakka/tartanus coming along to really have a nitch for the ship.
*turret option for the 'geddon?

great work as always. keep it up.

[Plaxor]

sorry about above. first mention of the ret was 'flawed' (noted). second mention was ret 'revised' and not noted. yeah my profile sugguestion has WBe of 18 for the broadsides, 24 focusable at 60cm (compared to revised ret with 27 focusable at 45cm).

Oops, didn't see.

while your correcting some imperial issues i just skipped through the v.1.1 IN fleets revised
*you are recorrecting the vanq?

Yep, I made a list of what I intended to change a few posts back. I'd even consider giving the Vanq Improved Thrusters, as that leftover power from not having dorsals has to go somewhere! Even then, I know some people would like a battleship that had 'fast battleship' feel, and it would be better at keeping up with the rest of Tartanus, which quite a few ships have Improved thrusters.

*and adding in the viper?

Eh, you know how it goes.

*tempest squadron of 4 (cost 180) can launch a wave of 4 bombers... i know escorts need higher cost/firepower ratio, but launch capacity? not too sure. i'd up them to 55 as is, OR up them to 50 and take away their bombers.

They are cost-appropriate for what they do. Normal IN fleets can get 20 bombers for 995 pts, with these you can get them for 900. At 30 points less than a Dictator, they aren't bad. Besides, Tart is a little more AC oriented than other IN fleets due to it's fluff as pirate hunters. This shouldn't be a problem as Tart doesn't have access to a Dictator, and most people wouldn't want to spam escort carriers. Also bombers are worse at attacking most ships in revised, so an AC based fleet would do much worse than previously.

Escorts have their own Inherent disadvantages, such as the fact that they would lose a launch bay for every hit, not losing 2 after 4.

*why not make the dominator 0-1 in the gothic list? we all agree it only happened because it was the first list made. its not in character at all... what with bakka/tartanus coming along to really have a nitch for the ship.

Maybe, but this is kind of a meh change. Most people don't play the Gothic Sector list, as it is just kind of a prequel to the list in Armada. The only advantage they have is that they can take dominators.

*

turret option for the 'geddon?

what?

[RCgothic]

invincible - imo it sticks out like a sore thumb (kinda like the mercury) in an imperial fleet.

I think the current profile, with 8 hits, certainly would, as would a profile with 10 hits, but I think that with 12 hits and some special rules it's nowhere near as awful as the Mercury, which is basically just an Overlord which blows up.