List of flawed ships

[Valhallan]

RC, i'll restate my opinion. I think the invince' is odd and I probably wont use it. other than that no comment.

plax. as long as we keep those tempests to tartanus i see no problem

and about the geddon:
mars can get an extra turret for +10, so and overlord. but the geddon has no option... though i think it should have one. (overlord should also have an NC option, but thats just me).

[Plaxor]

FS doesn't allow reserves except with opponents permission. I really don't like the reserve rules as they destroy the character of fleets, but there are certain scenarios where a person would want to use them, such as in a campaign.

The 'geddon's fluff is that it's a lunar that they put a dorsal lance on. It wasn't built initially to be a battle cruiser, so there is no real fluff reason for them to have an upgradable lance.

Nova cannons are still rare, and the only reason 'geddons got them is because lunars can take them, so therefore it's reasonable that an upgraded lunar would get them as well. The overlord would be probably my first choice to put an NC on, as it likes to be far away.

[Plaxor]

Oh! and reserve vessels are much worse than normal ones. So even with your opponents permission it's still not good to purchase reserve vessels. (they have -1 leadership) So someone would only realistically do it for fluff reasons.

So imagine those 4 Tempests had -1 LD.... pretty sucky on a carrier.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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?

A Battlecruiser, at least in the time of Jutland and even into WW2 is as large as a battleship, weapons as tough but not as tough and is faster. To that end, my idea of a true battlecruiser in BFG would be a 10HP ship, with only 5+ armor, 2 or 3 shields and 25 cm speed. I lean more toward 3 shields if it is a 5+ all around ship. If 6+/5+ armor, then the shields can be lowered to 2 but I think 3 can still be justifiable.

I think the FP12@60 cm WB supported by Str 3@60 cm lances are fine since a cruiser can't hope to match those weapons and so should be scared. Those Str 3 lances is not considered barely. Applying your crit at 5+ is fine. No need to add the +1 modifier. Or you can apply the +1 modifier but keep the criticals on 6+.

And there you have your Invincible.

[lastspartacus]

This has been bugging me lately about the Necrons.
In fluff they are described as nigh invincible, on land and in space, soaking mass amounts of firepower with little visible effect.
It somewhat bothers me that they are less durable than your average ship, and rely greatly on chance. 

A normal ship is gauranteed to have damage soak through shields.  If a necron Cruiser say, gets bad dice, it would die just as easy as a cruiser that lost its shields.

Necrons should be most effectively dealt with with mass concentrated fire, but currently normal ships do better against lower levels of firepower. 

Is there any fix to this without taking it over the top?  Qausi-shields like MMS Eldar?  Is it a stretch to say that Necron ships regenerate?

[RCgothic]

A Battlecruiser, at least in the time of Jutland and even into WW2 is as large as a battleship, weapons as tough but not as tough and is faster. To that end, my idea of a true battlecruiser in BFG would be a 10HP ship, with only 5+ armor, 2 or 3 shields and 25 cm speed. I lean more toward 3 shields if it is a 5+ all around ship. If 6+/5+ armor, then the shields can be lowered to 2 but I think 3 can still be justifiable.

I think the FP12@60 cm WB supported by Str 3@60 cm lances are fine since a cruiser can't hope to match those weapons and so should be scared. Those Str 3 lances is not considered barely. Applying your crit at 5+ is fine. No need to add the +1 modifier. Or you can apply the +1 modifier but keep the criticals on 6+.

And there you have your Invincible.

Battlecruisers (not just at the time of Jutland, but right up until HMS Hood, the last really big battlecruiser), also had similar crew complements.

FP12 and 3 Lances only just outguns an Armageddon, by one lance. Considering they have the same protection and the Battlecruiser takes double criticals, that's not a one-sided fight unless the Battlecruiser keeps out of range (which is a very narrow 15cm band).

So here's the argument for the 12 hit profile:

Uses same model, so is by definition the same size.
Has similar crew complement (one of the way the designers of BFG described hits)
There's no precedent for giving ships using the same model different hits (except for nurgle - but that's down to additional bloated mass, they're not really the same size.)
The 6+ prow is vital because otherwise you might as well interchange it for a Chaos battleship, they become so similar without.
Double criticals and +1 modifier adequately represent it being less tough than a regular battleship.
FP12 is not enough for a battleship equivalent - the Retribution suffered from this, which is why it was bumped to FP18@45. Instead of that, the proposal is FP15@60. As a Battlecruiser it will need the range more.

[Plaxor]

So I'm typing up the Rules document right now and I have a few comments....

I despise the fact that all BFG rulebook pdfs have text that isn't selectable. I'm on page 7 of typing up the rules.

You Brits have some strange ways of saying things, such as calling the result of dice rolls 'scores'?

Anyways. I've decided to put my first draft of the rules in a word document, because building and editing .PDFs is tedious and difficult, especially for blocks of info that take multiple pages. I'm including the original text with strikethrough text for what I intend to delete. Red for things that I've added/changed. Blue for text that isn't located in the main columns.

I would hope that people would download the document and email it back to me with green text as their commentary in the relevant places.

[RCgothic]

Had a look for the .docx, but assume you haven't put it up yet.

On the subject of Minelayers/Torpedo Bombers:
I've noticed this upgrade listed in every document I've come across, and I have to say I think it's horribly inelegant to specify on a carrier/carrier basis. (quite apart from disagreeing with points cost of torpedo bombers/minelayers). It should be done either from the fleet list (Carriers may upgrade for xpts per LB), or by scenario.

Also, I've heard you assert quite a bit recently that bombers have become less powerful - that's not strictly true unless you have 3 or more turrets. The average of D3 attacks is 2, whereas the average number of attacks against a T2 target under the D6-T system was 1.67, so the power has actually gone up 20%

[Plaxor]

Yep, still typing... I'm on page 10 of the rulebook now. (out of about 40) it sucks, but I'll probably be done in the next few hours.

Hmmmm... checking calculations for bombers:

How the hell did I fuck that up.... Here lets look at the Original post....

[Plaxor]

So both these charts have to do with a wave of 6 bombers going against a ship with 5+ armor.

Original rules:

Turret number	(theoretical) Damage caused
1	4.58
2	2.778
3	1.5
4	.667
5	.19

This table shows it about halving every time one turret increase is gained.

 D3  attack runs rather than d6.

This would make the damage caused look like this instead

Turret number	(theoretical) Damage caused
1	3.667
2	3.333
3	3
4	2.667
5	2.333
6	2

Yep... whoops. Apparently better against everything but 1 turret.

Hmmmm... too bad I was quite satisfied with that result.... perhaps going down to D2 attack runs instead. Let's see:

Turret number	(theoretical) Damage caused
1	2.75
2	2.5
3	2.25
4	2
5	1.75
6	1.5

There! that's about the sweet spot that I was looking for. Although it is disappointing that it had to go to D2.

[Plaxor]

Oh, and yes, I do agree with you on the listing out torpedo bombers and etc. It was a member of my groups idea.... I'll probably change it.


I've posted what I have so far in my documents so you can get a look at it. It is titled 'INTRODUCTION'.

[RCgothic]

If you're going to go as low as D2, what's the point in having the variation? You might as well just go on to giving them a fixed number of attacks each.

A flat D6-2 maintains the average against T2 targets but still has 5 results, 0-4, and isn't too different from what we have already. Though it's not the most elegant solution, it's better than D2.

[Plaxor]

I know... which is why it sucks.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Battlecruisers (not just at the time of Jutland, but right up until HMS Hood, the last really big battlecruiser), also had similar crew complements.

FP12 and 3 Lances only just outguns an Armageddon, by one lance. Considering they have the same protection and the Battlecruiser takes double criticals, that's not a one-sided fight unless the Battlecruiser keeps out of range (which is a very narrow 15cm band).

And the Armageddon is a battlecruiser, last I checked. I thought we were comparing the Invincible to cruisers?

So here's the argument for the 12 hit profile:

Uses same model, so is by definition the same size.

Doesn't have to be.

Has similar crew complement (one of the way the designers of BFG described hits)

Which has been done away with.

There's no precedent for giving ships using the same model different hits (except for nurgle - but that's down to additional bloated mass, they're not really the same size.)

Doesn't mean you can't do it. If I remember correctly, the advice on how to make one was to take a battleship chassis but not to put in all the component parts to "lighten" it. I think it was suggested also to use a different bridge. Unfortunately I can't find my hard copy of the old BFG Annual.

The 6+ prow is vital because otherwise you might as well interchange it for a Chaos battleship, they become so similar without.

Fine.

Double criticals and +1 modifier adequately represent it being less tough than a regular battleship.

One or the other but not both. Even the Apocalypse only had to take one disadvantage and the Invincible already is disadvantaged with the shields. Even the original Invincible only had the rolling 2 dice for crits and did not have the +1 modifier anymore. If you're just going to bump up the ship hp and then give it something that will let it get hurt easier, then just keep the HP at 10 and pick 1 from the 2 you're proposing. I'd rather just have 2 disadvantages for the Invincible at this point rather than give it 3.

FP12 is not enough for a battleship equivalent - the Retribution suffered from this, which is why it was bumped to FP18@45. Instead of that, the proposal is FP15@60. As a Battlecruiser it will need the range more.

The difference of which is 2 dice in the "Closing" and "Moving Away" profile and only 1 dice in the "Abeam" profile. Which I feel would affect the modified Retribution as the Invincible is cheaper, it can shoot farther and is faster. The only disadvantage of the Invincible would be the lower shields and the crits. Nope, don't think it should be that way.

[RCgothic]

The Retribution is significantly tougher, AND outguns it, AND has more torps. The whole POINT of a battlecruiser is that it matches a battleship for firepower. The fact Retribution DOES outgun Invincible is already a concession. Where Retribution makes its points back is in ability to take punishment and to be in the centre of the enemy fleet using both broadsides, whereas Invincible's damage rules significantly disincentivise putting it in the same situation and thus prevent it being able to do likewise. The points value of Invincible is also open to negotiation. Also, a BB model without all its weapons hardpoints would look ridiculous.

I strongly, STRONGLY feel that it should have 12 hits. 5+ and +1 modifier crits are simple and effective at getting across the lack of toughness. There's precedent for adding a couple of fluffy special rules. There's no precedent for a model having fewer than standard hits for a model already established to have .

Plaxor: Emailing you my comments now.