List of flawed ships

[Plaxor]

Yep. I do agree that it should be in UK English. Although my American word has hatred for adding extra vowels to words (I did type in everything as Armour, Manoeuver etc.) So it auto-corrects.... annoying.

Really centimeter is spelled centimetre? what? I guess that would explain some of my textbooks.

[RCgothic]

Word will auto-correct UK to US or vice versa depending on which language setting you have it set to.

You can change the language setting to English(United Kingdom) by clicking where it says English (United States) on the bottom status bar on the left (next to "Page n of n" and "Words: ###") and selecting "Enlgish (United Kingdom)" from the list.

Alternatively, it's accessable from the menu ribbon "Review" tab, in the "Proofing" box, and the icon is "Set Language".

That should make your job easier.

[Plaxor]

Hrmmm... quick response. I don't know anyone who would know that. What do you do for a living RC?

[RCgothic]

I have a degree in Engineering Science from Oxford University (2:2 - got to university and found out I wasn't the only geek and would rather have a social life than study!) and I currently work as a Design and Development Manager for a consultancy that services one of the UK's largest mobile telephone companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Spelling

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

You do realize that the Retribution, before the decision to make it FP18@45cm, is FP12@60cm? The Retribution at FP18@45 cm won't really outgun the Invincible if the Invincible is at FP15@60cm. As I pointed out the difference is 2 dice in the approach and moving away profile and 1 dice only in the abeam profile.

Also who said anything about not filling up the hardpoints? Look at the pic of the Invincible. ALL it's hardpoints are filled in. The suggestion was to remove the other components like some of the wings such as the one below the bridge and/or the engine shielding.

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.

And I STRONGLY DON'T. I don't want a ship with 3 disadvantages which will then cost almost as much as a Retribution because the weapons will be bumped to FP15 (Smotherman puts it at 342). You're going to spend that much points on one ship that might just blow up the first hit it gets after the shields have been taken down because it rolls a 5+ on a crit and a 10-12 on the crit table? I don't think a battleship should be like that. In this regard, I retract my statement about poor Retribution but only in the sense that no one would ever want to take your iteration of the Invincible if only because it will blow up faster even though it will perform at par with the Retribution.

There is no official precedent yes about ships having less HP on one hull, but experimentally, when this ship came out in the BFG Mag and Annual it broke that precedent so the HA were thinking it was possible.

Again, toughness is a measure of the physical ship itself. Internal structure and armor would be the real life references. Since we are talking about space ships, then shields would be included and these are already lowered. You don't want to touch the armor however as this actually would be the one needing change. Fine. Therefore the HP should also be lower than a typical battleship. Lowering the HP would also justify it getting 25 cm speed. With 12 HP I can't see it happening even with reduced shielding because I think the energy saved won't be enough to add that much speed since the mass because of the structure and armor remain the same as a normal battleship.

However, you want it to have 12 in the expectation that lower shields and penalizing a ship with 2 types of crits would balance it out. I'd rather take HP10 and only 1 crit disadvantage along with the lesser shields. And as I said, I even feel 2 shields were extreme. It should have 3.

Invincible (Smotherman puts this at 315)
Type Battleship
HP 10
Armor 6+/5+
Shields 3
Turrets 4
Speed 25 cm

Armament
Dorsal Lances Str 3@60cm
Port/Starboard WB FP12@60cm
Prow Torps Str 6

Choose penalty from:
1. Roll 2D6 per hit to check for crits or
2. Crits on 5+ instead of 6 or
3. +1 Modifier to crits rolled in the Critical Hits Table.

Tough but not as tough and not easily taken down but still can be one shotted in the right circumstances and something which can be taken and reasonably expect to survive.

[Plaxor]

you know it's funny. Where you wrote that I.E. should be written that way, in the original doc it was written just ie

I thought it might be the way of writing it in your world....

Apparently I had a lot more typos than I thought.

Yes, I would like to make bombers a set number, but the reason for D2's is to make the number about 1.5 rather than any intention of randomizing it. This works out about perfectly for what I would like to see bombers do damage-wise, and allows for FBs to be 1/3 worse at bombing.... (with a set number of 1)

Think of any other way to give them ~1.5 attacks average and you win.

[Plaxor]

Continued thoughts on bombers:

The three complaints about bombers are:

-Too powerful when a fleet is built around them
-Better overall than ABs
-Can't damage Battleships

Which is why a system where the - from turrets doesn't exist is necessary for solving the battleship problem. The other two are solved by making them slightly worse against low turret entities, which by comparison would make assault boats better, as well as making a fleet based around them less effective.

The fourth complaint is about turret suppression not making sense. So ideally if bombers had 1.5 attacks this 'solves' all three problems.

[RCgothic]

You do realize that the Retribution, before the decision to make it FP18@45cm, is FP12@60cm? The Retribution at FP18@45 cm won't really outgun the Invincible if the Invincible is at FP15@60cm. As I pointed out the difference is 2 dice in the approach and moving away profile and 1 dice only in the abeam profile.

And I STRONGLY DON'T. I don't want a ship with 3 disadvantages which will then cost almost as much as a Retribution because the weapons will be bumped to FP15 (Smotherman puts it at 342). You're going to spend that much points on one ship that will might just blow up the first hit it gets after the shields have been taken down because it rolls a 5+ on a crit and a 10-12 on the crit table? I don't think a battleship should be like that. In this regard, I retract my statement about poor Retribution but only in the sense that no one would ever want to take your iteration of the Invincible if only because it will blow up faster even though it will perform at par with the Retribution.

There is no official precedent yes about ships having less HP on one hull, but experimentally, when this ship came out in the BFG Mag and Annual it broke that precedent so the HA were thinking it was possible.

Again, toughness is a measure of the physical ship itself. Internal structure and armor would be the real life references. Since we are talking about space ships, then shields would be included and these are already lowered. You don't want to touch the armor however as this actually would be the one needing change. Fine. Therefore the HP should also be lower than a typical battleship. Lowering the HP would also justify it getting 25 cm speed. With 12 HP I can't see it happening even with reduced shielding because I think the energy saved won't be enough to add that much speed since the mass because of the structure and armor remain the same as a normal battleship.

However, you want it to have 12 in the expectation that lower shields and penalizing a ship with 2 types of crits would balance it out. I'd rather take HP10 and only 1 crit disadvantage along with the lesser shields. And as I said, I even feel 2 shields were extreme. It should have 3.

Invincible (Smotherman puts this at 315)
Type Battleship
HP 10
Armor 6+/5+
Shields 3
Turrets 4
Speed 25 cm

Armament
Dorsal Lances Str 3@60cm
Port/Starboard WB FP12@60cm
Prow Torps Str 6

Choose penalty from:
1. Roll 2D6 per hit to check for crits or
2. Crits on 5+ instead of 6 or
3. +1 Modifier to crits rolled in the Critical Hits Table.

Tough but not as tough and not easily taken down but still can be one shotted in the right circumstances and something which can be taken and reasonably expect to survive.

No.

FP12 is unacceptably low for a true battlecruiser. It SHOULD be of the standard of a Retribution. So what if it's only 1 or 2 dice less? Good!

The smotherman value is off for several reasons:
#1. it significantly over-values R60 over R45. It's a 33% range increase, but a 50% cost increase. That easily accounts for 15pts of difference. It also doesn't account for use - Retribution is going to have a good chance of using that off-side firepower, whilst Invincible's will mostly go to waste. Assuming 50% as much usage of the off-side, that drops Invincible sub-300pts. Now you have the drawbacks on top of that.

Now I'm not advocating that Invincible should be less than 300pts, merely pointing out the limitations of Smotherman. 320pts would be a good starting point for negotiations on its price.

Historical battlecruisers sacrificed protection for their speed, not size or firepower. In BFG, protection is given by shields and armour. The shields are massively reduced. The external armour can't be reduced without it not being an IN vessel, so we reduce the internal armour by applying special rules to represent inadequate bulkheads. Both of these easily cover the reduced mass and increased power required for the additional speed. It should be 12 hits because of its size, and 2 shields and 1 special rule will represent teh increased vulnerability.

Inadequate Bulkheads: The Invincible Class Heavy Battlecruiser was designed without many internal bulkheads in exchange for its speed. This greatly increases its susceptability to critical hits: Critical Hits against an invincible Class Heavy Battlecruiser are normally scored on a 5+ instead of the usual 6+; In addition, all rolls on the critical hit chart gain a +1 modifier.

As for battlecruisers taking a critical hit and blowing up:

HMS Hood took a critical hit and blew up.
HMS Invincible took a critical hit and blew up.
HMS Indefatigable took a critical hit and blew up.
HMS Queen Mary took a critical hit and blew up.
HMS Lion was only saved from a critical hit to Q turret by prompt DC action: a fire spread that would have detonated Q Magazine had it not been immediately flooded.
Only one UK battlecruiser sank from attrition, the Repulse, which was bombed and torpedoed multiple times.

SMS Lutzow was caused to sink by a critical hit that caused flooding.
No other German battlecruisers were sunk.

No Russian/Japanese battlecruisers were sunk (Save Kongo and Haruna, which had been rebuilt as battleships).

So overwhelmingly, battlecruisers were lost to critical hits!

[RCgothic]

On bombers:

D6-2 is infinitely preferable to D2. No other GW game uses D2 that I can think of, and it would be used nowhere other than this mechanic.

Other than that, the only thing I can think of that gets close to 1.5 per bombers a flat 2 attacks that gets halved 50% of the time, though I can't think what that mechanic might be.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

No.

FP12 is unacceptably low for a true battlecruiser. It SHOULD be of the standard of a Retribution. So what if it's only 1 or 2 dice less? Good!

Dude, it's 1 or 2 dice less when they're at equal ranges. The Invincible is firing at ranges beyond the FP18@45cm.

The smotherman value is off for several reasons:
#1. it significantly over-values R60 over R45. It's a 33% range increase, but a 50% cost increase. That easily accounts for 15pts of difference. It also doesn't account for use - Retribution is going to have a good chance of using that off-side firepower, whilst Invincible's will mostly go to waste. Assuming 50% as much usage of the off-side, that drops Invincible sub-300pts. Now you have the drawbacks on top of that.

Smotherman is a good tool to use. Not perfect but it comes close to what the IN ships are currently priced at. And why would the Invincible not use its broadside firepower? Esp if you bring the firepower up to 15?

Historical battlecruisers sacrificed protection for their speed, not size or firepower. In BFG, protection is given by shields and armour. The shields are massively reduced. The external armour can't be reduced without it not being an IN vessel, so we reduce the internal armour by applying special rules to represent inadequate bulkheads. Both of these easily cover the reduced mass and increased power required for the additional speed. It should be 12 hits because of its size, and 2 shields and 1 special rule will represent teh increased vulnerability.

The problem is it's not only 1 special rule, it's 2 (aside from the 2 shields). Crit hits on a 5+ AND a +1 Modifier to the crit roll. Sorry but I don't like it. Even if the battlecruiser is more vulnerable, it should not be that vulnerable. Hey, if you like playing with a ship that blows up easily, be my guest. I don't. The original Invincible crit rules work fine. My crit ideas work just as good. Yours will just gimp the class. People already had problems before with the Apocalypse's crit issue. What more with your crit rules for the Invincible?

Just because British battlecruisers tended to blow up more than their counterparts is no reason to copy another easily explosive vessel into the game. Even the original designers only had the ship crit on a 6+ even if there were more chances to crit and they didn't do it so that the ship would suffer crits 10-12 easily.

[RCgothic]

No.

FP12 is unacceptably low for a true battlecruiser. It SHOULD be of the standard of a Retribution. So what if it's only 1 or 2 dice less? Good!

Dude, it's 1 or 2 dice less when they're at equal ranges. The Invincible is firing at ranges beyond the FP18@45cm.

The smotherman value is off for several reasons:
#1. it significantly over-values R60 over R45. It's a 33% range increase, but a 50% cost increase. That easily accounts for 15pts of difference. It also doesn't account for use - Retribution is going to have a good chance of using that off-side firepower, whilst Invincible's will mostly go to waste. Assuming 50% as much usage of the off-side, that drops Invincible sub-300pts. Now you have the drawbacks on top of that.

Smotherman is a good tool to use. Not perfect but it comes close to what the IN ships are currently priced at. And why would the Invincible not use its broadside firepower? Esp if you bring the firepower up to 15?

Because a Retribution can happily sit in the centre of an enemy fleet, trusting in its 4 shields to protect it, and put its full FP36 to good use. Whilst theoretically Invincible could do the same with its FP30, it wouldn't last long. Therefore Invincible is more likely to stand off, a role where good on-side firepower and range is crucial, and FP12 is not enough and the off-side FP15 is entirely wasted.

And so what if Invincible does match Retribution for firepower in certain situations? (which it doesn't.) That's the whole point of a battlecruiser! The firepower level is non-negotiable if this ship is to be included. It MUST be comparable to the mainline battleships.

It originally did rival the Retribution (indeed outgunned it to the sides), but Retribution upped its game. Invincible needs to up its game also.

The problem is it's not only 1 special rule, it's 2 (aside from the 2 shields). Crit hits on a 5+ AND a +1 Modifier to the crit roll. Sorry but I don't like it. Even if the battlecruiser is more vulnerable, it should not be that vulnerable. Hey, if you like playing with a ship that blows up easily, be my guest. I don't. The original Invincible crit rules work fine. My crit ideas work just as good. Yours will just gimp the class. People already had problems before with the Apocalypse's crit issue. What more with your crit rules for the Invincible?

Oh come on, it's not a complicated rule, so stop pretending that it is. Crits on 5+ with a +1 modifier only requires that you do the same thing as usual but count slightly different results. Rolling 2D6 per hit to see if you get a crit is an actual deviation from how things are usually gone. It takes 37 words to explain 2D6 Crits.
"The invincible class suffers criticals on a D6 roll of 5+ instead of 6+, and all rolls on the Critical Hit Chart have a +1 modifier."
26 words, crystal clear. This is the less complicated rule.

As for which is tougher:
On a 10 hit ship with 2D6 standard crits, you'd expect 1.9 additional hits, assuming half of fire criticals are repaired before they do damage.

On a 12 hit ship with 5+ crits with +1 modifier, you'd expect 3.2 additional hits. So my proposal is still tougher than yours with 2 shields.

You seem to be missing the point of a true battlecruiser.

#1. As big as a battleship. 10 hits are NOT as big as a battleship. 12 hits are.
#2. As powerful as a battleship. FP12/S3L/S6Torps are NOT as strong as a battleship.
#3. Faster than a battleship. At least one area we agree on.
#4. Less well protected than a battleship. Having established #1, we're restricted on hits, whilst external armour is determined by IN Doctrine, so we're left with shields, turrets and special rules.

[RCgothic]

Anyway, on the Victory we have several options:

In terms of role, it can either be:

#1. Cheap crap competing with the Vanquisher. This would leave bakka with 2 rubbish cheap battleships. Whether or not that's a good thing is up for discussion.

#2. Linebreaker/Long Range Support. Essentially a hybrid Retribution/Apocalypse, this would require more firepower, and a change of broadside to distinguish from the Apocalypse. The Retribution is all WBs, The Vanquisher has 1 Lance, 2WB, and the Apocalypse has 3Lance - The gap is at 2Lances and 1WB deck.

#3. Focussed long range support. IN don't currently have a true gunship that fulfils this role. This would keep its weak broadsides, but max out prow/dorsal with F/L/R weaponry to bring a heavier weight of firepower to one side than any other battleship, but be relatively weak on the off-side. This would be expensive, and I think the most unique option.

So, three profiles up for consideration:

Victory CC 300pts
12hits 4shields 15cm 45turns 6+/5+ 4turrets
Prow NC or S9 Torps
P/S Lances S4@60cm L/R
Dorsal WBs FP6@60cm F/L/R
Less firepower than the Vanquisher L/R, but stronger prow.

Victory L/LRS 355pts
12hits 4shields 20cm 45turns 6+/5+ 4turrets
Prow NC or S9 Torps
P/S Lances S4@60cm L/R
P/SB WBs S6@45cm L/R
Dorsal WBs FP9@60cm F/L/R
Hybrid Retribution/Apocalypse. Stronger than Retribution at Range, weaker at close quarters.

Victory FLRS 365pts
12hits 4shields 15/20cm 45turns 5+ 4turrets
Prow WBs FP9@60cm F/L/R
P/S Lances S4@60cm L/R
Dorsal Lances S3@60cm F/L/R
Special Rules: Same as Apoc
Outguns the Apocalypse by 1Le on focus, loses prow weaponry and armour completely and 2Le on off-side.

[Valhallan]

i like profile 2 (the one i came up with  ... though ya added 3WB to the dorsal)

with everyone freakin out over the invincible did anyone consider that a CG is supposed to have ~BB firepower on a slightly-larger-than-cruiser hull? I think we should be comparing the invince' to the veng w/ improved thrusters and/or torps (which of course is in Revised Ships but only 1 upgrade allowed).  and btw I see no problem counting it as a CG... though i do detest CG's with 25cm move...

sample:
10 hits, 25cm, 3 shields, 3 turrets, 45*, 6+/5+
fp 12 at 60
3 dorsal lances at 60
6 prow torps

for about 300.

and finally: from RC...

Word will auto-correct UK to US or vice versa depending on which language setting you have it set to.

You can change the language setting to English(United Kingdom) by clicking where it says English (United States) on the bottom status bar on the left (next to "Page n of n" and "Words: ###") and selecting "Enlgish (United Kingdom)" from the list.

Alternatively, it's accessable from the menu ribbon "Review" tab, in the "Proofing" box, and the icon is "Set Language".

That should make your job easier.

why the hell didn't anyone tell me that when i spent a week of my time editing and revising all of roy's distant darkness, art of command, etc.?
plax. i'll look over your rules, and send you a copy too. red means edits. red and striked out means get rid of it.

[RCgothic]

with everyone freakin out over the invincible

Mostly just A d'A, but feel free to join in.

did anyone consider that a CG is supposed to have ~BB firepower on a slightly-larger-than-cruiser hull?

Thought about, and dismissed. Battlecruisers are battleship sized. That's why they're often mistakenly used in battleship roles, such as at the Battle of the Denmark Straight or the Battle of Jutland.

I think we should be comparing the invince' to the veng w/ improved thrusters and/or torps (which of course is in Revised Ships but only 1 upgrade allowed).  and btw I see no problem counting it as a CG... though i do detest CG's with 25cm move...

sample:
10 hits, 25cm, 3 shields, 3 turrets, 45*, 6+/5+
fp 12 at 60
3 dorsal lances at 60
6 prow torps

for about 300.

Apart from not looking like a battleship, nor being armed like a battleship, the problem with using a CG is that there's no possible model that fits that profile. The Vengeance series have 4HP L/R, and none on the dorsal or prow, nor do they look like they have 6+ prows. The Chaos Repulsive Class might make a good base, but it looks distinctly Chaosy and would take a good bit of conversion not to.

Battlecruisers are the same size as battleships. Therefore 12 hits. Battlecruisers have the same armament as battleships. Therefore equivalent firepower to the Retribution. Battlecruisers are faster than battleships, therefore 25cm speed. BFG's armour system doesn't give us enough play to adequately represent battlecruiser level armour, so what are we left to play with?

Shields, Turrets, and some flavourful special rules.

I don't see these points as negotiable. It's simply what you're left with if you want an effective battlecruiser.
The bits that are negotiable are: The exact armament, so long as it is comparable to the Fixed Retribution; the final points value.

[RCgothic]

Of course, given all this IN love, are there some battleship variants Chaos could have?

Perhaps a Desecrator?