List of flawed ships

[Vaaish]

I would not like the see the emperor go up in price. If the point is most IN carriers are overpriced why raise the price on the empy and then say the others are fine for their points?

[Sigoroth]

IMPERIAL NAVY

Ships not to touch:

Lunar
Gothic
Dominator
Emperor
Dauntless
Cobra
Sword

These ships are the core of the IN fleet and trying to nerf these ships would simply make the IN uncompetitive.

Ships to have at:

Dictator - nice design, just too costly compared to other fleets. IN aren't supposed to be encouraged to spam AC but they shouldn't be so harshly punished either. Drop it by 10 pts.

Tyrant - Increase cost to 190 pts, set range to 45cm. This ship is pointless without the range upgrade and there's no way it's worth 195 pts. It's not worth 190 pts, but that's the "premium" for range for you. I still wouldn't take it.

Voss CLs - just add 6+ prow to original profiles of End/End, delete Defiant.

Battlecruisers - Drop cost across the board by 10 pts. All the IN CBs are extremely weak, in terms of cost/benefit ratio. Mars/Armageddon are nice ships, but way way too expensive. A 10 pt drop will make them more tolerable, though still expensive.

Overlord - as well as the above mentioned price drop, increase firepower to 12 at 45cm. Maybe include a 5-10 pt option to go to 10WB at 60cm.

Oberon - restore its range and put its price again 10 pts less than the Emperor. This ship was never broken compared to the Emperor.

Apocalypse - the weakness of dorsal WBs compared to lances really annoys me. Not only do lances outperform WBs over 30cm but 1 lance is the equivalent of 3 WBs even when at 30cm or less. So why do lance equipped vessels get a +50% firepower increase on top of this advantage? Increase dorsal WBs to 9 (people countering with the notion that lance armed ships should be decreased instead be warned; I have counter-arguments to this position).

Retribution - duh, 18WB@45cm broadsides. Potentially a cost increase of 10+ pts.

Firestorm - crappy escort, confused roles, fixed arc weaponry, drop by 5 pts.

Falchion - could stand to go to 2 turrets, but really no change is necessary. I did not include this in the above list of untouchables because it isn't really a core element of the IN fleet, though I do like it.

Vengeance series CGs - Avenger needs a boost of some kind, Vengeance is OK, Exorcist is OK, but it would be reasonable to push it to 6AC with commensurate cost increase.

Biggest issue with these ships is the missing armour and weaponry. I would recommend a table of refit options for these CGs and allow upto 1 refit to be taken per CG, with maybe a caveat that no two CGs can have the same refit (as various attempts were made to make them viable these refits were considered failures and never standardised, blah blah). One such refit might be a 6+ prow OR torpedoes OR some dorsal WBs (range/strength trade-off variations perhaps) OR a NC. The base ships themselves could be balanced with the options costing over the odds.

[Plaxor]

The only ones on your untouchable list are the Emperor and Dominator considered for changes. The Emperor considered due to its massively imposing 'take me' compared to other carriers and even gunboats in the list. Although I could see it left alone in favor of changing the other carriers.

The dominator is only up for change in competition with the tyrant. It's been thought as a better method than reducing the Tyrants cost. The dominator is probably rightly costed, but 5pts is something that wouldn't kill it.

I think the Tyrants basic stats shouldn't change, yes pretty much everyone takes the upped version, but the option shouldn't be removed. It is much like the dominators choice for decreased cost/altered wbs.

[Sigoroth]

CHAOS WARFLEET

Ships not to touch:

Slaughter
Carnage
Murder
Hades
Repulsive (beyond what has already been FAQ'd)
Desolator
Infidel

Again, these are core ships and there's no need to mess with them at all.

Ships to have at:

Devastation - also a core ship, but just really quite strong compared to its IN analogue. Also strong compared to Chaos alternatives, with some usurpation of the Styx' role and devaluation of the Acheron's xeno-tech enhanced broadsides. Drop range to 45cm, demarcating this ship from both the Acheron and the Styx, improving internal balance and, in conjunction with the IN CV price decrease, greatly increasing external balance.

Idolator & Iconoclast - both these ships are too expensive. Like the Firestorm the Idolator suffers from a lack of role focus. The Iconoclast is a Cobra but swaps 2 torps for 2 WBs. Not a good trade. Note: even though I put the Infidel in the "don't touch" basket, it's not terribly strong. If it had 2 turrets it would certainly be worth its points, but the Cobra is a better ship for its cost. Still, it doesn't need any change.

Acheron - No change needed. This ship is certainly an odd duck but if the Dev comes down in range it certainly becomes more palatable. If I were to make one change to this ship it would be to increase the dorsal range to 60cm (+10 pts). This isn't in an attempt to usurp the role of the Hades, merely out of a desire to attain some sort of consistency. Hell, it could've dropped the broadside range to 45cm added some WBs or something and then increased the dorsal range to 60cm (ie, sort of like a lance variant Murder being upgraded to a Hades). Since it has gone for the the 60cm broadsides one would assume that the only reason to do this would be in addition to the dorsal lance range, rather than at its expense. Still, no change needed, just one of those niggling inconsistencies.

Styx - Drop cost to 260. It's still expensive at that price.

Vengeance series CGs - Vengeance and Executor are fine, Retaliator definitely needs some work. Increasing to 6AC seems a good start. Again, like their IN counterparts a refit table might be a nice addition, with the same caveat.

Despoiler - this model really needs to have its profile changed to match. I myself have done a conversion of one "closing" the prow bays and by simply replacing 1 WB hardpoint with a launch bay hardpoint this model matches the profile and it becomes fine (though perhaps a touch expensive). I have also done a conversion swapping the prow with a Repulsive prow and with the WB/launch bay swap this could represent the torp version of the current profile.

However, in the absence of such conversions it should have 4AC in the prow, instead of lances. Likewise, the broadside launch bays should be only 2 AC each, not 4 (there's only 1 bay on each side!) and the WBs should be upgraded to at least 10WB at 60cm. Strength 6 is unacceptable for 2 hardpoints. In this iteration I would drop the torp option, as there's no torp launchers on the model and the trade-off (lances) are no longer there.

Despoiler-based Power flagships - these should be adjusted accordingly.

Planet Killer - fine.

ABSF - a note giving rules for inclusion would be nice.

[Sigoroth]

The only ones on your untouchable list are the Emperor and Dominator considered for changes. The Emperor considered due to its massively imposing 'take me' compared to other carriers and even gunboats in the list. Although I could see it left alone in favor of changing the other carriers.

The IN have a hard time with ordnance, with the Emperor being such a take me because they desperately need some way of redressing the balance. Without this option then IN would just be boned against AC and become less competitive. The ability to take defensive AC in the form of their cruisers (which surely is the point of their inclusion) would then make the other BB options more palatable to an IN player and would also make the Emp an offensive AC platform (since it's the only ship capable of taking more than 4 AC in the IN fleet) rather than just a way of maintaining parity. Therefore this promotes diversity according to player desire (either guns or AC).

The dominator is only up for change in competition with the tyrant. It's been thought as a better method than reducing the Tyrants cost. The dominator is probably rightly costed, but 5pts is something that wouldn't kill it.

The Dom should not be compared to the Tyrant. The Dom has a NC. The closest analogue of the Tyrant among the IN CAs is the Lunar. Among the CBs the closest analogue is the Armageddon.

Even if we were to compare it to the Dominator I see absolutely no reason to nerf a balanced vessel in a doomed attempt to make a rubbish ship more attractive. That is what we're talking about here, a rubbish ship. Not only is it unbalanced in terms of pure cost, it's a conflicted design. Paying a premium for longer range makes no sense on a line-breaker, particularly when sacrificing firepower to do so and even more so when it's on weapons that attenuate with range.

I think the Tyrants basic stats shouldn't change, yes pretty much everyone takes the upped version, but the option shouldn't be removed. It is much like the dominators choice for decreased cost/altered wbs.

Of course the basic stats should change. Its base profile is utterly pointless. Utterly. Though you are right that it's like the Dominators choice for decreased WBs. This is also utterly pointless. Ditch this one too.

[Vaaish]

I disagree with the tyrant being utterly pointless. In a Gothic list, yes there isn't much need to take it since lunars and dom/gothics can do it all better. In an armageddon or solar list they do have use where dominators aren't available except via reserve. They are particularly helpful with armageddons where I've used them to good effect either squadroned with the cb or on their own. They provide the IN a way to build a fleet based around longer range shooting if you'd rather go that route. Once you switch to admech they again have some utility.

[Sigoroth]

I disagree with the tyrant being utterly pointless. In a Gothic list, yes there isn't much need to take it since lunars and dom/gothics can do it all better. In an armageddon or solar list they do have use where dominators aren't available except via reserve. They are particularly helpful with armageddons where I've used them to good effect either squadroned with the cb or on their own. They provide the IN a way to build a fleet based around longer range shooting if you'd rather go that route. Once you switch to admech they again have some utility.

No matter which way you look at it the Tyrant is a rubbish ship. Also the reserve limitation on the Dom in the Armageddon fleet is not much of a concern really. Lunar, Dom, Geddon, Geddon, Gothic, Dom, Geddon, Geddon, etc.

Anyway, whatever limited use you may be able to find out of a range upgraded Tyrant, that is not the profile I was calling utterly useless. The base Tyrant profile is utterly useless. 6WB@30cmL+R & 4WB@45cmL+R for 185 pts.

[BaronIveagh]

Exorcist should also increase the LB stat. WBs are ok.

Why is it when you say it, no one argues, but when I say it, Horizon tells me I'm out of my mind?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Depends on what you present. If you present something which is logical and makes sense, I'd back you up.

Personally, I think all the GC carriers should get Str 3 LBs per broadside and up the cost. They are much bigger than the Styx even packed with weapons.

[BaronIveagh]

Depends on what you present. If you present something which is logical and makes sense, I'd back you up.

Personally, I think all the GC carriers should get Str 3 LBs per broadside and up the cost. They are much bigger than the Styx even packed with weapons.

In a nutshell, mine was to make it more appealing compared to Mars (since most of the time, players seem to favor it over the Exorcist) and that it wasn't WYSIWYG.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

In a nutshell, mine was to make it more appealing compared to Mars (since most of the time, players seem to favor it over the Exorcist) and that it wasn't WYSIWYG.

You increase the LB strength and you have to increase the points. Maybe you had not proposed the price increase?

Mind you I'm not one of those who like the Mars over the Exorcist. I prefer the Exorcist personally. Mars is just too expensive to take. People like to take it for a flagship but I prefer my flagship's a little more durable. Also if I wanted NCs then I would go Dominator. Since I can't take one with the Exorcist, I would take an upgraded Lunar which still comes out cheaper than the Mars. For the Gothic list, for a flagship, I would most likely go with the Emperor.

[horizon]

BaronI did do the same as you but I did not post to argue, I just gave my list.

And I still am not convinced for a change on the Excorsist, not by B_I, Sig, or A_A.

[BaronIveagh]

In a nutshell, mine was to make it more appealing compared to Mars (since most of the time, players seem to favor it over the Exorcist) and that it wasn't WYSIWYG.

You increase the LB strength and you have to increase the points. Maybe you had not proposed the price increase?

Mind you I'm not one of those who like the Mars over the Exorcist. I prefer the Exorcist personally. Mars is just too expensive to take. People like to take it for a flagship but I prefer my flagship's a little more durable. Also if I wanted NCs then I would go Dominator. Since I can't take one with the Exorcist, I would take an upgraded Lunar which still comes out cheaper than the Mars. For the Gothic list, for a flagship, I would most likely go with the Emperor.

I think in the course of our debate, I mentioned bringing it to 260-270ish.

[Vaaish]

Anyway, whatever limited use you may be able to find out of a range upgraded Tyrant, that is not the profile I was calling utterly useless. The base Tyrant profile is utterly useless. 6WB@30cmL+R & 4WB@45cmL+R for 185 pts

That i'll agree with, though it wasn't apparent from your post you were referencing that particular version and not all versions of the tyrant. TBH, the non upgraded version needs to just get a footnote in the fluff that all tyrants have been upgraded to 45cm batteries after the success on the zealous and dominion.

[Plaxor]

As far as the Idolator goes, how do people feel about changing its fraal weapon special rule to be like how it is in the Rogue Trader pdf, where you don't get a column shift for shooting over thirty + it counts enemies as closing if within 30?