List of flawed ships

[Plaxor]

Oh and comparison to the Executor converting 1 lance into 3 wbs puts it at 18wbs per side.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Oh and comparison to the Executor converting 1 lance into 3 wbs puts it at 18wbs per side.

Not necessarily. Depends on what range you are using for reference.

[horizon]

Horizon, would like your comment on:

Retaliator changed to 6 LBs and 45cm guns
No 6 LB.

Infidel with two turrets
Yes.

Idolator with new fangled fraal tech
Should get LFR lance, nothing else

GC upgrade options
Only the torpedo option, nothing else.

Apocalypse Str9 dorsal wbs and critical to port/starboard weapons rather than engines
Str9 dorsal wb = ok. Critical hit remains Thrusters/Engines.

Armageddon dropping by 10 points
Fine

Overlord dropping by 10 points
Fine or WB @ str12 @ 45cm.

Defiant torps to 4
No.

Firestorm lance to 45
Already mentioned: Big No.

Falchion turrets to 2
Fine

Hey, in the fleet list in Armada (Bastion) the Avenger is listed as 200pts! Not 220 as the profile says. Is this in the faq? Since 200 is better.

With +/- on the ship it should cost 170. But the fluff says squadrons of Avengers are uses (two or three squadrons!). I can see why from doctrine.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Still expensive at 200 for the current stats. Making the range 45 cm would be ideal or putting a 6+ prow onto it and costing it at 200. That way, it can be the linebreaker it was meant to be.

Of course at 200 points for the Avenger, poor Dictator.

On another note though, it would mean my 200 point Gothic BC would be more acceptable. Having a BC cheaper than the most expensive cruiser in the same faction is something that bothers me.

[Sigoroth]

GCs:
Yup, the refits sound interesting. Don't think they should get BCs, and the Dorsal WBs should come down to cruiser level, not BB level. FP6.

Yeah, the BCs were just thrown in to give more options. I don't think it's OTT though. As for the dorsal WBs, well, I like the idea of a CG, particularly one like this, sacrificing range for firepower. So this isn't really BB level weaponry, because on a BB the WBs would be 60cm range.

Avenger: Still very much against FP20. With the Lance refit, it would nearly outgun a Retribution, and it shouldn't have that level of firepower. I'd be willing to concede FP16@45cm and a +5cm speed boost.

Hmm, you know that this is more powerful than 20WB@30cm right? I had a set of stats based on Admiral d'Artagnan's Governor class model. I called it the Warspite class, and it was a beast in terms of firpower. However, its combination of soft nose, mediocre speed and low range means it was balanced. Think of a slow Slaughter. This is what you have with a 20WB Avenger.

Oberon: The wasted off-side firepower and reduced LBs (and premium thereof), means at least 20pts less than an Emperor. Then again, it would have the best 60cm gunnery of any IN BB (bar the Apocalypse on Lock On)

Apocalypse: I'm going to have to insist that if the Apocalypse gets FP9 WBs (Which it should, as a gunship), then they should be 45cm. It can't be allowed to compete with the Oberon at 60cm. 60cm Lances are good enough. I'd also like to strongly advocate swapping the Thrusters Critical for a WB Offline critical on the side that fires. You know it makes sense.

OK, I think that at this point we should review what's really going on here. Let's compare the Oberon with the Apocalypse. For the moment let's ignore the +1 turret/leadership vs 6+ prow/NC and move onto the armament. Let's also assume a successful LO and make the comparison in the 45-60cm range band. Now let's establish an equivalency of 1 lance = 4.5WBs in this range band (see Murder/Carnage comparison).

OK, at 60cm, with current rules, the Apocalypse gets 6 x 4.5 + 6 = 33WBe. The Oberon gets 2 x 4.5 + 16 = 25WBe. So under the current rules the Apocalypse already dominates the (proper) Oberon at 60cm. Yet the Oberon is still a more attractive ship. Increasing the dorsal WBs by 3 would do little to change the appeal of the Oberon, though perhaps it would increase the Apocalypses appeal in general.

Consider 9WB@45cm instead of the current 6WB@60cm. Now the Apocalypse would only beat the Oberon 27WBe to 25WBe in the 45-60cm range band, which would reduce the appeal of the Apocalypse further.

So one must ask, "if the Apocalypse current soundly thrashes the Oberon as a long range weapons platform then why is the Oberon preferred?". To which the answer is that the Oberon is a carrier. So it adds 4 AC to its total firepower, bring its firepower up to 37WBe at long range, for which the +1 LD acts synergistically as opposed the competitive nature of the Apoc's NC. On top of which it's a cheaper ship and reduces the number of carriers you have to take, meaning you can take a gunship in its place AND it doesn't completely fall over if it fails its special order test (like the Apoc does) and doesn't suffer a crit from shooting.

When the Apoc fires it's broadsides it suffers a penalty. If it fails to LO it'll fall short and miss, if it passes it can shoot but takes a crit. The Apoc is more expensive. It has broadsides and can close, but wants to use its long range lances and doesn't have the speed to close. So there's no balance reason the Apoc shouldn't get 9WB@60cm compared to the Oberon.

But you say that the Apocalypse shouldn't be able to compete with the Oberon in this range bracket (even though it currently does and still would be able to if the dorsal range was dropped to 45cm at any strength). Why shouldn't it? It's a pure gunship (expensive and with downsides), whereas the Oberon is a hybrid. Why shouldn't the pure be able to do what it does better than the Oberon? I don't see a role conflict.

So is there a reason why there shouldn't be a 9WB@60cm dorsal armament? Well, the alternative BB level lance weapon is of equivalent value at 30cm or less and gains +50% effectiveness at higher ranges. Soooo the WB is pure loss in this comparison. So no, no reason.

OK, finally, what about balance against the upgunned Ret. Well, both have equivalent profiles (9 torps vs NC is about right) with the exception that the Ret has extra speed, allowing it to close. Hmm, the Apoc potentially has longer range, but then again, potentially has shorter range (I'd prefer to keep the 30cm/60cm rule). So the range itself isn't an issue, particularly when you view the 60cm potential as a
balance against the loss of speed (and further loss of speed if you manage to do it).

So now it becomes a strength calculation. Apoc has 6 x 4.5 + 9 (proposed) = 36WBe, the upgunned Ret has 18 + 3 x 4.5 = 31.5 WBe. The Ret is cheaper and more likely to get to use both broadsides and more likely to close to 30cm where the WBs of the Ret come good (being now equivalent of the lances of the Apoc) but since the Apoc is still at range its dorsal weaponry is not as good as that of the Ret.

Without increasing the Apocs dorsal WBs while leaving them at 60cm range there's no reason to take it over the cheaper Ret.

Defiant: Horizon's profile just makes the most sense. It doesn't combine with the torps into a Dauntless prow armament, and it avoids LB upgrades, and keeps its role as 'Light Cruiser of the Line'.

I might agree, if I could be bothered traulling through this thread to find his proposed stats. What were they again?

[Sigoroth]

The Emperor for 35 (30 with the assault boats) points less than a despoiler gains +1ld (great on a fleet carrier), +6wbs capable of firing in an arc.

Yes, but the Despoiler is flawed. Firstly there's the model/profile incongruity, and then secondly there's the Despoiler/Devastation comparison. As you note the Emperor compares well with alternative CVs. The Despoiler does not. Proposals have been to improve IN alternative CVs and to nerf the Dev somewhat. This reduces the ordnance disparity between IN and Chaos somewhat, reducing the need for the Emperor.

Fixing the Despoilers profile sees it as being faster (and hence more manoeuvrable) and considerably more powerful as a support gunship (23.5WBe@60cm vs 16WB@60cm). Also has more offside firepower, not that this will be worth a tremendous amount, but since it's faster it might come into play.

[Sigoroth]

Avenger:
But the three are line breakers, Repulsive, Avenger and Retribution.

Repulsive gets FP28 WBs and FP9 WBe lances for 37WBe in a line breaking position.
Retribution gets FP36 WBs and FP9 WBe lances for 45WBe in a line breaking position.
Avenger currently gets FP32WBe in a line breaking position. OK, slightly less than a repulsive, but it's cheaper. The big difference is the Repulsive can fire forwards.
Avenger as proposed gets FP40WBs whilst line breaking, with options for WBe 46 or even WBe 49!

That's very definitely battleship level firepower, and grand cruisers are not battleships.

There is nothing wrong with a CG that has more hardpoints than a battleship having BB levels of firepower at shorter range.

You compare the Avenger to the Repulsive and the Retribution, as you suggest that all these ships want to break the line, whereas an Avenger will go abeam. Firstly, breaking the line is hard. The Avenger is able to do what it does at longer range, earlier and in a more defensive aspect. Therefore the only benefit from the Avenger would come if it did manage to break the line.

On the other hand, both the Ret and Rep have 45cm range, so if they need to they can go abeam and take longer ranged shots. They have alternatives, the Avenger does not. An important point that I'll come back to later regarding the Rep.

The Repulsive and Retribution both have torpedoes which are fantastic weapons to use while closing in a line-breaking role. You have not calculated this firepower in your comparison. That adds 9WBe to the Rep and 13.5WBe to the Ret. Very good weapon, very useful in line-breaking role, Avenger has no alternative role, therefore this should very definately be factored in. According to my proposed refits and also according to the HAs current suggestion, the Avenger would be able to equal the Rep in this regard by taking torps but this would cost points and would exclude the Avenger from taking dorsal weaponry.

So total firepower of Avenger = 20+20+9 = 49WBs. Ret = 18+18+9+13.5 = 58.5WBe. Rep = 14+14+9+9 = 46WBe.

Now don't forget that the Retribution has 6+ prow armour. Quite apart from the extra shield, turret and hits greatly increases its survivability because a line-breaker has to come prow on. So not only does the Ret win in shields, turrets, hits, total firepower and versatility but also the prow armour dramatically increases its survivability, greatly reducing the likelihood it will be forced to brace (halving firepower) and increasing the likelihood it can LO or RO. Far far far better ship.

The Repulsive doesn't have the prow armour, but due to its range advantage it can take a more circumspect approach and still contribute significant fire at medium range, providing an abeam target to the majority of the enemy fleet. Increased survivability and damage.

Yes, the Avenger could purchase the 6+ prow making it far more likely to be successful in its one and only role, but that would drop its total potential firepower to 40, which is less than either the Rep or Ret.

Oberon/Apoc:
The Oberon is conflicted because it wants to lock on and reload. It also wants to be in the middle of an enemy fleet but can't get there.
The Apoc has broadsides as powerful as the new Retribution. It does not want to be wasting the off side. It also has a nova cannon, which it can keep firing up to 30cm so long as the prow is towards the enemy. Therefore line breaker. It doesn't need WBs to support its advance, because it has a Nova Cannon. Its ability to go abeam at long range is a bonus.

The Oberon is a long-range gun platform, with AC support, as opposed to the Emperor, which is a long-range carrier platform with gun support. The Oberon is therefore more vulnerable to comparisons with the pure gunships that the Emperor, and it comes off badly except at the longest range. The only thing the Oberon has over the Apoc is an ability to fire at 60cm without restriction. When the Apoc chooses to fire at 60cm, even without WBs it can match the Oberon in damage output. The 45cm dorsal just gives the Oberon that slight extra edge, in that the Apoc must expend a SO to match it at range, rather than have the WBs naturally reach out that far.

The Apocalypse is conflicted because it wants to close but can't and wants to fire at long range but it hurts. It's also expensive and a pure gunship. Not a hybrid. Consequences of failing the LO test can mean the target is not in range, therefore you lose 6 lances of firepower that turn.

[Sigoroth]

Apocalypse -  Dorsal WBs increased to str 9. Broadside lance range extended to 60cm and special rule changed. Special rule:

The power requirements of the Apocalypse's multiple lance banks is enormous and firing them often requires redirecting vast amounts of energy from engine and shield reserves. If firing at greater than 30cm range with the broadside lances place a single blast marker directly behind the Apocalypse in base contact.

How's that? No blow outs so no crit at all so no weapons or engines taken off-line, no LO requirement and it automatically "repairs" next turn, ie, the energy recharges. So you've basically got a 4 shield 15cm ship with 30cm range or a 3 shield, 10cm ship (no further BM reductions) with 60cm range.

[horizon]

Lovely Apocalypse idea! I am not opposed the critical thrusters hit but your idea is quite elegant.

I might agree, if I could be bothered traulling through this thread to find his proposed stats. What were they again?

Defiant
hits 6
speed 20
turns 90
armour 6+/5+
turrets 2
shields 1

prow torps str.2
prow battery str2 (30cm lfr)
port launch bay str1
starboard launch bay str1
dorsal battery str2 (30cm lfr)

[RCgothic]

Apocalypse -  Dorsal WBs increased to str 9. Broadside lance range extended to 60cm and special rule changed. Special rule:

The power requirements of the Apocalypse's multiple lance banks is enormous and firing them often requires redirecting vast amounts of energy from engine and shield reserves. If firing at greater than 30cm range with the broadside lances place a single blast marker directly behind the Apocalypse in base contact.

How's that? No blow outs so no crit at all so no weapons or engines taken off-line, no LO requirement and it automatically "repairs" next turn, ie, the energy recharges. So you've basically got a 4 shield 15cm ship with 30cm range or a 3 shield, 10cm ship (no further BM reductions) with 60cm range.

That's a fantastic idea! Does it become two blast markers if firing out both sides?

[Plaxor]

All right, updated the first post. Remember to check what changes have already been approved before commenting. Thanks Horizon for your comments. Sigoroth, couldn't have described the Avenger situation better myself.

Anyways, I have updated the first post to show people against the decision in red. People in orange will accept either or. In order for a change to go through, there must be five more people agreeing with the change than disagreeing. I.E. if there were 3 people in dissagreance, then there would need to be 8 who vouched for the change. Often we have gotten by on a few sixes this way.

[horizon]

Per hindsight: drop 10pts on Overlord is good. The ship is restricted.

[Plaxor]

Admiral_D_Artagnan please tell me if you are for or against each change. You can pick multiples from the same one, although not all will necessarily go through.
   
Acheron lances range
Infidels 2 turrets proposition
Iconoclast -5 points
Idolator Fraal tech revision
LFR lance on the Idolator
GC Upgrades
Retribution Increase in cost to 355
Apocalypse Port/Starboard critical instead of thrusters
Apocalypse blast marker instead of critical
Dorsal fp to 9 on apocalypse
Avenger Dropping cost
Avenger at fp20
Avenger at rng 45
Avenger +5 speed
Overlord dropping by 10 points (This is after the change we already made, making its wbs 12@45cm) and adding a 60cm range option (fp10@60) free swap.
Using horizons profile on the defiant
4 torps on defiant
Firestorms 45cm range lance

RCgothic;

New Fraal tech on Idolator, LFR lance on Idolator
Dorsal weapons on Apocalypse to 9
+5 speed on Avenger

Sigoroth:

Iconoclast -5 points
Idolator LFR lance
Avenger Increase speed
Avenger 45cm range
Avenger Reduce cost
Defiant (use horizons profile)
Firestorms: lance to 45cm

[Plaxor]

Baron Please vote on the following:

Chaos:
Acheron: Increase lances to 60cm @+10 pts
Retaliator: 3LB per side
Infidel: Give two turrets
Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech, LFR lance

Apocalypse: Shooting at 60cm causes WB Offline critical to side that fires instead of Thrusters Critical, Dorsal WBs to FP9, Blast marker instead of critical
Avenger: Drop Cost, FP 20
Defiant:Use Horizon's Profile

[Sigoroth]

Sigoroth:

Iconoclast -5 points --YES--
Idolator LFR lance --NO--
Avenger Increase speed --NO--
Avenger 45cm range --NO--
Avenger Reduce cost --YES (in addition to WB increase)--
Defiant (use horizons profile) --NO .... idea what it was--
Firestorms: lance to 45cm --NO--

That's a fantastic idea! Does it become two blast markers if firing out both sides?

Nup.