List of flawed ships

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I know where I stand in those options.

I still think people need to take a step back and look at the Defiant and figure out what the role for the ship is. People are thinking about it as a linebreaker because it's siblings are linebreakers when clearly it is not. And because of the idea that it is a linebreaker then it should have firepower comparable to its siblings.

I'm more of the opinion that it is a support ship, providing fighter support mainly to the line but does not have to be in the line itself. Staying in the rear a bit bet the main fleet and the enemy fleet and looking for opportunity targets to engage.

[BaronIveagh]

I know where I stand in those options.

I still think people need to take a step back and look at the Defiant and figure out what the role for the ship is. People are thinking about it as a linebreaker because it's siblings are linebreakers when clearly it is not. And because of the idea that it is a linebreaker then it should have firepower comparable to its siblings.

I'm more of the opinion that it is a support ship, providing fighter support mainly to the line but does not have to be in the line itself. Staying in the rear a bit bet the main fleet and the enemy fleet and looking for opportunity targets to engage.

I'm totally in agreement with this statement.  And I don't see what the problem is giving it 4lbs is, as the HA has already given us a semi-IN fleet list that lets us take all the LBs we want at 60 points per 2.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

It's giving IN access to 4 LBs for the cost of 130 points. You still can't see that? Even if you bump it to 150, it's still 4 LBs.

[BaronIveagh]

And?  In the RT list they give it for 120.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

That's RT. Do the RTs have nearly as much access to quality ships like what IN has?

And what about IN not being an AC fleet do you not understand? IN is a torp fleet.

[BaronIveagh]

That's RT. Do the RTs have nearly as much access to quality ships like what IN has?

And what about IN not being an AC fleet do you not understand? IN is a torp fleet.

Technically, RT has access to anything that's not necrons, nids, or orks.  But that aside:

IN (Arma) as an AC fleet

2 dicts, 1 Emp, 3 sc

Sharks, torp bombers, 1 FA, 1 rr.

Thats: 22 AC though the thawks and torp bombers will make it more effective then it would otherwise be at that number.

Does that make them Tau, no.  But I would say that's a pretty effective AC fleet there.

[Plaxor]

The escort carrier is crap. A Defiant with 4 ordinance... not crap. There seems to be a problem here.

[BaronIveagh]

The escort carrier is crap. A Defiant with 4 ordinance... not crap. There seems to be a problem here.

A defiant with 4 torps = crap.  a defiant with 4ac = not crap.

Last I checked, the point was to make it not crap.  And limited at 1 to 500, not overly imbalanced, as Horizon's nightmare 20 ac for 800 points scenario becomes impossible.  

[Plaxor]

Hmmm... perhaps 1 defiant and/or 1 Endurance per 500?

[Plaxor]

All right, since we are at 1/3 remaining for imperial/chaos optional changes we will now expand our changes further to include all the IN and Chaos fleet lists, noting any changes there (Doubtful if any)

Additionally fleet commanders, and Daemonships, marks of chaos Etc. If anyone thinks there needs to be changes. Oh Blackstone fortresses as well/Really any IN/Chaos planetary defenses.

After we get through these then SMs and both Eldar fleets (Probably monday or tuesday)

[BaronIveagh]

Hmmm... perhaps 1 defiant and/or 1 Endurance per 500?

I think that's the new limit for them rather then the old limit based on the number of Endeavours, IIRC.  A lot of the chest beating against seems to avoid the fact that they're still limited in number, an so should be powerful to offset this.

I'm actually surprised by the amount of resistance to the idea of IN as a viable AC fleet.  The idea that a fleet must be limited so that it overwhelmingly favors a particular play style makes for very boring and predictable games.

[RCgothic]

It's 2 per 500pts. Which is not very limited at all.

With 4AC it would become the carrier of choice, beating out all other options. Why buy a dictator when you could get the same AC for 80pts less? It would also allow AC spam on a scale the IN has never before been capable of. 6 Defiants, an Emperor and a Dictator for under 1500pts, or 36AC, an increase to 150% of the current maximum at those points.

Even with a more severe limitation, 1 per 500pts, it would make no sense to take any other carrier until you'd maxed out on Defiants. You'd have broken the ship in the opposite direction. This is why it could never be AC4.

Now Admiral d'A would like to give it S3 forward facing Lances or S6 Torps, armour5+ and 25cm speed - that's not a Voss, that's a Carrier Dauntless. I'm not averse to such a thing. I'll even propose one:

Furious Class Light Cruiser 130pts
Cruiser 6
Speed25
Turns 90'
Armour5+
Shields 1
Turrets 1

Port/SB LBs S2 Total
Prow Lance S3 30cm F

Special Rules:
+D6 AAF
Prow Lance may be exchanged for S6 Torps.

There. Now that's out of the way, we can return to what to do with the Voss pattern carrier. It has neither the speed, range or power to strike from afar, and will do best hidden amongst the ships of the line, mainly providing CAP, as its bombers are otherwise only good for attacking cripples.

In this role it lacks two things: firepower and incentive to reload. It is not more important to reload 2AC than it is to lock on your 45Gun Battleship or to CTNH with an entire escort squadron. Giving the Defiant Torps will help with this a little. As for other weaponry, after the torps the Defiant would be at max capacity with 1 prow lance or 3 WB, which isn't enough, so it requires dorsal weaponry as well. We want to add to its weight of broadside and not to overpower the prow, so L/R arc would be sufficient.

The new Defiant would therefore have weaponry in the range:

Prow:
2-3WB or 1 Lance 30cm F/L/R

Dorsal:
2-3WB or 1 Lance 30cm F/L/R
2-4WB 30cm L/R

Personally, I don't think it would be overpowered picking the upper end of those ranges, but Horizon's profile has conservatively gone low end.

[Sigoroth]

And what's wrong with deleting the ship? The Dauntless variant you proposed is much more in keeping with what's being proposed.

Assuming that you absolutely must take a line support CVL then the inescapable conclusion for this ship, since it's not allowed to have 4 AC, is that it would only be used as a direct support ship. In which case forming a squadron with a Dictator or, if given torps, another cruiser would certainly put it up there in the priority list to reload. I see nothing wrong with it having to form a squadron with another ship to get this priority.

Give it the same prow armament as the other 2 variants, cost it at 100 pts, give it a limitation of 1/750 or thereabouts (remove the Endurance limitation altogether) and call it quits. If in squadron with a Dictator it brings it up to around CG level firepower (6AC, 8 torps, 14WB) and better survivability (more hits total and 6+ prow). It would get reloaded with the Dictator and if you need to brace then it's not so bad as forming a squadron with another ship, since it's only an extra bit of firepower that gets halved. Also, if you're near a crippled/destroyed threshold with the Dictator you can push the CVL forward to take the next attack. When joining a non-carrier obviously its main role would be to simply provide offensive or defensive fighters and adding a little to the main broadside attack and torps.

I can't see any other use for this ship even if it were given dorsal weapons. Therefore there's no issue about reload priority, or role. The rest is just balance. I think that at 100 pts it would be quite favourably balanced against the other variants, given that AC is supposed to pay above the odds over their equivalent WB strength and this ship would lose only 3 strength each side for 20 pts less.

If you really really wanted to rationalise the sheer weakness of the Defiant's weaponry then you could give them a-boats as standard (at greater cost), with the argument being that the ship has limited capabilities to to sustain and man so many different AC. Space converted to cater to the extra crew for boarding parties, etc. Hell, can even give it a bonus in a boarding action, such as +2 BV, etc.

[BaronIveagh]

It's 2 per 500pts. Which is not very limited at all.

With 4AC it would become the carrier of choice, beating out all other options. Why buy a dictator when you could get the same AC for 80pts less? It would also allow AC spam on a scale the IN has never before been capable of. 6 Defiants, an Emperor and a Dictator for under 1500pts, or 36AC, an increase to 150% of the current maximum at those points.

Even with a more severe limitation, 1 per 500pts, it would make no sense to take any other carrier until you'd maxed out on Defiants. You'd have broken the ship in the opposite direction. This is why it could never be AC4.

Now Admiral d'A would like to give it S3 forward facing Lances or S6 Torps, armour5+ and 25cm speed - that's not a Voss, that's a Carrier Dauntless. I'm not averse to such a thing. I'll even propose one:

Furious Class Light Cruiser 130pts
Cruiser 6
Speed25
Turns 90'
Armour5+
Shields 1
Turrets 1

Port/SB LBs S2 Total
Prow Lance S3 30cm F

Special Rules:
+D6 AAF
Prow Lance may be exchanged for S6 Torps.

There. Now that's out of the way, we can return to what to do with the Voss pattern carrier. It has neither the speed, range or power to strike from afar, and will do best hidden amongst the ships of the line, mainly providing CAP, as its bombers are otherwise only good for attacking cripples.

In this role it lacks two things: firepower and incentive to reload. It is not more important to reload 2AC than it is to lock on your 45Gun Battleship or to CTNH with an entire escort squadron. Giving the Defiant Torps will help with this a little. As for other weaponry, after the torps the Defiant would be at max capacity with 1 prow lance or 3 WB, which isn't enough, so it requires dorsal weaponry as well. We want to add to its weight of broadside and not to overpower the prow, so L/R arc would be sufficient.

The new Defiant would therefore have weaponry in the range:

Prow:
2-3WB or 1 Lance 30cm F/L/R

Dorsal:
2-3WB or 1 Lance 30cm F/L/R
2-4WB 30cm L/R

Personally, I don't think it would be overpowered picking the upper end of those ranges, but Horizon's profile has conservatively gone low end.

Because that solution breaks fluff, which utterly dooms it ever being accepted by GW. 

BTW: we already have a dauntless carrier in the Enforcer, minus the torp option and AAF bonus for 110.

I say we make it AC 4, limit it to 1 per 500.  As to why you'd take a dictator over this: survivability and additional firepower.

And if you think this is the worst AC spam IN was ever capable of, you don't remember the dictator/Emp fleets before the AC limit.  ONLY 36 ac meant someone got bored with launching and reloading.

[Penumbra]

Been keeping an eye on this thread and I like what I see so far, howeverI have decided that I must be blind as I cannot see Horizons proposal for the Despoiler anyware, could someone post it please?