List of flawed ships

[BaronIveagh]

Poor Horizon, the search function cannot find his ships.... LOL


IIRC:

prow launch bay str4
port/starboard launch bays str 2
port/starboard weapon batteries str 10 @ 60cm
dorsal lance str 3 @ 60cm lfr

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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

Operative word: "Technically". Means there are limitations.

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.

And did you notice it can only do that by having access to SM's SC? This would actually be the same situation if Defiants were taken under a 2 in 500 limitatio. Now to extend that further, if you double the Defiant's AC loadout, that would add another 6 AC for a total of 28 rivalling quite a bit of the AC heavy fleets out there and note these can all be fighters and/or bombers. With the Armageddon fleet, there's 6 AC performing as fighter-ABs so not doing direct damage.

Lastly, quite a few of us believe that the SC should only have 1 TH available to it since by following the game designers own rules, 1 TH is the equivalent of 2 LBs. This means the SC should be able to carry the equivalent of 4 AC on top of all the other stuff it has. On a chassis not any more bigger than the Dauntless. Quite unbelievable.

[BaronIveagh]

And did you notice it can only do that by having access to SM's SC? This would actually be the same situation if Defiants were taken under a 2 in 500 limitatio. Now to extend that further, if you double the Defiant's AC loadout, that would add another 6 AC for a total of 28 rivalling quite a bit of the AC heavy fleets out there and note these can all be fighters and/or bombers. With the Armageddon fleet, there's 6 AC performing as fighter-ABs so not doing direct damage.

Lastly, quite a few of us believe that the SC should only have 1 TH available to it since by following the game designers own rules, 1 TH is the equivalent of 2 LBs. This means the SC should be able to carry the equivalent of 4 AC on top of all the other stuff it has. On a chassis not any more bigger than the Dauntless. Quite unbelievable.

Access to SC or no, it's an IN fleet. 

As far as Space Marines and unbelievable.... I don't advise talking to me about that.  GW fanboys scream and tear at their greasy beards when I point out that a single squad of space marines annihilating whole armies on their own is impossible, no matter how upgraded they are, as eventually someone will start shooting them with something heavy enough to do the job.

As I said, 1 per 500.  Which would allow 3, as that is a 1500 pt fleet. 

In this case: 1500pts,
28AC

Tau, 1500pts
40ac. and all of them can be mantas.

What's rivaling who here?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Access to SC or no, it's an IN fleet.  

Never said it wasn't. Was pointing out what it takes for IN to get them.

As far as Space Marines and unbelievable.... I don't advise talking to me about that.  GW fanboys scream and tear at their greasy beards when I point out that a single squad of space marines annihilating whole armies on their own is impossible, no matter how upgraded they are, as eventually someone will start shooting them with something heavy enough to do the job.

So let them have their delusion. It is 40k. It does not extend to BFG.

As I said, 1 per 500.  Which would allow 3, as that is a 1500 pt fleet.  

In this case: 1500pts,
28AC

Tau, 1500pts
40ac. and all of them can be mantas.

What's rivaling who here?

And what about Chaos which is the benchmark you should be using and not Tau? With 6 Devs and 1 Styx they come out to 30 AC.

You also have to revise your math. Even assuming your 1 Defiant in 500 points, I can take 3 Dictators (660)+3 Defiants (390 assuming 130 with 4 LBs)+Emperor (365)=1415. So that comes out to 12+12+8=32 LBs. All of those can be bombers as well. Close enough to Tau's 1,500 points.

Assuming 2 in 500 points. That comes out to 3 Dictators and 6 Defiants bringing a total of 36 AC on the table. Closing in on Tau now and definitly much more than Chaos cab bring.

[BaronIveagh]

Access to SC or no, it's an IN fleet.  

Never said it wasn't. Was pointing out what it takes for IN to get them.

As far as Space Marines and unbelievable.... I don't advise talking to me about that.  GW fanboys scream and tear at their greasy beards when I point out that a single squad of space marines annihilating whole armies on their own is impossible, no matter how upgraded they are, as eventually someone will start shooting them with something heavy enough to do the job.

So let them have their delusion. It is 40k. It does not extend to BFG.

As I said, 1 per 500.  Which would allow 3, as that is a 1500 pt fleet.  

In this case: 1500pts,
28AC

Tau, 1500pts
40ac. and all of them can be mantas.

What's rivaling who here?

And what about Chaos which is the benchmark you should be using and not Tau? With 6 Devs and 1 Styx they come out to 30 AC.

You also have to revise your math. Even assuming your 1 Defiant in 500 points, I can take 3 Dictators (660)+3 Defiants (390 assuming 130 with 4 LBs)+Emperor (365)=1415. So that comes out to 12+12+8=32 LBs. All of those can be bombers as well. Close enough to Tau's 1,500 points.

Assuming 2 in 500 points. That comes out to 3 Dictators and 6 Defiants bringing a total of 36 AC on the table. Closing in on Tau now and definitly much more than Chaos cab bring.

So: chaos and IN would be within 2 of each other (balanced, in the pure LB race.  Chaos universal a-boats offsetting a possible +2 lb), and Tau would dwarf them both.  (Since the manta is to a starhawk what eldar darkstars are to IN furys)

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

You're missing the point. IN are not supposed to be able to have that much AC compared to Chaos. It's why IN have lots of torps.

And access to AB doesn't offset the 2 AC imbalance. You can still only put the same number of markers on the table as you have total LBs anyway.

[BaronIveagh]

You're missing the point. IN are not supposed to be able to have that much AC compared to Chaos. It's why IN have lots of torps.

And access to AB doesn't offset the 2 AC imbalance. You can still only put the same number of markers on the table as you have total LBs anyway.

LOL I always thought Chaos was about speed and 60cm fire while IN was about torps and hoping to corner the enemy against a magic barrier known as the table edge so that you might use your 30 cm weapons.  

It seems like a lot of people around here have very preconceived notions about what a given fleet 'should' be.   How do we balance, for example, the people calling for limiting AC to 60 cm with IN's lack of speed?  If we're raising the price/nerfing Devastation, do we similarly have to nerf Dictator to ensure that IN stays 'below' chaos in the AC race?  

The SC nerf would conflict with (brand new and currently in print) fluff, and most likely not be approved by GW.  As far as 40k and BFG being 'separate' things, that's not true, at least as far as the corporate weasels that the HA have to report to go.  It's a single IP as far as they're concerned.  This is the problem that the HA is going to run into is balancing existing fluff with correcting game balance.  

And the big reason that GW has instructed them not to is that GW gave the rights to use the ships as they are, to FFG as part of their licensing deal.  FFG is paying GW a lot of bread for this, and I'm betting, knowing what I do about how long it takes to finish a book and get it published, that FFG has probably already written quite a bit about the ships in question if Battlefleet Koronus is due to hit shelves in Q1 of next year, and GW is anticipating a payday from that.


An aside: the HA may wish to consider contacting FFG and coordinate with them if they want to make new ships, as this would help sell this FAQ to GW, since they could have RT and BFG stats for their ships, and sell to both groups of players.

[Plaxor]

The AC restrictions were written into the fluff/theme of IN as chaos doesb't have access to torps in anywhere near the amount that IN does. Done solely as a balancing between the two lists.

My question is how do we make a prt/sbd lb ship have 3 lbs?

[Plaxor]

Although you guys aren't really going anywhere, It's kind of funny to watch the conservative Admiral fight with first RCgothic, then Baron, about everything.

Just as a thought, it looks like Sigoroth is pretty much for everything, and Horizon is against pretty much everything. Oh and Horizons job is to write up new ship profiles for us.

[RCgothic]

Because that solution breaks fluff

How exactly does it break fluff? Surely the only relevant fluff is how much additional weaponry can be put on a hull - In the case of a Standard cruiser, it can have extra weaponry without increase in mass. In the case of a light cruiser that clearly has space going spare, what's preventing the extra weaponry, particularly given that it has a reactor capable of powering full broadside lance decks with power going spare when replaced by LBs?

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

I don't doubt that a Dauntless variant would probably be more effective. But it's not a Voss, which has the fundamental characteristic of 20cm speed and weak forward armament.

And we can't just delete it. No matter what we do, the Defiant is still going to exist. We could ignore it, but it would still be on an official GW document, and it would still suck. Ignoring it is an admission of failure on our part.

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.

This is an extremely good point, but torpedoes would still help in aligning it to the purpose of the ship it's squadroned with compared to Lances alone.

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.

This is a combination Option1/Option3, Massive Price Break and Torpedoes. There's nothing really wrong with this, but I'd prefer to see it on a closer par to the other Voss. This actually leaves it slightly weaker overall in terms of firepower to how it is now, because 2 Lances F/L/R are worth more than 2torps forward and 2WB L/R. One dorsal lance L/R would not bring it up to firepower levels of the other Voss, but would help significantly.

Not giving it additional weaponry would mean it could only be a support ship, but giving it dorsal weaponry would give it a limited ability to operate alone with firepower of slightly more than a Firestorm if forced to.

Equivalent WB strength and this ship would lose only 3 strength each side for 20 pts less.

It's actually closer to 4WB strength each side because of proportionally higher casualties on the bombers in half strength waves. Adding dorsal weapons would make up less than half that, and would cost about the 120pt mark.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

LOL I always thought Chaos was about speed and 60cm fire while IN was about torps and hoping to corner the enemy against a magic barrier known as the table edge so that you might use your 30 cm weapons.  

Nope. Chaos was always meant to be the AC heavy fleet between the two (Chaos and IN I mean). Chaos does have the range. IN has more armor as well as torps. IN has an easier time approaching the enemy.

It seems like a lot of people around here have very preconceived notions about what a given fleet 'should' be.   How do we balance, for example, the people calling for limiting AC to 60 cm with IN's lack of speed?  If we're raising the price/nerfing Devastation, do we similarly have to nerf Dictator to ensure that IN stays 'below' chaos in the AC race?  

Well, I don't have much problem with the Dictator retaining its points. It's quite an effective shotgun given the chance (AC and torps vs 1 ship).

The SC nerf would conflict with (brand new and currently in print) fluff, and most likely not be approved by GW.  As far as 40k and BFG being 'separate' things, that's not true, at least as far as the corporate weasels that the HA have to report to go.  It's a single IP as far as they're concerned.  This is the problem that the HA is going to run into is balancing existing fluff with correcting game balance.  

We're talking about BFG, not 40k. The SC should be rebalanced by reducing the TH strength to 1 and in exchange 1 more shield for no points change. So it's not really a nerf.

[BaronIveagh]

How exactly does it break fluff? Surely the only relevant fluff is how much additional weaponry can be put on a hull - In the case of a Standard cruiser, it can have extra weaponry without increase in mass. In the case of a light cruiser that clearly has space going spare, what's preventing the extra weaponry, particularly given that it has a reactor capable of powering full broadside lance decks with power going spare when replaced by LBs?

The ship's entire description in armada swings around how it has no guns.  How it's kept at the back of the fleet because it has no guns.  How it's fast and agile because it has no guns, and how everyone died trying to reload the bombers in a hurry when the orks over ran them, because they had no guns.  

One must then ask: hows does giving them guns NOT break existing fluff here?  Since what you're suggesting would be the exact opposite of existing fluff.  Not a modification, a total reversal.   It's sort of like making the Ultramarines one of the traitor legions (as an example taken to the extreme).  It wouldn't fly.

@D'Art: the HA would have to get it approved by GW.  GW DOES NOT SEE BFG AND 40K AS SEPARATE THINGS.  Right now, as we speak, GW is making money off the SC having two thawks because BL just put out a book where several scenes take place in a SC's LB.  (and a lot of other internal areas.  It's actually mildly interesting, the internal differences described between IN and SM ships.)

If you try and alter fluff that they're currently making money off of, to benefit a system they are thinking of canceling, they're going to say no.

It's going to be hard enough to get minor changes done without making major ones.  +2 AC might make it through GW's approval.  Adding guns would not.  Remember, they've licensed all these ships 'as is' to FFG.  They're making money off them.  They are most likely NOT going to let us put guns on as ship who's entire description is about how it lacks guns.  

[RCgothic]

The ship's entire description in armada swings around how it has no guns.  How it's kept at the back of the fleet because it has no guns.  How it's fast and agile because it has no guns, and how everyone died trying to reload the bombers in a hurry when the orks over ran them, because they had no guns.  

One must then ask: hows does giving them guns NOT break existing fluff here?  Since what you're suggesting would be the exact opposite of existing fluff.  Not a modification, a total reversal.   It's sort of like making the Ultramarines one of the traitor legions (as an example taken to the extreme).  It wouldn't fly.

You're overstating things a bit here:

The Defiant is the least common of the Voss triumvirate but it is the last piece in the jigsaw. A capable carrier, the Defiant is regarded as too vulnerable to operate without support. lacking any guns for self defence [Clearly incorrect, or referring to broadside guns only - it factually already has WBe FP6 lances.] the Defiant is usually relegated to a support role, operating behind the main fighting ships, out of the line of fire. [all the Voss do this, not just the Defiant, which would still do this even with dorsal guns - we're not really increasing its gun firepower anyway.]

A relatively recent development of the Endeavour, the light carriers of this class proved to be a vital lynchpin of the Imperial fleet's desperate struggle to stem the relentless tide of of destruction and death that accompanied the Ork's massive invasion force into the Armageddon sector. Being more agile than the much larger Ork Kroozers arrayed against it [So not faster, more agile (as are all Voss) - and could it be because the kroozers are twice the mass and just generally sluggish? No mention that this is because of a lack of weapons.], these vessels were able to push deeply into the vast greenskin host before unleasing their bombers upon the capital ships of the invasion fleet. Though the Forebearer and Archangel were lost above St Jowen's Dock when they were overrun while struggling valiantly to refuel and rearm their beleaguered attack craft in the heat of battle, [any carrier would be doing this, with or without guns] their brave pilots were responsible for destroying the kill kroozer Grimzag's Ammer and crippling two Terror ships.

And in terms of guns, you're going from 6WBe lances F/L/R to at very most 3WBe F/L/R and 4WBe L/R. (In fact Horizon's proposal has just 4WBe - much fewer guns)

So yes, we're adding torps, but then again a lack of torps isn't mentioned in fluff, is it? We're just redistributing that firepower to make room for the torps.

[BaronIveagh]

The ship's entire description in armada swings around how it has no guns.  How it's kept at the back of the fleet because it has no guns.  How it's fast and agile because it has no guns, and how everyone died trying to reload the bombers in a hurry when the orks over ran them, because they had no guns.  

One must then ask: hows does giving them guns NOT break existing fluff here?  Since what you're suggesting would be the exact opposite of existing fluff.  Not a modification, a total reversal.   It's sort of like making the Ultramarines one of the traitor legions (as an example taken to the extreme).  It wouldn't fly.

You're overstating things a bit here:

The Defiant is the least common of the Voss triumvirate but it is the last piece in the jigsaw. A capable carrier, the Defiant is regarded as too vulnerable to operate without support. lacking any guns for self defence [Clearly incorrect, or referring to broadside guns only - it factually already has WBe FP6 lances.] the Defiant is usually relegated to a support role, operating behind the main fighting ships, out of the line of fire. [all the Voss do this, not just the Defiant, which would still do this even with dorsal guns - we're not really increasing its gun firepower anyway.]

A relatively recent development of the Endeavour, the light carriers of this class proved to be a vital lynchpin of the Imperial fleet's desperate struggle to stem the relentless tide of of destruction and death that accompanied the Ork's massive invasion force into the Armageddon sector. Being more agile than the much larger Ork Kroozers arrayed against it [So not faster, more agile (as are all Voss) - and could it be because the kroozers are twice the mass and just generally sluggish? No mention that this is because of a lack of weapons.], these vessels were able to push deeply into the vast greenskin host before unleasing their bombers upon the capital ships of the invasion fleet. Though the Forebearer and Archangel were lost above St Jowen's Dock when they were overrun while struggling valiantly to refuel and rearm their beleaguered attack craft in the heat of battle, [any carrier would be doing this, with or without guns] their brave pilots were responsible for destroying the kill kroozer Grimzag's Ammer and crippling two Terror ships.

And in terms of guns, you're going from 6WBe lances F/L/R to at very most 3WBe F/L/R and 4WBe L/R. (In fact Horizon's proposal has just 4WBe - much fewer guns)

So yes, we're adding torps, but then again a lack of torps isn't mentioned in fluff, is it? We're just redistributing that firepower to make room for the torps.

Let me ask this: what would pass GW scrutiny: claiming that their fluff is wrong and it should have guns, or that the fluff is right, and it needs more bombers to match fluff?

[RCgothic]

It clearly does have guns, so the fluff can only be referring to lack of broadside guns. And it will neither have more guns than it does now, nor will they be located on the broadsides.