List of flawed ships

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

@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.)

So what? The SCs and BBs are the size of small cities. Lots of space for them to play with for the book equivalent of movie special effects. However the SC still isn't large enough to house Str 2 THs as per scale. The fluff even states that it masses slightly less than the Dauntless. Now if the Dauntless is the base comparison then it obviously cannot have more than Str 2 THs since the other equivalent, the Defiant can only house Str 2 total AC.

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.

Alter fluff? Who's altering the fluff? Nothing in the SCs fluff can be deemed as proof they carry a lot of THs. On the contrary, SM fluff says they mostly move from one point to another via Escorts and that while Companies might have 1 SC, a Company is typically 100 men. Do you really need more than 1 squadron of TH to transfer the men and material onto the planet? Especially when said ship also carries drop pods or can teleport the SM down?

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.  

You will not be able to put more LBs on an LC any more than one can add guns to it. Guns would be easier to justify in the case of the Defiant on the prow. How many guns and what type is the question. The Defiant already breaks the design of the Voss by having lances instead of WBs and torps. I'm just pushing things further by just upping the lance strength with options for a full Str 6 salvo torp. I think that would be more simpler to do even with 6+ armorr than redesigning the whole thing by giving it the same prow weapons as the Endeavor/Endurance and adding dorsals.

[horizon]

Hey Plaxor,me against everything???

Chaos:
Despoiler: Use modified stats (Horizons)
Devestation: Lance range @ 45cm
Styx: costs 260
Idolator: Cost 40
Infidel: 2 turrets
Retaliator Side wbs @45cm

IN:
Overlord: Side WBs fp12@45cm, Costs 225, 60cm range swap at fp10
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm Cost 355
Apocalypse: No penalty for firing lances up to 45cm. Dorsal Wbs to FP 9
Tyrant: 180 base cost
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns
Dictactor: 210 points cost.
Oberon:Prow and Dorsal Weapons at 60cm, costs 355
Mars: Cost 260
Armageddon: Cost 235
Firestorms: Cost 35
Falchion 2 turrets

iirc I went along with all of above, either very in support or just a nod along (re: Overlord point drop).

And, yes, someone needs a conservative approach around here.

[Plaxor]

@BH was looking at the list yesterday and you were against nearly everything still proposed.

Anyways since you guys have started arguing about the defiant... after arguing about the Avenger....

There are a lot of things that need stapled down for our first write up.

The Retaliator: 3lb per side, doesn't really do anything to alter chaos fleet balance, and yet would flesh out the overcosted ship nicely. Otherwise any other solutions? This only needs one more vote to pass. Baron? Commander? Someone else?

Iconoclast: -5 points, there is something about this ship that feels like it should be slightly cheaper. As we are balancing every escort as in comparison to the sword. So for 5 points the sword gains an extra turret, 5+ armor (1/3 survivability) and 1wb. It loses 5cm speed. Doesn't look worth it here.

Compared to a brute, the iconoclast gains 1wb, lfr guns, and 5cm speed. It loses the ram ability, and 6+ front armor.

According to smotherman the ship should cost 25.5 points. Considering all the 'good' escorts are discounted a few points (brute at 3 less, sword at 1 less etc) this should be on the less than side of cost when rounding.

Cobras comparatively would cost 29.5 much closer to their current price.

As far as the gc upgrades go. I don't know if any will pass, other than torps. Honestly I don't think the GCs should get any weaponry, other than torps, but I could live with it if they did. Please vote on these

The apocalypse... does anyone else want sigs blast marker idea? it is probably the best way of representing the apocalypses detriment IMO.

The exorcist. like the retaliator got swept under the rug. Horizon and I are of course against increasing launch capacity on imperial ships. And the vessel is just fine where it is with our current change. Vaaish voted against this, but I don't think he's part of the conversation anymore. So two? more people would need to vote for it.

The Avenger: I think people got tired of arguing about this one. I still want to hear about peoples thoughts on the two compromise ideas; making one an upgrade of the other or increasing the ships firepower and making a portion 45cm.

The defiant: the more time goes on the more I agree with sigoroth.... Come on... this is a light carrier, it's supposed to have fewer squadrons.

So far proposed changes:
Swap prow lances for prow&dorsal wbs, as well as prow torps.
add prow torps
Add 1 prow lance, make F only, swappable with torps
make it have 4 LBs increase cost.

I'd like to see you guys rank these on a number system. 1 being the one you want most, 4 being the least.

[Plaxor]

Oh and as it is monday, it is now officially ok to talk about space marine vessels. Also daemonships, and fleet lists/marks etc. Adm D Art opened up with his thought on SC.

[RCgothic]

So given that we're stalemated on the Defiant and Avenger, let's go back to what's under discussion:
(I see Plaxor only just beat me to the punch)


Chaos:
Retaliator: 3LB per side [Admiral d Artagnan, Sigoroth, RCgothic, Plaxor, Horizon ]
Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts [RCgothic, Plaxor, BaronIveagh, Sigoroth, horizon,]

We need more people to cast opinions on the above.

GCs: Upgrade options passed, Now details: , note if a prow weapon is taken the GC loses it's 'resist prow damaged critical' ability. GCs can only take one upgrade, and we'll leave the points out for now. All proposed are courtesy of Sigoroth:

Frontal Armor Plates [Sigoroth, Horizon]
Prow Torpedos (6) [Sigoroth, Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Plaxor]
Prow Nova Cannon [Sigoroth, Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan]
Prow Sensor Array  [Sigoroth, Plaxor, Horizon]

(Dorsal weapons, can't fire with ships other weaponry)
lance battery (2@60cm lfr) [Sigoroth, Plaxor (wouldn't care so much if just made prow) Horizon]
Weapon Battery (9@45cm lfr) [Sigoroth, Plaxor Horizon]
Bombardment cannon (6@30 lfr) [Sigoroth, Plaxor Horizon]

Improved engines (remove improved engines on Retaliator) [Plaxor]

I've decided to reject all the Dorsal options. I think these upgrades may be controversial enough without them, and the "No other weapons may fire" rule is horribly convoluted even if I was in favour.
I also don't think it would be possible to balance 6+ prow, particularly for the Avenger, which would not only cure its fluff-borne obsolescense, but fix everything that's wrong with it as well. So no to that too.

Torps, Nova Cannon, Sensor Array and Improved Engines I'm all for, appropriately costed.

IN:
Apocalypse: Blast marker instead of critical, Revoke previous 'safe' range mod. [RCgothic, Sigoroth, Plaxor]

Need more opinions. I think this is a really good and fluffy solution, with no convolution to the rules at all, and I can't see why people wouldn't support it over the current rule set. So vote for it people!

Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost [Sigoroth, RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Commander, Admiral Artagnan, Horizon, Plaxor (no increase in LBs, others fine), Vaaish]

This one looks like it's going to the recycle bin. With only five for and three against, the for side needs to find at least another three votes, which seems unlikely.

Avenger:  FP 20 [Plaxor, Commander (45cm), Sigoroth, horizon, Admiral D Artagnan RCgothic], Increase Range to 45cm [BaronIveagh, Admiral_D_Artagnan, RCgothic, Sigoroth].

Ok then. So long as neither Dorsal Weapons nor 6+ Prow gets passed, I am perhaps willing to relent on FP20, but ONLY at 20cm range, or if a range upgrade option loses it FP again.

Defiant:Use Horizon's Profile [RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor, Sigoroth, Admiral D Artagnan], Torps 4 [RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Sigoroth, Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan], Lance battery to 3, option to swap with str 6 torps [Admiral D Artagnan, Plaxor], Make LBs str4 (increase cost/revise limitations in fleet) [RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Plaxor (if limited with endeavor again) Admiral D Artagnan]

To recap:

• Horizon's Profile brings the Defiant's Prow in line with the Other Voss.
  
• Adds Torps to make it a better partner for line ships/more of a relaod priority.
• Does NOT break no-gun fluff (since it patently has guns already - fluff only refers to broadsides)
• Does NOT Increase gun strength, merely redistributed it to make room for torps in the Prow.
• Because the Launch bays only take up half the internal space that the normal batteries do, there is clearly space available for systems to service Dorsal mounts.
• The only currently available model for pure IN fleets has a facility to accept for Dorsal mounts.

I would argue for maintaining its current direct-weapon strength (1 lance on prow and 1 lance dorsal L/R or equiv WBs), but I'd be willing to accept Horizon's reduction for 120pts.

I also vote against 4LBs on a LC.
I also vote against S3 Lances or S6 Torps - that's a Dauntless, not a Voss.[/i]

Confirmed Changes (by all 5 in solidarity):

We're not really 5 any more now, are we? Perhaps "By a Majority of at least 5"

Chaos:
Despoiler: Use modified stats (Horizons)
Devestation: Lance range @ 45cm
Styx: costs 260
Idolator: Cost 40
Infidel: 2 turrets
Retaliator Side wbs @45cm

IN:
Overlord: Side WBs fp12@45cm, Costs 225, 60cm range swap at fp10
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm Cost 355
Apocalypse: No penalty for firing lances up to 45cm. Dorsal Wbs to FP 9
Tyrant: 180 base cost
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns
Dictactor: 210 points cost.
Oberon:Prow and Dorsal Weapons at 60cm, costs 355
Mars: Cost 260
Armageddon: Cost 235
Firestorms: Cost 35
Falchion 2 turrets

[RCgothic]

Strike Cruiser:
+1 Shield
-1 Thunderhawk. (maybe)
+1BC

Battle barge:
+1 Shield

They're supposed to be tough. 1 Squadron of Thunderhawks is enough for the SC to deploy a company of marines along with drop pods, so they don't really need more. The only problem with reducing the Thunderhawks to 1 is that it may remove much incentive to reload.

[horizon]

Apocalypse, I like Sig's idea on the BM instead of etc..


Strike Cruiser, per draft 2010 to work from:
-1 T-Hawk
+1 shield (thus option becomes standard).
instead of 5BombCann only 3 BombCann replacement

[commander]

So given that we're stalemated on the Defiant and Avenger, let's go back to what's under discussion:
(I see Plaxor only just beat me to the punch)


Chaos:
Retaliator: 3LB per side [Admiral d Artagnan, Sigoroth, RCgothic, Plaxor, Horizon ]
Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts [RCgothic, Plaxor, BaronIveagh, Sigoroth, horizon,]

==>All Vengeance family class carriers should have S3 LB a side

We need more people to cast opinions on the above.

GCs: Upgrade options passed, Now details: , note if a prow weapon is taken the GC loses it's 'resist prow damaged critical' ability. GCs can only take one upgrade, and we'll leave the points out for now. All proposed are courtesy of Sigoroth:

Frontal Armor Plates [Sigoroth, Horizon]
Prow Torpedos (6) [Sigoroth, Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan, Plaxor]
Prow Nova Cannon [Sigoroth, Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan]
Prow Sensor Array  [Sigoroth, Plaxor, Horizon]

==>Only Torp option, S6

(Dorsal weapons, can't fire with ships other weaponry)
lance battery (2@60cm lfr) [Sigoroth, Plaxor (wouldn't care so much if just made prow) Horizon]
Weapon Battery (9@45cm lfr) [Sigoroth, Plaxor Horizon]
Bombardment cannon (6@30 lfr) [Sigoroth, Plaxor Horizon]

==>NO dorsals

Improved engines (remove improved engines on Retaliator) [Plaxor]

I've decided to reject all the Dorsal options. I think these upgrades may be controversial enough without them, and the "No other weapons may fire" rule is horribly convoluted even if I was in favour.
I also don't think it would be possible to balance 6+ prow, particularly for the Avenger, which would not only cure its fluff-borne obsolescense, but fix everything that's wrong with it as well. So no to that too.

Torps, Nova Cannon, Sensor Array and Improved Engines I'm all for, appropriately costed.

IN:
Apocalypse: Blast marker instead of critical, Revoke previous 'safe' range mod. [RCgothic, Sigoroth, Plaxor]

==>Good one, I like it

Need more opinions. I think this is a really good and fluffy solution, with no convolution to the rules at all, and I can't see why people wouldn't support it over the current rule set. So vote for it people!

Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost [Sigoroth, RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Commander, Admiral Artagnan, Horizon, Plaxor (no increase in LBs, others fine), Vaaish]

This one looks like it's going to the recycle bin. With only five for and three against, the for side needs to find at least another three votes, which seems unlikely.

Avenger:  FP 20 [Plaxor, Commander (45cm), Sigoroth, horizon, Admiral D Artagnan RCgothic], Increase Range to 45cm [BaronIveagh, Admiral_D_Artagnan, RCgothic, Sigoroth].

Ok then. So long as neither Dorsal Weapons nor 6+ Prow gets passed, I am perhaps willing to relent on FP20, but ONLY at 20cm range, or if a range upgrade option loses it FP again.

Defiant:Use Horizon's Profile [RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor, Sigoroth, Admiral D Artagnan], Torps 4 [RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Sigoroth, Horizon, Admiral D Artagnan], Lance battery to 3, option to swap with str 6 torps [Admiral D Artagnan, Plaxor], Make LBs str4 (increase cost/revise limitations in fleet) [RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Plaxor (if limited with endeavor again) Admiral D Artagnan]

To recap:

• Horizon's Profile brings the Defiant's Prow in line with the Other Voss.
  
• Adds Torps to make it a better partner for line ships/more of a relaod priority.
• Does NOT break no-gun fluff (since it patently has guns already - fluff only refers to broadsides)
• Does NOT Increase gun strength, merely redistributed it to make room for torps in the Prow.
• Because the Launch bays only take up half the internal space that the normal batteries do, there is clearly space available for systems to service Dorsal mounts.
• The only currently available model for pure IN fleets has a facility to accept for Dorsal mounts.

I would argue for maintaining its current direct-weapon strength (1 lance on prow and 1 lance dorsal L/R or equiv WBs), but I'd be willing to accept Horizon's reduction for 120pts.

I also vote against 4LBs on a LC.
I also vote against S3 Lances or S6 Torps - that's a Dauntless, not a Voss.[/i]

Confirmed Changes (by all 5 in solidarity):

We're not really 5 any more now, are we? Perhaps "By a Majority of at least 5"

Chaos:
Despoiler: Use modified stats (Horizons)
Devestation: Lance range @ 45cm
Styx: costs 260
Idolator: Cost 40
Infidel: 2 turrets
Retaliator Side wbs @45cm

IN:
Overlord: Side WBs fp12@45cm, Costs 225, 60cm range swap at fp10
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm Cost 355
Apocalypse: No penalty for firing lances up to 45cm. Dorsal Wbs to FP 9
Tyrant: 180 base cost
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns
Dictactor: 210 points cost.
Oberon:Prow and Dorsal Weapons at 60cm, costs 355
Mars: Cost 260
Armageddon: Cost 235
Firestorms: Cost 35
Falchion 2 turrets

Comments added

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The only reason why the Voss ships are called such is because of the prow design. It has nothing to do with the weapon on the prow. What I can say, however, is the Defiant is not exactly an Endeavor/Endurance since it's prow weapons are different from its siblings and much closer to a Dauntless which are pure lances with the only difference being the Defiant has Str 2 LFR while the Dauntless has Str 3 F only.

[RCgothic]

==> Commander
I agree, All the GCs should have S6 LBs, and it's weird for one to be on course to get S6 LBs whilst specifically denying it to others.

==>Admiral d'Artagnan
But there is already an Enforcer class LC that does exactly what you've proposed, except better. Making the Defiant a sub-standard clone wouldn't fix it at all. Also, the Defiant clearly got its S2 lances only because the designers thought it wouldn't have enough guns with the standard FP2 prow. It makes much more sense for it to be similar to its brothers and have a Dorsal Mount to compensate instead.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Enforcer isn't legal.

And does the Defiant's siblings have dorsal mounts? Does any LC for that matter have dorsal mounts? The designers could still have kept the FP2 WBs and Str 2 torps but obviously they decided to change it to something closer to a Dauntless' prow weaponry, lowering it by 1 and giving it more flexible firing arcs. Otherwise it is a Dauntless' style prow. I was actually rather surprised they didn't give it Str 2 torps. Sure it would be a more powerful prow but then it would fix your issues about it not having enough equivalent WB firepower esp if pointed correctly.

[horizon]

Doh, Defiant:

prow torps str2
port launch bay str.1
starboard launch bay str.1
prow weapon battery str.4 @30cm lfr

dorsal issue solved. Strength remained. Different prow weaponry on voss is non-issue to some.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Doh, Defiant:

prow torps str2
port launch bay str.1
starboard launch bay str.1
prow weapon battery str.4 @30cm lfr

dorsal issue solved. Strength remained. Different prow weaponry on voss is non-issue to some.

Could be done that way but then I would know how people would reply: if they can do that to the Defiant, why not the Endeavor or Endurance.

At this point, I think giving it Str 2 torp would probably be best though the same argument would crop up, short of deleting it. One would argue that maybe the extra space leftover was enought to upgrade the WBs to lances. We could also stick it with Str 1 torps but Str 2 Lances with Str 1 torp just feels odd.

So I would say keep the Defiant's profile and add Str 2 torps and retain the cost at 130. With 6+ prow, cost has to go 140 or 150 even tho the others would remain the same.

[RCgothic]

That profile is effectively identical to the one initially proposed, the only difference is where the weapons are located.

I just think it's more incongruous to locate them all on the Prow, because of comparisons with the Endeavour/Endurance, than to locate them above the half-size launch bays in full-size hardpoints. (The Endeavour/Endurance can't have Dorsal mounts because tehy fully utilise these hardpoints - there's no space available to squeeze anything in above).

Apart from the "Where did the additional space in the prow come from?" question, Adding S2 torps to the existing profile of S2 lances is my ideal solution as well. I'd just move one of the lances back into a Dorsal mount.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Why would there be a problem with putting all the lances in the prow? The turrets would definitely have to be modeled sitting on top of the prow so there's no issue there. Power would be supplied by conduits which go directly to the engines. THere would be space for these conduits because precisely launch bays replaced the broadsides. So while the space was limited to a squadron per side plus their ordnance, enough space would have been freed up along the spine for those conduits to sit side by side with the torps armament and its auxiliaries. You do not have to go through the dorsal route. Even FP4 WBs on the prow could be justified that way.