List of flawed ships

[BaronIveagh]

If you have to ask for permission, then it isn't legal.

Hmm... interesting point.  However, I might point out that before this faq, IIRC, Custodians were an FW only mini, with no official stats outside IA.

No, it would not cripple the SM. Because enemy ordnance would still have to go through the remaining THs and 6+ armor. SC already has 2 turrets. BB should get 4. Even if they would lose out on the ordnance war, so what? They're not supposed to win it anyway or even equal it.

And again, I do not know where you are getting your fluff reasoning. This is BFG, not 40k. If you want your supermen, stick with 40k. In BFG, SM are ordinary in most circumstances. SM handles the planetary assault. IN handles the fleet action.

I vote for 2.  It has the most chance of the HA getting it approved.

@D'Art: Achem: as I said: read The Emperor's Finest for my fluff reasoning.   In a nutshell, if you're going to do close air support and not leave your ship unprotected against enemy AC, you'll need at least two squadrons.  Particularly since SC seem to often work alone.  And in EF, it's made very plain that SC launch bays are much more efficient then regular IN lbs, (Caine notes that much of the usual detritus is missing, such as stacks of cargo pallets, and general care being taken to maintain the bay in a state of readiness.)

Second: Let me try this again, as you seem to have a serious disjoint here, GW does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, see these things a two separate entities, but rather a single IP.  Anything the HA does has to be approved by them. I would prefer that we gave them fixes that might actually get passed.  ATM, GW thinks Space Marines piss petrol and shit hundred pound notes, as they're the posterboys for their main line of minis.  Regardless of balance issues (which this is also one of) this is a revision unlikely to get approved.  

And, frankly, nearly halving an entire fleet's LB strength IS going to cause balance issues.  This WILL make them easy meat for, at the very least, Tau and Chaos, and most likely Eldar and IN.

@Horizon: The admech LC, IIRC, isn't a Voss cruiser, though.

[horizon]

The AdMech available light cruisers are Endeavour, Endurance and Defiant. Same as Voss.

Hmm... interesting point.  However, I might point out that before this faq, IIRC, Custodians were an FW only mini, with no official stats outside IA.

Yes, FW did have the stats on a freely downloadable pdf (which is no longer available online, but if you ask them on the mail they'll sent it). That pdf had a fleet list which was not in the book IA3. So, the pdf being labeled as FW produced made it into such status everyone accepted them. Even at tournaments and such.

With the fact that every Strike Cruiser does have a launch bay and the Barge 3 the Marine fleet will still have a good ordnance presence.

Of course one should keep in mind that a fan-proposal is also to include an assault strike cruiser with more launch bays (restricted, less gunnery).

[BaronIveagh]

The AdMech available light cruisers are Endeavour, Endurance and Defiant. Same as Voss.

Hmm... interesting point.  However, I might point out that before this faq, IIRC, Custodians were an FW only mini, with no official stats outside IA.

Yes, FW did have the stats on a freely downloadable pdf (which is no longer available online, but if you ask them on the mail they'll sent it). That pdf had a fleet list which was not in the book IA3. So, the pdf being labeled as FW produced made it into such status everyone accepted them. Even at tournaments and such.

With the fact that every Strike Cruiser does have a launch bay and the Barge 3 the Marine fleet will still have a good ordnance presence.

Of course one should keep in mind that a fan-proposal is also to include an assault strike cruiser with more launch bays (restricted, less gunnery).

So, how is a FW produced list more official then BFGM was?  (And, I'm surprised, as that's the reverse of my own experiences with FW minis)

[horizon]

Hi BaronI,
not so strange. It was all about timing. The FW Tau (pdf) rules where released at the time of the former Specialist Games website/forum. That forum/website had a download page labeled (per Specialist Games separate section) : OFFICIAL downloads and FAQ downloads and OTHER downloads.

Now quite straightforward names. OFFICIAL contained the pdf's as available now is from GW (plus Rogue Traders). Thus rulebook, armada, powers of chaos, doom of the eldar etc. NOTHING from BFGM, planetkiller, annual or fanatic online.
FAQ was FAQ.
OTHER old fanatic articles and new fo ones.

So at that point FW released rules for their models. So semi-official status. They where available on the page Experimental Rules. Everyone used them, thus they become standard.

[RCgothic]

Adeptus Mechanicus Endeavor and Endurance light cruisers may replace
their prow torpedoes with a single 30cm range dorsal lance
turret firing left/front/right for no cost

So there you have not only LCs with both Prow and Dorsal HPs, but VOSS Cruisers with Dorsal Hardpoints.

Endeavour and Endurance have to lose their torps to make way for these, but Defiant would already have made half of each broadside hardpoint available.

So that's killed the LCs shouldn't have Dorsal HPs argument stone dead, how about we have Option 4?

One of these profiles:

Code: [Select]

Defiant Class Light Cruiser - As is, but with S2 Torps and 1 Lance moved backwards into Dorsal
130pts

Cruiser 6
Turns 90
Speed 20
Armour 45
Shields 1
Turrets 2

Prow Torps 30cm S2 F
Prow Lance 30cm S1 F/L/R
Dorsal Lance 30cm S1 F/L/R
Port/SB LBs As Craft S1 -
OR

Code: [Select]

Defiant Class Light Cruiser - Identical Prow to other Voss, with FP2 Dorsal Hardpoint - about 30% weaker gunnery overall.
120pts

Cruiser 6
Turns 90
Speed 20
Armour 45
Shields 1
Turrets 2

Prow Torps 30cm S2 F
Prow WBs 30cm FP2 F/L/R
Dorsal WBs 30cm FP2 F/L/R
Port/SB LBs As Craft S1 -

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

@D'Art: Achem: as I said: read The Emperor's Finest for my fluff reasoning.   In a nutshell, if you're going to do close air support and not leave your ship unprotected against enemy AC, you'll need at least two squadrons.  Particularly since SC seem to often work alone.  And in EF, it's made very plain that SC launch bays are much more efficient then regular IN lbs, (Caine notes that much of the usual detritus is missing, such as stacks of cargo pallets, and general care being taken to maintain the bay in a state of readiness.)

And the Emperor's finest was the one who broke up the SM's supremacy just after the Horus Heresy to prevent such a thing from happening again. IN handles the spaceways. SM handles the planetary assaults. If SM think SM needs more AC support, then its time to ask for help from the IN. If SM are working alone, then usually it means they sneak in. On anything major, they work hand in hand with other SM Chapters or IN.

Second: Let me try this again, as you seem to have a serious disjoint here, GW does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, see these things a two separate entities, but rather a single IP.  Anything the HA does has to be approved by them. I would prefer that we gave them fixes that might actually get passed.  ATM, GW thinks Space Marines piss petrol and shit hundred pound notes, as they're the posterboys for their main line of minis.  Regardless of balance issues (which this is also one of) this is a revision unlikely to get approved.  

They may have a single IP but they are DIFFERENT GAMES. Can you understand that yet? If SM in BFG were as good as they are on the ground in 40k then their ships would have shown far better profiles than what they have now. GW thinks that way about SM in 40k. By their own fluff though, SM suck in space and so this is shown by the current ship profiles as well as availability of variety.

And, frankly, nearly halving an entire fleet's LB strength IS going to cause balance issues.  This WILL make them easy meat for, at the very least, Tau and Chaos, and most likely Eldar and IN.

They have resilient AC which survives on a 4+. That's quite enough considering the other AC fleet like Tau and Chaos still have to get through 6+ armor. The balance issue now is that SC's are more easily killed by direct weapons fire than AC because it has only 1 shield. By giving it 2 shields it increases it's survivability very well.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

DING DING DING

The AdMech Light Cruisers do have a dorsal hardpoint (single lance). Official rules and all.

So there you have not only LCs with both Prow and Dorsal HPs, but VOSS Cruisers with Dorsal Hardpoints.

Endeavour and Endurance have to lose their torps to make way for these, but Defiant would already have made half of each broadside hardpoint available.

So that's killed the LCs shouldn't have Dorsal HPs argument stone dead, how about we have Option 4?

Yes AM have it. Not IN though. And AM and IN while similar are also different. If IN had the dorsal turrets available to AM, IN would be that much better. So now are we going to the route that IN should now also have those single dorsal lances which are available to the AM on their cruisers? Sure, I'd be HAPPY to have them. Would it be balanced? Hell no.

[RCgothic]

On the Defiant it would be balanced, as it has so little other firepower.

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.

Not two pages ago, you were suggesting exactly the same profile, hardpoint location not withstanding!

Why don't Endeavour/Endurance have the dorsal lance? Because the IN prefers to have the torps, it suits their fleet better, and they don't have space for it without the trade off. The Ad Mech prefer to be a little more refined than the brute-force of torpedoes, so the Lance is more attractive to them.

In the case of the Defiant, which would be pitifully weak without it, it has the space available thanks to the reduced broadside hardpoint. Adding this Dorsal Lance would be a no-brainer for any fleet planner!

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

On the Defiant it would be balanced, as it has so little other firepower.

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.

Not two pages ago, you were suggesting exactly the same profile, hardpoint location not withstanding!

Why don't Endeavour/Endurance have the dorsal lance? Because the IN prefers to have the torps, it suits their fleet better, and they don't have space for it without the trade off. In the case of the Defiant, which would be pitifully weak without it, it has the space available thanks to the reduced broadside hardpoint. Adding this Dorsal Lance would be a no-brainer for any fleet planner!

Not two pages ago, I was suggesting to make the Str 3 lance with all of it in the prow which was simpler and didn't have to have dorsals or refer to the AM list which if you check also is more expensive than their IN counterpart. Str 3 lance which would be similar to the Dauntless which has tighter space available with its broadside weaponry.

The suggestion I made which you posted was just to placate those of you who think that the Defiant is underpowered as it is by adding the Str 2 torps to the available lances. If we're just adding one more lance, just copy the Dauntless and forget about dorsal stuff which are limited to AM.

[RCgothic]

We're not adding one more lance. We're adding two torpedos and moving one of the existing lance armaments back into a hardpoint that exists but isn't being utilised. The total lance strength remains unchanged at S2.

If you think adding S2 torps to the existing profile is balanced, then so too is a profile with one of the lances moved back.

There are two questions here:
#1. Will it be balanced? Yes. It is exactly equivalent to a profile you found acceptable, and 10pts more than the other variants whilst STILL being underpowered in total weapon and AC strength by 6WBe.
#2. Is there a fluff precedent? Yes, there is. Voss Cruisers have an unused Dorsal Hardpoint, which they may utilise in return for a trade off in one of their other hardpoints. Endeavour/Endurance trade off their torps, Defiant trades off its broadsides.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

We're not adding one more lance. We're adding two torpedos and moving one of the existing lance armaments back into a hardpoint that exists but isn't being utilised. The total lance strength remains unchanged at S2.

If you think adding S2 torps to the existing profile is balanced, then so too is a profile with one of the lances moved back.

There are two questions here:
#1. Will it be balanced? Yes. It is exactly equivalent to a profile you found acceptable, and 10pts more than the other variants whilst STILL being underpowered in total weapon and AC strength by 6WBe.
#2. Is there a fluff precedent? Yes, there is. Voss Cruisers have an unused Dorsal Hardpoint, which they may utilise in return for a trade off in one of their other hardpoints. Endeavour/Endurance trade off their torps, Defiant trades off its broadsides.

And yet adding that dorsal lance means one has to sacrifice torps. Based on the text of the AM, one cannot even add the dorsal lance to the Defiant, only the Endeavor and the Endurance. There is no option of 1 prow lance only. You're really complicating things unnecessarily.

[Plaxor]

I think the ship would probably be fine just adding 2 torps to the current profile. Screw space restrictions, just say that the hardware is located throughout the dorsal part of the ship. 1lb on each side can't take up that much space, given that escort carriers have it.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Yup. That would be the most extreme case I would agree with (and I did).

[RCgothic]

And yet adding that dorsal lance means one has to sacrifice torps. Based on the text of the AM, one cannot even add the dorsal lance to the Defiant, only the Endeavor and the Endurance. There is no option of 1 prow lance only. You're really complicating things unnecessarily.

And because S3 F/L/R Lances on a Defiant would be broken. But the Defiant isn't getting S3 Lances, it's getting S2.

As for Endeavour/Endurance, they have to trade in their torps because they don't have enough space otherwise. Defiant has nothing but space, given its half-size broadside hardpoints.

I would agree with Plaxor's proposal as there's no functional difference, but this way is just tidier and more elegant.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

And because S3 F/L/R Lances on a Defiant would be broken. But the Defiant isn't getting S3 Lances, it's getting S2.

Broken how? It's slower than a Dauntless and really isn't suited to gunfights like the Dauntless. So how can it be broken? If anything, the Str 3 lances would just help it survive any opponent which might get near it.

As for Endeavour/Endurance, they have to trade in their torps because they don't have enough space otherwise. Defiant has nothing but space, given its half-size broadside hardpoints.

Then why doesn't the AM allow it to have the dorsal mount option? Not add even prow torps.

I would agree with Plaxor's proposal as there's no functional difference, but this way is just tidier and more elegant.

Adding a dorsal where there is obviously none is more elegant than just adding torps in the prow like its sisters and just retaining the lances? Right.