List of flawed ships

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

*sigh* Just read the book instead of lecturing me on what I read in a book you clearly haven't bothered to read yet.  And, by the way, not necessarily.  Look at fleet based chapters such as BT or chapters that don't depend on IN like DA.  

Oh, I've read a lot of the books all right and even with BT, they should only get more variety. Which is why the Assault SCs were proposed anyway as well as the Thunderhawk Annihilators to help redress the problem. Aside from which, BT (as well as Space Wolves among others) is NOT the norm for SC but the exception. Aside from which, books I don't really use as the main foundation for rules. There's always a bias with books depending on who is the hero. I've said this before, I'll say it again: if the book is about SM, SM are gods. If the book is about Chaos, then Chaos are gods. If the book is about Eldar, then Eldar are gods and so on and so forth. If the book is about Grots, they would be gods.

I've argued that with a GW rep as part of another issue, and, guess what?  They don't care.  (and the fluff has since been changed, I'm told, but haven't seen it yet)

Of course he wouldn't care. With the current mentality of bean counting at GW, they don't even care about BFG as a viable source of income and would pull the plug on it if they could instead of just licensing it to FFG. That's how much they don't care about BFG as well as the other SG games. Well, personally I don't care what they think and I personally would prefer to have a solid game than have to depend on GW.

The proposed change would take the average sm fleet (6 sc, 1 BB at 1500) from 15 LB down to 9.  This effectively means that it would only have 2 AC to use beyond CAP needs.  Considering that in the same point range, TAU can generate 40 ac, and the +4 rule only happens once per turn, and that tau also have the +4 rule, so only 1 of those 40 ac are going to be taken out by thawks on CAP, assuming focused fire.  That's 4.5 hits through +6 on an SC.  This doesn't factor in anyone shooting, just AC.

So Tau can generate 40 AC. So let him focus all those 40 AC on one ship. If they're doing that then your other SCs should be tearing through the Tau lines. What happens if they decide to spread out their AC? The hits go down wouldn't they?

As for the choices, I only have one which I like best already so I don't need to bother with oranges or reds.

[BaronIveagh]

Oh, I've read a lot of the books all right and even with BT, they should only get more variety. Which is why the Assault SCs were proposed anyway as well as the Thunderhawk Annihilators to help redress the problem. Aside from which, BT (as well as Space Wolves among others) is NOT the norm for SC but the exception. Aside from which, books I don't really use as the main foundation for rules. There's always a bias with books depending on who is the hero. I've said this before, I'll say it again: if the book is about SM, SM are gods. If the book is about Chaos, then Chaos are gods. If the book is about Eldar, then Eldar are gods and so on and so forth. If the book is about Grots, they would be gods.

Actually, it was a IG book that happened onboard an SM SC.  So, sorry, no gods here.  (Except maybe protagonist Cain, since we all know he and Jurgan live [since, chronologically, this happens before most of the other books].  Everyone else is fair game)

So Tau can generate 40 AC. So let him focus all those 40 AC on one ship. If they're doing that then your other SCs should be tearing through the Tau lines. What happens if they decide to spread out their AC? The hits go down wouldn't they?

As for the choices, I only have one which I like best already so I don't need to bother with oranges or reds.

D'Art, I know Tau battleships are crap, but you're suggesting that a headlong AAF charge by five light cruisers and possibly a BB a turn or two behind them will carry the day against six battleships that are ignoring the column shift for ranges greater then 30cm and re-rolling inside of 30.  You'll most likely to have two SCs crippled or dead before you get within bombardment cannon range, and probably two more the turn after that. 

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Actually, it was a IG book that happened onboard an SM SC.  So, sorry, no gods here.  (Except maybe protagonist Cain, since we all know he and Jurgan live [since, chronologically, this happens before most of the other books].  Everyone else is fair game)

Still biased in favor of IN/SM.

D'Art, I know Tau battleships are crap, but you're suggesting that a headlong AAF charge by five light cruisers and possibly a BB a turn or two behind them will carry the day against six battleships that are ignoring the column shift for ranges greater then 30cm and re-rolling inside of 30.  You'll most likely to have two SCs crippled or dead before you get within bombardment cannon range, and probably two more the turn after that. 

Really now, you can always AAF at an angle, you know, to present your abeam  profile as well as make use of terrain. With 2 shields and proper use of terrain, SCs can get to the Tau battleships. Not everyone plays the same size table you do.

[Sigoroth]

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.  

What are you talking about? What the hell does intellectual property have to do with space/ground disparity? The important part here is that it was GW that mandated SMs suck in space. A mandate heartily agreed to by all non-SM fanboys and some of the more sensible of that group too.

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.

You have to look at the big picture here. This proposal is not being made in a vacuum (pun intended  ). You have to consider the other changes. Currently the SM SC is getting the second shield in addition to their 2 THs making this a very expensive ship. The proposal is a swap of one for the other, leaving price as is. So while it may halve the AC of the SC it makes it cheaper and doesn't touch the BB, so we're talking less than half in total for the fleet.

On top of that there's a suggestion for an assault carrier variant. This one would be more expensive (about as much as the current proposed SC) but replace its broadside WBs with 1 TH each side, for a total of 3 AC. With a limitation of up to half SCs as this variant this allows the SM fleet to come up to current levels of AC. Note, this will cost some broadside firepower to do, but cost less points than the current proposal, since the gunships are cheaper.

So you could maintain your AC, for less, if you really wanted to. However, this proposal gives you the option of trading AC for firepower. So you get ship variety as well as fleet variety. Win win. What's the objection?

[horizon]

Defiant: with all different stances I think option *delete* is becoming the best option to avoid brick fights haha.

[Sigoroth]

Defiant: with all different stances I think option *delete* is becoming the best option to avoid brick fights haha.

Indeed. That truly is the best option for this ship. It always seemed silly to me that this modular ship had 3 distinct classes whereas the Dauntless had a "variant". That variant is far more distinguished than these are, and requires a different model. I would personally drop this down to the one class ship (Endeavour) and give it a lance "variant". No Defiant at all.

The fact is that there are just no precedents that this ship won't break. Giving it dorsal weaponry or 4AC or 3 prow lances is all out for one reason or another. Some people feel the same for a-boats bellow BB level. So I can't see a possible use for this ship.

A variant of the Dauntless with torps, AC and an extra turret would make more sense. Being fast gives it a lot of options. It can sit back, avoid escorts, chase escorts, position itself for a salvo of torps down the line, etc. The AC would mean that there's no wasted firepower when doing this and can be used to clear CAP or take out an escort. Extra turret makes up for any shortfall of firepower and allows its AC to be used offensively in either of the above roles. This ship fits a Dauntless variant far better than an Endeavour variant.

[Gorin]

I know this would probably seem weird, but why not a STR1 dorsal launch bay?  It would add ordnance without it matching the bigger cruisers.  I know it's not normal but fluffwise, the Voss pattern ships were never standard to begin with.

[Trasvi]

All this nonsense aside, interesting stuff:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=19823&p=381895#p381895

Battle Points:
fleet   bp
Chaos   59
Tau   39
Chaos   33
Imperial Navy   31
Tau   27
Eldar   26
Imperial Navy   23
Orks   18
Chaos   14
Necron   13
Imperial Navy   8
Imperial Navy   6
Eldar   5
Orks   2

There are a few more pics and discussion of this day at our club forum HERE:
http://www.westgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12633&start=30

Mine are the blue Tau, last set of photos.
My list was as posted in these forums a while back: Custodian, 2x Protector, 2x Warden, 4x Castellan. I came second (yay!)
The winning chaos fleet was the first chaos fleet shown in the pictures, and I believe consisted of: Repulsive, Hades, Devastation, 3x Idolator, and one more cruiser possibly a Carnage or Slaughter.
I lost my game against the chaos fleet quite convincingly, I made some huge mistakes as well as facing his dastardly good rolling which saw all 3 of my cruisers suffer a Shields Destroyed critical in one round of shooting :/.

[Plaxor]

I know this would probably seem weird, but why not a STR1 dorsal launch bay?  It would add ordnance without it matching the bigger cruisers.  I know it's not normal but fluffwise, the Voss pattern ships were never standard to begin with.

I like this idea, 3 lb on the ship, but its impossible to make symmetrical, and the model doesn't represent it.

Damn.... Sig and ADDART didn't pick anything, and I don't want to delete the ship as it is an official gw model. I'll crunch what we have and just pick it. It will suck for someone... but it's some light cruiser no one used anyways.

Oh and btw IN fleets had about 5.7? launch bay average according to my analysis of peoples fleets online, orks had 9.2 average. Really not a big deal reducing the launch bays of marines compared to at least these two.

Tau I imagine will have somewhere around 24 at 1500. Most lists at this value have 2x explorers 2x heroes and then escort/demiurg/whatnot filler. Armor 6 with 2 turrets would take 1.39 hits from a wave of 6 bombers, as opposed to 2.78 for armor 5 with two turrets. Marines have twice the resistance to bombers as IN/Chaos. Besides their attack craft count as about 1.5 fighters anyway.

[Plaxor]

All right, 2 torps won. (sorry if you read this before... forgot one factor) Now we can stop talking about the defiant *sigh of relief*. Back to changes that actually matter; how does everyone feel about the three remaining GC upgrades? Points cost on them? Points cost on the Avenger? Etc.

[Plaxor]

So we only really have the GCs to finish up for IN/Chaos here’s a recap:

Retaliator: 3LB per side. More people need to vote on this, or give other options for solving the issues of this ship.

Prow Torpedos (6)   we need a cost on this, likely 25 points.

Prow Sensor Array, this isn’t a bad upgrade, isn’t great, but it’s something other than torps or improved engines to give it.

Improved engines (remove improved engines on Retaliator): this is already represented in the GC world so it is justifiable, and it’s something different to give them. Vote on this please.

Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost. I need someone to give me a good reason why this ship needs it, other than the model has a shit-ton of launch bays argument. It’s decent for what it currently costs, and I’m still in the IN can has no launch bays camp.
Avenger: we need a points cost on this, and if it should have an upgrade for fp16@45cm (for 210 points)

Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts. This is justifiable by mathhammer, and it isn’t used like cobras are. Right now it’s all right for 30 points, but it would be good for 25.

Other things not yet discussed:
Blackstone fortresses; why hasn’t anyone brought these up? They are obviously overcosted and have issues. Any suggestions?
Chaos Warmasters needing to be on the most expensive ship. I know people have complained about this in the past, shouldn’t this say the ‘biggest’ class of ship? I.E. a battleship if there is one, then a grand cruiser, then a heavy cruiser etc.

Astartes:
We need people to vote on the options all-ready presented. Also I would like to bring in some things from Nates’ SM document. The Seditio opprimere from that? Yes/no. Strike cruiser variants, including the torp version, and the carrier version? Should they be limited to ½? Changing the prow lb to 3 bombards? Changing the bombard to a lance?

Of course venerable bbs and how they should work. As well as the ‘carrier’ battlebarge variant.

Oh and terminators being costed at 10 points, and working exactly the same as chaos terminators. Also honor guard/captains?

[Sigoroth]

Retaliator: 3LB per side. More people need to vote on this, or give other options for solving the issues of this ship.

Yarp, 3 LB per side.

Prow Torpedos (6)   we need a cost on this, likely 25 points.

My previous costs were all spur of the moment, off the top of the head type thing. So let's mathhammer it. Well, assuming that the Dom, Lunar and Gothic all have equivalent broadside firepower and assuming all 3 ships are balanced (all fair assumptions) then a NC costs 6 torps + 10 pts. Assuming that the NC of the Apocalypse is worth the same points as the 9 torps of the Ret (reasonable) then that means that the NC = 9 torps. So 9 torps = 6 torps + 10 pts. Therefore 3 torps = 10 pts, so 6 torps = 20 pts. This is what I had yes? Well we can push that by another 5 pts because we'll be deliberately overcosting the options. They are, after all, options.

Improved engines (remove improved engines on Retaliator): this is already represented in the GC world so it is justifiable, and it’s something different to give them. Vote on this please.

Well, the options I was thinking of were merely to fill the 'bald' spots on the ship. However, I suppose they could be extended slightly.

Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost. I need someone to give me a good reason why this ship needs it, other than the model has a shit-ton of launch bays argument. It’s decent for what it currently costs, and I’m still in the IN can has no launch bays camp.

Well a pet peeve of mine has been that a lot of the CGs are woefully undergunned. This and the Ret are prime examples. The Styx is an example of an already compromised bay strength. Simple linear progression dictates it should have 4 each side. We are willing to accept less though, since linear progressions aren't always the case. So the Styx is at 75% capacity, nominally because of cramped space, being so small.

However, the CGs aren't cramped. They have a lot of space. An argument could be made for full BB level capacity, meaning 4 each side. Since they're somewhat defunct however, we could make a compromise much like the Styx. Why though would we compromise to 50% capacity for these? Particularly as we're looking at 75% capacity on the Retaliator.

So no good reason other than the model, but to me that is a good reason.

Avenger: we need a points cost on this, and if it should have an upgrade for fp16@45cm (for 210 points)

This fit makes it a really crap Vengeance. 20 WB at 30cm. Drop cost.

Other things not yet discussed:
Blackstone fortresses; why hasn’t anyone brought these up? They are obviously overcosted and have issues. Any suggestions?

Possibly little discussion because they're so seldom used. People probably don't even own them. Even if you get past the horrendous price tag as a deterrent, have you tried to legally include them in you fleet? They're a defence. Which means that you have to have a lot of points allocated to defences to take one, or at least be playing a scenario that allows you to spend a portion of your fleet points on it. On top of this it is least useful against  the race it was designed to beat.

Chaos Warmasters needing to be on the most expensive ship. I know people have complained about this in the past, shouldn’t this say the ‘biggest’ class of ship? I.E. a battleship if there is one, then a grand cruiser, then a heavy cruiser etc.

Chaos Warmasters need a 50 pt option. This is a quick fix, a better one being a revisit of all fleet commanders and characters, but short of that, a cheaper option should be on the cards. Also, the 100 pt option should be a flat Ld 9. It's silly being an 8 on a roll of a 1 and 9 on a roll of 2+.

Astartes:
We need people to vote on the options all-ready presented. Also I would like to bring in some things from Nates’ SM document. The Seditio opprimere from that? Yes/no. Strike cruiser variants, including the torp version, and the carrier version? Should they be limited to ½? Changing the prow lb to 3 bombards? Changing the bombard to a lance?

Of course venerable bbs and how they should work. As well as the ‘carrier’ battlebarge variant.

Oh and terminators being costed at 10 points, and working exactly the same as chaos terminators. Also honor guard/captains?

Well, I think the basic SC should have its prow THs dropped to 1 and its shields bumped to 2 at no price change. So variants should then be based on a Str 1 bay sacrifice, rather than a str 2 bay. So a 3 torp option and a 3BC@30cmF option are ok. Another option replacing broadside WBs with 1 TH each side for +15 pts would be good, to allow those so inclined to bring their AC back up to current levels. This option should be limited to 1 per other SC variant. No lance option should be allowed.

As for the SO, it's a good ship, though I'd say a touch expensive. However, I don't understand why its prow launch bays are reduced. How does swapping the broadside weaponry reduce the prow bays?

Anyway, the reason I suspect it's overpriced is because I'm not sold on a typical BB at 425 pts. I expect that with 4 shields/turrets it'd be worth its weight, maybe even a touch more. I suspect that this variant is paying full price for them (+25 pts), which is a little expensive given initial balance. Then it pays a bit more (10 pts), loses a TH and loses range for the BC swap. This is likely worth it, assuming that WB and BC from the one ship/squadron interfere with each other. If this ship were given back it's TH it'd be fine as far as I'm concerned at its cost. Normal BBs should get the 4th shield and turret for a nominal price increase (10-15 pts).

[RCgothic]

So we only really have the GCs to finish up for IN/Chaos here’s a recap:

Retaliator: 3LB per side. More people need to vote on this, or give other options for solving the issues of this ship.

Still in favour.

Prow Torpedos (6)   we need a cost on this, likely 25 points.

Sounds Good.

Prow Sensor Array, this isn’t a bad upgrade, isn’t great, but it’s something other than torps or improved engines to give it.

Sounds Good. +20pts

Improved engines (remove improved engines on Retaliator): this is already represented in the GC world so it is justifiable, and it’s something different to give them. Vote on this please.

Sounds Good. +20pts

Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost. I need someone to give me a good reason why this ship needs it, other than the model has a shit-ton of launch bays argument. It’s decent for what it currently costs, and I’m still in the IN can has no launch bays camp.

Because it has a shit-ton of LBs, and we're setting precedent for 4HPs on a GC to do 6AC with the Retaliator. It's also undergunned by GC standards. If we're not going to give it 6AC, then rip two of the HPs out and give it S2 Lance decks instead at 45cm for 250pts.

Avenger: we need a points cost on this, and if it should have an upgrade for fp16@45cm (for 210 points)

No FP Upgrade. 210pts minimum - has to equal or more than a Dictator.

Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts. This is justifiable by mathhammer, and it isn’t used like cobras are. Right now it’s all right for 30 points, but it would be good for 25.

Stll in favour.

Other things not yet discussed:
Blackstone fortresses; why hasn’t anyone brought these up? They are obviously overcosted and have issues. Any suggestions?

The BSF Looks sensibly costed, apart from the fact its shields can never regenerate. Proposed Rule:

All ships counting as Defences remove D3 Blastmakers from base contact at the end of their Ordnance Phase. All Defences with 12 or more hitpoints remove D6 Blast markers.

Chaos Warmasters needing to be on the most expensive ship. I know people have complained about this in the past, shouldn’t this say the ‘biggest’ class of ship? I.E. a battleship if there is one, then a grand cruiser, then a heavy cruiser etc.

Isn't Most Expensive usually the same thing? I don't see a reason for a change.

Astartes:
We need people to vote on the options all-ready presented. Also I would like to bring in some things from Nates’ SM document. The Seditio opprimere from that? Yes/no. Strike cruiser variants, including the torp version, and the carrier version? Should they be limited to ½? Changing the prow lb to 3 bombards? Changing the bombard to a lance?

Of course venerable bbs and how they should work. As well as the ‘carrier’ battlebarge variant.

Oh and terminators being costed at 10 points, and working exactly the same as chaos terminators. Also honor guard/captains?

I haven't really kept up with the changes in the SM draft.

[RCgothic]

Quick analysis of the Defiant New(Old)vs Endeavour/Endurance:

Defiant +10pts

Front Only: 3WBe(0) D vs 3 WBe E
Side Only: 0 WBe(0) D vs 6 WBe E
All round: 10WBe(10) D vs 2 WBe E

Front Focus: 13WBe(10) D vs 5 WBe E
Side Focus: 10WBe(10) D vs 8 WBe E
Side and Front: 13WBe(10) D vs 11WBe E
Both Sides: 10WBe(10) D vs 14WBe E
Every Arc: 13WBe(10) D vs 17WBe E

So the Defiant has less total firepower, but much greater ability to focus it, particularly to Prow. The Defiant has always been able to defeat its sisters in any one arc, but since its torp upgrade it is now also able to defeat them with an enemy in front and to the side, making it far more useful in the line of battle where this will be commonplace, whilst its new torps make it far more suited to partnering another larger vessel than previously.

The Endeavour/Endurance still triumph with an enemy in both broadsides or when completely surrounded, and at 10pts less they remain viable also.

Overall a vast improvement, and just a shame I didn't get the Dorsal mount I wanted! I guess there's nothing to stop me modelling it with the Dorsal Lance and playing counts as anyway.

[BaronIveagh]

Actually, it was a IG book that happened onboard an SM SC.  So, sorry, no gods here.  (Except maybe protagonist Cain, since we all know he and Jurgan live [since, chronologically, this happens before most of the other books].  Everyone else is fair game)

Still biased in favor of IN/SM.

D'Art, I know Tau battleships are crap, but you're suggesting that a headlong AAF charge by five light cruisers and possibly a BB a turn or two behind them will carry the day against six battleships that are ignoring the column shift for ranges greater then 30cm and re-rolling inside of 30.  You'll most likely to have two SCs crippled or dead before you get within bombardment cannon range, and probably two more the turn after that.  

Really now, you can always AAF at an angle, you know, to present your abeam  profile as well as make use of terrain. With 2 shields and proper use of terrain, SCs can get to the Tau battleships. Not everyone plays the same size table you do.

I'm not talking a giant table, i'm talking 6'x4' here.  On my table there would have been 50-75% casualties before they even came in range of the guns.  

This assumes a Tau first turn.  Tau launch, and then RO, angle ac toward the nearest SC.

SM turn.  They angle away to try and present their abeam profile.  However, you lose speed toward the fleet, meaning that you're probably outside your own effective range (30cm) you're probably also outside your ability to fire on the incomming AC (was you would have had to close within the Explorer's 45cm range to fire on them. ) Tau player moves AC to be at 60 cm abeam of you between the fleets.

Tau player's turn, fleet moves away from SC, and turns, bringing them slightly abeam of you.  You're now slightly closer, but tactically more or less in the same position before, just a few turns later.  The AC on it's own has good odds of killing a sc outright, or crippling the battlebarge.  Either one is perfectly viable, and there's not a lot that can be done in response.  If you get in 6 hits on the battlebarge, you're almost certain to get a crit on top everything else.

All you end up with is a dance around the table.  and, unless it's something that stops AC, terrain isn't going to help much.  



My resistance is that it's a change to the base profile, rather then as a purchasable option.  I have no problem with this as an optional upgrade, but resist any changes to the base SC profile.