List of flawed ships

[horizon]

Why would the Marines want to turn to present an abeam side? Tau haven't got very long ranged gunnery. And Marines have 6+ armour. Plus Marines have more issues with enemy assault boats then bombers.

I am not saying a pure Tau carrier fleet is weak (cause it is one of the strongest things around against any opponent).


I'll support the suggestions by Sigoroth regarding the Strike Cruiser.
On dakkadakka people are telling the Monastry too strong, I said I gave rats about the thing being too strong. That things is so rare and expensive.
They also claimed the new Seditio to be to strong! I think the new SO is fine. Very fine.
The Barge, a turret upgrade I support without point change. I am on a limb to have the 4th shield for free or small increase.

[commander]

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.

==> All vengeance class carriers, IN and Chaos, up to S6 LB. Any reasons the IN would not have it, can be used against chaos as well. So no crap, all up to S6 LB.

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

==> OK

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.

==> OK

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.

==> 20 cm speed for a GC, I can live with it.

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.

==> See Retaliator

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

==> NO, NOT FP16 R45, that's crap. FP20 R30 I can live with. Cost REDUCTION. It's way overcosted.

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.

==> OK

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.

==> Biggest is fine

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?

[Plaxor]

So I don't think people know what improved engines does. It adds d6 to the all ahead full of a ship. Not +5 cm to its speed.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.  

Then you're playing it wrong because I can have the SCs be in your Tau fleet by turn 2 by doing 1 AAF (my first turn) or 2 AAFs (at the risk of not doing an RO check). 50-75% casualties before they come 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.

I'm not going to angle away. I'm going to angle towards you on AAF.  

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.  

Clearly you have not played against a decent, aggressive SM player. 6 hits on the Battle Barge? You're wishing really hard aren't you?

[Plaxor]

So the 'it has shit-tons of lbs' argument won. Amusing. However we need votes on all the astartes stuff, as well as the avengers cost (smotherman says 170, and like I said it will be overcosted).

Votes on chaos warmasters as well.

[BaronIveagh]

Then you're playing it wrong because I can have the SCs be in your Tau fleet by turn 2 by doing 1 AAF (my first turn) or 2 AAFs (at the risk of not doing an RO check). 50-75% casualties before they come in range of the guns?

Then you're leaving your battle barge and/or at least one SC behind because at least one ship is going to have to BFI or get hammered.

I was commenting on the difference between my table and a 6'x4' table.  On a 6'x4' a SM player is likely to lose a SC at least closing with Tau.   On my table, it tends toward a 50-75% loss before they can close.

I'm not going to angle away. I'm going to angle towards you on AAF.  

A post earlier you were angling away to go abeam on AAF.  Which one is it?

Clearly you have not played against a decent, aggressive SM player. 6 hits on the Battle Barge? You're wishing really hard aren't you?

Not really.  The average is 4-5 through +6.  Six wouldn't be that far out of the realm of possibility.  Most 'aggressive' SM players don't bother to BFI with +6 armor if they're trying to close. 

It's not the weakness vs boarding, it's the sheer number of bombers that are plastering a individual target.

[commander]

So I don't think people know what improved engines does. It adds d6 to the all ahead full of a ship. Not +5 cm to its speed.

I know, but I don't see it happen on a GC whose engine technology is stretched/strained to the max. So I see normal speeds. But that's only me. 

[Plaxor]

It's already an option on the Retaliator, that's really the justification. This would make it an option for all the GCs

[Plaxor]

It's not the weakness vs boarding, it's the sheer number of bombers that are plastering a individual target.

Swarms of tau bombers murder everything. Space marines have more resistance to it than your average fleet due to their armor and standard turrets.

Try playing orks against tau sometime 

You can't base a fleets function/design on how it interacts with one other fleet. Things have to be taken from a universal standpoint.

Like the orks, unless you rewrote their stats and basic design completely, they will always have a weakness to high-ordinance fleets, as well as high armor ones.

Also the eldar, who are weak against chaos. Tyranids weak against Eldar etc. The goal is to make it as close as possible without making one race particularly overpowered against another.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Then you're leaving your battle barge and/or at least one SC behind because at least one ship is going to have to BFI or get hammered.

Then let it be hammered. And frankly, I am not worried about the Battle Barge which is also probably going on AAF. I'd shove it down the Tau's throats and let loose with all its weapons.

I was commenting on the difference between my table and a 6'x4' table.  On a 6'x4' a SM player is likely to lose a SC at least closing with Tau.   On my table, it tends toward a 50-75% loss before they can close.

But we're not talking about your table anymore as you already mentioned you were talking about 6' x 4' table. Stick to one table size please.

A post earlier you were angling away to go abeam on AAF.  Which one is it?

There's a way for you to angle towards your opponent and present an abeam profile. It will all depend on initial setup but since we are talking about a situation where you went first, the setup can be done accordingly. Risky with 1 shield but doable. With 2 shields this tactic will increase in effectiveness.

Not really.  The average is 4-5 through +6.  Six wouldn't be that far out of the realm of possibility.  Most 'aggressive' SM players don't bother to BFI with +6 armor if they're trying to close.  

It's not the weakness vs boarding, it's the sheer number of bombers that are plastering a individual target.

So plaster away. If you're going after the BB go ahead. Again, you have no idea how hard it is to take down a Battle Barge. You clearly have not played against one. And while you're focusing on the BB, the SCs will now head into your rear and pummel you.

[Plaxor]

So you say that one ship getting hammered by a whole fleet of tau ordinance is a big deal? Lets mathhammer it:

If two fleets start on opposite sides of the board, nearly in line with each other and the sm player all ahead fulls towards his enemy until he is in weapons range then he will have to endure getting pummeled for about two turns before he can do anything.

Lets assume that the tau player is a douche and maxes explorers at 1500. Taking six of them. 6x8 is 48 bombers. Each wave of eight.

Now during the two ordinance phases 12 waves of 8 bombers (presumably) will come into contact with your ships.

2 turrets on a strike cruiser have:
1/4 chance of killing 0 bombers
1/2 chance of killing 1
1/4 chance of killing 2

Each bomber will have according to the number rolled on the dice attacks:
1  2  3  4  5  6
0  0  1  2  3  4

Or an average of 5/3 attacks for those that survive. So in the scenario that 0 die, this will be 13.333 attacks, if one dies this will be 11.667 attacks, if two die this will be 10 attacks. So averaging out these scenarios it will be 11.667 attacks, causing 1.94 hits each time. So 12 bomber runs will kill 4 strike cruisers.

The firepower on the explorers is negligible and is unlikely to do anything to a 2 shielded SC, save for when they are close. Also this doesn't account for the fact that your LBs will stop 9 bombers, and preventing the death of 1 strike cruiser. Also likely you will brace with any seeing more than 1 or two bomber runs. Additionally... shoot the ridiculously huge waves of bombers on your way in.

After this your fleet will have 3 strike cruisers and a battlebarge left. This is enough to murder 6 explorers. I mean... murder. I mean the Battlebarge with 4 turrets is damn near invulnerable to the same bombers, and it could probably murder all the explorers on its own. With boarding actions and etc. The Tau fleet in this scenario has no firepower whatsoever, and really...

the same 48 bombers will do:
.5 hits per wave, so 6 hits in the two turns. Crippling the bb, but saving your SCs for murder. The murder is in fact quite immense.

Also a strike cruiser wins in boarding against tau. In this scenario the explorers would always be on special orders (RO) and have a boarding value of eight. Sure they would outnumber you +1, but you get the special orders against them +1 as well as being a marine +2. So you get +2 on them, sure not great, but throw in a BM and you've got a solid +3, meaning that you will win 1/2 the time, 1/6 you will tie, and fight next turn (stopping the ordinance death from that ship) and 1/3 you will lose and take a point.

Presumably you wouldn't take such risk, unlike me, an ork player where the strategy is well... more suicidal than strategy. Hell I'd board those vessels even if I had a even dice off.

Why are you arguing about the tau being so nasty to marines?

[horizon]

Hi Plaxor,

in the AdMech list the option Advanced Engines exists, this gives +5cm speed and 5df AAF. Perhaps that is the reason of confusion.

[BaronIveagh]

Um, except, last I checked, a BB has 3 turrets, not 4, Plax.  A VBB has 4 turrets.

So, your math on how many hits the BB will take is off, assuming that my stats are as I remember them.

Most of the tau carrier fleets I've met tend to move in a sort of criss-crossing blob while squadroned, due to thier weaker rear armor and the rules for targeting different facings in a squadron. 

Also: individually, they suck for broadsides, but six of them focus firing on a single target can be a pain. (36 -2 34/6) gives 5.66 hits, assuming you haven't killed the Messanger you can buy with the spare points. 

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The 4th turret is a proposal for changes to the BB as well as adding another shield. So what will happen is the BB gets 4 turrets and 4 shields. SC will get 2 turrets and 2 shields. All of these changes are to make the SM ships more survivable.

Even with 3 turrets and 3 shields for the BB however, the numbers will mostly hold.

[Plaxor]

It now has 4 muahahaha! (This is one of those times I feel like Dr. frankenstein or some evil dictator)

No, what I'm saying is that we've changed the turrets on the BB so we're trying to look at things from that perspective.

Edit: The shield/turret proposal for BBs passed with flying colors. It was almost obnoxious. I also chose to incorporate the SC mod into this, as it is very well agreed by the community (and the vote was 5 for, 1 against).