List of flawed ships

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

As for Battlecruisers, the reason there isn't a Gothic BC with either dorsal lances or WBs is that the ship would require 10turrets and there are only 8 in a cruiser box, so GW would never condone it.

C'mon dude. You think that's really a reason?

[horizon]

Hard to say. They already made too few weapon battery modules in the boxes. Perhaps that's the reason only 1 Dominator flew in the Gothic War?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

But there were 2 Overlords there. So this means with 8 turrets one shouldn't be able to make an Overlord and a Gothic if that's your contention and so the Overlord BC should not exist. Or how about an Armageddon and a Gothic from the box? Knowing players, they wouldn't just buy one box of cruisers. They'd probably buy a lot to make a fleet they like and this means bits. There is no reason why they can't make a BC Gothic. I've made one so I guess that is a figment of my imagination then.

[Plaxor]

I would rather have the tyrant just have 45cm guns. It actually works better with the fluff, which mentions the entire weapons systems being upgraded to the superfired plasma weapons.

I would accept just having it as 190 for range 45 str10 wbs and just deleting the downgraded version.

[Valhallan]

now i'm just nitpicking, the 'upgraded' implies the lesser version. and i'm quite fond of Str12WB@30 but i'm really tired of the NC currently required in that package. getting 12WB for 180 would be golden - like the throne, and the imperium is all about verity.

I'll second RC's last post.

CB gothic is cool, but  really not necessary i guess. house games rule this hobby - and i have plenty of magnatized battlecruisers.

[Plaxor]

So getting pretty close to stapling this down. Would like to do it in the next day or two. Please give your final votes for all these, even if you think that you've already stated them I might've not caught them. Also the holdovers are coming back into play, so tell me if you would like a revote on any of them.

Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option
Make normal Ld9

IN:
Tyrant: Make wbs str12@30cm
Further reduction in base cost (you can vote for both, even though they are mutually exclusive)
Removal of base type

Astartes:
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard on strike cruiser
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points
Nova: Reduce by 5 points

Holdovers: (Tell me if you want to bring any of these back for a revote)
Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech and/or LFR lance (likely return to 45 points)
Acheron: Increase range to 60cm, and +10 cost
Styx: Additional -10 cost
Devestation: +10 cost
Emperor: +10 points

[commander]

So getting pretty close to stapling this down. Would like to do it in the next day or two. Please give your final votes for all these, even if you think that you've already stated them I might've not caught them. Also the holdovers are coming back into play, so tell me if you would like a revote on any of them.

Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option
Make normal Ld9

==> OK with this

IN:
Tyrant: Make wbs str12@30cm
Further reduction in base cost (you can vote for both, even though they are mutually exclusive)
Removal of base type

==> OK with this

Astartes:
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard on strike cruiser
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points
Nova: Reduce by 5 points

==> OK with this

Holdovers: (Tell me if you want to bring any of these back for a revote)
Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech and/or LFR lance (likely return to 45 points)
Acheron: Increase range to 60cm, and +10 cost

==> would not do that

Styx: Additional -10 cost

==> OK with this

Devestation: +10 cost

==> OK with this

Emperor: +10 points

==> would not do that

[horizon]

Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option
Make normal Ld9

No, keep lists different.

IN:
Tyrant: Make wbs str12@30cm
Further reduction in base cost (you can vote for both, even though they are mutually exclusive)
Removal of base type

No on all.

Astartes:
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard on strike cruiser
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points
Nova: Reduce by 5 points

Yes on SC
Gladii/Nova: With RSV: no, with no RSV: yes

Holdovers: (Tell me if you want to bring any of these back for a revote)
Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech and/or LFR lance (likely return to 45 points)
Acheron: Increase range to 60cm, and +10 cost
Styx: Additional -10 cost
Devestation: +10 cost
Emperor: +10 points

No
No
No
No
No

[Sigoroth]

So getting pretty close to stapling this down. Would like to do it in the next day or two. Please give your final votes for all these, even if you think that you've already stated them I might've not caught them. Also the holdovers are coming back into play, so tell me if you would like a revote on any of them.

Chaos:
Warmasters: 50 point ld8 option
Make normal Ld9

Yes to both.

IN:
Tyrant: Make wbs str12@30cm
Further reduction in base cost (you can vote for both, even though they are mutually exclusive)
Removal of base type

12WB@30cm + torps + range option + NC option (not so fussed on this last one).

Astartes:
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard on strike cruiser
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points
Nova: Reduce by 5 points

Yes to all, though I'm dubious on the BC, I think it'll be a little powerful, but variety is good.

Holdovers: (Tell me if you want to bring any of these back for a revote)
Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech and/or LFR lance (likely return to 45 points) 
Acheron: Increase range to 60cm, and +10 cost
Styx: Additional -10 cost
Devestation: +10 cost
Emperor: +10 points

Idolator - hmm, no to the LFR, and I think no special rules are necessary for it. I think just the reduction.
Acheron - yes, I'd like to see it have the option to extend its dorsal lances for 10 pts, though not its prow WBs of course.
Styx - while I understand the desire to reduce further, and agree it's only worth 250 pts, the 10 pt premium doesn't seem too bad in this case.
Devastation - I'm fairly confident that the range reduction is all that is needed here. Increasing cost is not necessary.
Emperor - no, don't increase cost. Bringing down other carriers costs and making other BBs more attractive will be sufficient.

Other holdovers I'd like to talk about:

Defiant - I see it has 2 torps in addition to its 2 lances. This is unacceptable. It should have less prow firepower than a Dauntless. Swap the lances for WBs and give it a points break.

Overlord - isn't the range upgrade supposed to cost 10 pts? Maybe we made it a straight swap, but looking at the Tyrant suggestion and since it's coming down in price anyway I suggest making this cost +10 pts to get.

GCs - can I get the argument against the dorsal options again? I still don't know why they got the boot.

Astartes:
Add option to swap lbs with str 3 F bombard on strike cruiser
Gladius: Reduce by 5 points
Nova: Reduce by 5 points

Yes on SC
Gladii/Nova: With RSV: yes, with no RSV: no

Don't you mean this the other way around Horizon? If we keep the RSVs and drop the cost then SMs will have access to the 40 pt SM Sword and 40 pt (faster) Gladius. Similarly we'd have the 40 pt SM Firestorm or the 45 pt (much faster, with LFR lance minus a turret) Nova. If we delete the RSVs and leave the costs as they are then we've got only expensive escort options (apart from Hunter which is really nice). So the price should come down by 5 pts only after deleting the superfluous RSVs.

Oh, and I move that we rename the Hunter class the Taipan class instead! 

[horizon]

aaah, woops. Fixed.

[RCgothic]

IN:
Tyrant: Make wbs str12@30cm

No on all.

Very dissapointed you feel that way. A FP12 base torp boat is just what we need, and would completely rehabilitate the Tyrant regardless fo what happens with the range options. It would be perfectly balacned, as equivalent to the Lunar or Gothic.

Defiant - I see it has 2 torps in addition to its 2 lances. This is unacceptable. It should have less prow firepower than a Dauntless. Swap the lances for WBs and give it a points break.[/quote]

You were outvoted. I would agree that 1 of the Lances should be L/R Dorsal and not front, but I was outvoted too. We were very divided on this issue and the +2 Torps argument won.

GCs - can I get the argument against the dorsal options again? I still don't know why they got the boot.

A majority of people felt that allowing GCs to have dorsal weapons, particularly the revised Avenger, but also the others, allowed them broadside and focus damage potential equal to a Gun Battleship which was unacceptable.

[Sigoroth]

Defiant - I see it has 2 torps in addition to its 2 lances. This is unacceptable. It should have less prow firepower than a Dauntless. Swap the lances for WBs and give it a points break.

You were outvoted. I would agree that 1 of the Lances should be L/R Dorsal and not front, but I was outvoted too. We were very divided on this issue and the +2 Torps argument won.

I agree that there should be no dorsal armament on it. I just can't see why it would get it and another ship would not. As for the extra space argument, I thought it better fit to be used for extra crew and equipment to give it a-boats. OK, so others didn't agree to that, for precedent reasons also. Fine.

What I want to know is, why does this ship have better prow armament than a Dauntless when it's based on a Voss CL? If you want to make a Dauntless based CVL then do it. Delete the Defiant. Or note that this ship is based on a Dauntless and give it the extra speed and ditch the prow armour.

I call for a revote:

If you want this ship to get 2 torps in addition to its 2 lances, vote yes. If you don't want this change, and would prefer something else or no change, vote no.

<--- NO.

A majority of people felt that allowing GCs to have dorsal weapons, particularly the revised Avenger, but also the others, allowed them broadside and focus damage potential equal to a Gun Battleship which was unacceptable.

Yeees, it would make them gunboats. Why is that unacceptable? The Repulsive has just 4 less WBs than a fixed Retribution (it used to have more firepower!).

Admiral d'Artagnan has a model, made by Warmaster Nice if I remember correctly, called the Governor. The model itself has 5 hardpoints per side as well as dorsal weaponry. The stats for the Governor are much more modest though. I, upon seeing the ship, made some stats for it. Called the Warspite class. Very very potent. But with its short range, mediocre speed, soft nose and price it was very unlikely to be able to get into close range and unleash all its goodiness, and if it did you deserved it to.

This is, in itself, a balancing feature. If you put a shit tonne of firepower on an extremely well defended ship that is fast and then give it good range, well that's over the top. If you put a shit tonne of short ranged firepower on a mediocre speed and poorly defended ship, that's a different story.

Hell, the Slaughter class cruiser has 34 WB total firepower, can focus 20 WBs of that and is a very fast ship. This only costs a dirt cheap 165 pts and no one thinks they're overpowered. A much slower and only slightly tougher big brother to that ship is surely not that big a deal. People, you have got to learn some perspective. Massive firepower is ok, so long as it is reasonably represented and there are some trade-offs.

Every IN/Chaos capital ship has prow weaponry except the Vengeance series CGs. Every IN/Chaos heavy cruiser, battle cruiser and battleship has dorsal weaponry. Even the only other type of CG has it. So giving this to the Vengeance is not unreasonable.

The difference between these ships and the gun battleships is 1) much tougher and 2) more efficient weaponry. The Vengeance series have mediocre range and strength, despite having an extra hardpoint. They're weaker ships, with less hits, shields, turrets and no prow armour. Why shouldn't they have dorsal weaponry?

Given precedents out there, there is the potential to make a BB with: 12WB@60cmL+R, 2L@60cmL+R (Emp/Ober), 3L@60cmLFR dorsal (Ret/Desp) and 6WB@60cmLFR prow (Styx). This is without even upgunning the prow WBs to BB level firepower. With that upgunning we're talking almost PK level firepower here (focusable and total).

So every step down from this is flavour, character, compromise. To say that a short ranged, fragile, pure gunship bristling with guns should be unable to compete in weight of fire with a BB is a bit silly.

[horizon]

Defiant
I was always in favour of 4 wb @ 2 torps on it.
By compromise I went for 2 torps & 2 batteries on the prow.

I cannot remember I voted for 2 torps & 2 lances.
If so I had a blackout.

[Sigoroth]

I think I nodded along to the notion of 2 torps assuming that it was going to have identical prow weaponry to the other classes. I certainly would never have agreed to 2 torps and 2 lances.

[RCgothic]

The version I want is +2 Torps, with one of the lances dorsal and restricted L/R. There is the space on the defiant - the mid-hull has more space than the Endeavour/Endurance because of the half-size launch bays. This evades the whole "More firepower forward than a dauntless and ridiculously stuffed prow" problems, and allows it to keep its current price.

Failing that I could tolerate a slashed price WB2 T2 LB2 Dauntless, but I have reservations about making a capital ship so weak it could never operate without support. I'd put this variant in the range 90-100pts.