List of flawed ships

[Sigoroth]

What? So are we using FAQ apocalypse rules?

No, bad solution.

So it's 30cm range, but if you LO its 60cm range, but if you fire over 45cm you get a crit, but you don't get all of the crit? If you fail your LO then you can't fire over 30cm, so you can't depend on it as a long range fire platform so you've got to close with this terribly slow ship anyway sooooo the whole rule extending range is pointless? Terribad.

Just give it 60cm range. That way you can count on it. If you fire over 30cm place a BM in base contact. Loses a shield and some speed for a turn to represent the power drain. Really simple, clean, efficient and makes the ship reliable therefore playable.

[Sigoroth]

To be honest : who would take 6wb if ha can have 12?

Longer range and a cheaper nova cannon? That's the point....

Why would you nerf the main firepower of your cruiser just to get the auxiliary weapon for 5 pts less? I have always thought this option was pure fail. Never even considered it.

[Plaxor]

Why would you nerf the main firepower of your cruiser just to get the auxiliary weapon for 5 pts less? I have always thought this option was pure fail. Never even considered it.

Yes, and I'm asking what would you do to make it a more viable option?

I'm guessing fp8@45 in this case makes more sense.

[RCgothic]

To be honest : who would take 6wb if ha can have 12?

Seconded. I wouldn't consider halving my FP to get 15cm extra range if it came with a 40pt discount, and bumping up the option's FP just makes it compete with the Tyrant. I'd consider just deleting it.

As for the Apocalypse, I agree with Sigoroth. It's a rubbish and convoluted rule. 60cm and a blast marker for over 30 is far simpler and achieves the same effect.

[horizon]

lol, a massive improvement over the original Apocalypse is called rubbish?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

So wh couldn't it be 45cm but firing over it creates the BM? Personally I wouldn't mind taking the full crit effects as long as the Apocalypse can fire up to 45 cm without any crit.

[RCgothic]

lol, a massive improvement over the original Apocalypse is called rubbish?

So they dropped the hit of damage in exchange for 'don't take all the effects of this critical hit'. It's a horribly written and ugly rule.

Considering an undamaged Apocalypse has a just 10% chance of not repairing the critical in the end phase, the blast marker is more damaging and lasts longer. The objection is not remotely related to the reduced damage output not being good enough. The RULE isn't good enough.

[Sigoroth]

lol, a massive improvement over the original Apocalypse is called rubbish?

The original rule was aiming at character and ended up just being terrible. The 'fix' to the rule only removes some of the more hurtful aspects of the original (ie, the damage) and reduces the proportion of time that you have to worry about it (ie, over 45cm instead of over 30cm). It doesn't fix the inherent problem of not being able to shoot over 30cm if you fail your LO (or a previous RO attempt fails ruining further CoC tests) and it also makes a bit of a mockery of the critical hit. One would presume that the +1 damage is a component of the crit, not just some arbitrary extra damage that is applied. This change suggests that it's the latter.

As RCG says, it's too convoluted. Sure, the HA have a lot of trouble seeing good changes and them leaving this rule in place with just a few minor changes is predictable. It doesn't make the Apocalypse any more attractive and I think that since we're on a wishlist of fan based changes then we shouldn't leave this as is.

So why couldn't it be 45cm but firing over it creates the BM? Personally I wouldn't mind taking the full crit effects as long as the Apocalypse can fire up to 45 cm without any crit.

I don't feel this way myself. Um, I'm not sure whether you're coming at this particular break point from a pure logic point of view because you consider 30-45cm to be mid range and 45-60cm to be long range and since it says "long range" in the description it should be over 45cm blah blah. Or perhaps you're coming at it from the point of view that engagements in the 45-60cm range band don't last too long and the majority of the battle ends up in the 45cm or less band and so therefore you'd get less downside. Or maybe a mixture of both.

Well, on the first point I think that it's not unreasonable to assume "long range" to mean anything above standard in certain circumstances. So, for example, if this ship did have the 30cm rule (as it did at the start) then shooting over this range becomes "long range". So it does not necessarily translate to being only in the 45-60cm range band.

On to the second point, well I think that as a flavour rule it should see more than incidental usage. So I'm quite happy for it to occur when shooting over 30cm, so it would at least crop up more than once or possibly twice per game.

On the other hand, I would have accepted taking the full effect of the crit were we allowed to shoot over 30cm consistently, not just when on LO. So to me that is more important than the range issue. However, if we do drop the damage portion of the crit then it really does become a 'meh' penalty. It is also pretty likely that it will be repaired and so has no lasting impact. Therefore the BM becomes more of an impact, being a cross between the crit with damage and the crit without damage. It trades the chance of the crit not being repaired for the other effects of having a BM in contact (Ld, repair, boarding penalties). So, I think the BM is more balanced than either of the alternatives, since it sits somewhere in between and it's also a lot easier to track and much simpler in both execution and concept.

However, I think the penalty is still small enough that it could be applied more often, i.e., when shooting over 30cm, rather than 45cm. I feel that the latter option would make the downfall a little bit of a joke, since it is unlikely that a BB is going to be the target of the enemy at extreme range, and even if it is, with 3 shields up and abeam it's not likely to take much damage. So making it over 30cm means that the 'flavour' rule will see more action and it will also be a bigger risk for the Apocalypse.

[RCgothic]

Proposal:

In addition to using the blast marker rules and FP9 WBs as already decided, the Apocalypse gets 60cm Lances standard.

[Plaxor]

Proposal:

In addition to using the blast marker rules and FP9 WBs as already decided, the Apocalypse gets 60cm Lances standard.

I think that's how Sigs system works. The lances are 60cm but if you fire over 45? then you have to place a blast marker in contact.

[RCgothic]

It would definitely be over 30cm I think.

[RCgothic]

Also, Despoiler:

Given that the prow lances are now gone and the Torpedoes cannot replace them, are we deleting the option completely, or allowing the Torps to replace the Launch Bay? I'd probably give a 40pt discount for this option - it's not the updated retribution in firepower, but it does have more range and launch bays like the Oberon.

[Valhallan]

agree and agree with desp (no torp option) and apoc(drop a BM when fire over 30cm).

[Plaxor]

Part of 'Horizons Profile' for the despoiler was that it swapped the prow launch bays with 8 torps for no cost. Honestly I could see a 10-30 point decrease for the option, but meh.

Sigoroth did say over 30, and I wrote it down. So yes, that is what it is.


Note: Does anyone think that the torp 'upgrade' for the despoiler should make the vessel have a reduced cost of say.... 20 points?

[RCgothic]

Compare what the vessel actually has for that profile.

It has firepower of similar strength to an Oberon, Launch Capacity roughly equal to an Oberon, one less turret, 5cm more speed, and torpedoes instead of prow sensors.

Based on that, the torps option should be somewhere in the region of the Emperor in price.