September 12, 2024, 10:16:17 PM

Author Topic: List of flawed ships  (Read 290399 times)

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #600 on: January 30, 2011, 06:53:39 AM »
ahh yes. and rules... (after reading RC's thread)

escorts should be able to squadron with caps - it would be friggin awesome. perhaps even BB's with cruisers. but squadron size would have to remain pretty small.

perhaps allowing single ships to BFI. though ordy squadrons may go a little out of hand.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #601 on: January 30, 2011, 10:31:19 AM »
base size: you'd still need 10+ hits for the big base. don't limit orks to small bases... unless you call their kroozers BB's... but then you screwed the slowpokes even more on turning.

Turning? how does a big base help with that?
Actually the only reason that the 'tractor fields' rule came into being was because GW screwed up on packaging a bunch of cruisers, and gave them big bases instead of small. So the BFG faq people decided that any capital ship could have either if they wanted.

The reason for this is for boarding and ramming. In orks it makes the larger vessels more valuable for these two things. Also it's something to take from Orks in trade for their large overall firepower increase/cost reduction. The whole Ork revision was to make players move away from the Terror ship spam lists.

Also its a simplicity/clarity thing. Certain ships gain unexpected advantages dependant on base size. It helps balance them better if they have a specific one. Think Demiurg Ships, they're more likely to pick up blast markers.

IMO the reason that large bases exist on larger ships is simply because they are putting out a lot more energy, and therefore are easier for other ships to track/detect/teleport to/whatnot.



Quote
if boarding torps reroll vs armor, then what do CWE boarding torps get?

Since when do CWE have boarding torps? There is actually no need for change here, as their boarding torps already are hit on a 6+ by turrets. Its just that 'all' boarding torps re-roll against armor.

Quote
non fleet commander characters.... try adding in the gryphon knight idea from MMS. that way select fleets could have access to more reliable SO fleet wide. rather than throw off balance with chaos and bastion IN swarming tones of sub commanders.... call the imperial ones commissars.

Gryphon Knight? I'm not familiar.

I don't think that being able to still roll a command check with the 1 extra character you have is such a big deal. This one is mainly a compromise for Orks, which people wanted to ignore the 'failed command check' rule. With this is allows their (usually 2 additional) commanders to roll LD checks no matter what.

Additional characters are very rarely worthwhile. The Captains in bastions are 50 points.... pretty pricey. 25 in chaos, but most players would spend the extra 10 points for CSMs every time. This would give a reason for those characters to actually be worthwhile, without reducing their cost (as they both are fairly priced, just not appealing).

How many people do you know that take more than a warmaster?

Ideally there would be 'lesser characters' available to every fleet. I would like to hear some other peoples thoughts on that.

Quote
after the whole bakkan debacle, yeah the jovian should be out from tartanus. besides its just an exorcist... but worse. dominion's cool. its my favorite ship. please investigate further.

Dominion is in. Jovian is out. Already decided.  Also Charybdis Grand cruiser will likely make an appearance in BFT.

Quote
on your other post about the light BB 'vanquisher' at 290... well a lite BB should be like a grand cruiser. The big V is kinda between an unfixed ret and vengeance (with torps) in Firepower, but its not at all un-conflicted in its line breaker role. its 15cm move isn't really a hindrance, it just makes it blunt: point towards large formation of enemies and move forward. without the dorsals it should just aff off the bat. i'd put it at 300, and take it every time.

No, it doesn't need the extra speed. It's just that the previous incarnation of the vessel did. It's a curiosity that the HA didn't give it that. It will be somewhere between 280-310 in its final presentation, but I want to wait on the HA to respond to their 10 pages of dialogue before I make a decision.

ahh yes. and rules... (after reading RC's thread)

escorts should be able to squadron with caps - it would be friggin awesome. perhaps even BB's with cruisers. but squadron size would have to remain pretty small.

This was actually discussed previously, sometime in early december. The reason we didn't decide to go for this is that it would have unexpected effects on gameplay.

Quote
perhaps allowing single ships to BFI. though ordy squadrons may go a little out of hand.
'

Ordy? Capital ships in squadrons can BFI individually iirc. I know they can disengage individually.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #602 on: January 30, 2011, 11:49:10 AM »
ahh yes. and rules... (after reading RC's thread)

escorts should be able to squadron with caps - it would be friggin awesome. perhaps even BB's with cruisers. but squadron size would have to remain pretty small.

Glad someone read it!

Brace for Impact affects the entire squadron, FAQ2010 p13 para2.

Personally, I think the squadron rules do need an update to address the following points:
  • Battleships, Grand Cruisers and Cruisers should be allowed to squadron - they're just cap ships with cap ships, nothing complicated.
  • As long as the entire squadron is not attempting special orders, ships within a squadron should be able to go on their own special orders (using their own leadership). This includes BFI. A Squadron which has any ships on special orders at the start of the turn (pretty much just BFI), may not attempt special orders as a whole.

That way the benefits would be: Combined fire, possibility of combined ordnance, shared leadership for joint orders, whilst the drawbacks would be: Hits may carry over + Restricted movement.

In addition to those changes, I'd seriously consider allowing lone capital ships to join a squadron of escorts. The rules for squadrons are already complete for how to target targets of different difficulty to hit within a squadron - the attacker chooses which category of ship aspect to shoot at, and may not hit ships harder to hit than that category. This in practice means that escorts on the same heading with a capital ship couldn't screen it from hits - the attacker can choose to target the easiest target (ie the capital ship), and thus all hits would be applied to it, without any carrying over to the escorts. Alternatively, he could target the harder escorts, get fewer attack dice, but any excess could carry over to the capital ship.

On the other hand, a capital ship could screen the escorts, as even targeting the harder to hit escorts, all hits are allocated to the nearest eligible target (the capital ship). So the escorts could gain the protection of a larger ship, at a serious restriction to their movement.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #603 on: January 30, 2011, 07:09:44 PM »
Capital ships can now squadron with any other capital ship.

Light cruisers may squadron with escorts.

Hopefully this will make CLs and Escorts more viable. I didn't think that it made sense for cruisers to be running around with escorts.... but I could see a light cruiser.


Hmmm... this makes an interesting Tartanus option...

Enforcer+5tempests. launching a str.7 wave. Well I guess that is 335 points.... so no problem there.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #604 on: January 30, 2011, 07:22:52 PM »
Oh, and on Reserves/Allies rules. They are changed to this;

If you and your opponent(s) agree then you may use reserves and/or allies.

If chosen to do so, you may spend up to 1/3rd of your available points (i.e. 333pts out of 1000) on another fleet list. (insert allies matrix).

These are purchased exactly as though you were making a fleet of (in the example 333pts) of that fleet list. You may only take reserves and/or allies from one other fleet list. Any reserves/allies taken are in addition to the ones normally allowed in your fleet.

If your 'allied' list is taken from a list of the same race. (I.E. adeptus mechanicus taking vessels from IN) then they are considered reserves. They will suffer -1 to their randomly rolled leadership, as they are not well adapted to the different command structure in this area. However they may use fleet commander re-rolls, squadron, and otherwise act as though they were part of your normal fleet list.

If your 'allied' list is taken from a list of a different race (I.E. Tau taking Eldar allies) then they are considered allies and follow the Mercenary special rule (meaning they will disengage if reduced to 1 or two hits/1 escort in the squadron). They may not use fleet commander re-rolls as they are so alien, and use their own command structure instead.


Note that some fleets require you to take a fleet commander for lists at or above 750 pts. This is done so as normal, so if you have 750 pts in reserves, then you must purchase the necessary character for that fleet. You may of course purchase any other upgrades available in that list as normally restricted. The character does not count as a 'fleet commander' and instead is considered a minor character, similar to chaos lords. However their re-rolls may be used by any of the reserve/ally vessels.



A LOT simpler and less confusing than the FAQ rules on allies/reserves. No necessary ships requirements, and confusing restrictions etc. It essentially is just splitting your points between two fleet lists.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #605 on: January 30, 2011, 10:30:33 PM »
Why not Cruisers/BBs with escorts? Seems a bit arbitrary to say LCs are fine, but nothing bigger? Given that a Cruiser can still be singled out in a squadron of escorts by WB fire (if not by lance fire), it would make sense for it to be something tougher than an LC. I don't see why there should be any restrictions really.

At least the classic Retribution +2 Dauntlesses is now viable.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #606 on: January 31, 2011, 06:27:23 AM »
It's a compromise.

However Battleships probably shouldn't be able to squadron with cruisers. I can totally see GC's being able to do so with either. Bit of a technicality.


The CL squadroning with escorts is simply because that makes sense in every extent of the fluff, and Cls are essentially large escorts. Meaning that they would be using similar enough tactics/movement strategies that commanders would find it reasonable to put them under the same leadership.

Cruisers and larger, they just seem so radically different that no commander would ever do such. I'm afraid that If I were to do so then I would all too often see Kill-Kroozers leading squadrons of Onslaughts, just so that the Onslaughts would be much more survivable.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #607 on: January 31, 2011, 06:37:16 AM »
Oh, and Valhallan, my normal list for Tartanus would likely be;

Exorcist+Prow sensor array 295
Fleet Admiral 50 (Raynor Faux, from the fluff... a friend of the Alexander family... but that's a story for later)

Hydra   180
Hydra   180
Dominator +range downgrade -nova cannon 160

Havocs x5 150
Tempest x6 270 (+abs)
Swords x6 210

Something like that. Although I suppose I could swap out the swords and a tempest for another 'downgrade' dominator/dauntless. We'll see how that works.

Intriguingly, I imaging that with the dauntless squadroned with escort thing we'll be seeing firestorms used quite often, as the lance Dauntless will make them feel safer due to targeting rules.

Even then, a Siluria will be great combined with Swords. Not as good as the above example though.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #608 on: January 31, 2011, 09:25:29 AM »
However Battleships probably shouldn't be able to squadron with cruisers.

Why not? They're not so different in function from cruisers, and if the problem is the disparity in durability, then you still have the problem with Grand Cruisers being more durable abeam than Cruisers, adn Cruisers being more durable prow on.

Meanwhile, Retribution adn dauntlesses is the archtypical squadron from the artwork in the original rulebook.

It's also completely arbitrary.

And the escort rules - for most fleets, having the escorts tied to a cap ship is a significant downgrade in their flexibility for the benefit of toughness (except for light cruisers, which you have allowed).

How about this - as it's very difficult to predict from theory what the results will be, we playtest it and see if it actually is broken or not before making a decision to disallow specific cases?

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #609 on: January 31, 2011, 03:05:57 PM »
to answer some questions: (cuz i can never get this thing to quote properly)
*MMS CWE get boarding torps
*MMS CE get the gryphon knight (no ld mod, allows his squadron to roll SO after a failed LD check in the orders phase)
*defining ork kroozers as BB's means they turn after 15cm of movement. that's what i meant by screwing the slowpokes even further.
*glad the dominion is in. whats a Charybdis?
*yep. BFI effects the entire squadron. no individual bracing.

the idea of cruisers with escorts is a few fold:
1.) escorts literally escort the ship through battle, giving it navigation data and 'spotting' for it (well... maybe not so much out in the void... but i hope you get the idea)
2.) the cruisers get to benefit from a high Firepower/point mobile addition to their own weaponry (think gothic + 3 swords)
3.) to balance this out a bit, the escorts are restricted in their movement.

no escorts in a squadron if it contains more than 1 cap ship.
so i'd say that no more than 3 escorts can squadron with a cap ship.
I'll playtest out the idea of BB's with CR's and get back to you guys this weekend - i'd do it earlier, but i got a pair of exams...

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #610 on: January 31, 2011, 03:31:25 PM »
weekend - i'd do it earlier, but i got a pair of exams...

Real life intrudes, lol.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #611 on: January 31, 2011, 06:16:02 PM »
weekend - i'd do it earlier, but i got a pair of exams...

Real life intrudes, lol.

Oh my god yes.


Battleships can squadron with cruisers. :)

Yeah... we do need to playtest the escort/cruiser squadrons.

Ork Kroozers--> not bbs. I don't know where that came from?
Charybdis--> I have no clue... Forgeworld is making a model for one. Presumably a gc with prow LB, heavy armor and limited wbs.
BFI&Squadrons---> Really the only solid disadvantage to squadroning left. However I am amiable to allowing individual ships to BFI but the squadron cannot make any special orders its next turn if anyone is on BFI.
Dominion-->Congrats. It is a worthy vessel. Note that it will have 4 torps and cost 255.
CE Gryphon Knight-->Similar to a captain I suppose? I need to read over MMS again.
CWE Boarding torps--> sometimes I really wonder about those guys... there are only 3 races which normally have access to boarding torps, Nids, SMs, and Orks. Eldar? wth?

A note on MMS; it will be slightly different here, as I can't include any new ships that someone doesn't present a 'reasonable' conversion for.

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #612 on: January 31, 2011, 06:35:27 PM »
boarding torps: chaos too ;D.
CWE have aspect warriors.. for some reason that means boarding torps... but really. eldar torps are better... i've never even used em.

on the ork bb thing... well admiralty and alcohol just don't mix (saul tigh anyone?)... i guess i assumed you meant standardizing the big bases as just BB's... whatev. my bad.

your bfi/squadron solution is good.

btw. allowing larger class vessels to squad with smaller would then make taking sub-characters more appealing as their good to put on important (read: big+expensive) ships. this would allow you to partition the fleet with pretty solid LD. though like in RC's thread, squadrons should use LD from the largest ship first, then the next biggest, etc.

other note:
i never had an issue with the reserve rules as they are you got your 'slots' for different classes and 1:3 BB, 1:3 all CR, 1:3 ES... i had an idea for a ultima fringe fleet comprised of almost entirely reserve vessels (i'll pm you) though your proposed 1/3 rule would kinda screw that up.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #613 on: February 01, 2011, 06:50:16 AM »
Yep chaos too... oddly I've never seen chaos fleets fire them. Only SM actually.

Nope, BB's and GC's have big bases. BCs, CAs, Cls, Escorts all have small.

Thanks, figure it is about the best compromise to not make squadrons useless, but to also make them so that they don't become an always thing.

What? Partitioning?

Well you could already partition your fleet in a way with these secondary characters. As they can still roll lds always.

The FAQ reserve rules is very undefined and confusing. It needs a lot of verbage to actually make sense of a lot of things. Through it, it makes it so difficult to interpret what you can actually take/if restrictions matter, such as 1 GC for 2 cruisers. How they interact in your own fleetlist etc.

Also it doesn't make sense... reserve fleets are in no way a perfect ratio, or expresses the rarity of the vessel being purchased from the other fleet list. It is so much simpler to 'build' two seperate fleets, and just allocate a certain number of points to each. In this case, the parent must have at least 2/3 of the points.

To further make it unappealing (as if this wasn't done it would be almost a 'take whatever' type deal) there is the negative to leadership, and the 'mercenaries' effects.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #614 on: February 01, 2011, 07:24:19 AM »
Here's what I imagine to be the meanest list (at least most WB heavy) out of Tartanus;

Note... I typoed on my last list. The downgraded dominator should be 165, not 160.

Ignus: 200
Ignus: 200

Exorcist, range swap, torpedoes 285
Fleet admiral 50

Dominator -NC  180
Dominator -Nc 180
Gothic   180

Siluria  70
Siluria 70
Siluria 70

Ick.... terrifying.

Can focus 114wbs (or Eq) on a side.

Conclusion.... Ignus is too good for 200 pts. Needs to be at least 210 to justify its massive firepower.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 07:25:53 AM by Plaxor »