List of flawed ships

[RCgothic]

Minimum attacks is as strong a buff as using a D3 or 2 attacks each.

+1 attack per survivng fighter has a number of problems with it:

It preserves the exponential benefit of more turrets against bombers.
It's clearly the fighters doing the attacks, not the bomber, so why even bother having a bomber in the wave? Just write "Fighters get 1 attack against ships" into their rules.
It provides no incentive to escort assault boats.

An alternative system:

Bombers get 2 or D3 attacks each, and ships get a 6+ save against hits caused this way - this is replaced by the 4+ brace save when on BFI.
Fighters have a 4+ save, and may take it multiple times per turn. Eldar get a 3+ save, which maintains their +50% superiority as per now. Combat is fought over multiple rounds until one or other side is dead.

This eliminates the need for turret suppression - High turret targets remain viable targets to bombers without fighter support, whilst fighters actually become worthwhile in an escort role.

Simpler than the current rules, superior gameplay to the current rules.

[horizon]

+1 attack per survivng fighter has a number of problems with it:

It preserves the exponential benefit of more turrets against bombers.
It's clearly the fighters doing the attacks, not the bomber, so why even bother having a bomber in the wave? Just write "Fighters get 1 attack against ships" into their rules.
It provides no incentive to escort assault boats.

No, it is bombers getting a free attack run. Abstraction. All about abstraction as a lot of things are in BFG.

An alternative system:

Bombers get 2 or D3 attacks each, and ships get a 6+ save against hits caused this way - this is replaced by the 4+ brace save when on BFI.

Oh dear, a save against bomber hits? Talk about non-intuitive (sp?)! nah, totally not feeling this one.

Fighters have a 4+ save, and may take it multiple times per turn. Eldar get a 3+ save, which maintains their +50% superiority as per now. Combat is fought over multiple rounds until one or other side is dead.

This eliminates the need for turret suppression - High turret targets remain viable targets to bombers without fighter support, whilst fighters actually become worthwhile in an escort role.

Simpler than the current rules, superior gameplay to the current rules.

Save Multiple times per turn = 1 defending carrier with 4lb can totally own a more heavier force or fleet with torps.
Torps are especially downgraded with this mechanic.  Bad idea.

[RCgothic]

It would be a save against AC only. Torps would be completely unaffected. And yes, it would make defending against AC easier, but Ordnance Superiority would still be able to blast its way through - 2 carriers vs 1 carrier would still win the ordnance battle because of inability to protect all targets and viability of escort.

A 6+ save can be fluffed away/made intuitive easily - last ditch attempt to hit the strafing bombers and intercept their tiny anti-ship ordnance at point blank range! In addition, it gets rid of all the problems such as no incentive to escort, exponential benefit of turrets and turret fire having next to no effect when targetting a wave with fighters in it.

It easily makes more sense than allowing +1 attack per surviving fighter. 7 fighters and 1 bomber against a T1/Eldar target do more attacks than an unimpeded bomber, lolwot?

Intuitive spelled correctly btw.

[meyst]

Has anyone considered giving fighters a chance to break up attack waves that are not escorted by fighters?

Perhaps a leadership test when a wave of assault boats/bombers with no fighters gets attacked.  If it is failed the wave scatters into individual squadrons. 

Doesn't help the Eldar.  One would need to come up with LD values for the ordnance of different races too, but I think that could be done.

[horizon]

It would be a save against AC only. Torps would be completely unaffected. And yes, it would make defending against AC easier, but Ordnance Superiority would still be able to blast its way through - 2 carriers vs 1 carrier would still win the ordnance battle because of inability to protect all targets and viability of escort.

A 6+ save can be fluffed away/made intuitive easily - last ditch attempt to hit the strafing bombers and intercept their tiny anti-ship ordnance at point blank range! In addition, it gets rid of all the problems such as no incentive to escort, exponential benefit of turrets and turret fire having next to no effect when targetting a wave with fighters in it.

It easily makes more sense than allowing +1 attack per surviving fighter. 7 fighters and 1 bomber against a T1/Eldar target do more attacks than an unimpeded bomber, lolwot?

Intuitive spelled correctly btw.

So fighters get a save against hard targets like bombers but not against non-shooting back targets? Ain't that odd....?
Turret fire still has effect vs fighters in wave (with my ammendment for sure).

In my case 7 fighters/1 bomber would gain versus most ships (since no ship can shoot down 8AC, so 1 bomber + 1 fighter will most surely survive at least): (D6 - turrets) + 1 (since fighter attacks cannot > bomber attack). 

thanks


@ Meyst

Has anyone considered giving fighters a chance to break up attack waves that are not escorted by fighters?
Perhaps a leadership test when a wave of assault boats/bombers with no fighters gets attacked. If it is failed the wave scatters into individual squadrons.
Doesn't help the Eldar. One would need to come up with LD values for the ordnance of different races too, but I think that could be done.

Break up waves... hmmm... not baddish at first glance.
Ld for ordance: naaah.

[RCgothic]

Seeing as how we've failed to find and agree on a replacement system, Horizon's modification is fine. It's just a shame we haven't been able to come up with anything better.

[Plaxor]

I know.... yeah it sucks. There really isn't anything solid to replace it with. So Horizon wins this round!

Note: You could argue that fighters don't get resilience against Torps, because the torps are programmed to detonate when they are fired upon. As they are normally easy prey for fighters and you 'might-as-well' destroy some fighters.

I think that I should have all the information that I need to build near everything in the rules/fleet lists, I've just been taking a little break this week.

Oh, then there's the Bakka list. RC, could you list out your ideas for that? Like what ships should be included. Note that all ships in the fleet will have Fast-Tracking turrets instead of +1 turret or whatever. (Turrets re-roll hits)

[RCgothic]

I'll post my thoughts on bakka soon.

Note:
I do still think fighters should get 4+ save against other AC (not torps or other).

Other resilient ordnance gets a 4+ save, Resilient fighters get 3+.

Also, the Eldar Phantom Lance is only 5% less powerful than a Pulsar lance on average, which is hardly much to shout about. It should really only be 2 hits on a 6.

[RCgothic]

OK, Battlefleet Bakka post Circe:

Retribution Class BB (as BG:R)
Victory Class BB (new profile – see below)
Vanquisher Class BB (as is, but 20cm) 300pts
Invincible Class BCH (new profile – see below) 315pts

Dominion Class BC (as is)
Mercury Class BC (tweaked special rule wording, torps free swap) 245pts
Armageddon Class BC (as is)
Gothic Class BC (4L@30cm Broadside, 2L@60cm Dorsal) 215pts

Dominator Class CA (as is)
Tyrant Class CA (as is)
Lunar Class CA (as is)
Gothic Class CA (as is)

Endeavour Class CL, Endurance Class CL, Defiant Class CVE (as per BFG:R)
Dauntless Class CL (as is)
Siluria Class CL (4 hits, no dorsal, only counts as half a cruiser towards taking BCs and BBs) 75pts

Falchion Class Frigate (as per BFG:R)
Firedagger Class Flak Frigate (tweaked profile – see below)
Havoc Class Frigate 35pts (as is)
Viper Class Missile Destroyer (as is)


Victory Class Battleship
As is, it's similar to an unfixed Retribution, and not physically easy to distinguish from the Apocalypse. It only barely outguns the Vanquisher, and then only at range, whilst the unfixed Retribution trades 1 lance for double the battery firepower. This Bakka list would already have a cheap BB and BCH for both Linebreaker and ranged roles, so there isn't much of a niche in the low price bracket. Nevertheless, option one is:

As is, for about 330-335pts.

The remaining options require doing something radical to boost the power. If we decide S4 Broadsides are the most important part of the ship, we're pretty much stuck with maximising the focus firepower to compensate, and we need to do something with the Prow/Dorsals:

Broadsides: S4L@60cm
Dorsals: S3L@60cm OR FP9WBs@60cm.
Prow: FP9WBs@60cm L/F/R

With the WB Dorsals it would match the Apoc on Braodside Focus, but would be much weaker surrounded, so probably about 355pts. With Lance Dorsals, it will outgun an Apocalypse on Focus, whilst still being much weaker overall. Probably around 365pts and will need the Power Fluctuations Rule as well.

Option 3 keeps the NC Prow, but in that case the Broadsides have to change. In this case there's a fair bit more variability; not represented on an IN BB so far are:

3LBs - Nemesis Fleet Carrier, never going to happen.
2LBs & 1 L - Lance Carrier - still not in keeping with bakka
1LB & 2WBs
1LB & 2L
2WBs & 1L

So we have 3 options. 1LB&2L keeps it closest to what it is at the moment. 2WB&1L is the only remaining pure gun option.

So let's have some debate! Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3a,3b or 3c?


Invincible/Inflexible Class Heavy Battlecruiser 320pts
Battleship12 Shields 2 Speed 25 Turns45  AV6+/5+ Turrets2
Prow Torps S6 F
Dorsal Lances S3@60cm L/F/R
Port/SB WBs FP15@60cm L/R
Special Rules: May not CTNH, suffers critical hits on a 5+, and suffers +1 modifier to rolls on the critical hits chart.


Firedagger Class Flak Frigate 30pts
Escort1 Shields1 Speed25 Turns90 Av5+ Turrets2
Prow WBs FP2@30cm L/F/R
Special Rules: Enemy Ordnance that passes within 5cm of a Firedagger class Frigate counts as moving through blast markers - any ordnance that is removed as a result is replaced with a blast marker.

Individually not very powerful, but still handy to have around and a 1/6th chance of wiping out an entire wave is probably a fair bit more useful than 1 transferable turret. (DIE FDTs DIE DIE DIE, I hope Nurgle Gets you!) The nature of the effect means that you're only likely to get a couple in strategic places, and not whole units of them, but that's not necessarily bad thing...

As for why you'd play with a Bakka fleet, you can construct a very fast fleet, with nothing under 25cm, or you have a good variety of battleships, battlecruisers and light cruisers - no restrictions on the Endeavours! The only drawbacks are a lack of AC, I would have liked to include the Enforcer, but I couldn't quite rationalise it - Tartanus is a better place for it.

[Valhallan]

on the vicky. no lb's peroid.
two wb and one lance battery makes it comparable to the terra class bb from BoN. swapping torps for an NC and pricing it at 400 might be a decent idea
otherwise 12wb and 2lance broadside with 3dorsal lances makes for quite a unique new bb.

do ordy waves have to roll for each firedagger that passes close by?

if the defiant is in there is no need for the enforcer.

gothic bb should pay a slight premium for having that heavy of a broadside. 225 imo or 255with 45cm lances.

[RCgothic]

#1. You only roll once however many blast markers you move through, so it would be once regardless of number of Firedaggers. This would prevent them being overpowered - a 1/6 chance of losing an entire wave is nothing to sniff at!

#2. On the Vicky, my preference is either 2WB & 1L like you said, or Prow L/F/R Weaponry. Either way, I'd like to make it a heavy gunship, but I can't see it getting up to 400pts.

If its broadside were FP12@60cm & S2L@60cm, with S3L@60cm Dorsal, that's fairly identical to an Apocalypse (5L & FP12 vs 6L & FP9), whilst edging it out slightly at close range and in speed. I can see 375pts but no more. Personally I'd go with FP9@60cm Dorsal, because then it's 2L & FP21, which is less firepower at long range, more at short range, and puts the Victory in between the Apocalypse and Retribution in role - the close in Firepower of a Ret, with the range of an Apoc, again for about 375pts with a NC and 20cm speed.

#3. 3 Dorsal lances at 60cm is a 30pt upgrade, and at 215pts the Gothic BC is already paying a premium. Combined with the fact FP12@45cm is better than 4L@30cm. I'd give 225pts, but no more. The other alternative is a sort of reverse-armageddon, with FP6 WBs on top instead of S2L.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Just to throw ideas in, my Gothic BC had the Power Ram built in and included in the points cost which was 220 (only because I felt a BC cheaper shouldn't be cheaper than a regular cruiser which was the Dictator and should really only be 210 points). And no, I wouldn't give the Gothic BC Str 3 dorsals. Too powerful in close range combat at Str7 on one broadside. Str 2 dorsal lances is fine.

And of course, I have other ideas on the Invincible as well.

[RCgothic]

Who said anything about S3 Dorsals on a Gothic BC? No cruiser hull should have S3 Dorsals. I mentioned FP6 Dorsals, which @60cm are actually significantly weaker.

Valhallan suggested S3 Lances on the Victory class BB with a broadside of 2WB & 1L decks, but that's completely different.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

My bad. Mistook reading when I was scrolling up and down the page. Carry on.

As for my Invincible:

Invincible class Battleship 300 points
Type/Hits: Battleship/10
Speed: 25 cm
Turns: 45'
Shields: 3
Armor: 6+/5+
Turrets: 4

Armament:
Dorsal Lances: Strength 4@60cm LFR
P/S Weapon Batteries: Firepower 12@60 cm (which would be almost the equivalent of FP18@45cm of the Ret's broadsides)
Prow Torps: Strength 6, 30 cm.

As with the original rules, can CTNH if it can get its speed up to 30cm. Same crit as the original rules.

Almost battleship like in toughness but not as tough yet not having too much of a glass chin and doesn't blow up easily but can still blow up.

[RCgothic]

And I still strongly disagree with you, on these counts:

#1. I strongly believe the max dorsal hardpoint for a BB is S3L or FP9WBs. That rules out S4 dorsals.

#2. FP12@60cm is nothing like FP18@45cm. Yes, we did buff the Retribution - FP12 was criminally underpowered for a gunship.

#3. Points 1&2, combined with S6 torps make the Invincible very underpowered. In fact even the Vanquisher would outgun it FP24&4L to FP24&3L and firmly down into regular battlecruiser territory. 1 extra lance and a tad of extra range does not a heavy battlecruiser make.

#4. Ships with the size and crew of a battleship should have battleship hits. 12 hits.

#5. Shields disregarded, your version can expect .27 additional hits due to critical hits in its lifetime compared to 0.52 for my version. So my version is actually 1.75hits tougher than yours, and even accounting shields has greater single-turn endurance. It's just more prone to mishaps and less able to withstand battles of attrition, which is exactly how a Battlecruiser should be.

#6. 2 dice to determine critical hits is a ridiculous system when compared to the identical average result of crits on a 5+.