List of flawed ships

[Plaxor]

Pulsar lance is much better than the Phantom lance if the ship is on LO.

[Valhallan]

as my latest vicky proposal is worse than an apoc at range i would suggust 360.
fp 12and two lances per side with three dorsal lances and str 9 torps. bb hull and 20cm speed.

the speed and lances make it unique. the range and speed mqake it slightly conflicted, just enough to consider a fixed ret instead. plz bring he debate,but i feelthe na.e alone requires it to be a solid IN ship. 

i like the invince at fp 12and 3 dorsals for 300 only because the fast move lets you take a 25m move in fleet. which imo is worth the points. however 12hits two shields and two turrets.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

You believe the max dorsal hardpoint is S3. I believe it's possible especially with the reduction of the torp strength. More space in the prow area to add one more dorsal lance.

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

Yes we did buff the FP12 of the Ret but we reduced the range to 45 cm to get that firepower. If the Ret's firepower was buffed AND the range remained at 60 cm (which I believe SHOULD be), you would have a case. As it is you do not.

#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.

Your point 1 assumes the dorsal lance is reduced to 3. If you keep it, it works almost as well. FP12 firing at 60 cm gives the Invincible one more round of firing with all its weapons (FP12 which is 6 dice against a closing target backed up by Str 4 lances) vs a Ret which loses its WBs if the target is beyond 45 cm and has a difference of 3 dice with the WBs when they engage at 45 cm against a closing target (9 vs 6). I am fine with FP12@60 cm for what is essentially a light battleship.

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

Eldar have battleships at 10. Should Eldar battleships have 12 hits then by your logic? How about the base Nid hive ship? Starts out at 10. Yes people bump the HS up to 14 but hey, no reason why you can't keep the 10 hits. Demiurg. 10 HP battleships. I don't see any reason why an IN ship cannot have something similar esp with the speed addition. I don't think losing 2 shields is enough to offset the mass penalty if the Invincible is still the size of a regular battleship even if you reduce the dorsal lances to 3.

Again I repeat, Size and Crew are not the only components of what makes a battleship. A transport could be battleship sized but should it automatically have 12 hits? Yes, I know the IN Black Ship does have 12 hits but its more a case of the role determining the design. Other designs have less since they have less crew.

Comparing things to real life, the Scharnhorsts were not as big as the usual battleships but they were considered battleships. A latter day oil tanker can be a third to twice the size of a battleship in the Yamato, the largest battleship ever built. Should they have the equivalent of 12 hits in the game? Maybe. But what about the ones which are the same size as the Yamato? I think not.

#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.

Sneaky aren't you. Include the shields, then we talk. And a battlecruiser is NOT like what you expect. British battlecruisers suffer from this failure. The German battlecruisers worked very much fine, thank you.

Greater single turn endurance? A ship with only 2 shields AND crits on a 5+ AND gets +1 to the crit roll? Right.

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

No, your way makes you ship crit easier since you need a 5+ and blow up faster since you get +1 to your crit roll. 2 rolls needing 6s are not easy to achieve much less getting rolls of 10-12. Any hits that get through your version's 2 shield means rolls. My version at least needs to have 1 go through 1 more shield. Yes 1 "6" can come up faster than normal. 2 "6"s are also possible. 5+ and +1 to crit rolls are more dangerous on a ship though than rolling 2 dice for crits.

We'll just keep rehashing our arguments but you have your ideas of how a battlecruiser should be and I have mine. I might agree to bump up my version's hits to 11 but that's as far as I go and I am fine with the original version's armament especially for such a low points cost.

[horizon]

Fast Battleships can have less hits. No worries.

Pulsar vs Phantom?
Under msm: Lock on with Hemlocks... have them accidentally hit by torps (Nightshade), brace for impact... now Hemlocks can move & turn in the ordnance phase.
EVIL! (Volandum tm).

[RCgothic]

I wrote a big post this morning, but it got devoured by void whales. I am going to reply to the Invincible issue, but I'd rather cover other issues first.

From the bakka as proposed over the page:

#1. Mercury. Kind of redundant with the Overlord. What would people think if instead of having the Mercury we had the Overlord, and it had an option to upgrade to experimental engines for speed 25cm and some unstable downside for a suitable cost? A speed 25cm R60 BC would go well with a 25cm R60 BCH.

#2. Gothic BC. It needs a different name, obviously. Some other roman gods: Ceres, Janus, Apollo. Some Greek ones: Ares, Artemis, I think we're agreed on R30 broadsides. Should it have WB6@60cm on top to keep the lance count down, or L2@60cm? Is 215pts fine, or is 220 with inclusive power ram better?

#3. Siluria. Comments on 4-hits, and FP6@30cm with no Dorsals for 75-80pts? Could it possibly go to R45 if all it has is the broadsides? What about having it count as 1/2 a cruiser or even no cruiser at all?

#4. Firedagger. I've been talking to Plaxor about this, and we like the "flak field" idea - as a passive ability it provides better protection than "hitting ordnance on a 4+" because it will even provide protection in the enemy Ordnance phase, whilst as it's not a particularly strong and the effects of multiples don't stack, it can't really be abused. To recap, the proposal is: Enemy ordnance passing within Xcm of a Firedagger is subjected to a continuous flak field and so counts as flying through blast markers." At the moment we think X will be 5cm, giving a 13cm diameter of effect.

Two proposals for the firedagger exist: As per sword, but with FP2@30cm for 30pts (cheap emphasising support role) and As per that, but with an additional FP2@15cm and hitting ordnance on a 4+ for 35pts (giving it a more active ordnance hunting role in addition to its passive defences). Both would have the flak field. My personal preference is for the first because it's cheap and simple, but whatever you guys think.

#5. Victory. There are several options for this: Firstly, to leave it as is. I don't think this is a serious proposal, as it barely outguns a Vanquisher it would be cheap, and there are already two cheap ships filling that role, whichever way the Invincible ends up being profiled. Secondly, give the prow L/F/R weaponry to turn it into a super-focus battleship that can compete with the Apocalypse at range. Thirdly, change the broadsides. Plaxor has suggested L4@60cm, WB5@60cm with WB9@60cm Dorsals, which is like an uprated Vanquisher. I've suggested L2@60cm, WB12@60cm, and L3 or WB9@60cm on top, which is visually different from any other BB but much the same role as Plaxors.

#6. Any other comments?

[Valhallan]

dropping ships isn't fixing them. just keep the mercury, people don't have to take it.

Gothic BC: i think AA called it the dragon or something, I've always gone with Revelation (to compliment the Armageddon).

Sularia: keep it at 30cm. its supposed to be crappy, but it should count as a cruiser. if it didn't I would have no incentive to take it over a dauntless/endurance.

Firedagger: its just weird. no comment currently.

The Vicky: with my last proposal... I think thats your last one mentioned there RC ... it can focus 5L's and 12 WB at 60cm making it equal at range with the Apoc, but more reliable. also it could have some serious forward fire with 3L and an NC. however it still wouldn't be a line breaker like a ret, so it would end as a strong ranged focus' BB, but also the jack-of-all-trades gunship.

[RCgothic]

Victory: 3WB@60cm don't quite equal an Apocalypse's 1L@60cm extra. The ratio is more like 4.5WB-1L.

Siluria: It is very cheap, and the HAs have a point that such a cheap ship can be abused to get better ones. 3x Siluria, and a Vanquisher come to 525pts, an insanely low figure. Making it not count evades this. Alternatively, if it had 45cm weapons batteries, it would have good synergy with the 25cm BC and BCH, and thus distinguish itself from the Endeavours, which fit better with the slower vessels.

Mercury: Meh, we've barely fixed it anyway. It would be good riddance if a different BC could take experimental engines. Those that like it can keep playing it unofficially.

[Valhallan]

cool then i take it your down for that vicky (w/20cm speed) with the 360 quote?

using sularias to get better ships was its purpose imo. they're pretty crappy with only broadside weapons, and really crappy with only 4 hits. i don't think any CL's should have 45cm weapons.

[RCgothic]

I see two options for the Siluria:

Points 70:
Hits4 Shields1 Speed 25 Turns 90 AV5+ T1
P/SB Weapon Batteries S6@30cm
Special: Does not count as a cruiser towards purchasing Battlecruisers or Battleships.
Reason to take: It's the cheapest way to get so many hits on the table. For the price of two swords you get 3 times the firepower and 4x the hits in a fast and manoeuvrable package.

Points 100:
Hits6 Shields1 Speed 25 Turns 90 AV5+ T1
P/SB Weapons Batteries S6@45cm.
Reason to take: It has good synergy with fast long-range BCs and BCHs.

Neither are anything like the Endeavour, which is the main flaw of the HA's Siluria.

[horizon]

I kinda like Bakka Siluria.
I mean, when I first read the renewed Bakka it was the only capital ship liked. And I still do.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I called my Gothic BC Conqueror class to compliment the other BC themes of a warlord. Mars is the god of War while Overlord is a lord having supremacy over other lords.

Points wise, it depends if the Dictator remains at 220. Ideally it should be only 210 and 215 with the Power Ram but this makes it cheaper than a Dictator which is the main issue I have. Nothing prevents having a BC cost cheaper than a regular line cruiser but just feels wrong.

[RCgothic]

Dictator is 210.

And I really don't see the point of the HA's Siluria. it's just a fast endeavour without torps.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

If that's the case then the Gothic BC should be fine at 210 even without the power ram.

[Valhallan]

still think it should at least have the option for 45cm lances....

comparable to the dominion... so +50pnts?

[RCgothic]

If that's the case then the Gothic BC should be fine at 210 even without the power ram.

Weapon Batteries on top? Or are we sticking with Lances?