List of flawed ships

[RCgothic]

No it isn't overcosted at 355. I'd be happy to play with it at 355pts any day of the week. So would Sigoroth. I'd entertain the idea that it's overcosted in an absolute sense, but by your own admission the Smotherman Formula is only a rough tool - a 10pt difference from Smotherman is not ironclad proof of overcost! Relative to the other IN battleships it certainly isn't overcosted:

Compare to the the Apocalypse:
+ More powerful prow armament(10pts)*, speed 20cm(10pts)**, significantly more powerful dorsal armament(10pts), doesn't lose shield/engine power when firing at range(10pts)***.
- 12lances@60cm for 36WB@45cm(50pts).
Retribution 10pts fewer - gives 355pts.  

Compare to the Oberon (which is going to 345):
+Armoured Prow(35pts), Speed 20cm(10pts), significantly more powerful prow armament(15pts)****, significantly more powerful Dorsal Armament(20pts)
-1 Turret(10pts)*****, Sensor Array(25pts), 1/3 broadside exchanged for LBs(15pts), 1/3 broadside exchanged for 60cm lances(15pts), 1/3 broadside range upgrade(10pts).
Retribution 5pts more - gives 350pts. Within 5pts is close enough.

Compare to the Emperor (still 365)
+Armoured Prow(35pts), Speed 20cm(10pts), significantly more powerful prow armament(15pts), significantly more powerful Dorsal Armament(20pts)
-Sensor Array(25pts), 2/3 broadside exchanged for LBs(50pts)******, 1/3 broadside range upgrade(10pts).
Retribution 5pts fewer - gives 360pts. Within 5pts is close enough.

Departures from Smotherman in calculating the above:
*As playtested all-NC fleets do objectively equivalent or worse to torpedo fleets, the NC objectively can't be worth more than 6 torps - 3 extra torps are worth about 10pts.
**20cm speed is objectively worth more than 1pt. I'd say it's normally worth at least 5pts, but to a 15cm battleship 5cm speed is the difference between needing a special order to turn whilst under fire or cippled or not. 10pts is fair, and i'd even be tempted to value it more.
***Obviously the value of special rules has to be guestimated, but I think 10pts is fair.
****60cm Lances are priced 18% more than 45cm Lances. As the only difference is the range, this can be fairly applied to WBs as well. I therefore calculated using 60cm WBs at 3.6pts each.
***** The 5th turret pretty much renders the Oberon impervious to bombers - it's worth more than 5pts.
******8LBs are objectively 15% more than twice as powerful as 4LBs due to fewer casualties to turrets. Price increased by 15% to compensate. Without this modifier, the Retribution comes out MORE than an Emperor.

[RCgothic]

It's getting a 50% increase in broadside firepower and none of you think that's worth 10pts?

No.

60cm Lances are valued at 13pts each, whereas 45cm lances are worth 11pts. The only difference is the range, and nobody has any objections to that evaluation.

If a roughly 20% increase is a fair valuation of additional range for lances, then it will be a fair valuation for additional range for WBs, as no column shifts occur between 45cm and 60cm. Therefore if a 45cm WB is worth 3pts, a 60cm one is worth 3.6pts. Even in the case of long range WBs being disproportionately more powerful against Eldar, that's a problem with Eldar, not with the WBs. The utilisation of MMS will largely negate that problem.

For the Retribution, it is exchanging 24WBs@60cm valued at 86.4pts for 36WBs@45cm worth 108pts, a difference of 21.6pts, only 10 of which has been reflected in the price increase. Not only is it getting a nearly 22pt buff in its firepower, but it loses role confliction - it's no-longer paying for range it doesn't need, which means the new profile is more efficient still than the old one - that's also worth more than a couple of points. Even if the old profile had been fairly priced at 330pts, this new one would still be a good deal.

I've now demonstrated that WBs@60cm are worth only about 120% of WBs@45cm and therefore the Retribution is now both far more powerful and points efficient than it has ever been TWICE by two separate reasonings - comparison with lances, and comparison of dice. The only arguments I'm hearing against can be summed up as 'no, you're just wrong'. Come up with something convincing, or don't bother.

Furthermore, even if it WAS overcosted by 10pts (and it isn't), 10pts on a 355pt vessel is a less than 3% deviation, hardly a game-breaking flaw.

[horizon]

Furthermore, even if it WAS overcosted by 10pts (and it isn't), 10pts on a 355pt vessel is a less than 3% deviation, hardly a game-breaking flaw.

lol. When is the deviation too much? 10 pts on the 270pts Styx was 3,7%.

With that line you kinda destroyed many things we achieved, even in official (almost) pdf's now (Styx, Armageddon, etc).

Quite tha funny.

Within AdMech the 60cm Retribution with AWR was kewl awesome cool. A Retribution @ 45cm within AdMech has less use of AWR. Within AdMech the all 60cm things (dorsal lances and all) was bitchin cool, and good. It also made it possible to hit AC at long range without carrier support.

This last part also applies in an Imperial Navy fleet. Also within token battleships often go enroute all alone or with few escorts.

Thus going from 12wb@60cm to 18wb@45cm is something I would keep at the same point cost.

[Plaxor]

Horizon, you're the only one who hasn't chosen a side with this Retribution issue. Tell me, which would you go with 345 or 355?

[horizon]

Choosing sides?

Dark or Light!

Last line would say enough: no point change, keep at 345pts.

[Plaxor]

All right, that's 5 people on the side of 345, 2 on 355. Looks like cheaper wins.... this time!

[RCgothic]

Naturally making the Retribution cheaper has knock-on effects to what we intended with the Oberon. I presume that now must also stay at 335pts.  

We're going too far with FP18 Retribution for 345pts.   It wasn't broken at 345 with current profile, it just didn't suit its role well - that's why we increased the firepower. FP18 is crushingly more powerful than FP12, and it thoroughly deserved its price increase. It will harm the credibility of this document to buff Retribution so much without so much as a token points increase.

[horizon]

Not so.
A 60cm ranged vessel is more versatile.

In my AdMech fleet I would still prefer a 12wb 60cm Retribution above a 18wb 45cm Retribution!!!!

[RCgothic]

So what is it about 60cm WBs that is so versatile they gain +50% points over 45cm WBs when Lances only gain +18%?

[horizon]

?
Versatile as in: I do not need to close, I can be further away, I can hit you sooner, I can do synergy with other 60cm weapons.
Nothing to do with points.

[Sigoroth]

Not so.
A 60cm ranged vessel is more versatile.

In my AdMech fleet I would still prefer a 12wb 60cm Retribution above a 18wb 45cm Retribution!!!!

Which is more valuable, 18WB@45cm or 12WB@60cm? In absolute terms, the former. Even on a stand-off vessel, +50% firepower is worth more than +33% range. In role relative terms the 18WB is worth far far more on a line-breaking ship than 12WB@60cm. This is what the Ret is. A line-breaker. Using the AWR of the AM in an attempt to turn a line-breaker into a stand-off vessel is a flawed idea. The more so when you consider that you simply don't need to even try. The AWR gives a left-shift. It doesn't ignore long range shifts. Therefore it is equally valuable to a line-breaking ship as it is to a stand-off vessel, the more so in fact when you consider the benefit to off-side firepower. If you want a stand-off vessel with AWR in your AM fleet then take an Oberon. It is now fixed so that the dorsal/prow weaponry is back to 60cm so it is pretty much on a par with the old Ret as a stand-off vessel, but has bonus leadership, AC and is cheaper.

[RCgothic]

?
Versatile as in: I do not need to close, I can be further away, I can hit you sooner, I can do synergy with other 60cm weapons.
Nothing to do with points.

You are saying the 60cm is so versatile that WBs are 50% more valuable at 60cm than 45cm.

If that were true, 60cm lances would also be worth 50% more than lances at 45cm. However, 60cm Lances are only worth 18% more.

So why the double standard?

Also, Sigoroth is entirely correct. If all you want is a stand-off vessel, the Fixed Oberon matches the Old Retribution in price and in firepower at 60cm (FP16&2L vs FP12&3L), and has 4AC on top. It even benefits more from AWR due to higher proportion of firepower in WBs.

[horizon]

??
From 18 to 12 you miss 24 weapon batteries in the 45-60cm range department.

You also start from the view lances are priced correct according smotherman. Is that truth.

Your prow armour value of 35 is too high, I think smotherman's 30pts is already too high.

Desolator, per Sig:
4 lances @ 60cm = 18wb. (1 lance = 4,5 wb @ 60cm)
Add 6 wb from top and you have 24wb @ 60cm in a broadside.
Or 42wb in total.


Retribution new style misses this extra range
18wb + 18wb = 36wb
3 dorsal lances @ 60cm x 4,5 = 13,5wb
total = 49,5wb

des: 42wb x (RcG's) 3,6 = 151,20
ret: 49,5wb x (RcG's) 3 =  148,50

differently (lances seperated)
des: 6wb x 3,6 = 21,6
des: 8l x 13 = 104
des: 125,6

ret: 36 x 3 = 108
ret: 3 x 13 = 39
ret: 147

So, calculating all to wb value gives an offset!

Both ships: same torps.

Desolator: +5cm speed.
Retribution: prow armour
from weaponry (lance seperate) +20pts to Ret. +30 for prow
= 300 + 50 = 350
deduct speed ~5
345pts.

[Sigoroth]

??
From 18 to 12 you miss 24 weapon batteries in the 45-60cm range department.

Are you really suggesting that you'll ever get to use both broadsides at a target 45-60cm away? Let's face it, the off-side firepower may as well be 30cm range. It is extraordinarily unlikely that you will be firing both broadsides at targets further than 30cm. Usually when firing both at least one side will be at a target within 30cm. In fact, if you're using your ship as a stand-off vessel then the chances are that you won't fire both broadsides at all throughout the course of a game. So in the 18WB@45cm vs 12WB@60cm comparison if you're going to choose the latter it would only be for a stand-off role, in which case the very best you get is +12WB in the 45-60cm range band. Using the other option in the same way (ie, 18WB@45cm as a stand-off vessel) you get +6WB in the 30-45cm range band, +6WB in the 15-30cm range band and again +6WB in the 0-15cm range band.  So really, even when used in the same way the greater firepower is just more attractive. It's not like the enemy is going to stay in the 45-60cm range band and ping away at your BB. They're going to close into your guns, in which case, over the course of a battle the extra firepower is just better. This isn't even accounting for the off-side firepower and prow torps you get from using it as a line-breaker.

You also start from the view lances are priced correct according smotherman. Is that truth.

Possibly not, but if not then how can Smotherman be trusted to give us an accurate cost? Are we really expected to believe that the range upgrade cost of lances is unreasonably low but that +15cm range on WBs is actually worth +50% firepower?

Your prow armour value of 35 is too high, I think smotherman's 30pts is already too high.

Well, consider the Desolator. It has 9 prow torps that it rarely gets to use and a very nice 25cm speed which could really allow it to get to grips quite quickly. It would surely benefit from getting to fire an extra 4 lances and the WBs up close would perform better than they do from afar. Wouldn't you pay 35 pts to give your Desolator 6+ prow armour if you could? If it were cheaper wouldn't it be an automatic inclusion?

Desolator, per Sig:
4 lances @ 60cm = 18wb. (1 lance = 4,5 wb @ 60cm)
Add 6 wb from top and you have 24wb @ 60cm in a broadside.
Or 42wb in total.

Again, off-side firepower beyond 30cm is worthless, thus it is 18+6+12 for a total of 36, not 42.

Retribution new style misses this extra range
18wb + 18wb = 36wb
3 dorsal lances @ 60cm x 4,5 = 13,5wb
total = 49,5wb

des: 42wb x (RcG's) 3,6 = 151,20
ret: 49,5wb x (RcG's) 3 =  148,50

differently (lances seperated)
des: 6wb x 3,6 = 21,6
des: 8l x 13 = 104
des: 125,6

ret: 36 x 3 = 108
ret: 3 x 13 = 39
ret: 147

So, calculating all to wb value gives an offset!

Both ships: same torps.

Desolator: +5cm speed.
Retribution: prow armour
from weaponry (lance seperate) +20pts to Ret. +30 for prow
= 300 + 50 = 350
deduct speed ~5
345pts.

This maths is off. You wouldn't convert the lances into WBe before adjusting for range. If you're using Smotherman then you'd simply look up the value of a range extension. For which Smotherman says that range upgrades on WBs cost a lot whereas range upgrades for lances cost a little. This is obviously the reverse of what it should be.

Hell, Smotherman comes up with a Lunar at 170.5 pts. Why are we considering taking its word for the cost of a Ret again? How is it that off-side weaponry is as valuable as on-side? Why is fire arc not taken into account? How is that 90° turn rate is worth the same as 45°? Why does 5cm speed cost only 1 pt? Why are range 60cm WBs worth +200% of range 30cm WBs, but for lances it is only +44%? Why are 30cm lances valued at 6 times WBs? The Smotherman formula is moronic. With these inconsistencies as well as being 10 pts off the cost of the measuring stick of BFG (the Lunar!) it is a terribly flawed system that should not be relied upon in any sense.

[Sigoroth]

In fact, I've just come up with a ship design. You guys Smotherman it for me and give me the cost.

Smotherman class Brokenship ..... cost

12 hits, 4 shields, 4 turrets
30cm speed, 90° turns, 6+/5+ armour

Port Weapon Batteries 36 30cm Left
Strbrd Weapon Batteries 36 30cm Right
Dorsal Lance Batteries 3 60cm LFR
Prow Lance Batteries 2 60cm LFR

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to its cost before looking it up? Let me give you a hint. Speed and turn rate is worthless to Smotherman. All right, I'll give you another hint; 2 60cm lances are worth 5 pts less than 9 torps. Oh OK, one final hint; at 30cm range, WBs are worth 1/3 the value of their 60cm counterparts.

So, would you rather the above ship or a 12WB Ret? You tell me which is worth more.