September 11, 2024, 06:10:22 PM

Author Topic: List of flawed ships  (Read 289503 times)

Offline Taggerung

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 185
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1290 on: May 02, 2011, 08:30:57 AM »
Yes, it got more powerful....because it was totally over cost before that. That ship was worthless before the change.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1291 on: May 02, 2011, 08:38:15 AM »
The sum of its parts were worth what was paid for, they just didn't work well together in concert. The new sum of parts is worth more than the old sum of parts, and work well together. The fact it can go toe to toe with more expensive battleships with reasonable chance of success indicates it should be more expensive than it is currently.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 05:25:02 PM by RCgothic »

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1292 on: May 02, 2011, 05:08:10 PM »
After messaging RcGothic and Plaxor with my ideas about changing the Tyranid Fleet, I would like to post them in one batch here...

--------------------------------------
There are a couple changes to the Tyranid Fleet I would propose. I think this would make the Tyranid fleet more appealing, balance them out a little more, and keep them from being abused (super-hives for example). I believe that, when you look at the serious downsides to the Tyranid fleet, the benefits are just not good enough to make up for them at the points you are paying for Tyranid ships.

1. Hive Ship
A. The Hive Ship seems to be a little bit weaker than more Tyranids want them to be so they are always looking to upgrade them with evolutions (needing approval by their opponent). I think the Hive Ship should have some of the most commonly taken evolutions taken written into their rules so there is no question what can be taken with or without permission. That way, the evolutions as they are now will just be considered refits and players will feel like their Hive Ships (and Tyranid Fleet in general) are powerful enough to warrant  using and not have to worry about their opponent saying no to evolutions. It could be an option written into their rules on the bottom of the Hive Ship page that says something like “Hive Ships may take 0-2 ‘Reinforced Carapace’ and 0-1 ‘Extra Spore Cysts’ at the cost listed in the ‘Evolutions of the Hive Mind’ section’ without an opponent’s permission.” Or, these upgrades could just be written into the profile of the hive ship and the points cost changed accordingly. This change to the Tyranid Fleet would allow Tyranid players to know that they could at least have a Hive Ship that is more like a Battleship, something very powerful like most other forces have without taking evolutions by permission.

2. Cruiser - I believe these Tyranid cruiser changes will make the Tyranid fleet as a whole much more appealing and less one-sided strategy-wise.
A. There should be an option, much like other fleets who can take Secondary Commanders, to allow Tyranid Cruisers to have a leadership which will allow them to have a smaller Synapse range. There would be something written in the Tyranid fleet page like this; “0-2 Hive Nodes. Up to two Tyranid Cruisers may purchase Hive Nodes which makes them into Synapse creatures at LD7 for +30pts each. The Tyranid Cruiser’s Synapse range is 15cm.” This would allow Tyranid players to perform well in smaller games (they are horrible under 1,000pts from the experience I have) and have the option to have smaller forces roaming the battlefield instead of always clumping together (like every other fleet can do without worrying about synapse).
B.  At this point, Tyranid Cruisers are terrible for the cost. Compare the good and bad it has against the SM Strike Cruiser or an IN Dauntless. For the points, they are almost not worth taking. Their profile is worse than pretty much all other light cruisers, they need synapse, they have spores instead of turrets and shields, and still cost around the same points-wise.
C. Tyranid Cruisers should be given the option to be light carriers (this, among other changes, will help balance their attack craft swarm “nerf.” Plaxor proposed that there may be an option for a capacity 3 launch bay in the thorax position. I agree with this notion.

3. All is lost - This is very discouraging for Tyranid players. We are supposed to have one of the better “close combat” type fleets and we have a special rule that makes boarding much worse for us. If we close in and are going to heavily board an enemy ship, they can just self destruct when they know they are going to lose. Why couldn’t they do this with Khorne Berzerkers running through the ship as well? This rule hinders Tyranids and it seems unrealistic that this option is not available for other armies who are  also heavy on the boarding side. This should be removed or balanced in some way.

4. Other Stuff
- Since the changes to make all fighers resilient, one of the benefits the Tyranid fleet has is reduced; the ability to have double fleet capacity. They already have really slow assault boats; this change hurts the Tyranid fleet and I think there should be some way to balance it with them. Fleets with much ordinance (IN, Tau, Tyranids) are going to suffer a bit from this, especially when the fleet’s focus is on attack craft and not torps; even worse when they are slower.
-Hive Mind Imperative seems completely useless, especially for the points. Maybe it can do something else?
------------------------

Offline Phthisis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 279
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1293 on: May 02, 2011, 08:28:44 PM »
With the addition of the Hellbringer and the realization that if I want I can take up to 6 Fire Daggers as my renegade IN ship allotment at 1500pts, many of you will be pleased to know that I no longer have major qualms about the changes to the Chaos fleet list.   (I still think CSMs should be prorated, but thats a completely different issue.)

Here is the kind of rediculously overpowered fleet list Tartanus now allows a Chaos player to build:
Desecrator BB
Warmaster & CSMs
2x Murders
Hades
Hellbringer w/CSMs
Hellbringer
3 renegade Firedaggers
45pts left over - flavor to taste

See?  Its all your nightmares come true.

Or I could even cross-pollenate lists and add a Despoiler.
Despoiler BB w/Warmaster & CSMs
Strike Cruiser
Murder
Hades
2x Hellbringer
1xHellbringer w/CSMs

A Traitor Legion barge with 4 Strike Cruisers and a couple of gunships for support.  With this fleet a Chaos player may actually have a slight advantage in the ordnance phase over another fleet, Emperor forbid!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I really don't believe these lists provide any overwhelming advantage for Chaos.  Every fleet has a counter for what these can do, and now Chaos has a response for everything an opponent can do.  Boarding becomes more feasable and Chaos can put up a better fight against ordnance heavy opponents, and maybe give some back.

If anyone thinks these lists are broken or OP, speak up.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 08:32:06 PM by Phthisis »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1294 on: May 02, 2011, 08:35:10 PM »
Tyranids,
fighters resilient? What? Ugh...*

Tyranid Cruisers could use an improvement.
All is lost, yeah, it is all fleets or no fleet.
Hiveship, hmm, dunno, really. It is pretty good but it thrived too much on 2 evolutions. Perhaps evolutions should be changed/limited/randomized and be allowed again without approval.

Hiveship + escorts under 1000 was always pretty strong. Numbers!


Chaos,
well that brings in above *

* With all these fan changes I am losing track.

I am seriously going to wait on a finalized product. I always knew all profiles without looking... from every fleet... but now I am loster then lost.

I kinda think I am going back to faq2010 + v1.5.

:)


Offline Phthisis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 279
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1295 on: May 02, 2011, 08:59:00 PM »
@Horizon

Stats for the Hellbringer are back on pg84.  Light Carrier, 4 bays, str2 lances 30cm front arc only, 150pts.

Other than that, the rest ot the stats are original from the rulebook, from the IN or SM lists or your own design. 

Chaos hasn't been changed much at all.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1296 on: May 02, 2011, 09:05:23 PM »
Desecrator?
Firedagger = bakka?

oh, I never ever used csm's in my renegade battles.

:)


Oh, light carrier for Chaos?

Yeah, I am against. I don't want such a design in the Chaos fleet.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1297 on: May 02, 2011, 09:59:12 PM »
@Plaxor,
I'm on page 33/45 of the main rules with corrections/adjustments. Should I send over what I've got so far Plaxor, or do you want to wait until I've covered the whole document?

@afterimagedan,
I don't disagree with any of the changes in general. Working evolutions in to the hive ship profile will probably take a bit of thought, and cruisers (immature hives) should definitely get more useful. I agree with ditching All Is Lost as well.

@horizon
The way fighters work are getting an overhaul in order to make them worth escorting things with. This is a similar mechanic to resilience, but not quite. I've rewritten both these sections to make how they work and interact clear and straightforward.

Offline Phthisis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 279
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1298 on: May 02, 2011, 10:17:43 PM »
But it makes sense fluff-wise.  Light cruisers have much lower overhead, provide much needed AC for defense against the IN's penchant for ordnance and provide a manouverable platform to initiate boarding actions.  Perfect for a pirate or renegade.  If they didn't have them they'd almost be forced to make one.

Second, Tartanus is unplayable without a carrier smaller than a full size cruiser.  

Third, after your reforms, Chaos was left without a functional attack carrier.  Which is odd because its the fleet that has the most right to one.

Fourth, the IN has been gifted with escort carriers and light carriers and anti-ordnance escorts.  So, now they are able to spam ordnance cheaply and quickly and easily counter enemy ordnance.

Im really concerned about Chaos vs the other new fleet lists.  Chaos used to be the long range fleet.  With the new IN ships infringing on that ground and its fragility and lack of ordnance, how do you figure a Chaos fleey can function vs the new fleets?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1299 on: May 02, 2011, 10:22:14 PM »
My reforms? This was a democratic thing. That my idea got a vote (Despoiler that is) is just flattering. :)

I am just nodding along or opposing. ha!

Light Carriers are things to surpress or do something in a convoy scenario. Otherwise they will always be poo.

Devestation is still attack carrier. It still has a broadside as a Lunar with longer range plus attack craft.



@ RcG,
blech-ish. I like BFG fighter-bomber rules as are (as you know I would only ammend one thing in FAQ2010). Otherwise leave it all alone. It works, easy to keep track off. And balanced.


Offline Taggerung

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 185
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1300 on: May 02, 2011, 10:25:09 PM »
Personally...

If you get that light carrier, you shouldn't be able to bring the firedaggers. The Hellbringer is designed to give you a bit more ordnance, but your fleets weakness has always been being vulnerable to ordance, and your 5+ all around. You can't have all your weaknesses removed. It would be like giving the orks the ability to bump leadership fleet wide, or giving all the IN ships prow weapons lol. You have to have some weakness to overcome.


@Horizon,

I agree about the Devastations myself, but Phthisis hates them for some reason that I can't figure out.

@Phthisis,

Before we commit to adding the Hellbringer to your fleet, I think we should try a game where you don't squadron them up like you have been doing and see how that works for you. Since they have lances, you don't need to worry about blast markers, and if not squadroned then you don't have to worry about bracing one and fucking the other. If you need a bonus leadership, put SM crews on them.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 10:27:55 PM by Taggerung »

Offline Phthisis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 279
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1301 on: May 02, 2011, 11:32:40 PM »
@Horizon

Sorry, I was under the impression that the nerfs were your own initiative.

The Devestation was never an attack carrier.  Carriers are a high priority target.  They can't lend their firepower to a fleet that closes and when abeam their range is to short to lend lance shots without getting hammered in return.  Its a fleet support ship with purely defensive weaponry.
The Despoiler was the attack carrier, but now its a functional fleet support ship.  Its an analog to the Emperor but a little more expensive. 
As it stands, Chaos has no ship that can fly along with the fleet and provide ordnance support while lending fire.  Fleet-wise and fluff-wise this is necessary, especially vs the new IN lists.  IN has the Dictator and all kinds of smaller carriers, Orks havs the Terror, Marines have Strike Cruisers.  Chaos has nothing available to fulfill this attack carrier role.

Chaos has plenty of weaknesses.  Tag, you know full well what will happen to those Hellbringers in a torp shotgun.  Firedaggers aren't that much protection.  Chaos shouldn't have them because they can mitigate a weakness?  Why shoukd IN have them when they augment its strength?  Even if the Firedaggers protected reliably, Chaos still has plenty of weaknesses, and now its only strength is being encroached on by IN.

Also, Tartanus is still unplayable without a light carrier.  Youve seen the lists, theyre not overpowered.  It fits fluff wise.  Why deny this one ship when it restors balance?


Offline Taggerung

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 185
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1302 on: May 02, 2011, 11:42:09 PM »
@Phthisis,

I am  not saying you shouldn't get the Hellbringer, all I am saying is that the combo of cheaper light carriers, and Firedaggers would more or less neutralize most Ordnance coming your way, and that is too much of a buff.

Offline Phthisis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 279
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1303 on: May 03, 2011, 12:31:12 AM »
@Tag

And the Firedaggers do the same for the IN.  They free up AC from CAP a little.  It mitigates a disadvantage for Chaos and augments a strength for the IN by performing the same function.  Why is IN allowed to augment itself while Chaos has to present its weaknesses without mitigation?

Neutralizing ordnance isnt a buff and Firedaggers cant do much to mitigate a torp shotgun.  Surviving a torp shotgun is only the first phase of a battle.  Now IN is getting plenty of range.  Last I checked, Firedaggers dont do anything to prevent locked-on Nova Cannons or 60cm WBs and lances.

The rule I'd use to do this is the one in the new FAQ that allows Chaos to take a cruiser or escort squadron out of the Imperial fleet lists for every 1500pts in the limit as renegades at a -1LD penalty to that ship or squadron.

I don't think I'd use the Firedaggers in my Death Guard list, but if I ever went back to traversing it would come in handy. I just found a loophole. 

« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 12:40:01 AM by Phthisis »

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: List of flawed ships
« Reply #1304 on: May 03, 2011, 12:39:56 AM »
Would it be better to start a separate thread about Tyranid changes? I feel like it would be easier to keep it separate.