List of flawed ships

[Taggerung]

@All

Phthisis for the record isn't a bad player, he is so far the only player in our gaming group to bloody the nose of my ork fleet, and since I played it at the time as a torp shotgun fleet (This was before all the new changes for the orks, and before we started playing flawed lists), it was a hard fleet to deal with. He has made some valid points, especially about the overall cost of IN ordnance becoming a bit cheaper with the Dictator being lowered in cost (Thank god it was though, 220 for that ship was absurd). As for him lobbying for changes to help him win, that technically aren't true. I think everyone always wants something for their own fleet to help their play styles, not necessarily to help them win, but to help them play the fleet they want. Like me with the Space Marine IN cruiser idea. That had nothing to do with game balance, merely a fluffy way to play, and Phthisis likes to play either BFG or 40k in a very fluffy manner.

Anyways...lets get back to the issues at hand.

[Phthisis]

@Tag
Thanks, man.  Hatchet buried.

@All
Tag is very clever and took to the game with ease.  We have all made a lot of rules mistakes as we are all just getting into the game, and these mistakes were easy to make as we were juggling many different versions of the rules. He has been way ahead of the curve here and even though we may disagree on some things I respect his opinion. I take back what I said about him.

Im not asking for the changes to the IN to be undone.  Just a carrier that allows Chaos to be aggressive and keep up with IN ordnance.

@Horizon
Thanks.  I know you probably don't agree with me still, but this is really the way I see it.  I'm pleased with the BFG:R as a whole, but this has been a sticking point with me since I first read the lists.  My argument hasn't changed.  Just know that my concern is genuine.  

[horizon]

@All

Phthisis for the record isn't a bad player, he is so far the only player in our gaming group to bloody the nose of my ork fleet, and since I played it at the time as a torp shotgun fleet (This was before all the new changes for the orks, and before we started playing flawed lists), it was a hard fleet to deal with. He has made some valid points, especially about the overall cost of IN ordnance becoming a bit cheaper with the Dictator being lowered in cost (Thank god it was though, 220 for that ship was absurd). As for him lobbying for changes to help him win, that technically aren't true. I think everyone always wants something for their own fleet to help their play styles, not necessarily to help them win, but to help them play the fleet they want. Like me with the Space Marine IN cruiser idea. That had nothing to do with game balance, merely a fluffy way to play, and Phthisis likes to play either BFG or 40k in a very fluffy manner.

Anyways...lets get back to the issues at hand.

Perhaps, I am one of the most fluffy players around (again, who loads a Flame of Asuryan (Spirit of Arina) fully loaded (max re-rolls in a 1500pts battle, that's more then 1/3 on 1 ship... and win that battle because of said ship).
My advices are always on what combination ans ships are good but I prefer the fluff fleet and approach.


Still what do you consider an attack carrier for Chaos?

[Taggerung]

His main complaint about the Devastation is that since it has longer range lance batteries, it's mostly suited for hanging back and shooting abeam. He is wanting something that can move forward and engage at close range. What about the option to swap out the lance batteries on the Dev's for weapon batteries? Is that something that could work?

[Phthisis]

@Horizon

A carrier that doesn't have to stand back.  Something that can move in with the fleet to provide good close AC support and bully its way into an enemy with the rest of the Chaos fleet.  IN has the Dictator which can torp or ram with the rest.  The two CL carriers have the manouverability and forward punch to perform this role as well. Orks have the Terror which can bully up with heavy gunz or torpedos.  These ships can muscle their way in and hit hard with weapons and ordnance.

Many ships in the Chaos fleet work well closing.  Its a decent and fluffy tactic as Murders are the most common cruiser.  The Devestation, Despoiler and Desecrator are predominantly broadside ships and therefore better for fleet support.  At long range it takes multiple ordnance phases for their AC to hit.  Its not very effective when the opposing player gets to see how many squadrons you put up and where they are going.  The Styx and Hecate are better because of their 2 long range lances, but those are heavy cruisers and restricted in number and very easy to suppress.  Everyone else has something cruiser size or less they can take multiples of, so the Styx and Hecate don't fit the bill.

The Hellbringer is a good fit.  Decent forward armament for its class, lots of AC for CAP and strikes, manouverability and speed to keep up.  Individually they are easy to shut down, but in pairs a decent alternative.  Like a pirate strike cruiser.  Thing even can board.  

@Tag
How would swapping lances for batteries on the Dev help?  I don't understand it.

If we were going to modify the Devestation, I'd rather have the batteries side and lances prow FLR.

[Taggerung]

Well Batteries are much better the closer you get, so having batteries on all the sides would give the ship incentives to stay with the rest of the fleet instead of staying at range.

[Phthisis]

@Tag
 Its not the incentive, its the capability.  A pair of lances can hurt things at close range just like batteries.  As was said before, at 30cm the Dev is a Lunar with AC.  Still, there's no sense moving the Dev forward with the fleet if you sacrifice your chance to contribute supporting fire.  Closing with a Dev right now is just as bad as closing with a Carnage.  Both are still good ships, but both are defensive ships.  Nobody thinks a Dev should be near the enemy.  I was chided in this thread a few pages back for even experimenting with it.

Think carrier with an attack posture.

[RCgothic]

The Desecrator and Desolator both have very effective attack postures. When you account for AC, they have a much stronger forward focus than any Imperial BB.

[Phthisis]

Did you factor ramming into that calculation?
Or the increased damage that Chaos will take from WBs?

The Desolator has no AC.  Did you mean Despoiler?

It has 3 lances forward and 8 AC.  The Emperor has 10WBs forward and 8 AC.  The Emperor has 5+ armor just like the Despoiler.  Nobody would argue that the Emperor is an attack carrier.

Come to think of it, the Emperor and new Despoiler are pretty comperable now.  Why is the Despoiler 20pts more?

[Taggerung]

Only thing I can notice really is that you get assault boats for free, with the option for SM crews that buff them. Then you are also 5 cm faster, which is a huge bonus because if there is a blast marker you get to turn. The Emperor however has the +1 LD automatically.

Those are the only real differences however...besides a slightly better front arc FP.

[Phthisis]

The 15cm move of the Emperor does screw it over a bit, but its not really supposed to get close enough to get hit much, is it?

The Emperor is 365 without Sharks, but for +5pts it has the same AC loadout as the Despoiler in the same numbers.  So that's 370 for the Emperor and 390 for the Despoiler.
The Despoiler is 5cm faster.  The Emperor gets +1 turret and +1 to LD.  As the Emperor will likely be the flagship, it gives a +1 bonus to the Fleet Commander, which in the list is an increase of 25pts.  If I want +1 to Ld for the Despoiler I have to pay 35pts for it extra. 
As far as the weaponry, it seems like a wash to me.  Prow on, the Despoiler has 3 lances but the Emperor has 10WB.  Side on the Despoiler has 10WBs and 3 lances, but the Emperor has 16WB. 
I could see the higher price for the old Despoiler because of the 7 lances front.  But now that it's so similar to the Emperor and the Emperor has some bonuses that the Despoiler doesn't...

Looking at the revised points costs for the fleet lists here....

Emperor is a pretty good deal for AC over the Despoiler already.  In its new combat role as fleet support, an argument can be made that it should be much closer to the Emperor in cost.

Mars Battlcruiser.  Published at 270.  -10 pts. to pts cost.  Includes a Nova Cannon that can now Lock On.  You did reduce the Styx to 260, but 275 was obviously rediculous.  So for the same price, the Mars gets 6+ armor and a Nova Cannon.  The Styx gets 2 more bays and a turret.  2 more AC isn't worth a NC.  A turret isn't worth 6+ armor.  The Mars is a better deal.

Dictator is the IN's cruiser size carrier.  -10 to pts cost.  Devestation left at the same price but had its lances shortened.

Defiant originally published at 130.  -10 to cost and managed to pick up 2 torpedos as well.

The Enforcer stayed the same.

Added the Tempest for 45pts.  Cheapest AC bay in the game.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

@Horizon

IN & Chaos were balanced before all the changes made.   Chaos got an overall nerf by shortening the lances on the Devestation and changing 4 forward lances to 4 side batteries.  IN got buffs. NCs got the ability to reroll misses. The new fleets have added more heavy weaponry on battlecruisers and above, and more access to AC with a pair of very good light carriers and even an escort carrier that can get AC into a fleet even cheaper than a Devestation.

Chaos was always the more AC heavy fleet, which was a counter to the fact that almost every IN ship has torpedos.  Now IN has more torpedos, more AC, and plenty of long range gunnery.  

No, the Devastation was undercosted. Waaaaay undercosted. However, I do not agree on IN getting lots of access to AC via cheap LCs. I think we can actually just drop the Defiant and stay with the Endurance and Endeavor.

@RC
The difference is that the Ret is more resiliant than any Chaos BB.  Chaos is supposed to have more firepower at longer range than the IN to make up for its vulnerability.  If the Ret is tougher and has more firepower, then what does the Chaos BB have over it?

And on this point, can we let the Desolator have Str 6@60 cm lances for maybe 320 points? I think we're at the stage that it should be changed to those values.

@All
My argument is that the IN has a lot more AC and cheaper than before.  Chaos is weak against ordnance, so in the original fleet they had access to cheaper AC than the IN to make up for the INs penchant for torpedos and high armor.  Giving the IN so much cheap AC and keeping their torpedos has shifted the balance in favor of the IN.  More long range heavies in the IN list and weakened Chaos carriers contributed to the imbalance a bit too.  A light carrier like the Hellbringer fixes this by adding another less exoensive AC option.  Its fun, its fluffy. Even those who don't see the imbalance agree that it won't break the fleet list.  Add it and there is no more problem.

Yup, I do not like the direction where IN is going in getting access to cheap AC via LCs. I just don't like Chaos getting cheap ACs by getting LCs themselves. I prefer they stick to the standard cruiser chassis. An all LB regular cruiser total Str 6 with only prow WBs would not be out of the question.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

His main complaint about the Devastation is that since it has longer range lance batteries, it's mostly suited for hanging back and shooting abeam. He is wanting something that can move forward and engage at close range. What about the option to swap out the lance batteries on the Dev's for weapon batteries? Is that something that could work?

@Horizon

A carrier that doesn't have to stand back.  Something that can move in with the fleet to provide good close AC support and bully its way into an enemy with the rest of the Chaos fleet.  IN has the Dictator which can torp or ram with the rest.  The two CL carriers have the manouverability and forward punch to perform this role as well. Orks have the Terror which can bully up with heavy gunz or torpedos.  These ships can muscle their way in and hit hard with weapons and ordnance.


If we were going to modify the Devestation, I'd rather have the batteries side and lances prow FLR.

You want a carrier that can play the forward role? Didn't that happen with the reduction in the Devs lance range? Now you really have to play it more forward and it's still quite maneuverable. So what else are you looking for?

[Phthisis]

I'm looking for a carrier that can attack aggressively.  Just because the Devestation's lances are shorter, it doesn't mean they are suited to be played forward.  I even tried just that as an experiment in my last game.  It was bloody terrible and when I mentioned it here you told me it was obviously bad positioning and never to do it again back on page 84. 

Why was the Devestation so undercosted?  You don't think its priced low deliberately to counter torpedos? 

GW has already published light carriers for the IN, so we are stuck with them.  The problem is they were made cheaper in the revisions without providing Chaos with a comparable option.  And then it went even further with the Tempest. 
Rather than scrap all that work, the easy way out is to offer Chaos a good way to add AC with ships below cruiser size as well.  I see this as an opportunity to introduce new tactics and flavor to the Chaos fleet without torching what was previously done.
I am really really quite happy with the Hellbringer as proposed.

[RCgothic]

I was referring to the Despoiler with 3 Lances, 9 torps and 6AC, which easily beats the Emperor.

AC on LCs isn't so fantastic, as a wave of 2 can barely be depended upon to survive turret fire, just 2/3rds as effective as half of a wave of 4 against a T2 target. They're almost purely defensive. In addition to being just less effective, it's a more expensive way to spam ordnance by taking Enforcers or Defiantss, as they're both more than half the value of a Dictator.

The Tempest IS cheaper per bay, but you get a lot less for your points. For 180pts you get 4AC, 4 hits and 8WBs. The Dictator for 30pts more gets 4 more WBs, 6 Torps, an additional shield, 4 more hits and an additional turret. In addition, the Tempests absolutely MUST be in base contact to launch an offensive wave, because a single bomber is going to die to turrets 75% of the time.