List of flawed ships

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

14AC from 2 Devestations and a Styx.

So, against a Dictator, that's average 14 attacks with bombers by 2 Devestations and a Styx. Not too shabby. 
Of course the 2 Dictators average 17 from torpedos and bombers.  And are much better protected by 6+ armor on the approach.   Also, not too shabby.  Especially since the two Dictators cost 220pts less.  And the Dictators have a slight advantage in getting their shots off first.

Compared to their counterparts in other fleets, the Devestation is fairly pathetic when used offensively.  Its a good defensive carrier, but I honestly wonder why it has such a reputation.

Someone should really show you how to use Devastations. Heh! Dictators will not be able to get a shot off first. Remember your scenario is you're going for shotgun meaning you are keeping the AC on board until you can use them. the 14 (yes, my bad on the math) will get to your Dictators first before they can get a launch off. Bombers don't really care about that 6+ prow of yours and the Devs won't really care as well since they have lances to pierce those 6+ prow. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dictators are crippled if you don't launch fighters to minimize the bomber attacks.

[Phthisis]

Seriously.  Teach away.  I'd be very happy to learn.

Still your example is 3 on 2.  The 3 includes a heavy cruiser as well.  Doesnt seem like you believe theyre that great of youre stacking the odds in their favor that much.

I cant yet see a way that the Dictators cant nerf the Devestations' and Styx's attack and kick their teeth in.

[Taggerung]

14AC from 2 Devestations and a Styx.

So, against a Dictator, that's average 14 attacks with bombers by 2 Devestations and a Styx. Not too shabby. 
Of course the 2 Dictators average 17 from torpedos and bombers.  And are much better protected by 6+ armor on the approach.   Also, not too shabby.  Especially since the two Dictators cost 220pts less.  And the Dictators have a slight advantage in getting their shots off first.

Compared to their counterparts in other fleets, the Devestation is fairly pathetic when used offensively.  Its a good defensive carrier, but I honestly wonder why it has such a reputation.

Why do Dictators have a slight advantage for getting their shots off first?

[Phthisis]

Good question.

Because torpedos and fighters go 30cm and bombers go 20cm.  And 12 torpedos are braceworthy even vs 3 turrets.  They have longer range, can sweep any CAP and nerf the incoming bombers very effectively by placing any remaining fighters on CAP.  So there's the range advantage and a defensive advantage as well.
Also they can AAF from well outside the Devestation's reach and hit pretty reliably. 

Actually, that sounds a bit bigger than a small advantage, doesn't it?

[horizon]

Phthsis has an entrenched tactical vision on ships and tactics as a whole.
Why do you keep honouring so much weight to the 6+ prow?

-warning-

AAF =/= Reload

Again you let the Dictators get in the torpedo shot. Move so he can't do it. And when he manages to be within 30cm and launch torps/bombers there has certainly been a moment in play he did not have them in play.

I mean, does he do long range ordnance, hopes to reload, hopes to AAF perhaps? The Dictator will not waste his ordnance early on for a shotgun attack.

You are letting the battle be dictated. Turn it around.
Because what? 60cm lances won't change your outcomes, a lot.

Also, Devestation (R) is 190, Dictator (R) is 210.

Should the Devestation be better then the Dictator?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Seriously.  Teach away.  I'd be very happy to learn.

Still your example is 3 on 2.  The 3 includes a heavy cruiser as well.  Doesnt seem like you believe theyre that great of youre stacking the odds in their favor that much.

I cant yet see a way that the Dictators cant nerf the Devestations' and Styx's attack and kick their teeth in.

I was referring to my fleet list which supports an MMMH squadron. In our conversations, we weren't isolating ships as we were talking about our experiences. Even with 2 Devs vs 2 Dictators though, the chances of the Dictators ramming a Dev is quite low. The Devs can maneuver much more better than Dictators especially if you prefer to ram and keep your AC and torps. Devs can just plink away at your ships in frustration with its 45 cm reach. 2 of them can just keep focusing on one Dictator until its crippled with the Devs just launching bombers to force you to launch fighters. After which they can now focus on the other Dev. Torps are quite easily avoided in the latest rules unlike before.  Devs require finesse to use but 2 of them can easily tag team the Dictators into submission.

[Phthisis]

@Horizon
Entrenched?  I havent been called that before.  Id rather have the right idea than win a stupid argument for winning's sake though, so at least I'm not intractable.  Show me why youre right and I'll adopt and defend your belief.

They don't have to reload on the turn they AAF.  They RO the following turn.  I don't see any reason why they can't do that if they don't BFI.  By then the damage has been done.

Moving the Devestations so they are out of the Dictator's range also means that the Dictator is out of the Devestation's range.  

So far there isn't a battle to dictate.  This is just an analysis of how to use the two ships and the threat they represent.  Saying a Dictator has more reach, more damage output and more resiliance vs the Devestation isnt a strategic manouver on a tabeltop, its a statement of fact.  If the Devestation cant get close to a Dictator without having its AC neutralized and getting hurt/braced, then what is there to do but give the Dictator a wide birth?  Saying that its a strategic error is like saying a Devestation getting crippled by a pair of Nova Cannons is a strategic error by the chaos player.

I'm not arguing for a points change or the return of 60cm lances.  This was about demonstrating how the Devestation is rediculously good and easily fulfills the attack carrier role.
But since you bring it up, if the 2 Devestations and a Styx are losing to 2 Devs and cost 220 pts more, is there a points imbalance here?  

@Admiral

Youll get no argument from me that the MMMH combo is just great.  Sigiroth might disagree, but not me.  I had already agreed with Sigiroth that if you run the Devs behind  a formation like that and run them oblique just before the fleet dives through, youll have better luck.  But the Devestations survive because of a concentrated effort to kill the enemy carriers.  Doesn't make a Devestation an aggressive carrier nor does it even make them a good carrier despite its fearsome reputation.
Sure, a pair of devestations can whittle the Dictators down with assistance from other ships that keep them braced.  Thats the 'normative use' Sig referred to.


Does this really have a point anymore?  If anything I've become even more convinced that the Devestation needs to be used in a defensive posture, and that Dictators vs.  Styx & Devestations example made my argument clear that the IN was becoming too strong in the ordnance phase and encroaching on Chaos' ground.  And I think it put a good dent in the undeserved fearsome rep of the Devestation.  
This argument was originally about Chaos needing an attack carrier to cope with all the love IN got and the across the board cheapening of IN AC.  Chaos is getting the Hellbringer according to Plaxor.  3 of them roughly equal 2 Dictators in points cost and will eat their lunch.

This discussion has taken over this thread and its not even over any changes that need to be made.  Unless we are going somewhere that improves BFG:R, we should let it slide, right?   Horizon & Admiral, I'd love to talk tactics with you by PM.  Sound good?  Get me out of my trench.

[RCgothic]

I think, with the new less restrictive squadron rules, Avenger class Grand cruisers are going to be disproportionately effective.

A squadron of 2 Avengers headed by a Retribution has a broadside firepower of WB58 and 3 lances, for just 755pts.

Compared to a Dominator, it has nearly double the broadside firepower at the expense of prow NC, with more shields and, thanks to squadroning with other vessels, need never expose its soft nose.

Too much for 200pts? My formula brings it out at 195pts, however, a 6+ prow would be worth 30pts to it, and that is effectively what it's gaining by squadroning.

[Plaxor]

RC you're missing out on a key factor for the squadroning rules. When firing at squadrons with multiple armour values, dice which score a 5+ in this scenario would still hit the nearest avenger, whereas the 6+ would hit the nearest ship overall. see pg.29 of my rules, (34 pdf page) center column in the bottom.

You're not giving the avengers 6+ prows!


Also some one would have to be playing a load of points to get the mandatory prereq cruisers to purchase those GCs, and although squadroning is

As a funny thought, if squadrons improved armour, I'm sure people would be taking strike cruiser led cruiser squadrons for that sweet 6+ side and rear armour.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

@Admiral

Youll get no argument from me that the MMMH combo is just great.  Sigiroth might disagree, but not me.  I had already agreed with Sigiroth that if you run the Devs behind  a formation like that and run them oblique just before the fleet dives through, youll have better luck.  But the Devestations survive because of a concentrated effort to kill the enemy carriers.  Doesn't make a Devestation an aggressive carrier nor does it even make them a good carrier despite its fearsome reputation.
Sure, a pair of devestations can whittle the Dictators down with assistance from other ships that keep them braced.  Thats the 'normative use' Sig referred to.

But you don't need assistance with the Devs. They just need to keep focusing fire on one Dictator, whittling it til it BFIs or is crippled then focus on the other Dictator with its full 8 squadrons of AC. Sooner than later the Dictator being focused upon will have to brace. The Devs can now send all of its bomber wings vs the other Dictator. The Devs have more manuever room and speed vs the Dictator and can easily avoid its torps now that it has been reduced in width unlike before where you can make a wall. Devs can play the waiting game longer vs a Dictator.

Does this really have a point anymore?  If anything I've become even more convinced that the Devestation needs to be used in a defensive posture, and that Dictators vs.  Styx & Devestations example made my argument clear that the IN was becoming too strong in the ordnance phase and encroaching on Chaos' ground.  And I think it put a good dent in the undeserved fearsome rep of the Devestation.  
This argument was originally about Chaos needing an attack carrier to cope with all the love IN got and the across the board cheapening of IN AC.  Chaos is getting the Hellbringer according to Plaxor.  3 of them roughly equal 2 Dictators in points cost and will eat their lunch.

Point is we who are pro-Devs think you just need to alter tactics some more to get the most out of them and get rid of the attack carrier mindset. There is none. Even the Eclipse which is the best example one can put out but carriers will be there mainly to lend support with their AC. Don't expect to send in a carrier and expect it to be able to take damage as well as dish out damage which is what you are thinking. Even a Dictator with prow armor can easily be killed. Lord knows, I've had my share of easily broken Dictators. But point is, they're not the main killers. In BFG the gunships are still the premier killers.

Also, the rep of the original Dev is deserved. It was too good for its point cost. even at 45 cm, it's still a tad undercosted but everyone can agree esp since in the BFG:R the Dictator has been lowered in cost.

Now I agree with you that IN is encroaching on what should be Chaos expertise. I feel the Defiant or any other low cost carrier shouldn't be available to the IN for game balance and faction strength's sake. IN should ever be the torp and NC fleet. I don't think giving chaos a carrier LC, and a good one at that, should be the solution to balance it out. 

This is what I was pointing out in previous LC for Chaos arguments, Chaos will get better ship in their version of an LC and even though more expensive than the Dauntless is still cheaper than the Slaughter and provides a serious plethora of AC support at an inexpensive cost. You think there's no problem with that?

Rather I would have just taken a full sized cruiser, given it all LBs at a total of Str 3 per side with long range prow lances or WBs. That really still maintains the line and then just dumped the Defiant esp since we all couldn't find a decent compromise for it and just kept the Endeavor and Endurance.

It's still not too late you know.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

You're not giving the avengers 6+ prows!

Why not? I think the GCs specific to the race should be given what the race has. IN Vengeances, Avengers and Exorcists should be given access to 6+ Prows and Str 6 Torps or NCs. Chaos Vengeance, Retaliator and Exorcist should be given access to 60 cm Prow Lances or Weapon Batteries or Str 6 Torps. Of course, it goes without saying, they should be priced or repriced accordingly.

You're changing things anyway, right so why not go the whole 9 yards? Other examples would be Ret at FP18@60cm for 365 -375, Desolators with Str 6@60cm lances, Apocalypse with FP9@60cm dorsal WBs at 370 maybe. Oberon's with all 60 cm WBs at 355. Remake the Despoiler into something people can agree with but for sure it should have prow LBs at 4. This isn't going to be official anyway right, so we don't need HA approval? If we wanted Chaos to get swiveling prow 60 cm lances, fine as long as things are priced correctly. If we want to keep the forward only flavor, that would be fine as well.

Everyone can definitely provide input but we should stop tiptoeing around and just make the changes people have largely agreed to anyway.

[horizon]

Phthsis, we given so many examples on tactics so far.

But since you bring it up, if the 2 Devestations and a Styx are losing to 2 Devs and cost 220 pts more, is there a points imbalance here?

What?

[Plaxor]

Horizon,

I don't understand your disagreement with the carrier CLs in IN.... I don't think that they are as bad as you think they are.

2 Enforcers=220 pts. 2 Defiants=240 pts Getting the same amount of AC as a dictator. The Cls only really help IN defensively. However I would like to hear your argument. I do understand the Hellbringer issue..... hmmmm.... I'll have to think about this more.....

Why not? I think the GCs specific to the race should be given what the race has. IN Vengeances, Avengers and Exorcists should be given access to 6+ Prows and Str 6 Torps or NCs. Chaos Vengeance, Retaliator and Exorcist should be given access to 60 cm Prow Lances or Weapon Batteries or Str 6 Torps. Of course, it goes without saying, they should be priced or repriced accordingly.

They have access to prow torps already. We voted for that, however we voted against 6+ prows as the GCs are shared and a 'characterful' idea for a fleet.

Besides the same could be said that Dauntlesses should have 6+ prows.

You're changing things anyway, right so why not go the whole 9 yards? Other examples would be Ret at FP18@60cm for 365 -375, Desolators with Str 6@60cm lances, Apocalypse with FP9@60cm dorsal WBs at 370 maybe. Oberon's with all 60 cm WBs at 355. Remake the Despoiler into something people can agree with but for sure it should have prow LBs at 4. This isn't going to be official anyway right, so we don't need HA approval? If we wanted Chaos to get swiveling prow 60 cm lances, fine as long as things are priced correctly. If we want to keep the forward only flavor, that would be fine as well.

There are things that are too much, and one factor is intriguing character. If someone asks the question of why don't we make 'Imperial cruiser' and force them to buy the weapons for it? It makes their decisions limitless. Things are far more interesting with limits... with character.... with problems.

Everyone can definitely provide input but we should stop tiptoeing around and just make the changes people have largely agreed to anyway.

Like what? We have most things. We voted on most things. The tiptoeing is to avoid everyone being able to take everything that they want, as stuff like that changes the character of the game, and is a huge amount of work balancing and working out. Not to mention the most important factor, it prevents the possibility of doing more releases.

Changes are "Mainly"

Price modifications for IN/Chaos fleets
Orks improved with more upgrades
Eldar MMS incorporated
Few vessels added for races.
BMs at v1.0

Others are minor quibbles.

[RCgothic]

There are also fighters having a chance to remain in play (fixes fighters), and allowing cap ships to squadron with any cap ship, and escorts with Light cruisers.(because the current rules feel very artificial).

Ok, it hadn't clicked that any 5's would affect the Avenger, however, in the situation where you have Lunar leading an Avenger, the following will happen:

Any lances will hit the Lunar.
Any 6+ WBs will hit the Lunar (1/3)
Any specific 5's will hit the Avenger. (1/3)

Having 5+ armour but being behind another ship with a 6+ prow is therefore still equivalent to having a 6+ prow and invulnerability to lances. Of course, the lead ship will take its usual pummelling, but the Avenger becomes far less vulnerable than it would otherwise be, and that vulnerability was built into the low price cost.

[Plaxor]

yes, but you're forgetting a key advantage here.

Say that the player was intending to hurt the lunar anyways. This would mean that if the lunar were not squadroned only 6's would have an effect on the ship. Which now that it is squadroned your 5's are now worth something and causes potential damage to another ship.

What you're thinking of as a massive advantage isn't as big as you think it is. The only scenario where this causes you problems is if your opponent intends to kill the Avenger, and is unable to make it the closest target while in its front arc.

Squadroning has it's play for survivability, and 'closest ship' is the important part of it. But honestly the scenario you're giving is worse than squadroning 3 cruisers together.  this would happen;

all 6+ hits go to first cruiser. 5+ hits are simply ignored. With your example it is a less-defensive way of playing.

Let's say that the player didn't squadron the avenger and cruiser.

Then if the player wanted to shoot at the avenger he would score hits on 5+, and the lunar on 6+. If he wanted to hit the lunar anyways, then he would be losing out on the free 5+ bonus hits on the avenger.

However if they were squadroned and he wanted to shoot the lunar, then his 5+ hits would count for something.

The same could be said about squadroning Dauntlesses with retributions! well you just gave a bunch of cls 4 shields!?!?!?