List of flawed ships

[RCgothic]

Fair enough, but the avengers specifically had a low price because the way you had to use them specifically made them more vulnerable than regular cruisers, and they're a higher priority than that lunar because they have nearly twice the weight of firepower, unlike the CLs which are comparable. Also, unlike the CLs, if you go round the side they have 3 shields.

I still think this is a problem specific to the Avenger, rather than squadrons as a whole. I think it's too cheap for what you get now.

[Plaxor]

I know. It is a very cheap feeling vessel, but it has it's troubles, and squadroning it is a clever way to help mitigate it that people might not use.

Honestly my opinion is that we shouldn't dig up old cans of worms like that unless they are gamebreaking. I would like to get a 'finalized' version out at some point, and then wait a year to see how things go and update again then. The Avenger was the most hated GC, and now will likely be used fairly often. We may decide to bring it back up to 220ish at some point, but this is a 'passable' screw up. As it doesn't give the IN anything they wouldn't normally have, and it still has it's linebreaker weakness as we already discussed.

It's good you're trying to find things that we missed, as I'm going to be stopping discussion regarding nearly all fleets soon. Because I'm getting tired of the constant lobbying and pointless quibbles.

Although I am trying to understand Horizon's CL carrier complaint in IN. I can't honestly see it. I still think people will use larger carriers more often.

[Bryantroy2003]

Unless some one else choses my list for me, the only capital carrier I take in IN is going to be my Dictator. Unless I forgot it at home in which case ill take a Mars. Course im crazy enough to use escort carriers too.

[horizon]

Hey,

well, I experienced light carriers. 1 shield... easy brace. Or do you wait for incoming fire on a 6 hit ship with 1 shield?
Nah, they just don't cut it for me.

Endeavours[AM]/Dauntless are pretty good though.



Eldar MMS,
care to send me the thing before you upload it? I mean, changes are fast. How they behave something else. And I tested MMS pretty well I can say so I know what changes can do...

Some people miss the Supernova & Wymr.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

I think they should have access then for additional points.

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

[/quote]

No because they have 25 cm speed. The same can be said that the Endeavors should have 6+ prow because they have 20 cm speed.

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.

Why would they be too much? What has character got to do with it? Apocalypse should have FP9 dorsal WBs as well as keeping the lance range problem which is the one which makes it characterful. A Ret having FP18@60cm WB is characterful because it would be one of the most powerful WB battleships out there. Oberon is still characterful if it had all its WB ranges pegged at 60 cm and it was before they nerfed it. Desolator would be known as the most poewrful lance battleship. Character can still remain.

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.

I'm pretty much sure balancing wouldn't be a problem much for the people here. Character can still be done somewhere. For the Ret, up the batteries but lower the lance ranges if you want to to further show the decline in lance tech for IN. Same with Oberon.  Character is the least of the problems.

[Phthisis]

@Admiral

I can see your point for a chaos cruiser sized carrier with more bays.  But that seems like a problem for HA to tackle.  Judging by the points cost of the Styx, I doubt it will happen.   A slight change to the weapons profile and +2 bays = 70pts?  Rediculous.  They arent going to sign off on a cruiser carrier with a similar profile for around 220.  However if HA does consider this I will argue for it.
Light carriers are GWs albatros, not ours.  Eliminating them from BFG:R makes existing models obsolete and therefore is messy.  

There are several reasons a CL carrier is the better solution in BFG:R.
First, I've been told that adding a new ship to the existing Black Crusade list is off limits.  Is anyone going to consider a massive points drop on the Styx or Devestation?  How about a significant increase in firepower?  No?  Then that's a pointless discussion.  
Second, the Tartanus list requires one escort or CL before you can take a cruiser.  IN has one escort type and two CL type carriers, which are not only easy choices to get AC into the fleet, but also are very good for their points.  If Chaos is going to take a carrier, they have to fill cruiser slots with Devestations.  IN can take a ton of AC, and keep their torpedos.  If Chaos gets a CL carrier, then it can keep up.  This cruiser is specific to tartanus.
Third, a light carrier is so rediculously fluffy!  Pirates and renegades need to capture ships to survive and keep their overhead low.  The manouverability and large number of attack craft are well suited to acheiving their goals.  If thet didn't have one readily available, they'd gut the side batteries and magazines on an Unbeliever and cram in bays to make one.

As far as balance goes, I don't see a light carrier for Chaos causing problems.  Against the Wardens list it gives them the manouverability and AC to at least keep up.  Its not much of a threat vs Bakka but it can at least counter torpedos well.  Standard IN had an across the board price decrease for AC, and a light cruiser is easy to brace and damage.  Basically the light carrier just allows the Tartanus list to take as much AC as they could in the regular chaos list.  

You and Horizon keep saying there is a problem here using a lighy carrier in a chaos list, but so far havent specifically named it.  What is the issue?

[RCgothic]

The reason for the across the board drop on AC prices for IN was because it's ridiculous to play +35pts (extra turret accounted for) and trade in 4 Lances@30cm worth about +30pts, making 65pts total for 4 bays launching just bombers and fighters.

On the other hand, the Devastation pays just +5pts over the Carnage after accounting for the turret. It loses 73pts of WBs and range, but gains 58pts of lances, meaning that overall it pays just 20pts for its 4 bays which also get assault boats. How was this not the deal of the last two centuries? That's why it had its lance range cut in BFG:R so that it has to pay 30pts.

This is still 25pts fewer for superior bays compared to any of the IN carriers in BFG:R. I think the Devastation is of equal value to the Dictator, but still costs 20pts less.

[horizon]

Phtsis, easy,
Chaos should not have light cruisers. Because Chaos ships are old. And in old they had no light cruisers.

Mind you: renegade cruisers are possible. As Draft2010 says. These are newer renegade turned vessels, not necessarily Chaos ships. So now you can add a Endeavour/Endurance/Dauntless/Defiant in your Chaos fleet.

[Phthisis]

@RC

You're comparing it to the Carnage?  Could you find a more different ship in the Chaos fleet?

Why not the Slaughter?  That has much more in common with the Devestation than the Carnage.   Same type of calculus has the Devestation paying 50pts for the bays.  

If youre going to complain about the Devestation, then compare it to the Styx.  2 bays, 15cm to lances but 2 fewer on a FLR = +70pts?  Make the Devestation 230pts.  

While youre at it, since armored prows are not worth it and torpedos are so easy to stop, deduct 10pts from every IN ship with one.

@Horizon
One ship or cruiser for every 1500pts.  -1 to LD for same points cost (equal to 25pt nerf) which is terrible on a carrier.  Not even allowed in BFG:R according to Plaxor. 

[RCgothic]

Vs Slaughter:

Starting value: 165pts
difference in speed: -13pts
difference in turrets: +4pts
difference in WBs: -40pts
difference in lance range: +28pts
Final price: 190pts

Therefore LBs valued at 46pts for 4. This is still significantly less than the Dictator's bays for better bays. In the previous example, I started with the Carnage because I reckon it's pointed about right. I think the Slaughter is undercosted by about 15pts due to its lack of synergy with the rest of chaos. This makes the Dev's bays 31pts, still the bargain of the century compared to anything IN has. In a stand-up fight the Dev will butcher a lunar, matching its firepower from greater range whilst still having AC to boot. The Dev is not a bad ship. It's a frikkin brilliant ship, even after the range nerf.

[horizon]

Ah frick it.

Personally to me any Imperial fleet can go renegade. Though I would not place marks of chaos on them.

But I think the rule should exist. I like it. It is fluffy. Renegade IN captains commandeering a small flotilla, carving their own empire only to meet the hammer...

Also: RcGothics matchups are good. (Though I disagree with almost all of his AC rules ).

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

@Admiral

I can see your point for a chaos cruiser sized carrier with more bays.  But that seems like a problem for HA to tackle.  Judging by the points cost of the Styx, I doubt it will happen.   A slight change to the weapons profile and +2 bays = 70pts?  Rediculous.  They arent going to sign off on a cruiser carrier with a similar profile for around 220.  However if HA does consider this I will argue for it.
Light carriers are GWs albatros, not ours.  Eliminating them from BFG:R makes existing models obsolete and therefore is messy.  

Huh? Why not? Dev is at 190 so getting one for around 210 for the additional bays and prow lances should not be too bad. The +70 points is for the fact that lances were added as well as range bump on the prow weapons if I am not mistaken.

There are several reasons a CL carrier is the better solution in BFG:R.
First, I've been told that adding a new ship to the existing Black Crusade list is off limits.  Is anyone going to consider a massive points drop on the Styx or Devestation?  How about a significant increase in firepower?  No?  Then that's a pointless discussion.  
Second, the Tartanus list requires one escort or CL before you can take a cruiser.  IN has one escort type and two CL type carriers, which are not only easy choices to get AC into the fleet, but also are very good for their points.  If Chaos is going to take a carrier, they have to fill cruiser slots with Devestations.  IN can take a ton of AC, and keep their torpedos.  If Chaos gets a CL carrier, then it can keep up.  This cruiser is specific to tartanus.

These two reasons assumes the existence of an IN AC LC. If that LC is gone, then there is no need to make an AC LC for Chaos.

Third, a light carrier is so rediculously fluffy!  Pirates and renegades need to capture ships to survive and keep their overhead low.  The manouverability and large number of attack craft are well suited to acheiving their goals.  If thet didn't have one readily available, they'd gut the side batteries and magazines on an Unbeliever and cram in bays to make one.

And you do know, if we are following fluff reason, how hard it is to operate a carrier? You need to maintain parts for the AC as well as the ordnance and the fuel as well as its other weapons and systems. I would think pirates would prefer gunships than carriers if only to limit the problem of acquiring parts and ordnance as well as losing attack craft themselves and replacing them.

You and Horizon keep saying there is a problem here using a lighy carrier in a chaos list, but so far havent specifically named it.  What is the issue?

I already pointed out problems. A Chaos LC would be inherently better than its IN equivalent, 4, count em 4 bays of the Hellbringer (at least that's what I remember from a few pages back) and similar prow lances and speed and turn advantage over Defiant for 150 points vs 2 for Defiant and its lance and torps? At a points efficient cost which can be combined with the Slaughter, couple of Devs, Styx and Desolator to make an fast AC heavy fleet? I think not.

Dump the Defiant and Enforcer and eliminate the problem of IN getting cheap AC.

[Plaxor]

Admiral, explain your issue with IN CL carriers more in-depth. I still do not understand your reasoning as why they are problematic. IN does not get AC for cheaper overall (220 pts to 210), and in the Wardens/Tartanus fleet is the only place where Enforcers are available, and are the only carrier option other than Tempests (escort carriers) and Excorcists. Well plus the variant Vanquisher.


Pthisis,

Admiral does have a point about AC being more expensive to maintain than weapons batteries. Which is why the Maelstrom fleet is very AC light. However there is reason to include such vessels. Primarily to not force players to spam devestations in the list. Additionally there is room for another tempest-style escort, but we will see.

Horizon,

I understand your arguments against Chaos CLs, they simply don't exist. However FFG is producing canon for our game regardless of if we want it or not. The Hellbringer is in here, as well as the Pestilaan.

There is a minority who want chaos Cls. and I developed a fleet list for them to be able to play with such vessels, without disrupting the fleet lists of those that would play without them. CLs for chaos are not in the 13th black crusade.

CLs suck in chaos, we know this, which is why they are mandatory in the Maelstrom fleet, and the fleet list is balanced in respect to their necessity.

Regarding Eldar,

I have seen quite a few complaints about the absence of the supernova et al. I will add them in. The only changes I intend for eldar are the holofield changes to lances (4/5/6 depending on range) and a RS for wbs. I'll see if I can email you an advance copy when I review them.

All stats/costs will be as in 1.9. The only changes will be regarding holofields.

Regarding IN renegades,

IN renegades are perfectly usable in a chaos fleet, and cannot take marks. You just need your opponents permission to do so (not too hard among us chaps). Players are allowed to take reserves/allies consisting of 1/3 of their total points value from any other fleet list if you agree.

The reason for the 'opponents permission' is to keep each fleet list defined, and to prevent possible rules conundrums and possible broken combos.


Hoping I didn't miss anything!

[Plaxor]

Oh, later I will talk about the DOOM! cycle for wargames releases.

Admiral D might know what I'm talking about.

[Phthisis]

@Admiral & Plaxor

If we were talking modern day, you'd be right about the AC vs gunnery.  But this is the dark future where everything is bigger and technology is about superstition and forgotten lore.

Batteries on ships are macro-cannons, massive volcano cannons and giant lasers.  Running each one of these is like operating a partical accelerator or a tokamak. Its like what they put on titans, only bigger.  Which forgeworld is providing the ammunition, refit materials and technical expertise to keep them running?

AC are actually the low-tech option.  The fluff has army mechanics maintaining their aircraft, not techpriests,and the ammunition they use is the same stuff they issue to the IG & PDF.  Theyre cheap, easy to maintain and arm and made on every civilized or better planet in the Imperium.  Heck, they could probably build them at a large enough pirate base.

When the batteries break down, you gut the gun-bays, sell off the components and make launch bays.

@Admiral

The Styx has 2 more bays, makes the WBs 60cm, trades in 4 lances for 2 FLR and makes them 60cm.  70pts?  Really?

Compare the Dictator to the Mars.. A Nova Cannon, 2 completely new 60cm FLR lances and 12WBs upgraded by 15cm, all for 50pts.


The Warden fleet can fill its slots all with carriers too and still pack more of a punch even with the Hellbringer.  I just want more balance.  
But youre right, it would be better balance to introduce a 6 bay carrier for around 220.  That would have to be done in the Black Crusade list by HA.  Its off limits, and in the list we can change needs a light carrier to avoid forcing players to fill their cruiser slots with devestations.

By eliminating light carriers and chaos light cruisers, youre advocating burning the whole tartanus sector project and starting over.

@Horizon
Youre right, light cruisers are not old.  But you say that any IN fleet can go renegade.  What if all the renegade light cruisers were relatively new?  Pirates would love them and theyre easier to capture/mutiny on than a full size cruiser.  Can we just change some of the fluff, or are we stuck because of that RPG?