August 04, 2024, 01:23:56 PM

Author Topic: Invincible  (Read 4308 times)

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Invincible
« on: February 08, 2011, 01:18:26 PM »
This thread is about the Invincible Class Heavy Battlecruiser and reasons for its inclusion in BFG:R Bakka List The original profiles says it's a Fast battleship, but Fast Battleships are a technical evolution that doesn't generally trade anything for its speed. It's a true Battlecruiser, but BFG uses the term battlecruiser slightly differently, hence why I'm calling it a Heavy Battlecruiser.

The original profile is:

Battleship8 Shields2 Speed25 Turns45 AV6+/5+ Turrets4

Prow Torps S6 F
P/SB WBs FP12@60cm L/R
Dorsal Lances S4@60cm F/L/R

Special Rules: May not CTNH, Rolls 2D6 for each hit to determine if criticals are scored, and may even take 2 criticals per hit if both come up 6+.

This is effectively the same weapons fit as the previous incarnation of Retribution, before we fixed it (if you accept that one dorsal lance @60cm F/L/R is equivalent to 3 torps, which I think is a fair trade).

For this battleship level firepower, it traded in four hits, 2 shields, and a special rule that doubles its chance of criticals.

So why should it be included in BFG:R? Because the Battlecruiser (big B) concept is awesome: Fast enough to outrun anything that can catch it, powerful enough to destroy anything that can.

That said, there are a number of issues with the profile as it stands:

  • 4 Dorsal Lances is a no-no. The max for that hardpoint is 3 Lances.
  • The Retribution has been up-gunned, leaving the Invincible a barely-stronger-than-Armageddon.
  • The Special Rule doesn't flow nicely, rolling 2D6 per hit is a deviation from standard procedure, and could be done better.
  • Every other ship based on its hull has HP12 - no other ship in the game deviates from the number of hits of its hull class, save ships with the Mark of Nurgle where this is arguably due to extra mass.

So with those in mind, here are my proposed fixes:

Dorsal Lances:
Down to S3@60cm. To compensate, restore the S9 Torps.

Underpowered Broadsides:
The Retribution has been fixed to FP18@45cm per side, so the Invincible needs equivalent. However, due to its more fragile nature, range is going to be more important to it than pure firepower, so I propose FP15@60cm. This is FP5 per hardpoint.

Special Rule:
Critical Hits on a 5+ cause a statistically identical number of hits as 2D6 on a 6+, and flows more naturally - we already have mechanisms for Crits on a 4+, and this is just a variation on a theme. It loses the possibility of double crits, but will crit more often to compensate.

Hitpoints
This is the biggest issue. No other Capital ship deviates from its hull hitpoints, with nurgle-bloated mass the only exception. Some have argued that Hitpoints are a measure of Toughness - I disagree. They're a measure of physical size and crew complement. The Invincible is just as big as a regular battleship, has just as many crew as a regular battleship, and so should get as many repair dice as a regular battleship - these all say 12 Hitpoints.

So how is toughness measured? In BFG, this is reflected by the shields (already half-strength), and armour. It can also be adjusted by using special rules. Unfortunately we're rather restricted on armour - it might as well be a Chaos ship if it's 25cm 5+ prow battleship. If we had an option for AV 5.5+/4.5+, then that would probably be ideal, but we don't have such sensitive delineation.

So the first question is: Is 2 shields and double crits enough of a trade off for 25cm? I don't believe so - it's not as much as it sacrificed in its current incarnation, and it still lacks an air of fragility that should be associated with a Battlecruiser.

The second question is: What more can be done to lend it that air of a glass-cannon that a Battlecruiser is supposed to have and represent its relative lack of armour, both 5.5+/4.5+ exernally and reduced bulkhead armour internally? Well we could reduce turrets (and I think we should anyway), but that doesn't help against regular damage. My prefered option is to give all rolls on the critical hits chart a +1 modifier on , which flows naturally on from the other proposed special rule 5+ to crit.

Some would say this is punishing the Invincible three times: once through shields and twice through critical hits - but the alternative is reducing the total hits instead, which doesn't get round the three handicapping mechanisms and runs up against having a BB sized model with fewer than BB number of hits.

So my proposed profile:

Battleship12 Shields2 Speed25 Turns45 AV6+/5+ Turrets3

Prow Torps S9 F
P/SB WBs FP15@60cm L/R
Dorsal Lances S3@60cm F/L/R

Special Rules: May not CTNH. Suffers Critical hits on a 5+ instead of 6+, and also suffers a +1 modifier on the Critical hits chart.

So how many points should this be worth? It was originally 55pts cheaper than the Retribution, which would put it at 300, but it has also gained hits relative to the original profile, which put it at 320, but then it has an additional special rule on top, so somewhere in the 310-320pts range.


« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 02:30:20 PM by RCgothic »

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: Invincible
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2011, 01:52:38 PM »
I see that you've moved your knight to E-7.

I was toying with names... as the Invincible is first off a misnomer, and second-off doesn't fit much into Imperial naming systems. (neither does the Vicky, but we might get into that later)

Name Thoughts:
Veritable
Executioner
Revanchist
Hyperion
Diligent
Vigilant

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: Invincible
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2011, 03:04:52 PM »
Inflexible Class Heavy Battlecruiser (Second ship in the Invincible series - more Imperial sounding!)

Valdor Class Heavy Battlecruiser

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Invincible
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2011, 11:47:40 PM »
executioner ... isn't that CG?

hows about:
relentless (or if that is used, the unrelenting)
sovereign
monarch
Valorous
Ruthless
Conquerer
Fearless

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: Invincible
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2011, 06:21:53 AM »
Eh, I always find Celestial bodies to provide good names. The Hydra isn't named after the monster, but Pluto's moon.

In fact, quite a few ships are named after celestial bodies:

Lunar
Oberon
Mars

Only other decent name I found through digging through lists of celestial bodies would be:

Ceres
Hyperion

I suppose Charon is decent too.

Offline Eldanesh

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Invincible
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2011, 10:52:40 AM »
LOL

... you know that all these celestial bodies, like the most, are named after mythological figures, aren't you?

Lunar = Luna, roman godness of the moon (Selene in greek)
Oberon = in germanic myth he is the Dwarf King Alberich, shakespeare made him the king of Elves.
Mars = roman god of war
Ceres =roman godness of fertility (weird for a warship btw...)
Hyperion = a titan

topic: I don't think that fast Battleships should be included. Historical most fast BBs are WW2 era (Queen Elisabeth class being the exception), while BFG is inspired by WWI era/ Battle of Jutland. Also there has never been an offical "category" of fast battleship. This term was only used informal. Battleships were treatend like any other battleship. E.G. they had no separate navy code.
So a fast battleship should be nothing other than a regular battleship with speed above average fot a races standard (meaning 20cm IN and 25 Chaos)

The original idea of the Invincible was a "real" Battlecruiser: the weapons of a Battleship with the speed an armour (translating: hit points) of a Cruiser. This is whar a Battlecruiser
Quote
should
be. Unfortunatly they don't ealyy get this when they wrote the rules.

So IMHO if you want to rewrite the rules of the Invincible I would made it a terribly overgunned (by BFG standard) Battlecruiser....

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: Invincible
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2011, 10:56:32 AM »
Oh, don't worry. I know that. All of Jupiters moons are chicks he banged. I was picking celestial bodies with the best sounding names for ships.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: Invincible
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2011, 11:11:15 AM »
topic: I don't think that fast Battleships should be included. Historical most fast BBs are WW2 era (Queen Elisabeth class being the exception), while BFG is inspired by WWI era/ Battle of Jutland. Also there has never been an offical "category" of fast battleship. This term was only used informal. Battleships were treatend like any other battleship. E.G. they had no separate navy code.
So a fast battleship should be nothing other than a regular battleship with speed above average fot a races standard (meaning 20cm IN and 25 Chaos)

The original idea of the Invincible was a "real" Battlecruiser: the weapons of a Battleship with the speed an armour (translating: hit points) of a Cruiser. This is whar a Battlecruiser
Quote
should
be. Unfortunatly they don't ealyy get this when they wrote the rules.

So IMHO if you want to rewrite the rules of the Invincible I would made it a terribly overgunned (by BFG standard) Battlecruiser....

I agree with you that Invincible was intended as a "Real battlecruiser", but I certainly don't agree with you that it should have cruiser hitpoints - battlecruisers were adequately protected against the cruiser weapons of the day, it was just battleship grade weapons they were vulnerable to. A Cruiser and a Battlecruiser, if they were to duel with cruiser-grade weapons, it would be the Battlecruiser that was left standing by an enormously large margin.

Battlecruisers certainly were NOT just cruisers with battleship weapons - they were battleships without the facility to defend against their own weapons, which gained speed as a trade off. They were far bigger than cruisers, and more heavily armoured, though not to the extent of battleships. Given that they're far more than 50% more massive than cruisers, and at least as tough, how can you justify NOT giving them +50% hit points?

Sure, they're not as tough as other battleships (represented by shields and special rules), but they're still WAY out of the league of cruisers.

Offline Eldanesh

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Invincible
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2011, 01:53:40 PM »
Quote
hey were far bigger than cruisers, and more heavily armoured, though not to the extent of battleships.
Well... no.  ;D
The problem is simply that you don't have a class that be compared to BFG's cruisers. You had Battleships, you had Battlecruisers/große Kreuzer/armored cruisers/heavy cruiser  as well as light cruisers, but you don't something that can be really compared to BFG's "cruisers".

"Bigger" is also relative, as BC' designs were sometimes even "longer" and "slimer" than BBs. And it is also a question about which country and which time you are speaking. For example the german "große Kreuzer" were labeled "cruiser" only because that the admirality didn't had to pass a new law and they could be build from the "cruiser-budget" instead from a "warship budget". But at all they were more a kind of small/sturdy BBs.
On the other hand the "classical" british BCs like the Invincible class were virtually Boxers with glass chin.
At Jutland the british BCs had heavy casualties in a firefight with their german counterparts, while the german BCs even surived some rounds of fire with the british battleships and made it back home (even if sometimes terribly damaged: Seydliz and Derfflinger took both 22 hits!)

So if the idea behind really is the Invincible, than 8 hits are enough: these ships were fragile even by BC-standard. If the idea should represent a more generic "battlecruiser as is should be", than 10 or even 12 hits can be justified as long as the shields stay low

Quote
All of Jupiters moons are chicks he banged.
Nope, only 6 of 8  ;D The other two (Adraste and Amalthea) were his nannys.



« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 01:57:32 PM by Eldanesh »

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Invincible
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2011, 03:44:38 PM »
executioner ... isn't that CG?

You're thinking of the Executor. Completely different meaning.

Eh, I always find Celestial bodies to provide good names. The Hydra isn't named after the monster, but Pluto's moon.

Yeah, but the moon is named after the monster ...

Nope, only 6 of 8  ;D The other two (Adraste and Amalthea) were his nannys.

Oh please, they would've been the first he banged.  :P


Offline Eldanesh

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Invincible
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2011, 04:47:11 PM »
He is just Zeus, not Barney Stinson  ;D

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: Invincible
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2011, 05:33:54 PM »
Hi! Have you met Sig?

:P

But yes, Definitely Battlecruiser as it was supposed to be: Hood/Scharnhorst et al.