Costing For Imperial Battlecruiser

[Talos]

Hey guys thinking of building koronus class battlecruiser, effectively BC-Gothic. Here's my breakdown

Koronus class Battlecruiser
Hits 8 Shields 2 Movement 25cm Turns 45 Turrets 2
Left Lance FP 4 45cm
Right Lance FP 4 45cm
Dorsal Lance FP 2 45cm
Front Torpedo Strength 6

Option: Increase dorsal lance to 60cm +10pts

I was thinking about 230 points, and didn't main post the following option main for fear of mass ridicule . Option 2 replace 6 strength forward torp for str 2 launch bays with/fighter + bombers and +1 turret for +10 points. If this upgrade is taken it loses its 6+ prow. I know that there is not a lot of precedent for prow launch launch bays in IN (other than BFG:R's Vanquisher option, but that depends on your view of its author, I suppose), but its seems thematically possible and at only strength two it seems limited to CAP and opportunistic  attacks on combined ordnance salvos.

 If you good people could comment both on primary build and on AC option seperately, that would be appreciated.

[horizon]

Discussion on a CB Gothic:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=2412.msg21079;topicseen#msg21079

[Sigoroth]

Discussion on a CB Gothic:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=2412.msg21079;topicseen#msg21079

Nice find. Be buggered if I'd have been able to remember where we discussed that.

@Talos

The notion of the CB Gothic has come up numerous times. I myself have no opposition in principle to the notion, however, there are a few problems. Firstly, the IN don't do long range lances that well, particularly en masse. Hence, most long range main armaments in the IN fleet are WBs. So a ship which is pure lance (ie, the Gothic) would be an unlikely candidate for the broadside range upgrade that is normally attendant with CB status. This creates something of a dilemma. A CB Gothic will either be an exception to the rule against long range lances en masse or it will be an exception to the rule of "CBs have at least 45cm broadside range".

I myself much prefer the latter. Broadside range isn't all that useful in a line-breaker and as a non-theme element for the IN it tends to cost too much. So I'd rather see a cheaper CB with shorter range.

Another argument against a 45cm range Gothic CB is that of power requirements. The Armageddon is already pushing the envelope for a CB, the extra power requirements of converting the WBs to lances would put it over the top I think. Of course, you could get back some power by dropping the range of the dorsal lances, but that's yet another exception to the rule and it's dubious as to whether it would be enough.

Also, extra range on lances is far more powerful than extra range on WBs. Imagine that the Lunar had an option to increase its lance range to 45cm for, say, +10 pts. This would give it equivalent firepower to a range upgraded Tyrant in the 30-45cm range band and superior firepower at under 30cm. While being cheaper. (Yes, I know, the Tyrant is poo, but the point is that the IN tend to steer clear range ups on broadside lances).

Lastly, with 6 lances at 45cm such a CB would make a mockery of larger lance boats, like the Executor and Apocalypse.

Regarding the speed increase, I'm against that for all the reason listed above: insufficient power reserves, another rule exception, unnecessary points sink, and non-IN theme.

As for a price on the ship you've presented, I'd be looking at around the 245 pt mark, 255 pts with the dorsal lances at 60cm. So you'd be paying around 20 pts over the Armageddon to get the WBs swapped to lances and to up the speed by 5cm.

The prow launch bay notion is interesting. You could possibly justify the speed increase with the loss of the prow armour. However, apart from being yet another exception to the typical modus operandi of the IN one would have to wonder at the utility of the design. With 30cm lances you'd have a line breaking ship that had no prow armour. Assuming that 45cm lances are alllowed (hell, we're assuming the prow launch bays so why not!?) then it would be a support vessel, sort of like a Mars but with a little bit more direct fire and half the AC. That's a little bit, meh, to me.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Wow... No . It was hard for the Imperium to build large scale lance boats when they knew what they were doing, http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Acheron_Heavy_Cruiser#.UE6BsIl5mc1  http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Apocalypse_Class_Battleship#.UE6Crol5mc0, so i doubt they would be able to create one now. Given the Admech list i wouldnt put it past their ability to build a Gothic based BC but i would expect it to retain its 30cm broadsides and just add 45-60cm dorsal batteries for ~200ish pts.

I like the idea of prow launch (i built a fleet carrier BC once upon a time that carried 3 launch per broadside 2 prow and 2 dorsal ). The precedent it there due to ships such as Strike cruisers Battle barges and yes the Victory so for friendly games id say go for it, but as previously stated it doesnt really work with a Gothic in mind. I would expect this more as maybe a light cruiser for hunting pirates, hum maybe a Kar Duniash light cruiser along the lines of a Defiant... Except not crappy .

[horizon]

Discussion on a CB Gothic:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=2412.msg21079;topicseen#msg21079

Nice find. Be buggered if I'd have been able to remember where we discussed that.

This forum has a search engine that actually works. 

[Talos]

Thank you, everyone! Very educational and informative, good strong direct non-biased opinions with arguments grounded in facts! What more can you ask for?

Ok, having reviewed your points, its looking like you guys think of long range support as being covered by mars/dominion (which has 45cm, by the way). Assuming I drop the support vessel theme and head straight to line breaker territory, how's this then

Typical cruiser hits/turns/shields/turrets but 25cm movement.
4 FP Lance 30cm Left
4 FP Lance 30cm Right
2 FP Dorsal 60cm Left/Right/Front
6 Str Torpedo Front

240 points; logic versus armageddon being reduced range point reduction counterbalanced by lance premium and speed increase. Option to increase turret 10pts.

Purpose is close up line breaker, heavy close range support to main IN battle line. Originally designed to bolster battlegroups lacking in lance power to help combat "the increasing amount of battleships emerging from the eye of terror", due to the rarity of the apocalypse class battleships. One per 500pts rule

Alternatively, what about quasi-reverse Overlord:

Normal cruiser speed/turns/shields/hits/turrets
4 FP Lance 45cm left
4 FP Lance 45cm right
6 FP Battery 60cm Left/Right/Front
6 Str Torpedo Prow
Nova Cannon prow for +20pts

Pricing is 240 points; shorter ranged firepower than overlord, but lance premium and longer effective ranged firepower. Design characteristics flavored by apocalypse battleship and chalice battlecruiser (BFG:R). Has 1 per 500pts rule.

Purpose is mid-long range support vessel, designed to cover carriers and precision boosting of battlelines.

Or if you guys are feeling kinda' wacked today ...

Typical IN hits, turns and shield, except +1 turret and no armored prow
3 FP Lance 45cm Left
3 FP Lance 45cm Right
2 FP Lance 60cm Left/Right/Front
Str 3 Launch Bay Bombers/Fighters

Pricing at 250 also; compared to dominion has increased broadside effectiveness, less ordnance and no double ordnance premium, unique (prow LB) component premium. Due to extreme rarity reserve rules apply.

Purpose is dedicated support vessel, a la mars/dominion, but more shooty and less ordnancy (?).

Try to find it in your hearts no to hate me .



 

[horizon]

25cm speed on an Imperial Battlecruisers needs to be justified. How and why?
I say 20cm...

[Talos]

You have a point; the only other precedent is Mercury class BC from Bakka; due to apocalypse class BS design reference it could also use juiced up engines (hybrid battleship/cruiser) and also have catastrophic critical (3d6 when destroyed). Or its could be slowed down to 20cm and drop 5 points. Which do you prefer?

[Sigoroth]

You have a point; the only other precedent is Mercury class BC from Bakka; due to apocalypse class BS design reference it could also use juiced up engines (hybrid battleship/cruiser) and also have catastrophic critical (3d6 when destroyed). Or its could be slowed down to 20cm and drop 5 points. Which do you prefer?

The latter. It's best to avoid breaking themes as much as possible when introducing a new ship. The Mercury is already an "iffy" ship to begin with, using it as a basis for another "iffy" ship isn't great. However, let's put that aside while we talk cost. The speed is worth a fair price hike, yes, but it's not worth that much. A Gothic + 2 60cm LFR dorsal lances and no other change (apart from being classed as a CB) is worth no more than 210 pts. Maybe 215 pts if you're charging a premium for "variety". A 5cm speed bump might cost in the vicinity of 15 pts. That puts us at 225 pts. Not 240 pts.

As for your "reverse Overlord", let's compare it to an Armageddon. In the 45-60cm range band it has 6WB vs the 2L of the Armageddon. This is clearly in favour of the Armageddon. Below 45cm range it has identical primary target firepower. Its offside firepower is equivalent at under 30cm and in the 30-45cm range band it gains the same advantage the Armageddon does in the 45-60cm range band. However, since 99% of offside fire is within 30cm anyway, this is not much of an advantage. So, as for cost, I'd say this ship should be no more expensive than an Armageddon. But the biggest question to ask is why bother? The vast majority of the time it'll get the same or slightly weaker firepower and the only really notable difference is swapping 6WB for 2L for offside firepower only. Meh.

Looking at your whacky design, I'm again of a mind to compare it to a Mars. Same average damage from direct fire weaponry but at shorter range and with less AC. Yes, it has more off-side firepower, but less total firepower. I think I'd be inclined to take the up-armoured Mars instead. Particularly as the 3L broadside irks me.

[Talos]

I find it amusing that it irks you, Sig, although I say that in jest . Really what i'm going for is a mid-range (45cm) lanceboat, so if you have anything to add on that particular design let's make that the theme. I tend to run high battery counts so this design would be quite useful. As for the armageddon, I LOVE that thing and it's probably part of what inspiring this vessel....along with the gothic of course. And my mid-range lanceboat needs.

Although question; I feel that two armageddons together would make this less relevant. Do two armageddons make a good pair? Or is this thread still valid?

[Talos]

Related to the wacky/support version; after combing the boards, I have not found any non mars/dominion AC support BC's. We are of course ignoring the Jovian (which I pretend never happened). Wait, would a heavy ordnance vessel (3 launch/side + torpedoes) be too powerful for imperial? How much would it cost (cruiser or BC version)? I would be kinda' like a mini Nemesis Carrier (White Dwarf #whothef***knows). Too ridiculous? IN ordnance is pretty bad after all, but even so I would assume the cruiser version would be upward of 240 points and the BC 30 or so more...

[Sigoroth]

A mid range lance gunboat simply isn't viable for the IN. If we were to take a 'paint by numbers' approach to ship design, then sure, a 45cm strength 4 broadside CB is perfectly fine. But then we ignore the character and idioms of the IN. The character of the IN says that en masse long range lances have been quite difficult to produce historically and as a result they've circled around this lack, painting in every option except a 45cm strength 4 broadside CB. Back in the days when they had much easier access to long range lance tech the closest they came was the Desolator, and it only mounted CB level firepower on a BB hull. The Executor fell short, the Acheron fell short and the Apocalypse was also not successful in mounting a BB version on a BB hull. The lance Murder and the Armageddon are the closest we get on a cruiser hull, each mounting a total of 4 lances at 45cm and 2 lances at 60cm (well the Acheron does slightly better, but I have issues with that ship, good though it may be). Getting 10 lances (or even 8 ) at 45cm+ on the one hull seems, from evidence, to be beyond them. So while you could just make one and call it a CB Gothic, I wouldn't.

The Jovian was a "bad idea" for the IN because it was so out of character, not because it was inherently too powerful. I don't understand why you "pretend it never happened" and yet then go on to suggest a 6 AC + torpedo cruiser with a CB version as well. 

People have been dissatisfied with the INs lack of interest in AC, citing the fact that AC has actually always been quite strong in BFG. The question being "why would they abandon something that works?" Well, whatever the reasons, and we could perhaps speculate as to a few of them, AC has fallen into disfavour for the most part. So we're not likely to see maximised AC ships in the IN fleet, despite people's desire. For this reason a 6AC IN cruiser or CB is "bad".

Of course, there are times when this might not apply. The Imperium is a biiiiiiiiiig place and in some corners of it you might find AC being particularly favoured and AC optimised ships in fashion. Or indeed, in some places you might find carriers rare and so what few they do have have to do a better job of it than, say, a Dictator or a Mars. Then we might find a spot for the Jovian.

But why the Jovian, you ask? Why not a better ship, one that doesn't sacrifice its prow weapons. Wouldn't AC + torps be much more efficient? Yes. It would. However, there is not a terribly large amount of efficiency of design in IN and Chaos ships (ie, human ships) in BFG. This inefficiency seems to be epitomised in carriers, across most races in fact. The only time we had something approaching efficiency in carrier design we had the Tau Explorer. A ship almost strong enough to break the game, despite its obvious weaknesses. Could you imagine if we came up with an IN CB that had broadside and dorsal launch bays and prow torps? What about a BB that could launch up to 18 AC (suppose a Nemesis fleet carrier with dorsal and prow launch bays)? We'd have to either price such ships out of existence or rewrite the ordnance rules such that they're hardly worth taking (ie, justify the Imperium's dislike of pure carriers).

And finally, yes, two Armageddons do make a good pair. A very good pair in fact. In a squadron it's like having a Dominator supported by a Gothic. The only real issue is that you have to position 2 ships for an optimal firing solution, rather than just the one. But they have the dorsal lances as further support and even when not best placed their range allows them to still support the fire of more optimally placed vessels.

[Talos]

Thanks for the descriptive and flowing character, reminds me of Stephen King (in a good way!) As for the Jovian, I don't hate it's flavor or even abilities; without a prow it just seems really weak for its points (260 if I recall). So throwing on torps, while admittedly in IN character, is too powerful by (our) collective group understanding. That's fine it was just a hypothetical . If armageddons are actually good in pairs I may just create some more to use, making this lance design somewhat redundant, point to you Sigoroth (doffs cap). If I was truly desperate, I could grab and IN Gothic I suppose .

Related point, however: are any of you familiar with the chalice class battlecruiser from BFG:R? In a nutshell it's got 12 FP batteries on sides, a 8 FP battery on top (all at 30cm) and a str 4 torpedo. It has 3 turrets and a drawback that when it locks on blast markers itself. It also has +5d6 AAF. It is priced at 200 points. Theme is described both in BFG and Rogue Trader as fast heavily armed cruiser with light armor and tendency to rupture plasma when struck hard.

My questions are these:
1) Is this priced right as is? How much should this cost with 6 strength torpedos and the drawback removed?
2) Since it is BFG:R, it has to compared to the Avenger Grand Cruiser, also at 200pts. The avenger has 20 FP broadside and more health and shields, but harsher requirements, lower speed and no frontal weapons. Are these 2 ships too similar?
3) Although you all seem to loathe the idea, would giving it 25cm speed in exchange for an ADDITIONAL fire critical hit when criticaled be balanced? This battlecruiser is supposed to be juiced up for speed at the cost of basic safety features (like plasma containment ). Thoughts?

[Talos]

Second barely related question:

Should the Explorer be more expensive? Is it considered that powerful? I mean, from my perspective the Hero is way more powerful than the Lunar, in exchange for a minor restriction. But although I have read of many people who think it quite powerful I have never read or heard of a point increase or power reduction, despite these murmurings.

[horizon]

Hey,

The Explorer is strong but has weakness.

The Hero is just strong.

The Hero is an example of a ship were fluff and design do not match. It has been counterfixed in the fleet list by having a Hero per other capital.
But the combo Explorer + Hero is so good the restriction is merely a whistle in the wind.

The Hero should definatelly see weaker stats -> weapons.