How useful is my ship, and why is it so?

[Talos]

Open discussion about various characteristics of ships; as I play IN (so far) my examples are mostly theirs.
How does one evaluate a ship characteristic and how does this affect the performance or costing of said ship?

A good example is long range. Extended range is part of the cost of some ships (IN battlecruiser) whereas other ships pay for that advantage in firepower (tyrant cruiser). Other fleets (tau, chaos) have this seemingly for free, because it is the fleet default. How do these fleets justify the boost? They don't seem to cost any more, and yet they have other benefits as well as longer range. Those two don't even have serious fleet drawbacks (like tyrranids, necron or eldar).

Another example: the Lunar cruiser is pretty much the default crusier for the IN, and one of building blocks of ship power level in general. Compare it to a slaughter cruiser, which has higher speed, broadside capability and improved thrusters. It loses an armored prow and its forward firepower is rather mediocre on its lonesome. It costs 15 points less than the lunar. Why? I have read that it is because its high speed makes it more vulnerable, and its short range contrasts it from the rest of the fleet, making it harder to use. This still seems questionable to me, but I have never played chaos so...

More extreme: Lunar vs. Hero. The hero can blast a ship with more than twice the equivalent firepower of any facing the lunar has. It also has more turret alongside combined ordnance, which is apparently a rare ability (dictator pays premium for this ability). The drawback? Marginally less firepower when engaging three targets at once, minor restriction. Both ships have the same cost, so what is the deciding factor?

For characteristics, examine speed: for some vessels, such as carriers and nova cannon vessels, this is considered a drawback. But if said carrier has both kinds of ordnance suddenly it is a boon again. So how much does this effect utility/point cost? If the ship is short ranged and/or battery reliant, the speed is once again an advantage.

And what about premiums? They seem oddly disparate; consider a dictator vs. a devastation. Although their firepower is equivalent in broadsides, the devastation cruiser has less prow FP, but at twice the effective range on all facings. However, it costs 40pts less, so the dictator is paying somehwere along the lines of 30pts + for its combined ordnance capability. Whereas the aforementioned hero pays nothing.

Fleet benefits are another thing: take chaos vs. imperial. The chaotics have better boarding and more AC variety at no cost. They also have more leadership options. The imperials have...nothing in exchange. Yet the chaos vessels cost less on average than their imperial counterparts. Where is that advantage paid for?

Bear in mind this is not a butthurt rant; I like my IN and they seem to perform just fine. As I mentioned I am pretty new and unused to a lot of the fleets. I just wonder at these questions...

[ThaneAquilon]

A second thread about hating the hero, sure seems like butthurt...

Just kidding around, of course;p

As to Tau, drawbacks for long ranged batteries. Small numbers of batteries, small numbers of lances, small number of bays/torps on cruisers, very few long ranged lances (compared to the ubiquitous long ranged lance of IN grand cruisers, especially) also the inability to h+r and board. So they pay, but their few batteries are mid range, and their (generally smaller number, with exceptions of course) ordnance is better. Oh, they are also more limited in effective fire arcs. I haven't played as chaos, nor have I fielded the hero, so I can't comment on the rest.

[Talos]

Actually, every class of capital ship in the tau fleet can muster more battery than their imperial counterpart...exception of the merchant, of course...even then it can hold its own, sadly enough...as for lances, every capital ship with lance access has equal or more than an imperial equivalent. As for torpedoes, emissary has small capacity for light cruiser, but hero has imperial equivalent and protector is only one shy (but has AC too). As for launch bays, all their carriers (actual carriers, mind you: most of their capitals have LB but are not carriers) have equal quantities, in addition to superior ordnance. Some of their ships do indeed have piddling amounts of firepower on side arcs and their lances do not really extend past half range; but imperials only have a few vessels with long range lances and like tau those are restricted. In any event, this is not a comparison between imperial an tau; I'm hoping some of the community veterans can enlighten on the above mentioned characteristics; the comparisons in my first post are just to highlight my lack of understanding.

[ThaneAquilon]

I'm not trying to refute your statements, just adding to the discussion. Also every class of ship (with the possible exception of the hero, I not have the PDF on me) has 2 lance. Lunar has 4, gothic has 8, Armageddon has like 10. My battleship has 12 batteries, empire has like 24 or something. As to the explorer, I did say there was an exception;p but tau "line ships" are used for their carrying capacity. Of 1.

[Talos]

Of the ships you mentioned not a single one can target a ship with more than half of its lances; since broadsides cannot reliably target two enemy vessels this is a moot point. Hero has 4 lance and, btw, 2 launch bays. Only time you can actually get a double broadside is against other broadside armies. Prow facing enemies are never on both sides, because to fire at you they maximise from one angle. Does not change the fact that, though you are bringing useful information to the table, this is not really what the forum is about, except to say that I personally don't understand the issues mentioned in my original post and long range weapons are one of them.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Slaughters just do not work with the rest of the Chaos fleet and despite their great stats I dont see them used very often outside of raids. Actually when you look at them you can see this is what theyre really intended for (and excell at!) their speed allows them to keep pace with their escorts during hit and run style attacks and their short range is not a problem as they are designed to come in, hit hard, and run. The cost difference compared to a Lunar is simply in its durability, it is forced to close and doesnt have the armor to protect itself from the most common weapons. Its very likely that its going to take at least a couple points of damage as it is closing (from long range weapons, torpedoes, etc..). As for the other Chaos ships their range is where they make up the difference against Imperial armor. Armor 6 with a negative range shift means your not likely to get many hits in on an Imperial ship as it closes, on the flip side the Imperials are going to balance any hits from long range guns with hits from nova cannons while closing and torp shotguns. Once the fleets have meet the extra batteries they can bring to bear are balanced by the greater quanity of lances on IN broadsides. The Murder is subpar to the Lunar and the Carnage due to its weapons arangement, to make best use of its lances it has to close, presenting its weak prow to enemy fire while its broadside although strong is still weaker where it counts (within 30). The Dictator/ Devistation is an odd one, the Devi is optimised for its role as fleet support able to hang back and score hits with its lances and launch ordinance while the Dictator is deisgned to close and gain that critical strike with torpedoes/ launch bays. The thing to look at is their roles to determine the difference in cost, the Devi cannot really do any damage without other ships to strip shields for it and since it is going to be focused on reloading its not really going to get the full benifit of its armor busting weapons. The Dictator on the other hand is designed to close and with support will likely close with out a scratch, once it has closed it not only has a powerful armament but its weapons all by themselves support each other the key is just in gaining the first strike.

Hero is overpowered/ underpriced plain and simple. launch should be dropped and an option to take one with launch and no lances should be added to start with. It has the armor needed to close and ranged weapons to use while closing and lances for high armor targets and launch/torp synergy and its all focusable... is it broken tho? no not by itself but when combined with stupidly cheap carriers and stupidly cheap lance escorts and stupidly overpowered light cruisers... ooh wait thats the Tau fleet...

[Sigoroth]

A good example is long range. Extended range is part of the cost of some ships (IN battlecruiser) whereas other ships pay for that advantage in firepower (tyrant cruiser). Other fleets (tau, chaos) have this seemingly for free, because it is the fleet default. How do these fleets justify the boost? They don't seem to cost any more, and yet they have other benefits as well as longer range. Those two don't even have serious fleet drawbacks (like tyrranids, necron or eldar).

Ha, this is such a typical response from an IN player. The truth is that Chaos don't get "free" range, though it is a fleet theme. Consider the "free" range on the Carnage. Well, like the Tyrant it also has only firepower 10 broadsides, meaning it also sacrifices firepower to get range. To get those prow batteries it sacrifices torpedoes, which are worth at least 1.5 times their weight in batteries. Lastly, the Carnage doesn't have the extra prow armour. So the extra speed, range and prow guns are trade-offs for armour, torpedoes and broadside guns. Not free.

Another example: the Lunar cruiser is pretty much the default crusier for the IN, and one of building blocks of ship power level in general. Compare it to a slaughter cruiser, which has higher speed, broadside capability and improved thrusters. It loses an armored prow and its forward firepower is rather mediocre on its lonesome. It costs 15 points less than the lunar. Why? I have read that it is because its high speed makes it more vulnerable, and its short range contrasts it from the rest of the fleet, making it harder to use. This still seems questionable to me, but I have never played chaos so...

Just how much do you think the prow armour on the IN cruisers is worth? What would you pay for a Lunar that had no prow armour? It is worth at least 35 pts and even if you consider the speed worth +20 pts then that accounts for the 15pt differential. In short, the prow armour is worth a lot more than the speed. The torps are worth 9WB, and the Slaughter gets only 6, leaving it 3WB short of a Lunar. But it gets +2 broadside WBs, and since broadside firepower is worth 1.5 times a single arcs firepower this brings parity. Therefore the Slaughter seems to be perfectly balanced against the Lunar.

More extreme: Lunar vs. Hero. The hero can blast a ship with more than twice the equivalent firepower of any facing the lunar has. It also has more turret alongside combined ordnance, which is apparently a rare ability (dictator pays premium for this ability). The drawback? Marginally less firepower when engaging three targets at once, minor restriction. Both ships have the same cost, so what is the deciding factor?

The Hero is overpowered for its price and also for its fluff. The former is somewhat addressed through composition restrictions, though not completely. The Dictator doesn't pay a premium for its combined ordnance capability, it's simply overpriced.

For characteristics, examine speed: for some vessels, such as carriers and nova cannon vessels, this is considered a drawback. But if said carrier has both kinds of ordnance suddenly it is a boon again. So how much does this effect utility/point cost? If the ship is short ranged and/or battery reliant, the speed is once again an advantage.

Ship characteristics come with costs. The more of it the more it costs. So a faster vessel costs more than a slower vessel. This differs from utility. A ship with 6+ prow armour pays for it, regardless of whether it uses it. The cost doesn't vary, but the worth to the ship does.

And what about premiums? They seem oddly disparate; consider a dictator vs. a devastation. Although their firepower is equivalent in broadsides, the devastation cruiser has less prow FP, but at twice the effective range on all facings. However, it costs 40pts less, so the dictator is paying somehwere along the lines of 30pts + for its combined ordnance capability. Whereas the aforementioned hero pays nothing.

This is not a problem of premiums, but one of balance. The Dictator is 10 pts over-priced and the Devastation is slightly overpowered. As noted already the Hero is also overpowered. Have a look at the Dictator, Devastation and Hero from BFG:R and you'll see these concerns disappear.

Fleet benefits are another thing: take chaos vs. imperial. The chaotics have better boarding and more AC variety at no cost. They also have more leadership options. The imperials have...nothing in exchange. Yet the chaos vessels cost less on average than their imperial counterparts. Where is that advantage paid for?

Boarding and a-boats are both a minor part of BFG and the slight advantages Chaos have can't really be used to base a strategy around, at least not without pouring in far more points to the effort and even then it's still a gamble. These are more for flavour. Also, the vast majority of leadership options are craptastic. Having more craptastic options isn't a bonus.

[Talos]

Hehe...direct as usual. Refreshing, however. As for the range, i'm not quite sure I follow but the other points make sense to me. Stupid hero... Is prow armor really worth that much? That seems like a lot of points, considering the majority of their firepower is broadside and thus vulnerable to 5+ shots. Do you play with BFG:R ships, Sig? It seems more and more tempting per argument in its favor. Stupid hero...

[horizon]

One point people often miss in the Chaos vs Imperial Navy debate is that the Imperial Navy cruiser ships have a tighter turning circle. (To do a 360 per example).

BFG:R was intended as a cost/stat fix for vessels.
Then it grew into a full game overhaul.

Pity to me as I would already be happy to see the cost/stat fix pdf on its own.

[Sigoroth]

Hehe...direct as usual. Refreshing, however. As for the range, i'm not quite sure I follow but the other points make sense to me. Stupid hero... Is prow armor really worth that much? That seems like a lot of points, considering the majority of their firepower is broadside and thus vulnerable to 5+ shots. Do you play with BFG:R ships, Sig? It seems more and more tempting per argument in its favor. Stupid hero...

There are some BFG:R ships I don't play, and some I play slightly differently. For example, I take the Retribution at 355 pts. Also, the next time I play IN I intend to take the Tyrant as 12WB@30cmL+R with 6 prow torps for 180 pts. If I ever played a Defiant I would give it the same prow armament as the other two Voss CLs and price it at 100 pts. There are yet more examples of slight changes I would make here and there. There are also some ships that I just totally ignore and pretend aren't in the document, such as the Invincible, the Ignus and the Hydra.

But as for the prow ... Consider a locked-on Carnage shooting at your closing Lunar, starting from 60cm away. With 6+ armour you're looking at just 1.5 average hits expected, not even enough to get through your shields most of the time (about 1 in 6 chance of doing at least 1 hull damage). With a 5+ prow however you're looking at 2.78 average damage with a 60% probability of doing at least 1 hull damage (26% chance of 2 or 3 hull damage).

Now, moving into 45cm range you're looking at an average of 2.44 damage, with a 47.2% probability of at least 1 point of hull damage against a 6+ prow. Against a 5+ prow you're looking at 4.44 damage average with a 91.7% probability of at least 1 point of hull damage. It gets even worse at 30cm and by the time you're at 15cm you're pretty much cactus (6.11 and 7.78 average damage respectively against 5+ prows).

In short, chances are pretty good that, with 5+ armour on the prow, you'll be crippled and/or braced by the time you get to fire at the enemy. This is just a one on one example too, not focussed fire from several ships. So if you had 10 Lunars onto 10 Carnages you'd likely have your entire fleet braced and/or crippled by the time you get to grips if you had 5+ armour. Getting a 35 pt price break for the loss of armour would allow you to take another 2 cruisers and a couple of escorts. It would still be pretty tight, given criticals and whatnot. Maybe 35 pts is a low estimate of value.

[Talos]

Hmmm...that is a compelling argument, but what about fleets with 6+ all around? I am not familiar enough with necron to comment, but if you compare a strike cruiser to a dauntless (145/165 pts to 110, if I am correct), the strike cruiser is superior in pretty much every regard, which is fine, since it costs more. But if prow armor is worth 35pts, how are all the space marine rules justified? Because that SC will eradicate that dauntless, 1:1 or 2:2. And the SC doesn't just have prow 6+ but all around.

[horizon]

By saying that the 3 lances on the Dauntless do not care about the 6+ armour.

[Talos]

Fair but it still doesn't explain why 6+ all around and 6+prow are even costed.

[Sigoroth]

Hmmm...that is a compelling argument, but what about fleets with 6+ all around? I am not familiar enough with necron to comment, but if you compare a strike cruiser to a dauntless (145/165 pts to 110, if I am correct), the strike cruiser is superior in pretty much every regard, which is fine, since it costs more. But if prow armor is worth 35pts, how are all the space marine rules justified? Because that SC will eradicate that dauntless, 1:1 or 2:2. And the SC doesn't just have prow 6+ but all around.

The SC is notable for providing quite a lot for its cost and it has only gained in power since its first release (it now has an extra turret for no cost increase and the option for a 2nd shield). However, this merely highlights the unspoken truth that the value of a defensive ability is directly related to the ships offensive capability (and vice versa). If you put armour 6+ on a ship with no offensive capability then it is worthless. If you put 6+ armour on an escort with 1WB@15cmF then it's worth less than on one with 4WB@30cmLFR. Similarly, the value of a defensive upgrade like armour is increased as the hits and shields of the vessel increase. A Firestorm could certainly benefit from 6+ prow armour, but it certainly wouldn't be worth 35 pts on it.

So a 6+ prow is worth less on a 6 hit hull than it is on an 8 hit hull. So rather than 35 pts, it's worth more like 20 pts. The SM rules are not worth anywhere near their putative cost, btw. They're much closer to 15 pts. This pretty much explains the difference between the SC and the Dauntless, all else being equal. Of course, all else isn't equal. Both ships have the same broadside, but the SC has 3BC@30cmLFR vs the 3L@30cmF of the Dauntless. Weight of fire is in favour of the Dauntless, but the SC crits on a 4+ and can fire in a broader arc. But then the SC gets 2 TH (o_O), 6+ side and rear armour and a turret on top for free. Here the only real explanation can be that the SM ship gets a large points break because SMs don't have an option for a line-cruiser. An inelegant but necessary solution to the SM problem.

Mind you, the side and rear armour isn't a fantastic upgrade. It mostly comes into play against bombers. Even so, a 1 turret target is still vulnerable to bombers, even with 6+ armour. This isn't so bad for a CL, as bombers are meant to be a deterrent against such roaming hunter-killers. A line cruiser is meant to have more resilience to them though, and since SCs are used as line cruisers the SMs were failing in fleet ops. This is quite appropriate from a fluff point of view, but for BFG they should be able to compete, point for point. After all, being tough as nails is also quite fluffy.

The 6+ side armour also makes the SC very strong when used as a flanking force, and the LFR nature of its BC allows it to present its beam to the enemy, taking advantage of this. The Dauntless cannot do this and if it could it would only have 5+ armour.

This all points to the SC being far far far superior to the Dauntless. Well, you've heard of the notion of a force multiplier right? That is to say, the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Well the SC is an example of the reverse. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Why is this so? Firstly, the SC is used as a line cruiser, not as a flanker, and this combined with its 30cm range means it's much more likely to just close with the enemy, presenting its prow. And secondly, a flanking vessel like the Dauntless relies a lot more upon not being fired at in the first place for its survival. In which case its armour is irrelevant. So even in a fleet like the Armageddon list which allows the intermingling of IN and SM vessels the points premium of a SC over that of a Dauntless is dubious in value. Sure you get a lot more survivability and special rules, but at 35 pts more it's still a hefty price to pay. You could either get 2 SM SC or an IN CA and CL.

Of course, the SC also gets those 2 THs, which is typically considered a massive increase, but then again THs aren't really all that offensive in nature. H&R attacks, in general, do sod all. You need to swarm a vessel with them to disable it for a few turns, and if you could have sent in the same number of bombers you'd likely have done a lot more damage. But they are decent at intercepting enemy ordnance or for use on CAP, etc, so this is a bonus. But then, you've now got to reload your gunboat. So again we have a defensive increase without commensurate offensive increase and in fact a slight offensive decrease (due to the need to reload).

So you get a lot, but it's not perfectly used, decreasing its inherent value. Now, normally you'd just have to suck it up and pay the full price, but in the case of the SM SC you get a points break because SMs suck. This is why the SC is so much better, point for point, than a Dauntless and also why it's marginally better than a Dauntless as a flanking hunter-killer.

As for Necrons, well you have to consider their armour in context of the rest of their special rules. Having an armour save instead of shields makes them very susceptible to incidental fire. This, combined with the fact that lances ignore armour, that Necrons give up a lot of VPs when crippled/destroyed and that Necrons cost a heap means they have to brace more often than other races. This reduces their firepower, prevents the use of special weapons, LO or AAF and reduces their armour to 4+, greatly increasing the damage from WBs. So the 6+ armour of Necrons is basically a necessary component of their defences. If they didn't have it they'd be screwed.

[Talos]

I have heard this about necron, particularly against longer ranged fleets like the tau and chaos. As for the strike cruiser, this argument does seem valid, but I take exception to the strike cruiser version with no AC/ extra bombardment cannon. In this case it provides swathes for firepower, and with 2 turrets and a second shield it is pretty comparable to a full cruiser; to compare the most similar but probably weakest SC it to the lunar, it has 2 less hull, which does suck, and equal ordnance (6 strength torpedo with boarding option, which I realize suck even for marines). It has less firepower on a broadside (4 battery and 1 lance vs. 6 battery and 2 lance) and cannot effectively engage 2 abeam targets. However it does cost 20 points less, and it does move faster, have better armor, better maneuverability and a few special rules. And the variant with torpedoes and a lance is probably the weakest version, the bombardment spam being much stronger IMO (and Seahawk's  ...)