Imperial ship costs and the defiant class light cruiser

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

First and foremost, make sure any points-calculation method you attempt comes up with a 180pt Lunar. If that puts other ships out of whack, then those ships and/or your method should be scrutinised, not the Lunar. The Lunar is the benchmark.

The only way to bring the lunar within the 180 +/- 5 points range with my calculator would be raising the costs for the prow upgrade (5+ -> 6+) form 30 to 35 points. (The lunar would then be 175 according to my calc.)

This would indeed fit with every imperial cruiser, light cruiser & Battleship  (considering the +/- 5 points range) with only one exception:

The Armaggeddon would now be calculated as: 225 points vs. The 235 points set in Bfg:R -> still 5 points overpriced (mind the +/-5 points)

(If the lunar was to meet the 180 points exactly with the calc. it would be more of a deal.)

So far: fair and square  . But I personally would not continue playing imperial fleet because a point cost of 35 points just to boost the front armor from 5+ to 6+ is just ... Overpriced - to say it nice. For comparison: a hit costs 10 points, a shield 15 and a turret 5. Imagine you had extra 35 points to spend would you then really choose to reinforce the prow compared to lets say: 1 shield & 2 hits.

I personally still think the cruisers are the ones that are "overprices" - not much: just 5 points. Because they where introduced and nearly unchanged (except Tyrant) since the introduction of the game. However several years later a lot in the game has changed - available ships, their prices and fleets out there - my calc btw is based on armada & FAQ2010 ...


@ Defiant

This ship is a light carrier of the line. It's not meant to be used by itself. It's purely a support ship. Consider it in a squadron with a Dictator.

I considered the squardoning with a Dictator myself  but that means two things:
-> need for base to base to make it effective -> with the drawbacks this brings (1 hit two of your shields are down  )
-> 90° turn can not be fully exploided

Therefore I personally always preferred the defiant in a squadron with other light cruisers:
-> deliver fire support (in the pre BFG:R version with 2 lances !!!)
-> ordnance as pure defensive weaponry (just spamming fighters)

This way it was very useful as you have a versatile light cruiser that can support the mobile element of your fleet.

Alternatively we could do something else to make the ship a bit better and therefore justify a slightly higher price tag. (...) another turret (...) launch a-boats (...)

The important thing: I like your thoughts  . Basically I have the same intention: give it something to make it work again - the change of weaponry is just my approach but a nice addon could also make it reasonable again!

2WB+2T+2AC & 2trt @ 100 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 3trt @ 105 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 2trt & a-boats @ 105 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 3trt & a-boats @ 110 pts
(any one of these as basic profile, or the top one with the turret/a-boats as options)


OR

4T + 2AC & 2trt @ 110 pts

I like the last version most - but I see we are getting at a draw here. By the way: the point costs you suggest look really low? I mean it is also possible to make it work by dropping the points but I think 2 of them should not really be cheaper than a dictator?

Yup, the Defiants a turd .

fluff standpoint 

I don't think fluff should never be a reason for rules. But if this is really the issue here: why not simply reintroduce an older ship like the "Enforcer class system patrol cruiser".

-> Based on the dauntless profile (take the "old" defiant from armada for comparison)

-> Would allow for more freedom in creating a different ship!

[horizon]

Hi,
What Sigoroth means: as long as your calculations for the lunar do not result in 180 points your calculations are wrong.
The lunar is the core, the benchmark of bfg.

[BaronIveagh]

Hi,
What Sigoroth means: as long as your calculations for the lunar do not result in 180 points your calculations are wrong.
The lunar is the core, the benchmark of bfg.

Horizon, maybe I'm forgetting something obvious, but... since when?

[horizon]

Since BFG exists?

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

The lunar is the core, the benchmark of bfg.

I know, I know  .

But thx to the calculations I once did I have: 11 matches vs. 4 mismatches for imperial ships

And the 4 mismatches are all connected: lunar, tyrant, gothic - basically all the same ship -  and the Armageddon as a upgraded lunar. The matches on the other hand are from various classes LC - BS.

Furthermore please mind: I use the same point costs for stuff on every ship. So if the lunar is indeed 180 points there must be a hidden mechanism that made this particular "ship-basis" more expensive, or every over imperial ship cheaper  .

My guess: in the original game - where the 180 were set - the lunar performed very well compared to the possible enemies out there, so they gave it a bit more. A similar explanation would be good weapon synergies (within squadrons) - but considering e.g. today's necron ships I fail to see the awesome over-performance of a lunar class to justify additional(!) points. 

Last thing: Chaos ships: very, very complicated in comparison - my notes here say for various ships from cruiser to battleships.

- 4 too cheap
- 5 matches
- 3 too expensive

All done with the exact same calculator. The variation with chaos(!!!) however is easy to explain: Their battleships are weird  (that was a personal opinion, but seriously they have a clear tendency towards being unique  ), and the not-so-uniform weaponry made me guess far more often. Anyhow seeing that even they are spread out around the values I calculated: tells me it is not totally wrong. (Btw. The last time I checked you where pushing around the point costs of chaos BS in the direction I would have suggested which is rather funny from my point of view  )

[horizon]

What is wrong with the Lunar vs Necrons?

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

Just wanted to point out that the lunar is not that good it would justify 5-10 additional points, just because of its existence.

Necrons were just mentioned for means of comparison to point out how rather plain and simple a lunar is for that matter - still a solid ship though. No opinion about necrons intended - but their tools are just more shiny and their tricks more ample

[AndrewChristlieb]

The original point values came from play testing and not a formula tho. After about 14 years of playing with the Lunar (first ship!) i still feel its 180 fits right in.

[horizon]

Hi Mogwai,
I truly think you are undervaluing some parts. Since the prow should indeed never cost more then 30pts max (a Tau PD costs 25pts).

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

The original point values came from play testing and not a formula tho. After about 14 years of playing with the Lunar (first ship!) i still feel its 180 fits right in.

Didn't knew that - I always thought the original ships where calculated - but some of the ships that were created after that were based on guessing. Are there any sources of information on these ancient times  ?

After about 14 years of playing with the Lunar (first ship!) i still feel its 180 fits right in.

Well you see: based on the feeling that something is not right I started calculating to really see if something's is wrong.

Hi Mogwai,
I truly think you are undervaluing some parts. Since the prow should indeed never cost more then 30pts max.

Exactly my thinking: if an imperial prow is valued as 35 points something is wrong. However I do not know which other part it should be. The ships that drop out of line are the "basic cruiser types" and the armageddon which I think is simply a lunar that got stuff and points tossed at it.

They just have the stuff used in other ships (which turn out to fit the given points) and no particular upgrades - in comparison to lets say: if those 4 ships had like a unique type of weapon ... of if they all where battleships with a weird, unique, long-range weapon loadouts  .

So changing something on them means changes for every other ship.

[horizon]

Hey,

Andrew is right, the original team just started with a point value, iirc it was 150pts for the Lunar & Murder and started working from there through playtest and all.

Now the Lunar ended up at 180pts, and almost every other ship since then, by rules committee or fan creation (at least most that I know use the Lunar), has used the Lunar as the ship to start of from.
That means the Lunar is the SOL position for BFG ship point values.

Changing every other ship is no problem thus.


In your sheet I notice that you do not count values for the weapon batteries/lances on the Lunar calculations, or am I missing something.
For our easy convenience: could you list here how the Lunar point parts are calculated by you, so:

hull = x pts
shield =x pts
6 wb lft = x pts
2 lance lft = x pts
etc

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

Hey horizon  ,


similar to what you said I broke chaos and imperial ships down to a common "basic cruiser layout" at some point (it is kinda like a common origin):

- 8 hits, 2 shields, 2 turrets, 5+ armor all around, 20 cm & 45 turn,
- with two basic weapon batteries (2LB or 2 6 WB**) on each broadside
- this includes some stuff for free (e.g. armor, basic weapons, a 45° turn)

for a total of: 120 points.



For the lunar this could be split up into:

hits:        80 pts.
Shields:   30 pts.
Turrets:   10 pts.
Turn:         0 pts. (afaik 45° is the baseline granted to every ship for free)
speed       0 pts. (afaik 20 cm is again a baseline, eg: 15 cm would mean: -5 pts. and 25cm: +5 pts.)
prow:      30 pts (from 5+ -> 6+)
torp:        20 pts.
2x slots:    0 pts. (including slot1: 6WB & slot 2: 2LB)*

Total: 170 pts

(*basic weaponry that is fit into the slot and the first two are for free: Light cruiser e.g. regain some points in this. For comparison mounting another weapon slot, e.g. on a battleship would cost additional 20 points)

Just for comparison the murder:

hits:                80 pts.
Shields:           30 pts.
Turrets:           10 pts.
turn:                 0 pts.  (afaik 45° is the baseline granted to every ship for free)
speed               5 pts.  ( 20cm to 25cm: +5 pts.)
Chaos:              5 pts.  (for their boarding bonus)
prow lances:   25 pts.
2x slots:            0 pts. (including the basic weaponry of 12 WB for free that gets modified in the following:)
2x Range upgrades: +20 pts.
1x underload:   -5 pts ( S10 WB is split: 1 full slot with S6 and 1 slot underloaded with only a S4 WB)

Total: 170 pts

Looking at it chances are there is something wrong with the "slot system" I extracted out of this all. However I am constantly pushing around numbers with the effect that adjusting one thing on this side changes some ships on the other end ...


**edited

[horizon]

By your method:
Up the basic profile from 120 to 130.
The speed bonus (chaos) is less then 5 (keep in mind that a slower IN ship has a tighter turning circle).
The boarding bonus (chaos) is less then 5 (imo).

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

By your method:
Up the basic profile from 120 to 130.

However I am constantly pushing around numbers with the effect that adjusting one thing on this side changes some ships on the other end ...

I could try for a raise to 125 points, 130 would throw everything into disarray. I will check that right away.

The speed bonus (chaos) is less then 5 (keep in mind that a slower IN ship has a tighter turning circle).
The boarding bonus (chaos) is less then 5 (imo).

These are the rounding abbreviations I am talking about  . However there seems to be a certain (preset) minimum of 5 points for certain things, e.g. special rules. Btw. the additional points for speed are not chaos specific but purely speed reliant.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ok so two lances fixed fire arc 30cm= 20pts.

Torpedoes are 2/1 with lances (per the Dauntless and Despoiler varients) which would mean 6 torps=3 lances=30pts. You have them @20.