Why not just this:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
Sounds reasonable provided we kept classic Armada style restrictions for BF Solar
"*The Endurance and Defiant are rare variants of the Endeavour, and with manufacturing and refitting capabilities at a premium during the Third Armageddon War, the forge world of Voss inevitably produced far more of the Endeavour than either of its variants. For this reason, the combined numbers of Endurance and Defiant class vessels may not exceed the number of Endeavour class light cruisers in the fleet."
This needs to be backed up with play test however.
Not sure as to all the heart ache over Ad Mech list. Each fleet has restrictions tailored to the playstyle the fleet represents. Adjust accordingly based on the decided stats. I personally think the cart is completely before the horse in the current BFG:R reboot discussions. You figure out the vessels first and then move onto the fleets based on a theme/playstyle. Most of this great project has worked that way well but has fallen over here it seems.
Ok, this version you have that is 3 launch bays, would it be 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 dorsal? We can say that extra hangar's have been opened in the dorsal cavities of the ship because of limited space?
Reasonable compromise as well but what would you suggest a cost would be? In addition the above restrictions MAY need to be adjusted in light of the higher amounts of AC. Personally I'd rather see this get put to bed with an imperfect but fun (read: flavorful) to play ship. Far too contentious issue here methinks (and this coming from an AC slut
).
I think it boils down to the following points:
-Baron points out that 2ac doesn't really do a LC carrier justice when compared to what an escort can do. It should be demonstrably more than a glorified Escort Carrier. There's newer canonical fluff that points out that this is true. Fair point that we should be able to agree with
conceptually.
-Horizon points out that this has the potential to be abused in ways that we must be careful about. This too is true and we all should be concerned about that when we discuss things.
-Sig points out that 4ac is simply not warranted under the current rule set. I can totally see his point there.
-Someone (i can't be bothered to look it up) suggested 3ac but that's another can of worms as it breaks existing conventions, even if they don't accurately model the universe and fluff well.
-afterimagedan suggested a compromise of stating the vessel with three 1 AC LBs. Interesting concept and has merit to be discussed.
Everything bullet'ed above has merit and should be acknowledged
from all parties.
The reality is that the game is an abstraction and like all abstractions has "rounding errors"
. This might just mean that "reality" has to balanced by play-ability and some concern to the elegance of the ship in actual play (read: does it slow down the gameplay too much? is it hard to keep all the rules straight? etc).
Now all that being said I think that the least onerous approach would be to keep special rules to a minimum, keep to existing conventions where possible, and attempt to match ability within existing processes as much.
I'd suggest this->
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
+1 LD for rolls to RO.
This shouldn't be unbalancing as Sig worries, we can push beardiness onto the individual fleet lists to cover horizons concerns, rightly so. Lastly Baron, this bonus should represent the better ability of the vessel to launch craft as befits an LC.
