BFG:R Light Cruisers

[Sigoroth]

Sig, according to fluff since AT LEAST Codex: Eye of Terror, IN has about 100-150 warships in it's very largest sector fleets.  (The Bastion Fleets surrounding the Eye of Terror). 

Ok, so out of that 100-150 ships there might be an Emperor, a couple of Mars, 3 or 4 Dictators and a few escort carriers. Jobs done. There's no need to suggest that the IN must have so many carriers that carriers have to make up 40% of their warfleets and that it's impossible for them not to have X amount of dedicated carriers blah blah blah. Sure, they need some carriers. But guess what, they've got some carriers.

The problem with that is, again, the Defiant appears in very few fleet lists.

By "very few" you mean every list other than the Gothic list and the currently being discussed Bakka list, right? The Defiant appears in the Bastion, Solar and AM lists and in every one of those you can take a Dictator. Meaning yes, the Defiant should not invalidate the IN's current crop of hybrid carriers.

And, and if we were supposed ot keep pure carriers out of IN we missed the boat in 2010.

What? Are you talking about the Jovian here? Newsflash, one of the reasons everyone is up in arms over the Jovian in the first place is for the exact same reason the Defiant shouldn't get 4AC. You can't be trying to argue that the inclusion of a much hated ship in an unofficial document paves the way for another much hated ship?

Look, I myself am by nature a purist. That is I tend to min/max and I also tend to extrapolate linearly and at full efficiency. So, when I see a Dictator or a Devastation with 1 hardpoint per side which launches 2AC then I figure that a Styx or Jovian should get 4 per side, since it has twice the number of hardpoints. Similarly I see 1 hardpoint per side on the Defiant and I say to myself "same as a Dictator". And if we had full strength Styx's and Jovians and a Nemesis fleet carrier right from the start I'd be fine with all that.

However GW decided, for whatever reason, to go with an inefficient expansion method. They decided that the most efficient way to get AC was with non-dedicated carriers. They decided that dedicated carriers provide less AC than would be expected. As such ships like the Dictator, Mars and Emperor are the mainstays of fleets. A 4AC Defiant would become the primary method of attaining AC in an IN fleet. It would invalidate the Dictator and Mars greatly even when "restricted" to 2/500. What's more it would change the interfleet dynamic, by increasing the amount of AC that IN can get at certain points breaks.

This is the current state of play. You want the IN to be something different. You want a more AC centric IN. This means that you reject out of hand all these considerations. Well others don't and nor do I, even though it is my nature to min/max. This is a learned behaviour for me, in an attempt to be more reasonable.

Having no other weapons is not a penalty?    

Firstly it does have other weapons. Secondly, there is no truly efficient pure carrier in the IN. The Emperor comes close, but it isn't a pure carrier, having 24WBe in AC and 22WB in direct fire weaponry. So full strength is out.

The +1 ld is also a pretty bad idea if you think about the Bastion fleet list.

Just to point out, your 4AC profile suggestion also came with +1 Ld to reload, but apart from that I don't see why it's a bad idea considering the Bastion fleet list.

Yes, but it's still not competitive with the ships it shares lists with.

Ok, ignoring the 2TH SC, why isn't it competitive? What does "competitive" mean in this context? Does it mean, "it's so good as a carrier that it's the go-to ship for fulfilling AC requirements"? If so, then how does a Dictator remain "competitive"? Or, is it merely "it's a balanced ship for its cost and will complement your other carriers"?

To be clear, my preferred profile here is the 100 pt 2/2/2 WB/T/AC. So paired with a Dictator you essentially get a grand cruiser with 8WB, 8T and 6AC for 310 pts. That's not too bad.

*shrug* This whole ship revolts you, I suppose that some part of it might make you want to gag. 

Yeah well, this ship is worse than the Jovian. It has all the same problems as the Jovian but even more restrictions on what's allowable making it a nightmare to balance.

Hmm...  Note to self: Sig being moderately reasonable.  Check for horsemen riding through sky.

I'm always reasonable. Just not all that flexible. All my arguments are reasoned though. You have an agenda you are pushing (more AC centric IN) that makes you unreasonable. You ignore the consequences that a 4AC Defiant would create.

On the issue of the Defiant though I have been both reasonable and flexible. I have proposed a very limited 4AC (albeit 2f/2b) Defiant, a 3AC single bay Defiant, a 2AC with bonuses Defiant (ABs/turret/Ld) and a 2AC cheap Defiant. This flexibility is due to the insane hoops we have to jump through to make a viable Voss carrier.

If we make this ship balanced and useful, something bad could happen....... people would start to use it...... we should only make it not too crappy, so people would start to consider it to fill a small AC gap...

Hehe, agreed.

Making otherwise broken and useless ships useful and viable is what BFG:R is SUPPOSED to be about.  Deliberately making a ship broken and useless so people won't play it is sort of the opposite of that. 

Yes, but viable doesn't mean "new mainstay carrier". It means that you won't be penalised unduly for taking it. The Armageddon is viable at 235 pts, but it's still a touch overpriced. At 100 pts a 2AC Defiant would be completely viable.

It's sort of like making men slaves in the name of freedom or committing terrible sins in the name of God.  Yes, people have done that, but their hypocrisy tends to taint the things they stood for.

Nothing of the sort. He suggested that its role in fleet composition would be to fill a small AC gap rather than be used as an alternative to other carriers. Your analogy is false.

[Sigoroth]

Andrews version but NO lance on the prow and no restriction. Thus:

6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 2 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Prow Weapon Batteries @30cm F/L/R, 2 prow torpedoes

// 100pts
Or a 3 turret version @ 110pts (I know +10 is to much but ah wella

Yeah, ditch the lances. The 3 turret version at 110 pts is the currently voted on and accepted Defiant. I think that the 6 turret monstrosity that is possible in Bakka/AM lists makes this undesirable. If we're going for a 110 pt price tag then I'd rather see it with a-boats and/or +1 to RO attempts.

[BaronIveagh]

Ok, so out of that 100-150 ships there might be an Emperor, a couple of Mars, 3 or 4 Dictators and a few escort carriers. Jobs done. There's no need to suggest that the IN must have so many carriers that carriers have to make up 40% of their warfleets and that it's impossible for them not to have X amount of dedicated carriers blah blah blah. Sure, they need some carriers. But guess what, they've got some carriers.

Well, other than Escort carriers not being a standard element of IN, and production of the Mars having ceased millenia ago and there being 'few surviving examples' (BFG Blue Book)...

Further, Battlefleet Gothic itself has, according to Blue Book, 7 new Dictators to make up for demand.  If Gothic follows the more 'average' model, (about 70 warships total) and we factor in known Dictators they had at the beginning of the war, that's 9-10 cruisers.  Depending on how you figure escort to cruiser proportions, that's a pretty big chunk of your cruisers there.

That's not getting into Mars, or Jovian (which 'official' sources (BFGM issue 1) stated Battlefleet Gothic had brought one of into service shortly before the beginning of the war and supposedly had 3 of by the end [noting that FAQ2010 remains 'unofficial']).

What? Are you talking about the Jovian here? Newsflash, one of the reasons everyone is up in arms over the Jovian in the first place is for the exact same reason the Defiant shouldn't get 4AC. You can't be trying to argue that the inclusion of a much hated ship in an unofficial document paves the way for another much hated ship?

If it's so hated, why did it draw when it came to a vote to allow it to be taken as a reserve by other fleets?  Judging by the amount of debate going on, the community is rather divided on the issue of IN AC.

But, no, that was not what I was talking about.  I'm guessing no one runs minmaxed thawk spam lists where you live that abuse the RT list and the AC limit rules.

Look, I myself am by nature a purist. That is I tend to min/max and I also tend to extrapolate linearly and at full efficiency. So, when I see a Dictator or a Devastation with 1 hardpoint per side which launches 2AC then I figure that a Styx or Jovian should get 4 per side, since it has twice the number of hardpoints. Similarly I see 1 hardpoint per side on the Defiant and I say to myself "same as a Dictator". And if we had full strength Styx's and Jovians and a Nemesis fleet carrier right from the start I'd be fine with all that.

However GW decided, for whatever reason, to go with an inefficient expansion method. They decided that the most efficient way to get AC was with non-dedicated carriers. They decided that dedicated carriers provide less AC than would be expected. As such ships like the Dictator, Mars and Emperor are the mainstays of fleets.

It's been around since BFGM issue 1, the very next publication to come out after blue book.  (Meaning we've had Jovian longer than we've had most of the fleets in the game.  It came out the same issue that Tyranids were introduced).

I can't argue that GW didn't make launch bays a bit odd compared to the model.  I can argue that they tossed Jovian at us the very next thing they did following Blue Book.  I can argue that the fluff has steadily rising numbers of IN hybrid carriers due to military demand for AC and that a dedicated carrier is the logical outcome of that, due to the expense of building hybrids when what they want them for their launch bays not their guns.

Firstly it does have other weapons. Secondly, there is no truly efficient pure carrier in the IN. The Emperor comes close, but it isn't a pure carrier, having 24WBe in AC and 22WB in direct fire weaponry. So full strength is out.

Sig, my proposal was what I was talking about.  The stat line I proposed was 4 lbs , maybe torps/a ld boost, with no direct fire weapons.  It has Lbs but is utterly defenseless otherwise.

I'm always reasonable. Just not all that flexible. All my arguments are reasoned though. You have an agenda you are pushing (more AC centric IN) that makes you unreasonable. You ignore the consequences that a 4AC Defiant would create.

No, I just realize that the overall effect that most of you seem afraid of is already here.  Further I realize that changing the weapon batteries/lances/torps to the degree that Defiant becomes a useful line ship alters the dynamic among the light cruisers, which is every bit the potential issue as making Defiant too powerful vs Dictator, a fact that none of you seem willing to consider in your fixation on the 'ZOMG!  IN AC!'.

As far as opposition to change goes, Sig, we've got Ray (who I suspect has played more BFG than all of us combined) pitching Necrons with shields now.  I'd say that IN getting marginally more AC is a relatively minor change compared to some of the things discussed these days.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I could see them getting a bonus to assault points when in low orbit if that would help explain the descripency with the launch bay size. The idea being that they carry a higher number of atmospheric attack wings to support ground forces. We could also give them the ability to replace their bombers with torpedo bombers for free or add mines for free.

Any of these options would fit with the role of a CVL and wouldnt require any great changes or price increases.

How are SM taking advantage of RT launch limits? If they are thats a very loose interpretation of te rules about launch bays and limits. You should be playing that you cannot launch more than the available bays for that type of attack craft not just some general "escort carriers can support thunderhawks" nonsense.

[Vaaish]

If it's so hated, why did it draw when it came to a vote to allow it to be taken as a reserve by other fleets?  Judging by the amount of debate going on, the community is rather divided on the issue of IN AC.

If I had to wager a guess the draw is due to a relatively new crop of Bfg players showing up on the boards that are more prone to voting for whatever gives their fleet the best advantage which is resulting in feature creep. That results in a desire to see a more widely available pure carrier very attractive due to the relative power of AC in BFG. I admit having a more points efficient carrier is attractive for IN but it's definitely not something I agree with having. It's partly why I'm against the exorcist having 6 lb.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ya I can agree with your view there Vaaish. Over all Im not opposed to the IN having "carriers" even really cheap ones, but they do meed to be more strictly regulated. For instance with the Defiant i can get behind a 4lb version with a reasonable price if theyre restricte to no more than 1/500, on the Jovian Im ok with it as a reserve only.

[afterimagedan]

Vaaish, you presume motives where you have not enough evidence. It makes you appear elitist. I think you are being unfair to the voters.

[horizon]

If it's so hated, why did it draw when it came to a vote to allow it to be taken as a reserve by other fleets?  Judging by the amount of debate going on, the community is rather divided on the issue of IN AC.

Because AC is what wins tournaments. 

It's been around since BFGM issue 1, the very next publication to come out after blue book.  (Meaning we've had Jovian longer than we've had most of the fleets in the game.  It came out the same issue that Tyranids were introduced).

Well... after that issue other ships came in the magazines. Some of those ships got into Armada, the Jovian not. That's a hint.
Just as Battlefleet Bakka was never liked by a majority of the community. If it was liked the list would've been added into Armada.


Plus, FFG, which you say is a viable source, has as I have proven, Defiants with 2 launch bays.

[Vaaish]

Dan, name calling, seriously? do I really need to reference almost every discussion I've seen? There is more than enough evidence for me to posit my comment as a valid theory. Maybe not to prove it quite yet, but it definitely represents an apparent trend.

[afterimagedan]

In not trying to call you names, I am merely giving you my perception. I don't think you are an elitist; maybe that was too harsh of me so I apologize. You may have evidence that people are pushing for more AC options in the IN fleet, but it certainly isn't fair or even kind to assume people are voting for things with selfish motives behind it.

[BaronIveagh]

Plus, FFG, which you say is a viable source, has as I have proven, Defiants with 2 launch bays.

Horizon, you did no such thing.  Again: Defiant (RT) is not the same hull as Endeavor (RT).  It has a different number of weapon slots, and every ship that got the carrier rule got it's LBs at a discount (Go ahead and check this, you'll find it's true of every single 'carrier' in the book.  Much as every other ship with a permanent weapon component also got it for, at the very least, a 1 point space discount). 

All you've proven is that it's NOT the 1 point lb, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.


And we both know why Jovian wasn't in Armada as well, since (IIRC) one of the HA pointed it out back in 2010, it (like Bakka) was cut for space.  (Something we both know about from our experiences with FFG: perfectly good [or even necessary] stuff gets cut to bring page counts down)

If I had to wager a guess the draw is due to a relatively new crop of Bfg players showing up on the boards that are more prone to voting for whatever gives their fleet the best advantage which is resulting in feature creep.

Codex Creep is a universal factor in 40k (fan based or otherwise).  We saw it in Armada, FAQ 2010, and now this.  And you have a point that it's happening here and not just in AC.

[horizon]

The light cruisers cannot take the landing bays as it is cruiser only. Light cruisers can only take escort bays. The defiant is a light cruiser. point proven.

Where was it said bakka was scrapped for space?

[Sigoroth]

Well, other than Escort carriers not being a standard element of IN, and production of the Mars having ceased millenia ago and there being 'few surviving examples' (BFG Blue Book)...

Further, Battlefleet Gothic itself has, according to Blue Book, 7 new Dictators to make up for demand.  If Gothic follows the more 'average' model, (about 70 warships total) and we factor in known Dictators they had at the beginning of the war, that's 9-10 cruisers.  Depending on how you figure escort to cruiser proportions, that's a pretty big chunk of your cruisers there.

That's not getting into Mars, or Jovian (which 'official' sources (BFGM issue 1) stated Battlefleet Gothic had brought one of into service shortly before the beginning of the war and supposedly had 3 of by the end [noting that FAQ2010 remains 'unofficial']).

Keep in mind that since the Jovian never became official neither did the fluff associated with it. BFG Mag was like Warp Rift, a place to try new ideas. Also, if the scarcity of the Mars led to the increase in production of Dictators to "keep up with demand" then it stands to reason that there aren't any Mars left, or at least sod all. So the ratio of carriers remains pretty much the same. Maybe a slight bump.

If it's so hated, why did it draw when it came to a vote to allow it to be taken as a reserve by other fleets?  Judging by the amount of debate going on, the community is rather divided on the issue of IN AC.

That's what shows it's so hated. Even as a reserve it didn't pass muster.

But, no, that was not what I was talking about.  I'm guessing no one runs minmaxed thawk spam lists where you live that abuse the RT list and the AC limit rules.

Nope. Don't really play the RT stuff. It's really just extras. Stuff for colour. Also, SCs should only have 1 prow TH. 

It's been around since BFGM issue 1, the very next publication to come out after blue book.  (Meaning we've had Jovian longer than we've had most of the fleets in the game.  It came out the same issue that Tyranids were introduced).

Well, the 2nd publication after the BBB. That's neither here nor there though. It was never made official. Most likely because the HA of the time didn't want the IN to be carrier centric and didn't want to invalidate the INs current carrier crop.

I can't argue that GW didn't make launch bays a bit odd compared to the model.  I can argue that they tossed Jovian at us the very next thing they did following Blue Book.  I can argue that the fluff has steadily rising numbers of IN hybrid carriers due to military demand for AC and that a dedicated carrier is the logical outcome of that, due to the expense of building hybrids when what they want them for their launch bays not their guns.

Well you can't argue the fluff. The fluff is as unofficial as the ship. It begs the question you see. As for showing us the Jovian straight away, well, so what? I mean, they showed us a lot of stuff, hardly any of which became official. The fact that it didn't become official when later additions did says that there's something off about it.

Sig, my proposal was what I was talking about.  The stat line I proposed was 4 lbs , maybe torps/a ld boost, with no direct fire weapons.  It has Lbs but is utterly defenseless otherwise.

IIRC you proposed 4 torpedoes. That's not inconsequential. Better than the 2T/2WB that's on the table. It's still beside the point though. Pure carriers suffer in their AC strength. The Jovian also suffered a reduced amount of non-AC weaponry and even then it still didn't make the cut.

No, I just realize that the overall effect that most of you seem afraid of is already here.  Further I realize that changing the weapon batteries/lances/torps to the degree that Defiant becomes a useful line ship alters the dynamic among the light cruisers, which is every bit the potential issue as making Defiant too powerful vs Dictator, a fact that none of you seem willing to consider in your fixation on the 'ZOMG!  IN AC!'.

No, the overall effect isn't already here. The 4AC Defiant changes things. As to your "realisation", every single person in this discussion is aware of this. We all know that the prow and dorsal has to be pretty much identical to the other two CLs. People have naturally suggested alterations to these hardpoints in an attempt to balance this ship but others have raised the appropriate concerns, so even if they were ignorant at some point, they have been made aware. This is why the Defiant has become very hard to nail down though we do have several viable profiles. A testament to the amount of work gone into it.

As far as opposition to change goes, Sig, we've got Ray (who I suspect has played more BFG than all of us combined) pitching Necrons with shields now.  I'd say that IN getting marginally more AC is a relatively minor change compared to some of the things discussed these days.

Ray, god bless his little heart, has always proposed some outlandish ideas. I think he works by a notion of volume, thinking that if he throws enough ideas out there some will stick. But the fact that someone comes up with an oddball suggestion is in no way cause to throw out the current interfleet AC balance.

In fact, shields might not be such a bad idea for Necrons. Presumably Ray put forward this notion to address the problem of the Necrons being susceptible to incidental fire but almost impervious to concentrated fire, which seems to be the reverse of how it should be. The shield mechanic is probably the best mechanic for advanced races but it was snagged early on in the piece by the humans. The point being that fixing this could actually resolve the discrepancy between how the fleet currently plays and how it's meant to play as well as possibly provide a positive impact on interfleet balance. Making Necrons less luck dependant is good for both the Necron player and his opponent.

On the other hand messing around with the IN AC to points ratio affects not only their feel, making them more carrier centric, but also the abilities of other fleets. Chaos, for example, depend on their AC superiority as a way to mitigate the IN torpedoes. You would have us do this, in contradiction of current convention, on the strength of some very dubious fluff arguments to further your view of a carrier centric IN. A view not shared by most people.

While it may be possible for the IN to have carrier fleets and, indeed, fleet carriers, it isn't typical. Even when we take your calculations to heart we can see that the Gothic sector fleet had at some stage, what, a quarter(?) of its numbers in Dictators we are then left asking, so what? You can take a quarter of your fleet as Dictators right now, or even more. This doesn't prove that the Imperium is all gung ho for carriers and so in love with them that they make 4AC Defiants and 8 AC Jovians and 12AC Nemeses all over the place. It just means that carriers fulfill a role within the IN and so they have them. Further, I would suggest that as carrier ops are integral carriers are therefore less likely to be mustered into a warfleet, having critical duties to attend to elsewhere. It is more likely that gunships will answer the call.

If we allow these mega Defiants and Joke-ians and Nemesesesesess then what we're going to do is take a very rare occurrence within the Imperium and make it commonplace. This is because min/maxers will look at the list and make the most outrageous AC fleet they can. Over and over. Why? Because it's allowed. So while it may be an occasional happen-stance within the Imperium, it isn't in BFG.

[Sigoroth]

Vaaish, you presume motives where you have not enough evidence. It makes you appear elitist. I think you are being unfair to the voters.

He wasn't presuming. The challenge was to come up with a reason for a hated ship to be almost included as a reserve. He was suggesting that there might have been some people who were ignorant of the broader issues and simply saw a nice ship and wanted it. This is one possible explanation for the event, but it's incomplete, since one could argue that these so called 'ignorant people' weren't demonstrating hatred for the Jovian. To be complete you'd have to go further and say that the hatred comes from those that are not ignorant. So it could be true that it is much hated (by, say, half the BFG community) and loved by a very few with the remainder ambivalent.

Either way he wasn't saying that this was the reason, just that it's a possible and credible reason.

[afterimagedan]

"prone to voting for whatever gives their fleet the best advantage"

This is what I was indicating as assuming motives.