BFG:R Light Cruisers

[Tyberius]

Have you considered adding  the Enforcer colonial cruiser? ..... I think it was from bakka's fleet

it was a Dauntless (3 prow lances) with +1 turret and 2 Launch instead of 8 wb

[BaronIveagh]

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.

Horizon, yes, a non Defiant light cruiser can only take str 1 lbs.  Let me repeat again, the ships that were given permanent items was done so to give discounts and allow the to have components they could not otherwise take.  When asked to fix the non-existing Jovian pattern Launch bay, they spat out:

"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."

In addition, let's apply common sense: if the existing rule applied, there is 0 point to having Defiant as a separate hull profile from Endeavor.  There's particularly no point in giving it the 'Carrier' ability at all, as by your numbers, the effects of that ability are not applied to the ship,  it's paying full cost for the str 1s, where every other ship with it is gets LBs at a reduced space cost.

Where was it said bakka was scrapped for space?

Honestly I'm not sure there.  I vaguely recall Sig demanding to know why Bakka would be included in the FAQ and the answer being to that effect. 

Have you considered adding  the Enforcer colonial cruiser? ..... I think it was from bakka's fleet
it was a Dauntless (3 prow lances) with +1 turret and 2 Launch instead of 8 wb

The Enforcer has been debated in the past.  So far it has never made it past the 'Baron: I like it!, Horizon: IN AC is the Devil!, Sig: I hate Bakka!' stage of discussion.

[Tyberius]

Have you considered adding  the Enforcer colonial cruiser? ..... I think it was from bakka's fleet
it was a Dauntless (3 prow lances) with +1 turret and 2 Launch instead of 8 wb

The Enforcer has been debated in the past.  So far it has never made it past the 'Baron: I like it!, Horizon: IN AC is the Devil!, Sig: I hate Bakka!' stage of discussion.

too bad, the one in the picture is actually part of my fleet

[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.

Horizon, yes, a non Defiant light cruiser can only take str 1 lbs.  Let me repeat again, the ships that were given permanent items was done so to give discounts and allow the to have components they could not otherwise take.  When asked to fix the non-existing Jovian pattern Launch bay, they spat out:

"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."

In addition, let's apply common sense: if the existing rule applied, there is 0 point to having Defiant as a separate hull profile from Endeavor.  There's particularly no point in giving it the 'Carrier' ability at all, as by your numbers, the effects of that ability are not applied to the ship,  it's paying full cost for the str 1s, where every other ship with it is gets LBs at a reduced space cost.

Rule bending BaronI. That is what you are doing.
In the text of the Mars, Excorcist and Defiant it is written as Jovian Launch Bay components.
Jovian Launch Bays is not written in both tables whichs lists launch bays. It is either Escort Bays (for light cruiser, specifically designed or Landing bays (not for light cruisers.
The Defiant has written light cruisers.

By your token a light cruiser could muster a nova cannon.  (if you stretch your reasoning long enough

Pre-Installed components still have to follow the rules of placement.

It cannot be so hard to understand. 

And stop saying I hate AC so much. Your completely wasting space. I voted for a better Oberon, I agreed with lowering the Dictator, I want to make the Defiant cheaper/playable.
The only problem I had was with the Excorcist. And of course with a Nemesis, Jovian, 4lb Defiant. The Enforcer was to cheap compared to the Dauntless by a large margin.

So stop that nonsense.

[Casus belli]

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?

It didn't. It lost that vote.

No, I just realize that the overall effect that most of you seem afraid of is already here.

No, it isn't.

You say if people want to prevent easy access to pure carriers, they "missed the boat" back in 2010 when the Jovian came in. But the Jovian was only allowed as a reserve, and only in one list (as it now remains in BFG:R, thanks to the aforementioned vote). That suggests another dedicated carrier, a 4LB Defiant, should also be restricted by reserve rules (and maybe restricted to fewer lists - e.g. only Obscurus and Solar).

Of course no-one thinks that's a good way to go. I just want you to know that that's what you're really arguing for if you want to argue by that precedent.

[Sigoroth]

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

This is what I was indicating as assuming motives.

Well it's rather an explanation. I mean, it's plausible, right? So, as an alternative explanation to the notion that Jovians aren't "much hated because they almost passed the vote for inclusion" it stands. It may not be true, but it's a plausible explanation.

[Sigoroth]

The Enforcer has been debated in the past.  So far it has never made it past the 'Baron: I like it!, Horizon: IN AC is the Devil!, Sig: I hate Bakka!' stage of discussion.

I would like to correct some inaccuracies with these stances. Your stance, for example, isn't "I like it", it's "I want supercarrier IN". Horizon's stance is not, as he has pointed out, anti-AC for IN either. And as for my stance ... well alright you nailed that one on the head. 

[BaronIveagh]

Rule bending BaronI. That is what you are doing.
In the text of the Mars, Excorcist and Defiant it is written as Jovian Launch Bay components.
Jovian Launch Bays is not written in both tables whichs lists launch bays. It is either Escort Bays (for light cruiser, specifically designed or Landing bays (not for light cruisers.
The Defiant has written light cruisers.

By your token a light cruiser could muster a nova cannon.  (if you stretch your reasoning long enough

Pre-Installed components still have to follow the rules of placement.

It cannot be so hard to understand. 

*sigh*

"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."

I'm not bending a thing.  In fact, I'm upholding their ruling on this.

Yes, if they wrote a light cruiser in the book that has the 'Inherent Warship' ability, yes, we'd have a LC with a mars pattern nova cannon and an armored prow (and would get the NC at a 1 space discount, the same as the 'Torpedo Specialist's get a 1 space discount on their torpedo tubes).

(And don't think they wouldn't have if it suited them.  They did add, after all, Chaos Light Cruisers to their line up, and you might recall the tantrums that have been thrown over that issue, occasionally by people on this very board.)

They did not write that hypothetical ship into the book, but they did write Defiant into the book,  they gave it the 'Carrier' ability and when asked for clarification on the ability they said:

"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."

The only way that Defiant follows the apparent rules for that ability is if they have the str 2 launch bays, which exactly matches what they said the carrier rule should say.

It lost that vote.

No, it didn't.  I had to write in my vote because it would not allow me to use the voting button (this was not corrected until after that vote was over).  Which made it a draw.

Well it's rather an explanation. I mean, it's plausible, right? So, as an alternative explanation to the notion that Jovians aren't "much hated because they almost passed the vote for inclusion" it stands. It may not be true, but it's a plausible explanation.

Ok, I'll agree with that.  It is a plausible explanation, and not en entirely unreasonable statement.  The same could be said of other votes that have gone through are plausibly explained by people seeking to improve their favored fleet lists competitiveness as well.  (The Bastion Fleets have certainly been getting a buff).

I would like to correct some inaccuracies with these stances. Your stance, for example, isn't "I like it", it's "I want supercarrier IN". Horizon's stance is not, as he has pointed out, anti-AC for IN either. And as for my stance ... well alright you nailed that one on the head. 

I'll add that one 'no one ever opposed lances on SM VBBs' despite 10 pages of people ranting and opposing exactly that.  Though, I grant, Horizon has softened his position on it of late.

My position has always been that the best way to fix Defiant is to increase it's lbs.  Even at 4 it only increases it to equal Chaos, the fleet that IN is supposed to be balanced against.

[horizon]

I wished ffg had published their background on the chaos cl, I read it in the work files. It would explain a lot.

Where does it say carrier is landing bay?

[BaronIveagh]

I wished ffg had published their background on the chaos cl, I read it in the work files. It would explain a lot.

Where does it say carrier is landing bay?

FFG is bound by  lot of silly things.  You would not believe the crap GW gave them about The Lathe Worlds, particularly not being allowed to write about skittari or the Titan Legions beyond the very basics.  It's why we have the rather odd 'I can't believe it's not skittari' class in the book.

On the forum someone posted a Question and Response from Sam.  I'd have to dig around for it.  The fan operated 'Living Errata' quotes it on the Mars and Exorcist, but they left it out on Defiant because they could not get a clear response from FFG about 'Does this also cover Defiant?'.  There have been about six threads on the subject on FFG's boards and so far no answer has been forth coming, though like you and I just now, they've argued back and forth about it.

(As far as the Rogue Trader game itself goes, the strongest argument against has been that the way the rules for AC, weapon batteries, and sheilds in the game work, the Cruiser can be killed by a single iconoclast with a turret upgrade with near 0 difficulty, if the Defiant mounts anything but a torpedo bay loaded with homing or guided torps in it's prow.  And that there's at least one that costs less and has superior AC launch capability.

Personally I'm waiting to hear back about the Potent result on the Archeotech table in Stars of Inequity.  Even *I* think that's a bit much, but so far they have not responded to address this issue with an 'official' statement so the Errata guys can go to work.  I'm hoping they get back faster than they did with the Nova Cannon issue in BFK.  That took them until July of 2012 to give an answer on which power and space value in the book was correct.)

[Casus belli]

No, it didn't.  I had to write in my vote because it would not allow me to use the voting button (this was not corrected until after that vote was over).  Which made it a draw.

I see. Sorry, I didn't know that.

Still, I don't know what your trying to argue for. You talk of the cat being let out of the bag back in 2010 with the Jovian. Even if the Jovian's current restrictions were lifted (-they weren't-), it would still only set the precedent that a dedicated carrier was available only as a reserve. By that example, you'd appear to be arguing that another dedicated carrier, now a new 4LB Defiant, should be allowed, but implicitly only as a reserve, as in the case of the Jovian.

I guess that's not what you want, right? So how does it avail the cause of widespread access to a 4LB light cruiser to argue from that precedent (even ignoring the fact that precedent hasn't even been set yet)?

[BaronIveagh]

Still, I don't know what your trying to argue for. You talk of the cat being let out of the bag back in 2010 with the Jovian.

Actually I'm not talking about Jovian at all.  (Jovian is just somethign that gets me distracted.)

I'm talking about how the RT rules interact with IN in FAQ 2010, basically allowing Escort Carriers into fleets that otherwise could not take them.  For 60 points you can take the same number of LBs as you get with Defiant at 100.  It's NOT as good, but you can spam the hell out of them cheaply, whereas Defiant has limits.

So saying that Defiant at 4 lbs will alter the IN AC dynamic ignores that it's already been altered.

[Casus belli]

OK, I see your point now.

By the way, about the FFG stuff, you said early on that it was the Defiant's fluff that said it had 4 launch bays. But now you seem to be arguing from a rules perspective (and a seemingly very tenuous one at that), but not a fluff one. Am I wrong? If you are, that would seem weird to me: like arguing my Space Marine's heavy bolter should get 2 sustained-fire dice, because that's the way it works in Necromunda. They're two entirely different games with different rulesets - It doesn't make any sense. And neither system trumps the other. You could equally argue that FFG's rules should be changed to better match BFG.

Anyway, I'll let people more familiar with both systems sort that one out.

[Edit: Well, this discussion is all pretty much academic now. Looking at the votes on the other thread, the 4LB Defiant is almost certainly dead...]

[BaronIveagh]

By the way, about the FFG stuff, you said early on that it was the Defiant's fluff that said it had 4 launch bays. But now you seem to be arguing from a rules perspective (and a seemingly very tenuous one at that), but not a fluff one. Am I wrong? If you are, that would seem weird to me: like arguing my Space Marine's heavy bolter should get 2 sustained-fire dice, because that's the way it works in Necromunda. They're two entirely different games with different rulesets - It doesn't make any sense. And neither system trumps the other. You could equally argue that FFG's rules should be changed to better match BFG.

Anyway, I'll let people more familiar with both systems sort that one out.

[Edit: Well, this discussion is all pretty much academic now. Looking at the votes on the other thread, the 4LB Defiant is almost certainly dead...]

Yeah, I didn't even vote for it.  As far as the fluff goes it's hard to make specific points like exact str because they keep it vague.  In this case the stat was something concrete, thus we didn't have to argue if it was the in universe speaker being over dramatic or not. 

However, part of it is that Weapon str is a sat shared by both systems.  If you look at a Lunar in BFG and a Lunar in RT they're identical as far as WB and Lance str.

[horizon]

Yeah, specific stat strength.
In starship components table and mentioned in supplemental components table:
Jovian pattern Escort Bay - Light Cruisers/Cruisers - strength 1
Jovian pattern Landing Bay - Cruisers - strength 2

The Gryphon
p/s Jovian Pattern Landing Bays - each bay has two squadrons of Fury and Interceptors and two squadrons of Starhawmk bombers, for four Fury and four Starhawk squadrons total.

Fluff bit by Victoria Horne, captain of the Hawk- Defiant CL:
About the Warspite, a Dictator: hopes to take command...truly impressed...the legions of attack craft.

While the latter is an exaggartion it does show that the Dictator has more attack craft then the Defiant otherwise she would not have make such a claim.

I held the book upside down, sideways and correct. I read every carrier bit and I my conclusion is always the same. Defiant has Escort Bays. Your reasonings are clearly assumptions and my take is backed up by tables, reasonable reasonings and text in the book.
Sorry, Baron, but you need to come with a lot better claims. 


edit: the errate had the Mars & Excorcist. Why? Because it could be either Escort Bays or Landing bays on them as either can go on a cruiser. They have Landing bays.
For the Defiant the question wasn't needed to as it can only take one of type the bays.