Vengeance CG series

[Vaaish]

Ok, just bringing up these from the BFGR CL thread.

Two areas I think should be addressed. The first is the exorcist. This should go back to s4 lb at 230 points. While 6lb could be argued for given the size of the ship, it really doesn't need it and works well as a flagship in smaller games or paired with another carrier at higher point values. It's not as efficient as the emperor or dictator, but it does work well. 

The second is the odd amalgamation of upgrades for these ships. They all seem unnecessary. I hear sigs distaste for the lack of dorsal or prow weapons, but still, are the speed and ld upgrades really worth jacking up the cost? With the changes to the exorcist, it now costs as much as a mars, why would I pay 20 more points to get +1 ld? When would adding s6 torpedoes be advantageous too? It doesn't bring these ships up to cb levels but it does bring their price up.

Last why would I take a speed upgrade. Sure the avenger likes to be in the thick of it, but I'd prefer to not have them running off on their own to take the full retaliation.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Check out the Chaos grands too. I dont have them in front of me but i believe the Retaliator got changed.

Grand cruisers cant be squadroned with anything but other grands (non house rules anyway) so pairing them with other carriers is problematic.

Torpedo upgrade is ok, not so sure about the others :/.

[Vaaish]

Pairing isn't the same as squadroned.

Looks like the retaliator did get changed. Longer range wb and 2ac more for the same points. That's a pretty hefty boost.

I'm not even sure about the torpedoes. Yea, they do fill the gap, but I don't think I have ever found myself thinking I just wish I had torpedoes on my CG. Especially not for 25 points.

[afterimagedan]

I put torpedoes on them every game I use them and it matches the style of IN I play quite well.

So far, here are my thoughts:
Vengeance: no change
Avenger: keep it the current 200pts for 20wbs per side
Exorcist: I say keep it at 6LBs, just how it is. Its bigger than the Styx and has the same 4 launch bay bits. Seems fitting to have 6 launch capacity. I think it is a little overpriced at 260pts.
Retaliator: I actually think it is worth the points now with 6LBs and the range boost.
Executor: Should be 205pts

[AndrewChristlieb]

Pairing isn't the same as squadroned.

Right so overly defensive or pointless response .

Looks like the retaliator did get changed. Longer range wb and 2ac more for the same points. That's a pretty hefty boost.

quite a bit so

I'm not even sure about the torpedoes. Yea, they do fill the gap, but I don't think I have ever found myself thinking I just wish I had torpedoes on my CG. Especially not for 25 points.

I could see this on some but not the Vengeance I use it would make the Avenger less... less? very pricy tho

Quick rundown:

Vengeance: the same as Armada 230 pts

Avenger: 16 wb went to 20wb per side and cost is at 200 pts

Exorcist: +30 pts, +2 launch/ side 260pts

Retaliator: +15cm to its wb and +2 launch/ side same price 275 pts

Executor: the same as Armada 210 pts

[Sigoroth]

Well I would like the upgrade options to go back to more prow/dorsal oriented, but as for their utility, I do think that they should be deliberately overpriced. Because they aren't necessary for balance reasons I think they should really remain merely an option, rather than be priced so well that people feel forced to take them.

The reason for their inclusion would be to give players a chance to fill in those inexplicable gaps. I know a lot of people are bothered by them, myself included.

As for the actual base stats of the ships, well the Vengeance and Executor are fine. The Avenger certainly needed the upgrade and the Retaliator is now playable. The Exorcist was a reasonable ship for its cost. However, it really needed an upgrade to 6AC to justify the model. The alternative would have been to model it with only 1 launch bay per side and put some more guns on it, which also would have increased its cost. The Styx and Retaliator are already under-optimised at 6AC from the 4 bays. Getting 4 AC from 4 bays on a ship the size of the Exorcist is ridiculous.

A pocket battleship with the Exorcists armament would have been fine, since they only have 3 hardpoints per side.

[Vaaish]

@andrew. Not defensive, just a clarification since your response seemed to indicate you thought I meant squadroned.

@Sig, if you say the base stats for the executor are fine and that it was a reasonable ship for its cost, the solution shouldn't be to boost lb because of the model. Now you've just increased the power of a ship that didnt need adjustment for no better reson than you didn't think it looked right. Even the change in cost is problematic because it invalidates lists when there wasnt a problem to fix in the first place. At the very least, this change, of any, should be an optional upgrade. I would lean towards not making it at all since it doesn't address any real gameplay issues.

I agree with the updates to the avenger, not sure about the retaliator. I'm still trying to digest that one, its a big change.

[AndrewChristlieb]

The Retaliator is a midrange support carrier in BFG-R (without im assuming the +d6 AAF it originally had due to the option). In the original form it was more of a hopped up Dictator and pretty under gunned for its cost. Im on the fence about the price on this one too, shorter range, lower speed, and less arc than the Styx but better firepower, hits, and the extra shield which is a big boost. Of any of the "looks" changes this one seems the most reasonable due to the Styx.

The Exorcist really shouldn't have its price bumped due to a visual screwup which means that if its to have 6 launch it should have at best 30cm weapons. Now really in an IN list thats fine and all but then were really dickering around with a ship that is fine the way it is.

[Sigoroth]

@Sig, if you say the base stats for the Exorcist are fine and that it was a reasonable ship for its cost, the solution shouldn't be to boost lb because of the model. Now you've just increased the power of a ship that didnt need adjustment for no better reson than you didn't think it looked right. Even the change in cost is problematic because it invalidates lists when there wasnt a problem to fix in the first place. At the very least, this change, of any, should be an optional upgrade. I would lean towards not making it at all since it doesn't address any real gameplay issues.

No, I disagree entirely. There certainly was a problem, it certainly did need fixing and it certainly should not be optional. We're not talking about the "look" of the ship. We're talking about how many weapon hardpoints it had and what return a ship should get for those hardpoints. The TE had 3AC per hardpoint from its launch bays and that had to change. Getting 1 AC per hardpoint is unreasonable.

An alternative to maintain the 4AC would have been to lower it to one launch bay hardpoint per side. But then we'd replace the missing launch bays with more weaponry, which would again increase its cost. The Exorcist simply had, at the very most, 3 hardpoints worth of firepower.

I could easily envisage a cut down pocket BB with the exact stats of the Exorcist. Not a Vengeance series CG though.

So let's consider an Exorcist with one set of bays replaced with, say, 1L@45cmL+R, for a nominal increase in cost. Around +15pts. Does that strike you as being more agreeable?

I agree with the updates to the avenger, not sure about the retaliator. I'm still trying to digest that one, its a big change.

The Retaliator was awful, truly awful. Way overpriced and underpowered.

[BaronIveagh]

My view is the Exorcist is fine, as is, it just needs the prow torp option removed.  Which, I might point out, does not appear on the model, and is a large part of why it's overpowered. 

[Vaaish]

No, I disagree entirely. There certainly was a problem, it certainly did need fixing and it certainly should not be optional. We're not talking about the "look" of the ship. We're talking about how many weapon hardpoints it had and what return a ship should get for those hardpoints. The TE had 3AC per hardpoint from its launch bays and that had to change. Getting 1 AC per hardpoint is unreasonable.

On the table, irregardless of theoretical hard points does the ship perform appropriately to the cost?

[afterimagedan]

We don't have to only restrict changes to just point altering. Sig's concern that a grand cruiser has only 1 launch capacity per hard point is a valid issue.

[AndrewChristlieb]

So does a light cruiser.

[Vaaish]

No we don't have to restrict it to that, but if a ship is already fine as it is, why are we making a mandatory alteration to it that boosts its cost too? We aren't fixing anything, we are just making changes based on perceived understanding of what we believe "should" be the "correct" load out based on an assumption that hard points are even a relevant term in BFG and that all hard points are created equal.

[Sigoroth]

No we don't have to restrict it to that, but if a ship is already fine as it is, why are we making a mandatory alteration to it that boosts its cost too? We aren't fixing anything, we are just making changes based on perceived understanding of what we believe "should" be the "correct" load out based on an assumption that hard points are even a relevant term in BFG and that all hard points are created equal.

We are not saying all hardpoints are created equal, but that they have an acceptable range. Of course they are relevant, because if not we could make an escort with the stats of a BB so long as those stats were "balanced". There is certainly a model/stat relationship that cannot be ignored. We are fixing this relationship. The fact that a ship is balanced is irrelevant if the resultant stats are incongruous with the model. This fix produces a balanced model that is congruous. An alternative fix would be to give the model only one launch bay per side and replace the other with more direct fire weaponry. Again this would entail a price increase though.