BFG:R Enforcer

[afterimagedan]

Alright, well it looks like the Enforcer will pass. Here are some of the quotes from the Enforcer discussions:

Actually I just had a rather simple idea: limit it to Furies.  The Enforcer isn't in the fleet to be a striker, it's there as support FOR strikers.  It's even reasonably fluffy as it, in and of itself, is near zero threat to ships, but does provide 'big guns' cover from AC and allow them to close.

Having a fighter only Enforcer is a good idea. Could be priced @ 100pts.

Enforcer with access to only Furies? Ok I'll bite on that.

So remove the Endeavor/Endurance and add the lance and torp Dauntless and Enforcer limited to fighters only.

Give them either the same +1 base turret (and still can take the additional purchased +1) that the Endeavors got or allow them to take the current FDT.

From my best estimate at the combination of these ideas:
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bay per side with only fighters.
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 100pts (just like Horizon mentioned. I agree).

Any takers?

[Tyberius]

-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bays per side with only fighters.
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 100pts.
 no restrictions


here's the alternative
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bays per side with bombers and fighters
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 120pts.
 restricted to 0-1 on any fleet
 0-2 on special scenario fleet (gareox prerogative)

[afterimagedan]

Eh, I really don't want to go down the 4 launch bay light cruiser route again.

[AndrewChristlieb]

You said 4 launch bays in your first post Dan, I think you intended it to be 1 launch bay per side?

Given the ships apparent intent and the somewhat fractured state of the list as a whole at the moment I would say the fighter only option would be best. With proper pricing it could carry bombers but I think we would be looking at the ~130 range at least and of course all of this is dependent upon the restrictions (if any) the list will have on carriers. Personally I think the current restrictions are adequate and this should retain the 0-3 restriction from the Annual.   

[Tyberius]

corrected 1 launch bay per side oops and double oops...

[afterimagedan]

You said 4 launch bays in your first post Dan, I think you intended it to be 1 launch bay per side?

You are right, I meant 1 LB per side. I will edit that after I post this.

Given the ships apparent intent and the somewhat fractured state of the list as a whole at the moment I would say the fighter only option would be best. With proper pricing it could carry bombers but I think we would be looking at the ~130 range at least and of course all of this is dependent upon the restrictions (if any) the list will have on carriers. Personally I think the current restrictions are adequate and this should retain the 0-3 restriction from the Annual.   

Either way the restrictions go, I would like to take away the 0-3 from the annual because I don't think it scales that well. I know there are people around here who like to play very large games and I think that would be an unnecessary restriction for them.  Sure, if it's a ship that there is only one of like the Jovian, then make it 0-1. I just think we should have good restrictions to the Bakka fleet for carriers in general and we should be fine.

Edit: I fixed my mistake in the first post. Also, Tyberius, I was wondering about the swap for torpedoes as well, but I decided against it personally because I don't want to enforcer to be exactly the same as the Dauntless and I think being able to drop the lances for torps gives it too much redundancy.

[Tyberius]

I think 0-3 is too much for a regular game.... 0-2 is something I can be more comfortable with...
The enforcer is a ship  not intended for large fleet engagements but for distant colonies/outposts watch......if you play very large games then use another ship fot the third one (defiant)

[afterimagedan]

Alright, fair point. So we could do this...

From my best estimate at the combination of these ideas:
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bay per side with only fighters.
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 100pts (just like Horizon mentioned. I agree).
-0-3 Enforcers per fleet.

[Tyberius]

Edit: I fixed my mistake in the first post. Also, Tyberius, I was wondering about the swap for torpedoes as well, but I decided against it personally because I don't want to enforcer to be exactly the same as the Dauntless and I think being able to drop the lances for torps gives it too much redundancy.

I never mention the possibility to swap lances for torps...

[afterimagedan]

Ah, I misread your post that says "May not" and didn't notice the "not."  Sorry sir, I have a migraine.  Anyways, I think your first profile is the one I would prefer.

[Tyberius]

either with or without bombers I stick to the 0-2  limit.......Enforcers are scarse and nearly impossible to gather more than 1 cause they are spreaded among the farthest corners of the empire.

[afterimagedan]

I'll meet you in the middle at 0-3

[Tyberius]

With the new BFG:R ordnance rules, fighters are way better and useful than they were, so I don't feel bad about not having bombers..

digesting all proposals: I said 0-1, you said 0-3 the middle is 0-2 as far I can tell....
-Enforcer with 3 lances (just like the Dauntless) with 1 launch bay per side with only fighters.
-2 turrets
-no +d6 on AAF
-May not replace lances for torps.
-Price= 100pts (just like Horizon mentioned. I agree).
-0-2 Enforcers per fleet.

[Tyberius]

And I agreed to take out the bombers, theres 2 points I'm ceding, and none for you

[afterimagedan]

We aren't using those rules. The current bfgr is using 2010 rules currently, not the plaxor rules.