BFG:R—Tyrants versus Dominators

[Casus belli]

Just looking back over this thread - As far as I can tell there are a fair number who don't think the 12WB at 30cm Tyrant is the best solution possible.

Perhaps we can have some back-and-forth on it, and someone can remind us of the rationale for making it that way in the first place. Let's give it some time for all opinions to be aired. But after that, I really think this is worth another vote.

Afterimagedan, are you alright with that? Hope you don't mind.

but would pairing a gothic (4 lances 30cm) and the 12wb 30cm tyrant not be the same as pairing two lunars...? (4 lances 30cm, 12wb 30cm...)  so where exactly would be the point...?

If the Lunars are shooting together, but aren't squadroned, usually one of them puts blasts markers on the target with its WBs or lances, then the other Lunar needs to shoot afterwards, and its WBs suffer the penalty for shooting through blast markers put down by the first. The Gothic-Dominator, or Gothic-Tyrant pair avoid this, since the Gothic has no WBs, so its entire armament is unimpeded by any blast markers caused by the Dominator/Tyrant.

If instead, a pair of Lunars are now squadroned so they can shoot their WBs simultaneously, avoiding the blast marker problem, it then causes another problem: Because they are squadroned, when they get in trouble, you need to put them both on BFI together, or not at all. This is a major weakness of the Lunar-Lunar squadron, which the unsquadroned Gothic-Dominator or Gothic-Tyrant pair does not suffer from.

In the past this has made it a tough choice as to which sort of pairing or squadron to take. This was good. But with the Tyrant the way it is now in BFG:R, it fits in with the Gothic too well, better than the Dominator or the old Tyrant. There is now little reason (except fluff) to take squadrons of Lunars.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Thats one of the complaints i had in the playtest thread. Tyrant/Gothic pairs eliminate the need for Lunars because of their better platform (its always better to not have to squadron if you dont need to for leadership reasons). If i have a Gothic and a Tyrant both with leadership 8+ I really dont see the point in squadroning them under the current rules as their weapons are perfect to complement themselves without squadroning. The Lunars must be squadroned reguardless tho because they both have weapons batteries which do not complement each other. I cannot think of a reason outside of fluff that I would choose Lunars over this pair and thats bad. The same goes for the Dominator which is already sub optimal due to its Nova cannon and short ranged weapons an is compleatly out shined by the Tyrant, both in short range due to the Tyrants torpedoes and long range as the Tyrant can take the 45cm batteries to solidify its position as a stand off gunship.

[afterimagedan]

But after that, I really think this is worth another vote.

Afterimagedan, are you alright with that? Hope you don't mind.

Totally don't mind. That's the glory of this whole thing. Basically, I would like to see the Tyrant as usable. The original stats were lacking. You guys make good points about the Lunar+Lunar squadron verses the Tyrant+Gothic squadron. The Tyrant where's at now is usable and worth taking. I am not willing to take it in the original rules because I think it's overpriced and I don't care about 45cm batteries.

The basic Tyrant stats should not be 185, it should actually be about 175. Compared to the Lunar, the Tyrant's 12wbs at 30cm are exactly the same on the Tyrant, and the Lunar has 2+2 lances, which are superior to the Tyrant's 4+4 45cm wbs.  I would put the Tyrant at 175 and make the upgrade +5 if it was up to me. I find that 45cm battery broadsides on basic line cruiser, to be used optimally, conflict with some of the main bonuses that the IN has anyways, so I don't put much stock in 45cm batteries for regular old cruiser. IMO, if you are using the  WBs in the over 30cm arc, then you are often using IN without their torpedo and 6+ prow advantages. Anyways, I could go on but I will stop now.   

*awaits the punishment*

[Casus belli]

I get your point afterimagedan. As you say, the original Tyrant is overpriced, but I just think the simplest solution, and most stable in terms of internal balance for the list is to tweak the points cost and not tamper with the stats.

In your second paragraph there you're sort of saying 45cm WBs shouldn't need to be taken, and if people are using them, they're sort of playing Imperial Navy 'wrong'. That seems like an argument not just against the base Tyrant, but also the up-gunned one (and indeed some Battlecruisers like the Overlord and Armageddon). Anyway, I think we don't need to argue the case for/against 45cm batteries on a line cruiser. It's not really what we're talking about... What I'm really arguing against is a 12WB 30cm Tyrant, for reasons you know already.

Anyway, me just saying I don't like it isn't helpful, so I'll try to give some alternatives:

1) Make the up-gunned version the only version! This is the way most people were playing their Tyrants pre-BFG:R anyway. It also gets a little points drop:
10WBs at 45cm L+R, 6 torps F, 190pts (+20 for NC).

2) The original version, but with a slight tweak:
6WBs at 45cm L+R, 4WBs at 30cm L+R, 6 torps F, 185pts (+5 to boost 4WBs from 30cm to 45cm, +20 for NC).

3) The original version with a drop in points:
6WBs at 30cm L+R, 4WBs at 45cm L+R, 6 torps F, 180pts (+10 to boost 30cm WBs to 45cm, +20 for NC).

I don't actually like all of these proposals myself, I just want to get a proper discussion rolling, and I am ready to compromise on some things. Also, they might still seem a tiny bit over-costed to some. Anyway, that's something we can discuss.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Either of the second options would work well imo, the first (removing 30cm batteries) is a poor choice being against fluff and by forcing the extra points on you.

[afterimagedan]

I get your point afterimagedan. As you say, the original Tyrant is overpriced, but I just think the simplest solution, and most stable in terms of internal balance for the list is to tweak the points cost and not tamper with the stats.

I can get on board with that.

In your second paragraph there you're sort of saying 45cm WBs shouldn't need to be taken, and if people are using them, they're sort of playing Imperial Navy 'wrong'. That seems like an argument not just against the base Tyrant, but also the up-gunned one (and indeed some Battlecruisers like the Overlord and Armageddon). Anyway, I think we don't need to argue the case for/against 45cm batteries on a line cruiser. It's not really what we're talking about... What I'm really arguing against is a 12WB 30cm Tyrant, for reasons you know already.

I hear ya man. I buy you reasons for wanting to change it back. My point isn't agruing against the 12wb 30cm one because that is the max firepower + minimum range type cruiser, which, in my tactical perspective, allows for the most firepower in the ranges that are most important (close range after you have prow-blasted them). Dropping firepower for more range, primarily on your main line cruiser, IMO is a firepower waste unless you are using more of an abeam approach, which I believe is not fitting for many of the advantages you pay points for in the IN fleet. Anyways, I a perfectly fine going back to the original stats if we price it correctly. Where I was trying to go with my argument is the upgrade for range at the price of the firepower drop doesn't need much of a point boost, if any at all. 

Anyway, me just saying I don't like it isn't helpful, so I'll try to give some alternatives:

1) Make the up-gunned version the only version! This is the way most people were playing their Tyrants pre-BFG:R anyway. It also gets a little points drop:
10WBs at 45cm L+R, 6 torps F, 190pts (+20 for NC).

2) The original version, but with a slight tweak:
6WBs at 45cm L+R, 4WBs at 30cm L+R, 6 torps F, 185pts (+5 to boost 4WBs from 30cm to 45cm, +20 for NC).

3) The original version with a drop in points:
6WBs at 30cm L+R, 4WBs at 45cm L+R, 6 torps F, 180pts (+10 to boost 30cm WBs to 45cm, +20 for NC).

I think option 3 is the best, but I still question the price of the upgrade.

I don't actually like all of these proposals myself, I just want to get a proper discussion rolling, and I am ready to compromise on some things. Also, they might still seem a tiny bit over-costed to some. Anyway, that's something we can discuss.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Well a +5 pt increase would in effect be a -10 pt drop in price from the original version. A 185 pt Tyrant with 10 45cm batteries would price the prow armor in the 10-15 pt range tho when compared to the Murder which sounds pretty reasonable.

So how about original stats for 180 points with an option to upgrade the 30cm batteries to 45cm for +5 pts. That or as Dan pointed out dropping the base price to 175 pts and keeping the upgrade at +10 pts. Actually the 175 version sounds much more fitting.

[afterimagedan]

Putting it at 175 would actually encourage people to use the 175 without the upgrade at some point!!!  *GASP*

[Khar]

i like the idea of 175 pt Tyrant. It gives it a clear niche, that niche being 'the cheapest cruiser you can take'. Would give people a reason to take it without upgrade.

But one thing to clarify - how would that affect AdMech version?

[FistusMaximus]

the 175 point version seems to me as the best of the options that have been brought up here, agree with khar that this would make the tyrant appealing as "the cheapest cruiser you can take", and it would encourage using the standard version w/o upgrades, which would also fit the fluff nicely.

[Thinking Stone]

Wow, who would have thought that my simple observation would stir such a large nest? 

I also support the 175 point version. I remember thinking, as I still do, that the original Tyrant wasn't really an attractive option compared with the other cruisers. The Fp4 45 cm broadside batteries are cool in that they're like an experimental or specialist battery but they aren't really so practical on their own. But I think it's important to keep the option for the lesser profile because not every Tyrant will be fortunate enough to be 'upgraded with stolen Chaos weapons batteries'. 

A cheaper Tyrant also means that Hyus N'dai was successful in creating a mass producible, viable, longer-range cruiser! We all knew the Imperium could do it....

To be clear, I see thy points too, afterimagedan. Though I can also see Tyrants paired up with many other ships like battlecruisers, battleships and grand cruisers, which gives them some good partners. And they aren't terrible when paired with the Gothic, just a bit less strong . And an opposing viewpoint allows everyone to participate in a good discussion! No chastisement is required , thou are forgiven .

The trickiest part of all of this is to try to work out all the effects of making such a simple change.

Of course, another option would be to allow Dominators to replace the Nova cannon with a torpedo salvo.... For a larger price.

Thinking Stone