Jump to content



Photo

A few ship related questions.


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#61 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 895 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 10:16 AM

As I said; Everyone is free to interpret as they wish. I don't think there's a wrong answer!

 

Prow or dorsal, What's the difference? On a Light cruiser the firing arcs remain the same!

 

Because the name of it is literally 'prow bombardment cannon' right in the rules. As opposed to, say, the Battlebarge's 'dorsal bombardment cannon'


  • Radwraith and Erathia like this

#62 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 849 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:40 AM

Fair enough! It's still irrelevant to me but if it's important to you I understand!

 

BTW Baronlveagh: I am always amazed at the level of legitimate 40k Arcana you manage to come up with! I know you run the Dark Reign website but your knowledge is impressive still! (In case you're wondering; that's not sarcasm! Just an honest salute!)



#63 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 895 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 04:18 PM

LOL Strike Cruisers were something that got hashed over very thoroughly in 2010.  The big debate within those that worked on FAQ 2010 was if strike cruisers should get lances.  Everyone admitted they were broken, and needed more options.  The sticking point was the fluff about the Nova and how it concerned the Navy,  The anti-lance side was absolutely fixated on the fact it was lance armed, and not the fact that it's over all design was as a brutally fast, highly efficient, cap ship killer. 

 

In RT it's a bit different, but at the time, lance fire really was what frequently sealed the deal when it came to ship losses, so fluff and crunch sort of bled together in their minds.  The compromise however was absolutely stupid, to make the lance option underpowered and over priced.  The actually balanced, gameplay wise, option was a str 2 lance for free (it works out to roughly the same damage, and just swaps one brutal mechanic for another). 

 

Not that there was not plenty of idiocy to be had: FDTs, Defiant (which never was fixed.  it's still useless to this day unless you just need something to pad out points, and even then a escort squadron is better), Jovian, certain testers doing everything they could to trash Battlefleet Bakka just to piss me off since I was the only one on the testing team who had ever actually played that fleet list...


  • Radwraith likes this

#64 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 849 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 01:47 AM

I note that in the original rules (BFG), The Bombardment cannon wasn't really any different than the lance! Other than fluff, What was the fuss about?



#65 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 895 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 05:43 PM

I note that in the original rules (BFG), The Bombardment cannon wasn't really any different than the lance! Other than fluff, What was the fuss about?

BC uses the gunnery table, lance doesn't.  That's really about it gameplay wise. 

 

It was otherwise entirely fluff and certain testers seething hatred for all things SM.  The writers wanted to give the SC more variety, but couldn't add ships that had not already appeared in other GW pubs, and had sort of a round table thing going on with the testers.  Basically the prow weapons on SCs were switched up a bit so that you could take a wider variety of weapons to give SM players more options, and the option to take an extra shield to try and make SC less broken.  The extra shield pretty much everyone agreed was reasonable, but when it came to offering other weapon choices, a brawl more or less broke out between those who were more concerned with game balance, and those more concerned with fluff.  The lance in particular was extremely thorny due to the wording of the Nova's fluff, but fluffwise was countered by GW putting SCs with lances in the fluff for Planetstrike.

 

The other (insane) issue was that Defiant has been broken since introduction because it's str 1 lbs and number restrictions make it not worth the points.  The only real solution is for it to be two str 2 lbs, but at the time, and again when BFG:R was done, the mental gymnastics to try and not do that were amazing.  Seriously, someone pushed three LBs as a possible solution, despite the fact that every time one was crippled, it would break RAW, just to try and avoid giving it that 4th LB.  Because as all right thinking IN players know, better Death than Assault Craft. 

 

And if you think that's unreasonable, you can only imagine Jovian, and the foaming at the mouth when that showed up.  Since it's basically an IN version of the Styx.  IF you read FAQ 2010's restrictions on it, you can get an idea of how rabid opposition to an IN cruiser sized carrier was.  Effectively, no list but Bakka can take it, and then only one of them, and only if you take a bunch of other stuff first.  Granted, I agreed that it was a bad fit for the fluff for Bakka, it was a ship for Battlefleet Gothic, but was cut for space in the blue book, and put in BFG Magazine.  But just the 'neckbeard rage' at the idea, not because the ship had not existed for YEARS but because very few people had BFGM, they got a weird idea of what IN was 'supposed' to be.

 

The biggest irony of it was that they were lecturing the writers of those rule books and magazines about what they had written.


Edited by BaronIveagh, 09 June 2014 - 05:45 PM.

  • Radwraith likes this

#66 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 849 posts

Posted 10 June 2014 - 09:59 PM

 

I note that in the original rules (BFG), The Bombardment cannon wasn't really any different than the lance! Other than fluff, What was the fuss about?

 

 

The biggest irony of it was that they were lecturing the writers of those rule books and magazines about what they had written.

 

Now that is funny!

 

Beware of raging neckbeards though! (Just ask Matt Ward!)

 

As Grognard's go I'm pretty clean shaven but I have seen the rage you're talking about. Many of said neckbeards seem to forget that, despite all their setbacks, the IoM is still the dominant force in the galaxy! And that is largely because of the Astartes! I'm no fanboy but that just is the way the background is written!






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS