Jump to content



Photo

Attack Craft rules


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 988 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 03:18 AM

The Argent Crusader in DW's Ark of Lost Souls has its primary launch deck in its Armoured Prow. But then again it's an ancient design.

Yeah, the power-armoured mary-sues always did have to be special little snowflakes. Even in BFG.



#22 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 04:34 AM

Well, 10K-old ships have their advantages, regardless of who is the owner.

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#23 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,800 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:23 AM

With an asymmetric cruiser build using two macrocannon broadsides on port and two hangars on starboard, how hard is it to roll the ship to invert the arcs? It should be far easier than making the 180 degree turn and reversing direction, right?


  • ak-73 likes this

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#24 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:30 AM

I should think quite easy, but I don't know that the game system allows for such maneuvers.

RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#25 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:23 AM

With an asymmetric cruiser build using two macrocannon broadsides on port and two hangars on starboard, how hard is it to roll the ship to invert the arcs? It should be far easier than making the 180 degree turn and reversing direction, right?

 

A very valid question. It should be very easy.

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#26 Marwynn

Marwynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 376 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:54 AM

By default, there's no "roll" action. Considering the 3D reality of things and how course corrections would have you rotating the ship anyway, we made it a simple challenging test.

 

I can see why they left it out though. If you critically hit the broadside guns and the damn thing just rolls and presents fresh batteries at you it kinda feels like a cheat. 


The Gathering Strom  - A Chronicle of Intrigue, Space Battles, Planetary Invasions, and Dinner Parties

The Blessed Enterprise - Flagship of the Strom Dynasty / Reception Hall

Into the Strom - Venture into the secrets of the Strom Dynasty! 


#27 Chopper Greg

Chopper Greg

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:18 PM

The Prow mount on a Dictator can't be a hangar bay anyway- RAW, bays have to go into port/stbd mounts- no dorsal, keel or prow.

 

 

You could go 4 hangar bays and a prow Bombardment cannon.  That's going to hurt anything that gets close.

 

I actually like going with a non-dictator cruiser with 2 port/stbd mounts and a prow, and putting two hangar bays on one side, prow macrocannon and putting in a bunch of lances on the other side.

 

I cover the topic in fair detail in this thread.  Post #19 in particular goes over specific builds that use two bays with heavy weapons.  Four bays in conjunction with prow torpedoes might be nasty though.

 

 

Now I'm curious.   

 

Where does it say in the rules that bays have to go into port/stbrd mounts?

 

I grant that it's traditional that they go there, and that putting them into a dorsal mount doesn't make sense as that is generally viewed as a 'turret' ( and few Imp ships have keel slots ), but I don't ever recall seeing a rule that said that the bays must be placed in the port and starboard mounts.  :unsure:



#28 venkelos

venkelos

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,170 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:25 PM

 

The Prow mount on a Dictator can't be a hangar bay anyway- RAW, bays have to go into port/stbd mounts- no dorsal, keel or prow.

 

 

You could go 4 hangar bays and a prow Bombardment cannon.  That's going to hurt anything that gets close.

 

I actually like going with a non-dictator cruiser with 2 port/stbd mounts and a prow, and putting two hangar bays on one side, prow macrocannon and putting in a bunch of lances on the other side.

 

I cover the topic in fair detail in this thread.  Post #19 in particular goes over specific builds that use two bays with heavy weapons.  Four bays in conjunction with prow torpedoes might be nasty though.

 

 

Now I'm curious.   

 

Where does it say in the rules that bays have to go into port/stbrd mounts?

 

I grant that it's traditional that they go there, and that putting them into a dorsal mount doesn't make sense as that is generally viewed as a 'turret' ( and few Imp ships have keel slots ), but I don't ever recall seeing a rule that said that the bays must be placed in the port and starboard mounts.  :unsure:

 

BFK p.36, right above Lathe-pattern Landing Bay.



#29 Chopper Greg

Chopper Greg

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:53 PM

Ok, I'll grant that, but I would also point out that it says 'unless specified in the entry'.

 

I am fairly sure, it's talking about the LC Bay entries rather than ship entries, but it could allow for a custom built landing bay or ship build ( or rebuild ), could it not???



#30 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:55 PM

Hold pattern landing bay is (as far as I know) the only one that breaks from the port-stbd limit, and you can only have one of them.

 

Yes, of course you can make things up.  You don't need to ask if you can make things up.  This is why there is a "house rules" subforum.


  • Tenebrae likes this

RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#31 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,800 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 10:20 AM

By default, there's no "roll" action. Considering the 3D reality of things and how course corrections would have you rotating the ship anyway, we made it a simple challenging test.

 

I can see why they left it out though. If you critically hit the broadside guns and the damn thing just rolls and presents fresh batteries at you it kinda feels like a cheat. 

Well, if they had an action that allowed a ship to forgo turning in order to roll and bring both sides to bear against a target in one turn, it would be a positive change for the game in my eyes. As it stands, ships that depend on port/starboard mounts (mainly cruisers) rarely get the most out of mounting symmetrical weaponry despite that being the in-universe norm.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#32 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 07:16 PM

I tend to agree vis-a-vis rolling ship.  It only makes sense to take advantage of three dimensional space- it could be that the absence of creativity in-universe could explain this behavior, though.


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#33 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 817 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 09:00 PM

Inverting the ship is allowed in BFG and I see no reason why one couldn't in RT. As a GM I would consider it a an ordinary (+10) Pilot: spacecraft + maneuverability test. (It's not hard!). The action would require one turn to complete during which time no weapons fire would be possible. At the beginning of the next starship turn the ship's port/starboard arcs would be inverted. Doing it this way really means that it is only useful if one sides weapon batteries are damaged and turning would be problematic.



#34 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 11:50 PM

I could see making it a challenging maneuver too- one that allows you to fire both port and starboard arc weapons, but at, say, a -60 penalty, such penalty reduced by ten for each Degree of Success by which you successfully performed the maneuver.  I mean, a turn is thirty minutes- I should be surprised that it might take more than ten or so to roll ship.


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#35 Magnus Grendel

Magnus Grendel

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,328 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:35 AM

Agreed. Rolling ship to present undamaged broadsides, fine (although if you fail a pilot check it takes you more than a turn to complete and you forfeit this turn's fire) - but 'spinning' such that you can fire both broadsides is pushing it for the 'battleship feel' of the game.


  • Tenebrae likes this

#36 Magellan

Magellan

    Member

  • Members
  • 520 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:57 AM

not really all that useful in an atmosphere.

Don't you mean "completely bananas in an atmosphere"? Most of the small craft have the armour of tanks, the weapons of a tank company, VTOL capabilities, hovering capabilities, speed enough to fly around a planet in five minutes, and so on. Honestly, I have a hard time justifying using anything else. Why bother with tanks when sending down gajillions of furies is way more convenient.


I am the latest model of a Fabricator-General
My body isn't nearly as much animal as mineral
My learnedness is legend; my accomplishments historical
For hereteks and aliens my hatred's categorical


#37 Magellan

Magellan

    Member

  • Members
  • 520 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:58 AM

Double post


Edited by Magellan, 18 June 2014 - 05:59 AM.

I am the latest model of a Fabricator-General
My body isn't nearly as much animal as mineral
My learnedness is legend; my accomplishments historical
For hereteks and aliens my hatred's categorical


#38 Marwynn

Marwynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 376 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:10 AM

 

not really all that useful in an atmosphere.

Don't you mean "completely bananas in an atmosphere"? Most of the small craft have the armour of tanks, the weapons of a tank company, VTOL capabilities, hovering capabilities, speed enough to fly around a planet in five minutes, and so on. Honestly, I have a hard time justifying using anything else. Why bother with tanks when sending down gajillions of furies is way more convenient.

 

 

Pilot tests.

 

A tank driver fails one and he kinda slews about. A Fury pilot fails one, in atmo, and there's a good chance they'll be lithobraking.


The Gathering Strom  - A Chronicle of Intrigue, Space Battles, Planetary Invasions, and Dinner Parties

The Blessed Enterprise - Flagship of the Strom Dynasty / Reception Hall

Into the Strom - Venture into the secrets of the Strom Dynasty! 


#39 Kasatka

Kasatka

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,063 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:39 AM

 

 

not really all that useful in an atmosphere.

Don't you mean "completely bananas in an atmosphere"? Most of the small craft have the armour of tanks, the weapons of a tank company, VTOL capabilities, hovering capabilities, speed enough to fly around a planet in five minutes, and so on. Honestly, I have a hard time justifying using anything else. Why bother with tanks when sending down gajillions of furies is way more convenient.

 

 

Pilot tests.

 

A tank driver fails one and he kinda slews about. A Fury pilot fails one, in atmo, and there's a good chance they'll be lithobraking.

 

Aye that and the fact that while you could just use space craft to shred planetary forces, what happens when they take damage or are lost? You have a reduced quantity of space craft. However if you use aeronautica then you aren't risking your starships void warfare capabilities. 


Only the insane have strength enough to prosper.

Only those that prosper may truly judge what is sane.


#40 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 817 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:53 PM

 

not really all that useful in an atmosphere.

Don't you mean "completely bananas in an atmosphere"? Most of the small craft have the armour of tanks, the weapons of a tank company, VTOL capabilities, hovering capabilities, speed enough to fly around a planet in five minutes, and so on. Honestly, I have a hard t. ime justifying using anything else. Why bother with tanks when sending down gajillions of furies is way more convenient.

 

This is a bit of a misnomer. The time to transit from atmospheric flight to low orbit or vice versa can safely be assumed to be 1 starship turn (30 minutes) at a minimum. Further, If anyone ever stats out the Atmospheric fighters from TT (Thunderbolt, Hellblade, lightning, etc.) I would assume they would include a maneuverability bonus. If they are fair to the Atmo fighters they should be able to easily be able to outmaneuver a Star fury in the atmosphere. This is tantamount to death in the swirling combat that is a dogfight (Even today!). A good modern day comparison was when the american F-22 raptor (Hardly a slouch for maneuverability btw!) was tested against the Eurofighter. In close combat dogfights, the Eurofighter, being smaller and lighter then the Raptor, held a slight edge. When engagements happened at range though, (As most space engagements would be!) the Eurofighters basically never knew what hit them! 

 

I am currently working on a house rules project on just this subject! I'll let you all know when I'm done!






© 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