Jump to content
Alex Cube

Best Hulls in Class?

Recommended Posts

So as I've been looking at stats of various Hulls in Rogue Trader I saw that some of the Hulls are much better than their counterparts making You pick them most of the time instead those underdog-hulls that are just worse for their Ship Point cost and I'd like to know if You think the same. So here are my thoughts on that matter:

 

Transports

Jericho & Vagabond - they just can't stand a chance from their latter supplements counterparts, for example Loki, the nearest compatible to Jericho has 1 more Speed and Armour, 5 more Detection and Manoeuvrability, 10 less Hull but instead of Port&Starboard weapons has a Dorsal mount in addition to Prow mount both ships have, meaning he has 4 more Space and Power that would otherwise be used for that extra side weapon that has not that much of tactical use anyway, besides having a Dorsal and a Prow mount means You can focus-fire enemies in fore arc, feat impossible with Jerichos Prow/Port/Starboard weapon layout, and for all that improvements we only have to pay 1 (ONE) more Ship Point, so I think winner is obvious here. Vagabond is a little bit harder to compare as his analogue - Carrack, costs 5 more SP, but if you have money then for 5 SP and 2 Spc You'll get +2 Armour, +5 Hull and most importantly 2 Dorsal mounts instead of Dorsal+Prow on Vagabond, meaning 270 degree focus-fire which is extremely good including how low Manoeuvrability on both ships is.

If You need a dedicated transport and You have means to protect it then Universe is Your best choice, specialized to extreme but it's a unique, niche vessel that otherwise can not be compared to anything else.

 

Raiders

Viper - Bad Idea, unless You need a ship that can do nothing except scouting.

Hazeroth is superseded by Cobra that has same SP price.

Shrike - the best "true" Raider as it has +10 Det, +1 Armour, -5 Man, extra Turret and +5 BS for only 4 SP compared to Cobra. Whether You are going to be a privateer or a pirate Shrike is Your best choice for a voidship hunt

 

Frigates

Falchion & Claymore are just pathetic - first one having 6 less Space then even Sword has, lower Det and Man, costs 2 more SP, doesn't even have that extra turret... trading all that for Str 2 torpedoes that on their own won't do any damage. The second one having -4 Space -2 Armour and -6 Hull costing only 2 SP less than Tempest and that is just not worth it.

Now Firestorm is not a bad vessel per se, but it can only be useful if You use that Prow slot right and mount there something heavy like Dragon's Breath Lance, although devastating (2 Firestorms like that can bring down a battlecruiser in a single turn) it is a kinda risky tactic, for You must get close to Your enemy first, enemy who will shoot back while You do that.

Sword vs.Tempest - in low-ordnance fights Tempest is just better - +2 Space, +1 Armour & Hull paying for that with -3 Det, -2 Man and -1 Turret while costing equally and more importantly having the same speed, and if You are up against carriers then again Tempest is better but only if You have money to pay for the xenotech Laser Grid that costs 2 Power & SP to install making Tempest again better than Sword.

Turbulent is IMHO the best frigate there is, it is equal to or better than Tempest in every stat except that -1 Speed, but his only real drawback is that -5 to Command tests that nevertheless still makes Turbulent the best pick of frigates.

 

Cruisers

Lunar & Ambition, compared to Tyrant and Dictator are just worse, cruiser stats are not that different from one another and that makes comparison pretty simple, as for Ambition - if it would cost 53-55 SP I would probably start thinking, but it's just not worth its money.

So Tyrant & Dictator are Your best cruiser picks, if You need a pure gunboat go for the former, if You don't mind using ordnance cruiser then Dictator is there for You, leaving us with only 2 good hull types compared to dozens of equally good ships in BFG.

 

Battlecruisers

Armageddon & Chalice - first one having no Space at all, second one blowing itself up because of Plasma Conduits, who would even try to buy those ships?

For Overlord & Mars see Tyrant & Dictator and switch names.

 

Grand Cruisers

Exorcist & Avenger - first of all having a Grand Cruiser class carrier makes no sense including the fact that there are much less costly though efficient options to do just that so Exorcist is a strange option, while Avenger is a very good fleet gunboat, meaning that if You already have a big and powerful fleet and need an additional "blaster" then Avenger is there for You, in any other case - not worth it.

Repulsive is basically an up-sized battlecruiser and should be treated and used as such, the only problem of all Grand Cruisers is that per RAW when their Hull in battle reaches ~30 their crew is probably already all dead same as morale, and there is no way to avert this, that making Repulsive and all Grand Cruisers in general a very bad choice. Still there is one unique niche for it - there are groups that don't like having multiple ships and are more into having only one ship and gradually improve it over time. For them, Repulsive stands ready, if You take incompetent crew, pick every component as bad quality and don't buy weapons costing more than 1 SP You can lower the price for it to 56 SP while having no supplemental components except weapons.

 

Would be glad to hear Your thoghts on that matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transport: Orion, hands down.

 

Raider: Yea Shrike is nice (turret 2 on something not a cruiser?). For the SP cost it's really superior to many frigates.

 

Frigate: I'm going to have to say that it's either the good ole sword or the Turbulent. Lost speed does hurt the Turbulent and it does cost a few more SP so there are tradeoffs beyond the -5 to command.

 

Light Cruiser: Dauntless is hard to compete with. There are the two specialist torpedo and carrier ones, but if you want a carrier get a full cruiser, and I've never played a torpedo ship enough to form an opinion on torpedoes.

 

Cruiser: So many to choose from. With these there is a noticeable savings on the specialized hulls, so it sort of looks like "what are you wanting to do with it?" I'll think on the cruiser and higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the only problem of all Grand Cruisers is that per RAW when their Hull in battle reaches ~30 their crew is probably already all dead same as morale, and there is no way to avert this.

There are many ways to mitigate crew loss. Triage with a decent medicae being the most obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transport: Orion, hands down.

Frigate: I'm going to have to say that it's either the good ole sword or the Turbulent. Lost speed does hurt the Turbulent and it does cost a few more SP so there are tradeoffs beyond the -5 to command.

 

Light Cruiser: Dauntless is hard to compete with. There are the two specialist torpedo and carrier ones, but if you want a carrier get a full cruiser, and I've never played a torpedo ship enough to form an opinion on torpedoes.

The Sword is "good&old" in BFG, here in RT it's very.. bad. Consider this - Turbulent has +2 Space, Power, Armour and +5 Hull, only first two points alone mean it should cost 4 more SP than Sword for as we see in component quality rules 1 SP is roughly approximated to 1 Power or 1 Space, so for the ease of comparison - would You prefer a Sword with +2 Armour, +5 Hull but -1 Speed for 38 SP to a regular Sword? If Your answer is "Yes" then You just chose Turbulent.

And thanks for reminding me about Orion and others, forgot about them and other "Unique" ships.

 

 

the only problem of all Grand Cruisers is that per RAW when their Hull in battle reaches ~30 their crew is probably already all dead same as morale, and there is no way to avert this.

There are many ways to mitigate crew loss. Triage with a decent medicae being the most obvious.

 

Actually I was talking of it as a complex problem, and true - Crew Reclamation Facility, Triage with a Medicae Deck can help, but unfortunately for Morale we generally have only Clan-Kin Quarters and ability to add 2 Morale Per Session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgotten Misfits:
Orion - the best Raider, much better or at least equal to Iconoclast and Havoc in every stat but Armour while costing 4 or 9 less SP respectively, the only competitor it has is another "best" - Shrike, although they have different purposes with Orion being more for Raider-Trader and Shrike being an ideal craft for Raider-Pirate.
Input on Goliath is very contradictory - some claiming it being The Best Transport Possible others say it's barely worth it's price. The reason for that is how You use it, if we look at it as per RAW we'll see Jericho with a Dorsal slot instead of Prow, +2 Armour and +10 Power that a "True" transport (specialized at hauling cargos, that is) of that size doesn't need, especially for +5 SP; If, on the other hand we look at his actual Space characteristic we will see that it is somewhere near 66 = 40 + 2 x 4(MainCargoHold) + 2 x 5(AuxiliaryPlasmaBanks) + 2 x 4(CloudMiningFacility). Those last two types will give Us +10 Power and approximately the same AP bonus as Plasma Refinery rule at a cost of 4 SP. Unfortunately if there would be a transport hull with Goliath's stats but with 66 Space even while having no special rules it would definetly be a Super OP, so I wouldn't recommend using a stripped-down Goliath for just that reason. The thing is that My opinion is that having that much space it should be viable for Goliath to take Broadside weapons in his Port/Starboard mount, if You allow that Goliath blossoms into a bear-like vessel - slow, ponderous but pretty deadly up-close, and that is how We have been using it, IMHO that really makes Goliath a unique while non-overpowered ship.
Conquest - an ideal carrier for its SP. Just to clarify - RAW prohibits it but I think that Structural Impact is hard enough to balance out additional launch bay so I allow Conquest to have 2 Hold Landing Bays. That makes him a powerful combatant being extremely fragile at the same time. Even with only 1 Hold Landing Bay it still can be very effectively used as a carrier with only problem being so small amount of Space availiable. In any outfit other than carrier it, plainly said, sucks.

About Light Cruisers:
Actually as per RAW (and errata for Secutor) it is impossible to compete with Dauntless. This however changes if we at least give back Secutor his Dorsal Mount, creating a really interesting mini-battlecruiser, let Defiant use Good Quality Space Lathe-Pattern Landing Bays that have same Power-Space outfitting requirements but have +1 Str at a same cost (or +2 SP if You are really hardcore) for I would like to remind You that for +5 SP of the cost of Defiant we have Dictator that is a step-up in every direction, ditch Endeavours Str 2 torpedoes and just rule out that one of 2 Prow must be occupied with torpedoes of whatever class You choose, and yes, I understand that that could possibly lead to Endeavours launching 12 Torpedoes per turn from their dual Prow Torpedo Launchers, but again, +4 SP and there's Tyrant. Nothing's gonna revive Lathe-Class though, it is bad as it is and I see no possibility to effectively use it.
With these semi house rules You will have really interesting opportunities instead of "poor man's cruisers"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orion still has the turning radius problem that all transports have. It is a serious drawback and means it shouldn't be considered a raider.

 

When you're doing comparisons, list it out as a flat bonus.

With the Sword you get +1 speed, +1 turret rating, +2 manoeuvrability, +5 command, and +2 ship points over the Turbulent.

Turbulent has +2 armor, +5 hull, +2 space, and +2 power over the sword.

Well OK then, not so cut and dry which is preferable in a general sense.

Edited by Spatulaodoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orion still has the turning radius problem that all transports have. It is a serious drawback and means it shouldn't be considered a raider.

When you're doing comparisons, list it out as a flat bonus.

If to compare them Your style:

Orion is +9 Space, +5 Hull, a switch from Prow to Keel mount, with possibility of installing Str 2 Bays

while Shrike is +10 Det, +4 Armour, 90 degree turn, +1 Turret and +5 BS for 9 SP.

Sooo... What would You pick?

Like I said Orion has a better SP pay-off but for a more fight-oriented group Shrike is more preferable

Edited by Alex Cube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice particularity of the Firestorm is that it can mount a Lance. Lance+macrobattery+decent gunnermeans you can hurt everything (2-3 hits to take down shields then lance ignoring armor). We ran a Firestorm focused on range and speed (Sunhammer Lance, Sunsear Laser Battery, archeotech engines, energy coversion matrix and the Eldar sails that allow you to shoot on the move). Anything without Hecutors was easy picking (even grand cruiseres).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice particularity of the Firestorm is that it can mount a Lance. Lance+macrobattery+decent gunnermeans you can hurt everything (2-3 hits to take down shields then lance ignoring armor). We ran a Firestorm focused on range and speed (Sunhammer Lance, Sunsear Laser Battery, archeotech engines, energy coversion matrix and the Eldar sails that allow you to shoot on the move). Anything without Hecutors was easy picking (even grand cruiseres).

I'm 99% sure You can't mount Aconite Solar Sail on an Imperial Ship, and I am 100% sure that You can't mount Solar Sails and Archeotech Engines simultaneously. Still, I never said Firestorm is bad, just outlined basically what You said that it is a very specialized ship that has to use its Prow mount to full use by using that Lance, preferably the more powerful -- the better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice particularity of the Firestorm is that it can mount a Lance. Lance+macrobattery+decent gunnermeans you can hurt everything (2-3 hits to take down shields then lance ignoring armor). We ran a Firestorm focused on range and speed (Sunhammer Lance, Sunsear Laser Battery, archeotech engines, energy coversion matrix and the Eldar sails that allow you to shoot on the move). Anything without Hecutors was easy picking (even grand cruiseres).

I'm 99% sure You can't mount Aconite Solar Sail on an Imperial Ship, and I am 100% sure that You can't mount Solar Sails and Archeotech Engines simultaneously. Still, I never said Firestorm is bad, just outlined basically what You said that it is a very specialized ship that has to use its Prow mount to full use by using that Lance, preferably the more powerful -- the better

I believe you're wrong about the sails. There's no rule preventing it and why would it have stats for space and power generated otherwise, since only Imperial Ships make use of it?

You are right about Archeotech engines though. We ran with them for most of the campaign and only swapped it out for sails at the end, then we only dud a couple of fights (including 1v1ing a Chaos Grand Cruiser without taking a single point of damage) before going 'ok guys, we broke the game, next ship'.

Alsi, while you pretty much have to put a lance in the Prow slot to make the Firestorm worthwile, if you do you get IMO the best frigate for combat duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we all have our favorite ships for starting out, the point becomes moot when your squadron starts to grow.  It's a rare GM that let's the players design and buy custom ships in an ongoing campaign.  Most often, you salvage your enemies' wrecks, so there's not much picking there.  I'm sure not going to abandon a "free" Vagabond just because a Carrack is better, nor am I going to not salvage a Jericho because I wanted a Universe.

 

I also think you've made some assumptions that most of us don't really adhere to, such as when suggesting that 2 Firestorms bring down a battlecruiser in a single round.  Most of the people who post here use Mathhammer or some variant of it.  Also, those Sunsears aren't the end-all and be-all of combat with some decent house rules, and they do need house rules, along with a few other weapons systems (small craft jump to mind).

 

Aside from those 2 critiques, I think you've succinctly stated the advantages of your chosen ship hulls.  I like maximizing my ships, too, but find it leads to some rather silly combinations.  I posted a totally broken Universe somewhere on the forums last week, and you can start with it and also start with a PF of nearly 50, IIRC.  Hey, the players in my first campaign taught me that if you're going to break a ship, break it with AP bonuses.  Those are the real payoffs.

 

I'm curious how many people penalize their players when they install archaeotech or xenotech on their ships.  Under ship oddities, both options that grant them penalize the players when making Tech Use skill to repair those ships. It doesn't mention this when using the Warrant Path or Ship Backgrounds from Into the Storm, but I've always applied it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Errant Knight, my Sword Frigate has a set of Recovery Chambers installed. The only mechanical drawback is that only my massively heretical Explorator who gets total hard-ons for Xenotech and his cadre of closest associates can repair them, and the only narrative drawback is that now the Inquisitor who helped get me my warrant (he figured it would be a great way to expand the I's influence into the Expanse) now has a rather deeply invested interest in my ship in the form of "You should totally let me use those, remember what I did for you, OR, I could let the Admech know what a bad little Tech-Priest your Explorator has been." I am currently plotting to make this inquisitor into a servitor that recites my Warrant of Trade to anyone who asks. Oh, I am so screwed XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Orion still has the turning radius problem that all transports have. It is a serious drawback and means it shouldn't be considered a raider.

When you're doing comparisons, list it out as a flat bonus.

If to compare them Your style:

Orion is +9 Space, +5 Hull, a switch from Prow to Keel mount, with possibility of installing Str 2 Bays

while Shrike is +10 Det, +4 Armour, 90 degree turn, +1 Turret and +5 BS for 9 SP.

Sooo... What would You pick?

Like I said Orion has a better SP pay-off but for a more fight-oriented group Shrike is more preferable

 

If you're comparing the Orion to the Shrike you need to take into account that the Orion has to use Transport components, while the shrike gets to use raider/frigate components. Look at the transport plasma drives compared to the Raider/Frigate ones and realize that that alone eats up a huge chunk of your supposed advantage. You're automatically loosing out 5-10 power and probably a bit of space or a SP or two depending on how you outfit it.

Also, the Orion isn't allowed to boost it's armor with components.

It does get the benefit of the Main Cargo Hold, and some other components that a raider can't have as well.

Again, Orion is a transport not a raider. The comparison is more complicated than "within class" comparisons.

 

If you want to install a hold landing bay on your Orion go ahead... Good luck with that...

 

EDIT:

If we are comparing them my style then you would put it like this.

 

Orion has +5 Space, +5 Hull, +9sp, has a keel mount, a free Main Cargo Hold, can't upgrade it's armor with components, and uses transport components.

while Shrike has +10 Det, +2 power, +4 Armour, +1 Turret, +5 BS, can make a 90 degree turn instead of 45, has a prow mount, and uses raider components.

 

Why do I say the Shrike has +2 power? Because the Orion has to provide 2 to it's main cargo hold, which would be a penalty, but we're listing everything as bonuses, so in the comparison between the two it's a bonus to the Shrike. The part where it becomes fuzzy is the “And uses transport/raider components.” That's why I don't like claiming the Orion is the best raider. You can use it to fight and raid, it's quite good at it in many regards, but it's not a raider, it's a transport.

Edited by Spatulaodoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe you're wrong about the sails. There's no rule preventing it and why would it have stats for space and power generated otherwise, since only Imperial Ships make use of it?

Alsi, while you pretty much have to put a lance in the Prow slot to make the Firestorm worthwile, if you do you get IMO the best frigate for combat duty.

Aconite Solar Sails are listed in Lure of the Expanse for giving You an opportunity to customize your enemies frigate IMO, as non of three components have SP cost at all, and that strengthens my suggestion that it was only designed for eldar vessels, then again You can mount Solar Sail Xenotech component but its fluff tells us that Imperum designed ships have their mass to high for effective use of Solar Sails (under effective I mean main propulsion).

About Firestorm I'd argue about it being The Best frigate out there but it definitely is one of the best frigates (the other one being Turbulent), but that depends on what You want from Your frig.

I'm sure not going to abandon a "free" Vagabond just because a Carrack is better, nor am I going to not salvage a Jericho because I wanted a Universe.

I also think you've made some assumptions that most of us don't really adhere to, such as when suggesting that 2 Firestorms bring down a battlecruiser in a single round.

Also, those Sunsears aren't the end-all and be-all of combat with some decent house rules, and they do need house rules, along with a few other weapons systems (small craft jump to mind).

I posted a totally broken Universe somewhere on the forums last week, and you can start with it and also start with a PF of nearly 50, IIRC. Hey, the players in my first campaign taught me that if you're going to break a ship, break it with AP bonuses.  Those are the real payoffs.

I'm curious how many people penalize their players when they install archaeotech or xenotech on their ships.

As an analogue to what You said first - "Sherman tanks are free because we have lots of them so no need to buy Abrams", If You have no real opportunity to pick that doesn't make the hull You get better.

I was not saying that 2 Firestorms Will Definitely Utterly Destroy a Battlecruiser in a single turn, I said (or at least meant to say) that with right fit they can, I'll MathHammer it for You after I'll check all the calculations, but for now You should know that I said it as it really happened in one of our games, with both frigates being sucked into warp afterwards because warp drive implosions at range 2 are deadly.

You are deviating into house rules, it's not bad but discussion I was trying to start was more RAW-oriented, still I'd like to hear Your home rules on that, especially on attack craft.

Sooner or later everybody comes up with a totally broken Universe fit so I am not surprised remembering how once we came up with a starting group Universe that was fitted with 39 luxury passengers quarters and that was a godlike break of the game so we dumped it, as having +3900 AP to each objective is way too OP no matter how much power You want to give to Your players.

Reliquary of Mars/Xenophilious ship get archeotech/xenotech for free and for that it pays with that repair penalty, in case You install archeotech/xenotech paying SP or acquiring them normally there is no need to penalize the whole ship for that in my book, although I still give that -20/-30 penalty to repair that component in case it is archeotech/xenotech respectively.

Look at the transport plasma drives compared to the Raider/Frigate ones and realize that that alone eats up a huge chunk of your supposed advantage. You're automatically loosing out 5-10 power and probably a bit of space or a SP or two depending on how you outfit it. Also, the Orion isn't allowed to boost it's armor with components. It does get the benefit of the Main Cargo Hold, and some other components that a raider can't have as well.

Again, Orion is a transport not a raider. The comparison is more complicated than "within class" comparisons.

If you want to install a hold landing bay on your Orion go ahead... Good luck with that...

That's why I don't like claiming the Orion is the best raider. You can use it to fight and raid, it's quite good at it in many regards, but it's not a raider, it's a transport.

Mezoa Theta-7 Drive is -1 Power -2 Space -1 SP but also triggers manoeuvre thrusters hit on a crit compared to Segrazian "Viperdrive" that is an approx. loss of 3 SP for sure but not even near 5-12 You stated.

And actually the "within class" comparison is even harder for Orion, what would You compare it to - Vagabond? or maybe Universe? that is nonsense, they are much more different than Orion-Shrike We have been discussing.

Don't understand Your scepticism about fitting Orion with Hold Landing Bays and I'd ask You to explain that.

What You are failing to hear is my statement even after agreeing with it (I'll repeat it here for the third time already) - Orion is the best Raider-Transport while Shrike is the best Raider-Frigate, meaning that if You are a ROGUE trader than Shrike is better, while if You are a rogue TRADER Orion is better.

I still think Orion can be compared to raiders, the only reason We were having this argument is because We were comparing best to best, try to compare Orion to Hazeroth only to see the latter fail miserably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shermans might be a good analogy but maybe for a different reason.  In '42 the war planners had to look at the time and expense of re-tooling industry in the midst of a war.  They reasoned they could build 100k Shermans, and much larger numbers of Thunderbolts, Mustangs, etc. than attempt to keep up with the pace of technology and produce a fraction of the newer models.  So they stuck with the '42 models to the end of the war, with some notable exceptions of course.

 

I'd also posit that the 2 Firestorms didn't defeat a Grand Cruiser.  I'd suggest that PC's defeated NPC's, and we've all had experiences similar to that.  We talk about it often here.  Even named NPCs tend to be under-statted compared to what most people wind up with on their PC's.  And without some sort of house rules, NPC's never get the full effect of broadside batteries.

 

And I get that you were going by RAW, but I was just saying they don't work at all so that conversation needs to be modified as the rules need to be modified.  RAW just don't work after a game or two.  Everybody figures out the silliness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning turning ratios, you've all missed this section of the core rulebook:

 

Transports, raiders, frigates and other ships of equivalent size (i.e. Hull Integrity and Available Space) can turn up to 90 degrees to the left or right (or port and starboard). Unless otherwise stated, all other ships may turn up to 45 degrees instead.

 

This means that if one sees to available Hull Integrity and Space, the Vagabond, Jericho, Loki and Orion would all be capable of 90 degree turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transports

Jericho & Vagabond - they just can't stand a chance from their latter supplements counterparts, for example Loki, the nearest compatible to Jericho has 1 more Speed and Armour, 5 more Detection and Manoeuvrability, 10 less Hull but instead of Port&Starboard weapons has a Dorsal mount in addition to Prow mount both ships have, meaning he has 4 more Space and Power that would otherwise be used for that extra side weapon that has not that much of tactical use anyway, besides having a Dorsal and a Prow mount means You can focus-fire enemies in fore arc, feat impossible with Jerichos Prow/Port/Starboard weapon layout, and for all that improvements we only have to pay 1 (ONE) more Ship Point, so I think winner is obvious here.

I disagree with your basic assumption, that these ships are relevantly comparable.

The Loki is almost completely different from the Jericho - is is on the other hand almost exactly identical to the Vaganbond class. Almost iden tical stats, same weapons configuration. So that 1 SP gets you 5 extra spaces and a fixed choice of Past History (no roll).

Yes, the Loki is still generally the winner, but I don't understand the comparison.

Vagabond is a little bit harder to compare as his analogue - Carrack, costs 5 more SP, but if you have money then for 5 SP and 2 Spc You'll get +2 Armour, +5 Hull and most importantly 2 Dorsal mounts instead of Dorsal+Prow on Vagabond, meaning 270 degree focus-fire which is extremely good including how low Manoeuvrability on both ships is.

Again, your assumption of basic comparisons is ... odd, to me.

Again, you're comparing hulls that to me appear to serve very different purposes.

The Carrack is a hybrid between a transport concept and a warship concept, very unlike the Vagabond, which is a pure (but possibly armed) transport.

I suppose you could compare it to the aforementioned Loki, in which case 4 ship points gets you 2 points of armour and extra flexibility with firing arcs - but costs you 7 spaces and the option of mounting a lance or a torpedo launcher.

Or you could accept that it's a hybrid, and compare it to a frigatte, with a cargo carrying component, which is much closer to what it is.

Comparing the Carrack to a Sword, it's much cheaper, but a much weaker warship (slower, clumsier, much less armoured etc).

Similarly, I consider the Orion to be a hybrid between a raider and a transport. And a much more succesful hybrid than the Carrack.

I personally consider the Orion to probably be the Best In Class as far as transports are concerned.

If You need a dedicated transport and You have means to protect it then Universe is Your best choice, specialized to extreme but it's a unique, niche vessel that otherwise can not be compared to anything else.

And again I must disagree. This is what you might reasonably compare the Jericho to.

Both are pure transports, in that their weapon configuration is such that it's generally pointles to arm them.

And suddently, their stats are surpringly similar, as both are slow, clumsy, lightly armoured and have trouble defending themselves. A valid way of looking at the Jericho, is seeing it as a smaller, cheaper version of the Universe. Either for those who cannot afford a Universe, or those who would rather have many smaller tranposts, hoping that some got through, rather than a single big and probably hard to replace investment, that spells success or failure all by itself.

Raiders

Viper - Bad Idea, unless You need a ship that can do nothing except scouting.

I agree that very few Rogue Traders will benefit from this ship.

This is an overspecialised ship, useful for scouting - or as a fast courier. I've seen a few inquisitors use them.

Shrike - the best "true" Raider as it has +10 Det, +1 Armour, -5 Man, extra Turret and +5 BS for only 4 SP compared to Cobra. Whether You are going to be a privateer or a pirate Shrike is Your best choice for a voidship hunt

It really is. Unless you have a very specific purpose in mind, the Shrike is the best raider around. And not even the most expensive.

Frigates

<snip>

Turbulent is IMHO the best frigate there is, it is equal to or better than Tempest in every stat except that -1 Speed, but his only real drawback is that -5 to Command tests that nevertheless still makes Turbulent the best pick of frigates.

Funny how opinions may differ really. The Turbulent (the most expensive of the frigattes) is the one I'd not use. Perhaps because I'm used to Speed being a relevant stat, and Command being very important. A difference of taste and playstyle I suppose.

Cruisers

Lunar & Ambition, compared to Tyrant and Dictator are just worse, cruiser stats are not that different from one another and that makes comparison pretty simple, as for Ambition - if it would cost 53-55 SP I would probably start thinking, but it's just not worth its money.

So Tyrant & Dictator are Your best cruiser picks, if You need a pure gunboat go for the former, if You don't mind using ordnance cruiser then Dictator is there for You,

That's 2 hull for 1 ship point making the big difference between the Tyrant and the Lunar.

My group discussed this at some length. I think the conclusion was that if you're buying 'in-game', go for the Tyrant. If you're buying with the points that will also become Profit Factor, go for the Lunar. The ambition is more of a stylistic choice.

leaving us with only 2 good hull types compared to dozens of equally good ships in BFG.

*Sigh*

No. This is where you must understand the difference between a Ship Class and a Hull. All of the BFG cruisers are Ship Classes that are build on very similar or even identical Hulls. Remember how little difference there was between the Tyrant and the Lunar hulls? The rest of them would come with similarly minor variations, essentially being so similar (if not simply identical) it wouldn't be worth the extra pages to publish them. There is essentially no difference other than weapon configurations.

Concerning turning ratios, you've all missed this section of the core rulebook:

 I beg your pardon good sir! I have quoted it before, even though I disagree with it as a design choice.

<snip> 

This means that if one sees to available Hull Integrity and Space, the Vagabond, Jericho, Loki and Orion would all be capable of 90 degree turns.

... I think you mean to argue almost the opposite of what you appear to write?

But yes, they can all turn 90 degrees, regardless of Hull Integrity and Space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, seems like I should have read the thread more closely. It seems like it was only Spatulaodoom;

Orion still has the turning radius problem that all transports have. It is a serious drawback and means it shouldn't be considered a raider.

who argued that point.

 

It does seem like a common misconception on these forums, though.

 

 

Also, on the point of hulls, I don't really have favourites. While there definitely are some hulls that are... lackluster, most are capable of doing what they're supposed to do. I'm slightly biased to the Dictator, for all the utility strike craft give you, the Orion for being insanely fast (especially if you manage to get an Energistic Conversion Matrix or something), and the Firestorm, for when you need something small that kicks hard.

Edited by SirFrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to be in the minority here, but I'm actually quite partial to the Havoc in the light ship category. I like my ships to have some extra tricks, and raiders in general have a fairly big issue with space unless you shell out a ton of SP for upgrades - and if I'm going to be spending 50+ SPs I'd start considering a frigate instead. The Havoc has the space capacity of a frigate and this is worthwhile both if you want a more versatile ship but are short on SPs or a combat-heavy raider that can pick bigger guns than normal. I'd still consider the Shrike as a good choice much of the time, but there are situations and styles where the Havoc is a worthwhile choice.

 

And while I find the Dauntless a fine ship and my favourite in its class (and one of my favourite ships in the game in general), I´m quite warm towards the Secutor and Endeavour for a Cruiser Lite combat-heavy light cruiser. I definitely wish the Endeavour could put other torpedo tubes in that slot, but an extra weapon slot is still an extra weapon slot, and it has almost the same amount of remaining space as the Dauntless. 

 

P.S.: I saw in one of the previous posts mention that the errata removed the Dorsal slot for the Secutor, wasn´t this only done for the Lathe?

Edited by The_Shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aconite Solar Sails are listed in Lure of the Expanse for giving You an opportunity to customize your enemies frigate IMO, as non of three components have SP cost at all, and that strengthens my suggestion that it was only designed for eldar vessels, then again You can mount Solar Sail Xenotech component but its fluff tells us that Imperum designed ships have their mass to high for effective use of Solar Sails (under effective I mean main propulsion).

If that were the case, what would be the point in listing space and power stats for it as they can't be used with Eldar ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bang for the buck, it's the Endeavor... every time.  Torpedo launcher on the prow with prow, port and starboard slots open.  Close to Dauntless speed/maneuverability with solid armour/hull.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...